View Full Version : Desmond saved Charlie by saving Claire? This doesn't add up.
m0nwell
02-15-07, 03:21 PM
So from last nights episode we know that Charlie is apparantly supposed to die and would of died by going after Claire. However, this doesn't make sense. Desmond gets Charlie and Hurley and brings them to the middle of the jungle then Desmond runs out and goes after Claire. If Charlie was going to be out there anyway why would he go after Claire? How would he know Claire was drowning until after it had happened? It can be assumed that Desmond brought Charlie out to the jungle to keep him from going after her, and forgot that Claire was out there drowning the in first place. That's the only way I can see this working. Charlie would never of gone after Claire unless Desmond never got him in the first place. And if he did go after her and drowned because he can't swim, she would of died anyway.
So my questions are: Is Claire supposed to die too and Desmond just can't see it yet? and: How the hell was Charlie going to go after Claire when he had no idea about her drowning?
MagneticLocke
02-15-07, 03:25 PM
So from last nights episode we know that Charlie is apparantly supposed to die and would of died by going after Claire. However, this doesn't make sense. Desmond gets Charlie and Hurley and brings them to the middle of the jungle then Desmond runs out and goes after Claire. If Charlie was going to be out there anyway why would he go after Claire? How would he know Claire was drowning until after it had happened? It can be assumed that Desmond brought Charlie out to the jungle to keep him from going after her, and forgot that Claire was out there drowning the in first place. That's the only way I can see this working. Charlie would never of gone after Claire unless Desmond never got him in the first place. And if he did go after her and drowned because he can't swim, she would of died anyway.
So my questions are: Is Claire supposed to die too and Desmond just can't see it yet? and: How the hell was Charlie going to go after Claire when he had no idea about her drowning?
I think you answered your own question. Had Desmond not drawn Charlie away, could have seen her drowning, called out and gotten the attention of everyone else, jumped in to save her and drowned in the process. He would not have saved her, but somone else he alerted when screaming that she was drowning could have.
m0nwell
02-15-07, 03:28 PM
Yes but it seemed like Desmond saw it happening after he drew him away and didn't know about it beforehand. It also seemed like it wasn't his idea to bring Charlie and Hurley to talk to Sayid and Locke.
cinderellabop
02-15-07, 03:30 PM
[We briefly interrupt this reply for a lesson from the Grammar Goddess.]
Because the preposition of, when unstressed (a piece of cake), and the unstressed or contracted auxiliary verb have (could have gone, could've gone) are both pronounced [uhv] or [uh] in connected speech, inexperienced writers commonly confuse the two words, spelling have as of (I would of handed in my book report, but the dog ate it).
[/grammar rant]
Now, you are correct in your questions, and it's the one issue of last night's show that has me troubled. It is possible that someone else may have spotted Claire and alerted Charlie, or perhaps Claire might have not been immediate danger when Desmond first had the "flash." There are variables here we haven't yet seen. And yet... the not knowing leaves a gaping hole in the logic.
guylikeu
02-15-07, 03:35 PM
The logic adds up perfectly in my head, I don't see where people are getting confused?
Had Desmond not intevened, Charlie & Hurey would have shortly gone back to the beach, seen Claire drowning and Charlie would have gone after her, drowning in the process. Claire was never meant to die - Charlie (or someone else) would have saved her if Desmond had not
If that's unacceptable to some, then it could be argued that someone had seen Claire drowning & screamed for help, to which Charlie responded to.
MagneticLocke
02-15-07, 03:36 PM
Yes but it seemed like Desmond saw it happening after he drew him away and didn't know about it beforehand. It also seemed like it wasn't his idea to bring Charlie and Hurley to talk to Sayid and Locke.
Of course he knew about it beforehand. Remember, he was too far away to have seen/heard her, which is why Charlie questioned him in the first place. He was just acting like he saw/heard her so that nobody would question him.
I don't know and this is one of the questions we were left with after the last episode, albeit one that has been overshadowed by the whole "Did Desmond Time Travel" question. My thought is that Claire and Charlie both are doomed, though who knows?
cgrego44
02-15-07, 04:11 PM
If he was saving Charlie then that means he didn't get to save Claire? So she should be gone? So who then saved Claire the first time this thing happened? If Charlie drowned?
cinderellabop
02-15-07, 04:23 PM
HI, Cgrego44, I'm merging your post with the discussion of how Desmond saved Charlie by saving Claire. These topics are closely related, and I think more could be gained by discussing them both together.
