LOST Season 5 *SPOILERS*

[Matt]

Yep that's pretty much it, they're in the 70s, on and off the island, they've moved through time. So Daniel left to go to Dharma HQ but he was still in 1977. However if the island had, in his absence, gone back to 2007, he'd have been stranded in 1977, I think.

[LL!]

So is everyone mad that he really is dead and that's why no one is talking about last night's pretty good episode? I took it upon myself to draw out Sawyer's Map...

[Pesci]

Why aren't people discussing?!

I can't wait for the finale. Get to see shitloads of Sawyer and even better, Sawyer having to deal with human emotions. I was getting bored of Locke and Ben together, as awesome as they've been in the past, and I'm always hungry for more Richard so I'm glad they put him in with them to spice things up. Jack's plan to blow the bomb up... I was thinking damn, Jack sure has gotten boring lately, so then they go and make me feel better by putting badass Rambo Sayid in there with him.

[TOG]

I must say how much I love every single episode being up on ABC.com, I think i'm going to watch the entire show from Season 1 over again before Season 6 starts.

[Matt]

I agree with Pesci on most things there but holy fuck, Locke's going to kill Jacob? Sweet Jesus of Nazareth, we don't even know who he is and they're going to kill him. Also has anyone seen this theory, it's some crazy shit:

http://www.timelooptheory.com/lost_timeline.jpg

Worryingly, that's how I can see it going.

[TKz]

I didn't understand any of that.

[Matt]

It's confusing, basically, they create time loops, and what we think was the original timeline (Oceanic crashes in 2004, people live on the island for a while before Ben turns the wheel) is actually the second time loop after Richard Alpert has pissed around with time for a bit.

I don't think it's exactly what they go with, but creating time loops is where I see this shit going.

http://www.timelooptheory.com/the_timeline.html read that page if you want to try and understand it.

[TKz]

Yeah ok, it makes a lot more sense there.

I dunno, I kind of like the idea. It's a little... too complicated, but the idea for the reasoning behind Ben doing what he does, I quite like. I especially like some of the stuff they went with, like The Smoke Monster being the corporeal manifestation of fate and the whole premise being fate versus free will.

Just think they need to find a way to make the whole thing a little easier to convey to the average viewer is all.

[betterguy]

I hope that theory's not right. I'm reading their explanation page now and a lot of it's stupid. Might post when i'm done reading if i can be arsed.

[Asuka's Gonna Kill You]

Am I right in thinking that's spoilers for pretty much the rest of the show? Just wondering, because it looks like an interesting read, but I don't want to read it all if it's going to totally unravel the entire point of the programme and spoil anything to come.

[TKz]

It's a theory on the time travel element of the show. It's no more likely to be the real reason than any of the other rumours, theories and idea's floating around the net.

[Matt]

It's a fan theory and like almost all fan theories probably going to be miles off the mark, but potentially yes.

[Herr Matzat]

They said the Season Finaly will be SHOKING... now what dos that mean for a show that plays dramatic music twice in about EVERY sceene? We´ll see. At least this season has been a lot better than what i have seen during the last few years wen i zapped in here and there.

[Downward Spiral]

To join in the discussion of this week's episode, I thought this was genuinely one of the best episodes of the show so far. You FINALLY get the sense of the threads being woven together with all of the individual groups now embarking on their journeys towards the season finale. I am so excited for the finale - I seriously hope it lives up to its predecessors. The finales of Series 3 and 4 have set the bar extremely high.

Oh, and as an aside, I nearly melted when Hurley tried to lie to Chang before giving up and saying "Dude, we're totally from the future". And if this season doesn't conclude with an almighty Juliet/Kate catfight (with Juliet winning) I will riot.

[betterguy]

My thoughts on the time loop theory posted earlier in the thread...

Spoiler: Click here to view

I think it's good how it explains some of the stuff that's going on in Lost, and how it ties some stuff together. It might be right as an explanation of what's going on. But like I said, I hope Lost doesn't follow the theory, because it's stupid. I'll explain..

In the beginning stages of testing the time machine, DHARMA chose to run tests on animals (namely, polar bears and rabbits), as to avoid creating any major time-related catastrophes or paradoxes.

I hate the theory about time travel that says "if you create a paradox you'll fuck up the space-time continuum, and the universe will cease to exist" or whatever. Back to the Future obviously uses it too. If something's a paradox in theory, then that means that it can't happen in practice. There's no need to try and avoid a paradox, because they can't happen. For example, take the Grandfather paradox: there's two ways it could go down: Either there's no need to try and prevent the paradox, because it's impossible for the grandfather to be killed anyway, OR, the grandfather isn't required to be alive for the grandson to exist (for whateever reason), so it doesn't create a paradox if he's killed.

The first major experiment with the new time machine was a test to see if they could extend the life of an animal. They sent a polar bear back in time a few years (via the time machine in the Orchid), and then changed its habitat to see if it could "survive." For example, DHARAMA would take a polar bear, send it back in time a few years, and then drop it in the desert. If fate had deemed that the polar bear live for a certain number of years, in theory, sending it back in time would allow it to "survive" under any circumstances (much like we see many characters of LOST dodge death by jamming guns and other acts of nature).