Kanadka
02-15-07, 05:41 PM
I agree with Dezzie and m0nwell. If Desmond's only mission was to save Charlie, then there was no need for him to return to the beach and save Claire. Desmond had successfully lured Charlie at least a mile away - so the threat of him drowning was no longer there. In fact, by running back to the beach, he put Charlie in danger. It doesn't make sense that Charlie would just stand there and watch Claire drown - even if Desmond jumped into the water. Especially knowing how possessive he is of Claire. It makes more sense that they would BOTH jump in. I know I wouldn't stand around if someone I loved was drowning.
If Charlie is the only one that is suppose to die, and Claire is suppose to live, then there was no reason for Desmond to run back to the beach and save her. If she's suppose to live, then she would have saved herself or someone else on the beach would have saved her. It would have worked itself out.
However, if Charlie and Claire are suppose to die, then yes, it would make sense that Desmond would run back to the beach and save her, thus saving them both.
WHOO! Someone agreed with me! Awesome. That's what I was thinking at the end of the episode- well, after "OMG WHAT AN AWESOME EPISODE!!!!"
guylikeu
02-15-07, 06:17 PM
I agree with Dezzie and m0nwell. If Desmond's only mission was to save Charlie, then there was no need for him to return to the beach and save Claire. Desmond had successfully lured Charlie at least a mile away - so the threat of him drowning was no longer there. In fact, by running back to the beach, he put Charlie in danger. It doesn't make sense that Charlie would just stand there and watch Claire drown - even if Desmond jumped into the water. Especially knowing how possessive he is of Claire. It makes more sense that they would BOTH jump in. I know I wouldn't stand around if someone I loved was drowning.
If Charlie is the only one that is suppose to die, and Claire is suppose to live, then there was no reason for Desmond to run back to the beach and save her. If she's suppose to live, then she would have saved herself or someone else on the beach would have saved her. It would have worked itself out.
However, if Charlie and Claire are suppose to die, then yes, it would make sense that Desmond would run back to the beach and save her, thus saving them both.
Desmond only got the flash of Claire drowning AFTER he took Charlie into the woods, so he didn't lure Charlie away from the beach at all.
Perhaps Desmond was always meant to save Claire, she was always goign to to live & be resusitated (sp?) by Desmond. Without Desmond intervening by running ahead, Charlie would have run into the water and rowned pointlessly. There is nothing in this ep to suggest this wasn't the original flow of events
DesignByRazor
02-15-07, 06:26 PM
I'm still of the mind that Des may be interpreting his precognitions in the wrong way. That said, I think that it should also be mentioned that it may have less to do with Claire and more to do with Aaron. I believe that Claire is still breastfeeding him, yes? (As I recall, that was touched on last night when Charlie brought the baby over to Claire when she was thanking Des, and said that he was hungry and that she had to come feed him.) If Claire dies, it's very likely that Aaron would die, as well...
Kanadka
02-15-07, 06:38 PM
It doesn't matter whether or not Desmond knew about Claire drowning BEFORE or AFTER he took Charlie and Hurley into woods... either way, Charlie was a mile away from the beach. If Desmond believed it was his job to save Charlie, then there was no need for him to run back to the beach. And when and if, by some chance, Charlie heard screams coming from the beach, then that would have been the time for Desmond to act. Otherwise, at that moment, Charlie was in no danger.
And yes, maybe Desmond was suppose to save Claire, which would mean, as a few have stated, that Claire (and Charlie?) was suppose to die.
Gary Coleman
02-15-07, 06:41 PM
Desmond didn't get his pre-cog 'flash' until they were in the woods together. He didn't purposely lead Charlie and Hurley out there in terms of his precognitions.
Charlie, being the hysterical and impulsive arse that he is, would have figured out Claire was missing, and he would have hysterically and impulsively jumped into the ocean to search for/rescue her. Then he would have drowned, because, as he said in Season 1: "I don't swim! I don't swim!"
Kanadka
02-15-07, 06:52 PM
Okay, I chose my words poorly. I should not have said 'lured'. That's beside the point. Like I said before, Desmond believes that he is saving Charlie from death, not Claire. So if he already had Charlie away from the danger - the beach - then why would he run all the way back to save someone who he doesn't believe needs saving? Once he had the 'flash' - he could have just taken Charlie and Hurley deeper into the woods - farther away from the beach. At that point, no one on the beach even knew Claire was drowning. They didn't realize it until Desmond went running into the ocean. So Charlie would not have known Claire was in danger until after the fact.
That's exactly the question I had in mind! I just finished the episode and came here immediately to ask the same question: Desmond didn't bring Charlie and Hurley in the jungle cause he knew Claire was gonna drown. He did it because Locke and Sayid apparently asked him to (by the way: Why would Locke and Sayid call out to Charlie and Hurley and then ask them to act cool when they anounce Eko's death? Does anyone else find it as silly as I do? Why, people look up to them or something? I don't buy that. It's just very poor plot. Oh, and Penny's father's whiskey turns out on the island? Ok, I know Lost is all about fate, coincidences, mysteries and stuff, and I loved it for it, but Come! On! Don't you think they started to push a little too far here?)
Therefore, he wasn't saving Charlie, he was saving Claire. He saw her drowning so far in the jungle that Charlie was already out of harm's sake. It was Claire.
newyorkmets9
02-15-07, 07:32 PM
Given Widmore's ties to Dharma/The Island, it's not surprising that a bottle of whiskey he drinks could be there. I mean, his pregnancy test, his balloon and probably his construction work is on the island.
Maybe Desmond only intended to save Charlie, but his conscience got the better of him. His guilty conscience made him run back to the beach to save Claire.
Kanadka
02-15-07, 07:43 PM
Wouldn't his flash have included Claire drowning too then? He seemed to be quite certain that it was Charlie he was saving and not Claire. And I just think that by running back to the beach, he put the very person he was trying to save back into danger.
Wouldn't his flash have included Claire drowning too then? He seemed to be quite certain that it was Charlie he was saving and not Claire. And I just think that by running back to the beach, he put the very person he was trying to save back into danger.
He told Charlie at the end of the episode that he wasn't saving Claire, but saving Charlie. I think you are right that he did put Charlie in danger by running back to the beach, but again his conscience got the better of him. I think he ultimately decided at the end to save them both. Maybe pulling him away from the beach with Hurley was enough of a distraction, because he knew Hurley would keep him from the water.
LandPirate
02-15-07, 07:52 PM
If Des knew far in advance that Claire would drown, why wasn't he just sitting at the beach waiting for her to go under?
Aside: Des displayed extraordinary swimming ability for a guy that had been locked in hole in the ground for the past three years.
.
Kanadka
02-15-07, 07:56 PM
I'm doubt this story line even makes a difference in the overall plot of LOST. I just thought it didn't sync up. I understand what you're saying about him having second thoughts and running back to save Claire, but he said it himself, it's not Claire that needs saving, it's Charlie. Charlie is the one who is meant to die. Desmond does not believe that Claire is meant to die, which means he has no reason to save her, and no reason to run back to the beach.
Verite Garde
02-15-07, 08:04 PM
I believe Desmond's reason for rounding up Hurley and Charlie was to bring them to Locke and Sayid so Locke could tell them about Eko and warn them to be careful because the Tailies were getting scared. It wasn't to lure them away.
Then Desmond saw the future which was Charlie going after Claire and drowning. That Charlie would have drowned in no way means Claire would have also drowned. Anyone might have also swum out to save her.
Desmond saved Charlie from the lightening and then he saved him from drowning. Desmond is interefering in the future trying to save lives even though he knows Charlie will eventually have to die. This is the same theory as in all the "Final Destination" movies.
This episode was all about FATE.
LostCause
02-15-07, 08:05 PM
Couldn't it just be that when Desmond saw the future he saw himself saving Claire but then Charlie jumped in with him and drowned. Then the second time round he decided to lure Charlie away from the beach knowing he would save Claire anyway?
Kanadka
02-15-07, 08:10 PM
I agree, Veritas Garde. Desmond only mentions Charlie dying - if his vision included Claire dying, he would have said so. I believe that Claire would have survived no matter what - she would have swam back to shore on her own, or someone else would have jumped in and saved her.
DesignByRazor
02-15-07, 08:14 PM
I believe that Claire would have survived no matter what - she would have swam back to shore on her own, or someone else would have jumped in and saved her.
The only reason that I disagree with that statement is the amount of coaxing it took for her to start breathing again... if she'd been in the water much longer I don't think she would've recovered, and I don't think anyone would've noticed her out there within the next minute or so if Des hadn't gone in after her.