This has nothing to do with fate. Like Miles said a couple of episodes ago in Lost, when the bear is sent back in time, it's living through its present, so it can die. When the bear's sent back in time, there will be two of it in the past: the original bear, and the one that's come from the future.. the original one survived, but that doesn't mean the bear from the future will.

Shortly after the experimentation with the polar bears, DHARMA starts sending people back in time. Over a few years of researching the time machine, DHARMA becomes curious to see if this time machine can allow people to alter the course of history. In order to see if people can "change a future that's already written," DHARMA begins tasking their time travelers with doing things to alter the course of history. Unfortunately, these time travelers were not able to do anything to permanently alter the future that was already laid out. It should be noted that people can do "certain" things differently when traveling back in time - they simply cannot alter the events that are fundamental to a pre-written timeline.

I hate the "people can only change things that aren't fundamental to the timeline" theory of time travel. What makes things "fundamental"? Why are some changes more important than others? Why is some dude dying considered more significant than a twig on the floor being snapped by someone walking on it?

Also, this again has nothing to do with fate. If it's discovered that things can infact be changed, that doesn't mean that fate doesn't exist. For example, say two people called Mike and Dave are friends in 1980, but in 1985 Mike somehow tricks Dave and steals all his money. In 1990, Dave discovers time travel, and decides to go back to 1980 to shoot and kill Mike to stop him from stealing his money in 1985. If he's successful, and kills Dave, that doesn't mean fate doesn't exist. It simply means that it was fate for them to be friends in 1980, for Mike to steal the cash in 1985, for Dave to discover time travel in 1990, for Dave to go back and kill Mike in 1980, and for the money to not be stolen in 1985. It's all part of fate. Fate is what happens ultimately. It's not even possible to consider a situation in which fate doesn't exist.

Without proper warning, DHARMA releases a virus in an area of the island that infects many of Richard's people. Then DHARMA claims that they can cure the disease with this special "device," that device being the time machine. This, however, is NOT obvious to Richard's people - they just want to get cured, and think the time machine is some type of complex vaccination. As fate would predict, the test subjects go back in time and are cured of the virus, only to be later killed by the smoke monster, as the monster is the "physical means" in which the timeline course corrects itself.

Again, the meaning of fate has been misunderstood. Fate didn't predict that the test subjects would be cured. Fate doesn't require "course correction" or a "physical means" such as a smoke monster, to do anything.

There's plenty other things to quote that I disagree with for the same reasons. Basically, there's lots more mentions of "fate", and it being used incorrectly, including in the conclusion. Also, I think some of the time travel rules listed via bullet points are stupid, such as the age thing, and the "not totally dead" thing.

Regarding the general argument of "fate vs. free will", I have my own views. Fate exists - everything that ever happened was always going to happen, and everything that will ever happen was also always going to happen. So what does that mean about free will and the choices we make? I just have a different definition of what a choice is. A person making a choice is their process of working out what's best for themself. People always do what's best for themselves, and this theory ties in perfectly with the theory of fate.

I'm only saying I hope Lost doesn't follow this time loop theory. I'm not saying it's a bad explanation of what's going on in Lost, as it may be right. But I hope it ends up being wrong..

Edited May 12, 2009 by betterguy

[TKz]

To join in the discussion of this week's episode, I thought this was genuinely one of the best episodes of the show so far. You FINALLY get the sense of the threads being woven together with all of the individual groups now embarking on their journeys towards the season finale. I am so excited for the finale - I seriously hope it lives up to its predecessors. The finales of Series 3 and 4 have set the bar extremely high.

Oh, and as an aside, I nearly melted when Hurley tried to lie to Chang before giving up and saying "Dude, we're totally from the future". And if this season doesn't conclude with an almighty Juliet/Kate catfight (with Juliet winning) I will riot.

This man know's what he's talking about.

Just thought I'd ask, when's the series finale? Episode 17?

[PkmnTrainerJ]

Watched a few sneak peeks and stuff now. Stuff about that in the spoiler as well as a death theory/hope.

Spoiler: Click here to view

It annoys me that they seem to be breaking up Juliet & Sawyer now. It seemed a bit random at first, but I really can't stand Kate anymore and I do like Juliet. Sawyer, Kate & Juliet vs. Jack and co. might be good though.

Locke is assigning the killing of Jacob to Ben, which is pretty awesome. Eloise is pregnant at the moment. Very expected.

There's meant to be a death in the finale, and it's meant to be someone that's been in since season one, so I'm betting on Sayid (as his story is done, and Roger points a gun at him), but hoping on Kate.

Also, a bigger spoiler.

Spoiler: Click here to view

Mark Pellegrino has been cast as "Man #1" for "The Incident" which lots of fansites think is Jacob, and he's been popping around visiting the Losties at certain points in their life apparently, such as when Locke was pushed out of a window and when little Kate had met Tom for the first time.

Be interesting to see if it happens, and to finally see Jacob for more than a split second.

[betterguy]

I don't understand how people can want Kate to leave the show. I don't really care for her character.. but she's hot.

[PkmnTrainerJ]

A choice between Elizabeth Mitchell & Evangine Lily, I'd always choose Elizabeth Mitchell.

[Matt]

Kate's got progressively less attractive as time goes on, she's also turning into one of the most annoying characters the show has produced