If Des knew far in advance that Claire would drown, why wasn't he just sitting at the beach waiting for her to go under?
I think because he can't ultimately change future events, just postpone them. He was "supposed to" take Charlie and Hurley to talk to Locke, so he did.
I also agree that maybe Claire never would have drowned. Maybe Charlie would have saved Claire, but drowned himself.
Hodgepodge
02-15-07, 08:16 PM
That's exactly the question I had in mind! I just finished the episode and came here immediately to ask the same question: Desmond didn't bring Charlie and Hurley in the jungle cause he knew Claire was gonna drown. He did it because Locke and Sayid apparently asked him to (by the way: Why would Locke and Sayid call out to Charlie and Hurley and then ask them to act cool when they anounce Eko's death?...
...Therefore, he wasn't saving Charlie, he was saving Claire. He saw her drowning so far in the jungle that Charlie was already out of harm's sake. It was Claire.Feline, this is exactly how I interpreted those events too. Desmond's future-flash came after the five of them were talking in the clearing. Although, it does beg the question, if Desmond would've remained in the clearing with the others, and in essence keeping Charlie safe, would someone else have saved Claire? Maybe he only gets snippets of a vision. Similar to Locke's havid's about the other survivors. Maybe that's why he took off running to save her? JMO!
Nevrast
02-15-07, 08:17 PM
As Desmond said his visions aren't always clear. He may have just had a vision of Charlie drowning, but had no idea as to the reason. Hence, he draws Charlie and Hurley away into the jungle THEN when he's standing there the details become clear and he realizes that Claire was going to drown or was in danger of drowning so he runs back.
People are assuming that Locke and Sayid requested that Desmond go get Charlie and Hurley, but I don't think you can assume that. It's possible that Desmond came up with the suggestion to tell them (after having his vision of Charlie) and volunteered to go back and get them.
rvturnage
02-15-07, 08:18 PM
If Des knew far in advance that Claire would drown, why wasn't he just sitting at the beach waiting for her to go under?
Aside: Des displayed extraordinary swimming ability for a guy that had been locked in hole in the ground for the past three years.
.
Because he didn't know she would be drowning until he saw it while they were in the woods. He's still seeing his life (future) flash before his eyes, only it happens intermittently.
rvturnage
02-15-07, 08:21 PM
The only reason that I disagree with that statement is the amount of coaxing it took for her to start breathing again... if she'd been in the water much longer I don't think she would've recovered, and I don't think anyone would've noticed her out there within the next minute or so if Des hadn't gone in after her.
Yes, but we have no way of knowing if someone else would have seen her. Perhaps if Desmond hadn't come running out of the jungle like a mad man, causing anyone nearby to look in his direction, someone would have looked out to sea and seen Claire out there and screamed or tried to help her. Then Charlie would have shown up and drowned trying to help.
Kanadka
02-15-07, 08:22 PM
That's a possibility, but he told Charlie that he was in danger of dying (not Claire) AFTER he jumped into the ocean and 'saved' Claire. If during his vision (in the woods), it became clear that Claire was also in danger, he would have said so. He would have said 'both you and Claire are in danger', but he specifically mentioned Charlie only.
Just a little side note...isn't it interesting that everytime Charlie supposedly cheats death it is because he is "saving" Claire.
rvturnage
02-15-07, 08:31 PM
That's a possibility, but he told Charlie that he was in danger of dying (not Claire) AFTER he jumped into the ocean and 'saved' Claire. If during his vision (in the woods), it became clear that Claire was also in danger, he would have said so. He would have said 'both you and Claire are in danger', but he specifically mentioned Charlie only.
Which only means that somehow Claire would have survived anyway. We don't have to know how.
and yeah, Fozzie...that's interesting, isn't it?
LandPirate
02-15-07, 08:31 PM
Because he didn't know she would be drowning until he saw it while they were in the woods. He's still seeing his life (future) flash before his eyes, only it happens intermittently.
I agree with that, I only made that point because some in this thread suggest that Des knew of the drowning well in advance and intentionally lurred Charlie into the Jungle/away from the Beach.:)
.
I believe Desmond's reason for rounding up Hurley and Charlie was to bring them to Locke and Sayid so Locke could tell them about Eko and warn them to be careful because the Tailies were getting scared. It wasn't to lure them away.
Then Desmond saw the future which was Charlie going after Claire and drowning. That Charlie would have drowned in no way means Claire would have also drowned. Anyone might have also swum out to save her.
Desmond saved Charlie from the lightening and then he saved him from drowning. Desmond is interefering in the future trying to save lives even though he knows Charlie will eventually have to die. This is the same theory as in all the "Final Destination" movies.
This episode was all about FATE.
That is concise and well said. I don't think this episode was confusing in this aspect at all....well at least not this part of it...LOL. I think you summed it up swimmingly...(bad pun intended)
~Jj:Hippy:
Kanadka
02-15-07, 08:38 PM
Desmond jumped into the ocean for one of two reasons:
1. To save Charlie (and not Claire) - This is the reason given by Desmond. He specifically tells Charlie AFTER the incident that he was saving him and not Claire. If during his vision he saw Claire drowning, he wouldn't have made a point of saying she wasn't the one needing saving. This is why it doesn't sync up. Desmond, in his mind, had no reason to run back to the beach. If Claire didn't need saving, he could have just stayed in the woods and kept Charlie there. The only reason why Charlie knew Claire was drowning was because of Desmond. The only reason why the people on the beach knew Claire was drowning was because of Desmond (therefore they wouldn't have alerted Charlie).
2. To save Charlie AND Claire - This would make more sense as to why he ran back to the beach, jumped in and saved Claire. However, he never mentions that he went back to save Claire or that he went back to save Claire AND Charlie. If during his vision he did see that Claire was in trouble and was going to die, he would have said that to Charlie.
My head hurts... does this even matter in the grand scheme of things?
Feline, this is exactly how I interpreted those events too. Desmond's future-flash came after the five of them were talking in the clearing. Although, it does beg the question, if Desmond would've remained in the clearing with the others, and in essence keeping Charlie safe, would someone else have saved Claire? Maybe he only gets snippets of a vision. Similar to Locke's havid's about the other survivors. Maybe that's why he took off running to save her? JMO!
Ok here's what I think :popcorn:
I think Desmond saw Charlie get electrocuted. He saved him. He saw him drown while trying to save Claire, right there in the jungle after Charlie was with them, too far to ever know Claire was drowning. He couldn't know Claire was drowning, he couldn't go back to the beach in time to save her, he simply couldn't drown unless Desmond told him. I'm repeating myself because I really believe Desmond was only saving Claire this time:
If, as you suggested, Desmond were to stay still, act as if nothing happened so he could prevent Charlie from going to the beach and drown, he would be saving Charlie then. Would someone else save her? I don't know. Desmond didn't know either so it got the better of him, he saw someone in danger (Claire) and he went for it. Desmond himself admitted that these flashes didn't make sense to him. He had a flash of Charlie drowning while trying to save Claire, he knew Charlie was alright but Claire wasn't, so he went to help her, it was only natural, an instinct. I see it as simple as that.
I may be refusing this "Saved Charlie by saving Claire" thing because I don't see how, and also I don't want it to turn into a "faith" thing.
Edit: Desmond saw Charlie drown while trying to save Claire. He wasn't even there when it happened. Wouldn't even get there if it wasn't for Desmond. Can Desmond really see the future? What he saw wasn't what happened?
All I know is it will seriously mess up the storyline to kill claire, what with her being the only one who is supposed to raise Aaron for him to be good. Besides...can they really afford to kill off any more girls at this point? At least not for a little while in my opinion.
Kanadka
02-15-07, 08:56 PM
Feline - I'm more inclined to believe that he was saving Claire - because he had no other reason to run back to the beach. If that's the case though, why did he make a point of specifically telling Charlie that he was saving him and NOT Claire. Wouldn't it have made more sense for him to say that he was saving them both?
Just a little side note...isn't it interesting that everytime Charlie supposedly cheats death it is because he is "saving" Claire.
and yeah, Fozzie...that's interesting, isn't it?
OK, I posted this in another thread, but it may fit better here given where this discussion is going:
Hmmm...I wonder if Des saving Claire which ultimately save Charlie all is in the end about Aaron. The influence that Charlie ultimately will have on Aaron..if you think island=bad cop and Des=good cop..and Aaron is of importance like it has been alluded that he is..maybe the island doesn't want Charlie around Aaron .
Now, I'm not thinking of Charlie as a hero as much as a behavioral influence here, but, he is cast as the "father figure" to aaron. Not even a good influence vs. a bad influence, just an influence. OK..so this is really far fetched..but without Charlie around Aaron may never develope a love for music..leading him no to develop an ability that may prove useful to him later.
Charlie is getting in the island's way of raising the baby...I mean the island even used Locke to get Charlie away from the baby.
So saving Charlie isn't about saving Charlie at all. What if it's about Aaron? And somehow turing that key gave Des "island-like" abilities that work in opposition to the island's abilities...split-personalities..good vs. evil..
If that's the case though, why did he make a point of specifically telling Charlie that he was saving him and NOT Claire. Wouldn't it have made more sense for him to say that he was saving them both?
Well he saw Charlie drown. Not Claire. Because he was him, he thinks he was supposed to save him, as it was before. He only saved Claire because he had to. He knew Charlie was totally safe out there in the jungle with him.
Maybe he didn't have much time to think about it, I mean he got drunk the very same evening. I'm sure he would come to the same conclusion :)
Does anyone find it odd that their drinking is kinda inappropriate? with Kate/Jack/Sawyer kidnapped and Eko dead? Shouldn't they be planning a rescue plan? I know I would be? Although I know how a good drink soothes it all sometimes.
Kanadka
02-15-07, 09:09 PM
I don't know - it just seems like the writers went out of their way to shock us by having Desmond say he was saving Charlie's life, and not Claire's (after all, I'm sure most of us thought it was Claire in danger the whole time) and that Charlie was the one who would not be able to cheat death. If it was just suppose to be some nonchalent, drunken comment, I don't think they would have made such a big deal out of it.
I don't know - it just seems like the writers went out of their way to shock us by having Desmond say he was saving Charlie's life, and not Claire's (after all, I'm sure most of us thought it was Claire in danger the whole time) and that Charlie was the one who would not be able to cheat death. If it was just suppose to be some nonchalent, drunken comment, I don't think they would have made such a big deal out of it.
Exactly: they went out of their way to shock us: we all believed Claire being in danger and not Charlie. We didn't know that the thunder was destined to Charlie either. They wanted to shock us and they did. But they just didn't think it through. I believe they don't care about us, fans picking up details, constantly questioning. they just wanna get the story moving.
I wonder if TPTB knew, the day that they aired the episode with the thunder, that it was Charlie being saved and not Claire.
Verite Garde
02-15-07, 09:30 PM
Originally Posted by Verite Garde http://www.losttv-forum.com/forum/images/002/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.losttv-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1318629#post1318629)
I believe Desmond's reason for rounding up Hurley and Charlie was to bring them to Locke and Sayid so Locke could tell them about Eko and warn them to be careful because the Tailies were getting scared. It wasn't to lure them away.
Then Desmond saw the future which was Charlie going after Claire and drowning. That Charlie would have drowned in no way means Claire would have also drowned. Anyone might have also swum out to save her.
Desmond saved Charlie from the lightening and then he saved him from drowning. Desmond is interefering in the future trying to save lives even though he knows Charlie will eventually have to die. This is the same theory as in all the "Final Destination" movies.
This episode was all about FATE.
That is concise and well said. I don't think this episode was confusing in this aspect at all....well at least not this part of it...LOL. I think you summed it up swimmingly...(bad pun intended)
~Jj:Hippy:
Thank you. Why make this more difficult than it is? LOST is a TV show, not a documetary. Not everything has to be dropped on our heads like a ton of bricks. Some things we truly are supposed to assume by using logic.
Desmond was with Locke, Sayid and Eko when Eko died so it makes total sense that he'd bring Charlie and Hurley back to them so they could explain things. That was the entire point of the conversaion they had with Locke.
Verite Garde
02-15-07, 09:34 PM
Exactly: they went out of their way to shock us: we all believed Claire being in danger and not Charlie. We didn't know that the thunder was destined to Charlie either. They wanted to shock us and they did. But they just didn't think it through. I believe they don't care about us, fans picking up details, constantly questioning. they just wanna get the story moving.
I wonder if TPTB knew, the day that they aired the episode with the thunder, that it was Charlie being saved and not Claire.
I disagree with much of this. I am an avid fan and look for all the clues and deatils, too, but am also able to sit back and look at the "big picture" which is far more enjoyable than nitpicking. :)
There is no logical lreason for Desmond to have lied about Claire.
..... Although! We also know that no one is supposed to raise Aaron but Claire herself and if she drowned, well ... does Desmond know what the psychic knew in Austrailia?
Kanadka
02-15-07, 09:38 PM
Like I said in an earlier post... Why they went into the woods is besides the point. It doesn't matter to me if Desmond took Charlie and Hurley into the woods because Locke asked him to, or if it was because he knew Charlie was in danger, or if it was because he wanted to make out with the two of them. That was not the intention of my original post and I don't think it was the intention of the person who started this thread. My issue is with Desmond running back to the beach to save...Charlie? Charlie was already safe. According to Desmond's own words - he saved Charlie by saving Claire, who really didn't need saving in the first place. Those are Desmond's words, not mine. It just doesn't make sense.
My issue is with Desmond running back to the beach to save...Charlie? Charlie was already safe. According to Desmond's own words - he saved Charlie by saving Claire, who really didn't need saving in the first place. Those are Desmond's words, not mine. It just doesn't make sense.
Kanadka, I totally agree with this. In fact, I asked in another thread if Desmond can indeed predict the future, because what he saw wasn't what happened.
Desmond has a vision that Charlie will drown, but he doesn't know when or how he ends up in the water. We know that his recall of events is not perfect because of the whole sequence with the soccer game in the pub. So he "hears" Claire calling for help, gets a sudden flash that she is drowning, and realizes that this is the time that Charlie drowns. He intercedes on fate and rescues Claire. Charlie knows that Desmond is a capable swimmer, and his impulse to run into the ocean and save Claire is checked.
That was my take on it.
Kanadka
02-15-07, 09:57 PM
Desmond has a vision that Charlie will drown, but he doesn't know when or how he ends up in the water. We know that his recall of events is not perfect because of the whole sequence with the soccer game in the pub. So he "hears" Claire calling for help, gets a sudden flash that she is drowning, and realizes that this is the time that Charlie drowns. He intercedes on fate and rescues Claire. Charlie knows that Desmond is a capable swimmer, and his impulse to run into the ocean and save Claire is checked.
That was my take on it.
And I would agree 100%, if Desmond didn't make a point of telling Charlie that he was the ONLY one that needed saving. So, if Desmond truly believed this, he had no reason to run to the beach.
Verite Garde
02-15-07, 10:12 PM
Kanadka, I totally agree with this. In fact, I asked in another thread if Desmond can indeed predict the future, because what he saw wasn't what happened.
Of course what happened isn't what he saw. That was the whole point of him swimming out for Claire and preventing Charlie from doing so. He changed the future. It's simple.:)
ReganSahaya
02-15-07, 10:14 PM
I agree with Dezzie and m0nwell. If Desmond's only mission was to save Charlie, then there was no need for him to return to the beach and save Claire. Desmond had successfully lured Charlie at least a mile away - so the threat of him drowning was no longer there. In fact, by running back to the beach, he put Charlie in danger. It doesn't make sense that Charlie would just stand there and watch Claire drown - even if Desmond jumped into the water. Especially knowing how possessive he is of Claire. It makes more sense that they would BOTH jump in. I know I wouldn't stand around if someone I loved was drowning.
If Charlie is the only one that is suppose to die, and Claire is suppose to live, then there was no reason for Desmond to run back to the beach and save her. If she's suppose to live, then she would have saved herself or someone else on the beach would have saved her. It would have worked itself out.
However, if Charlie and Claire are suppose to die, then yes, it would make sense that Desmond would run back to the beach and save her, thus saving them both.
Unless of course it was Desmond who was supposed to save Claire in the first place, while Charlie drowned. Or it was Charlie who realized Claire was drowning, and he alerted others as he went after her, which resulted in his drowning but her being saved. There are quite a few scenarios which result in Claire being saved but Charlie dying.
m0nwell
02-15-07, 10:33 PM
This is how I think it went down.
1. Desmond has the vision of Charlie drowning, no Claire. He doesn't know when so he suggests Charlie and Hurley to come to the pow wow in the jungle. Hurley makes sense but baby-stealing ex-herion addict Charlie doesn't. He's simply keeping an eye on Charlie.
2. By bringing Charlie to the jungle he has changed the events and now Claire is drowning instead of Charlie (maybe she was going to ask him to go swimming with her and he would of gotten sucked by the undertow). He gets the flash of the altered future in the jungle and rushes off to save Claire.
To me, this makes the most sense (in the world of Lost).
Also I would like to note that when the lightning struck the rod, Charlie was holding Claire who was holding Aaron. If he was hit they would all have died.
What is the first thing that Charlie would do when he discovered Claire was missing, and that she was last seen swimming in the ocean?
He would jump in and go look for her- try to save her. It's not about him actually being there on the beach... his death happens way later if you just imagine the logical sequence of events.
The reason Desmond ran to get Claire is that bringing her body back to the shore would be the only sure way to keep Charlie from swimming out to find her. It wasn't because he was trying to save her too. Claire wouldn't have died; it wasn't her destiny yet.
This also solves the notion that Desmond lured Charlie and Hurley into the jungle. He didn't. He had no idea that he would have a precog flash later.
Kanadka
02-16-07, 02:07 PM
Desmond running back to the beach 'to save Charlie' makes no sense at all. Charlie was already in the woods and he never would have known Claire was in danger. Some of you suggest that maybe Charlie would have heard the screams of other survivors shouting that Claire was drowning. Well, if that had happened, then and only then would Desmond have had a reason to run back to the beach - to stop Charlie from trying to save Claire. Listen - the ONLY reason Desmond ran back to the beach was because the writers of Lost needed us, the viewers, to believe he was saving Claire and not Charlie.
Desmond running back to the beach 'to save Charlie' makes no sense at all. Charlie was already in the woods and he never would have known Claire was in danger. Some of you suggest that maybe Charlie would have heard the screams of other survivors shouting that Claire was drowning. Well, if that had happened, then and only then would Desmond have had a reason to run back to the beach - to stop Charlie from trying to save Claire. Listen - the ONLY reason Desmond ran back to the beach was because the writers of Lost needed us, the viewers, to believe he was saving Claire and not Charlie.
It does make sense. Read my post above yours. He is saving Charlie, not from actually noticing Claire in the water and saving her, but from jumping in to find her later... after she had been missing for hours.
Kanadka
02-16-07, 02:39 PM
Why would he jump in the water? Why would he just assume she had drowned? For all he knows, she went swimming, and then left to go for a walk. Claire missing does not automatically means she drowned. On that island - as we all know - plenty of other things could have happened to her. And let's just pretend that Charlie, who can't swim, wanted to jump in the ocean and start looking for Claire TWO hours after she had gone missing, where would he even begin? That's a huge beach. It's hard for me to believe that he would just randomly jump into the OCEAN to try and find someone he can't see or hear. And you're just assuming that Claire does drown - when according to Desmond, she's not the one who needs saving. Which means, someone else would have saved her or she would have made it back to shore herself - and if that didn't happen and she did end up drowning, well then, Desmond was wrong (meaning they both needed saving). Again, the only reason they had him run back to the beach was to make us believe it was Claire who was doomed. Oh, what a shock it was to hear that it was actually Charlie who was doomed.
Charlie: "Has anyone seen Claire"
Red Shirt: "Last I saw she was taking a swim."
Charlie: *RUNS AS FAST AS HE CAN INTO THE WATER, SWIMS UNTIL EXHAUSTED, GETS PULLED UNDER BY UNDERTOW, AND DIES*
And is Claire out there dead? I think this is the important question, but it seems like the answer would be not. Because Desmond doesn't predict her death, she is not meant to die. She would have been saved somehow.
Kanadka
02-16-07, 03:01 PM
Charlie: "Has anyone seen Claire"
Red Shirt: "Last I saw she was taking a swim."
Charlie: *RUNS AS FAST AS HE CAN INTO THE WATER, SWIMS UNTIL EXHAUSTED, GETS PULLED UNDER BY UNDERTOW, AND DIES*
And is Claire out there dead? I think this is the important question, but it seems like the answer would be not. Because Desmond doesn't predict her death, she is not meant to die. She would have been saved somehow.
Okay, let's agree that Claire was not meant to die, because Desmond does not predict her death. So, while Desmond, Charlie and the others were in the wood, Claire is suddenly pulled under by the undertow and finds herself in trouble. Since she does NOT die, someone else on the beach saves her or she makes it back to shore by herself. We all saw how desperate Claire was - so her rescue would have happened within minutes - BEFORE Charlie even made it back to the beach. Therefore the conversation would have gone something like this..
Charlie: Has anyone seen Claire?
Red Shirt: Didn't you hear? She almost drowned! But she's safe.
More imaginary Red Shirt-Charlie conversations, please. I'm just trying to keep up with what all you smart people are saying, the Red Shirt talks make things much clearer.
Kanadka
02-16-07, 03:13 PM
I just don't know why it's so hard to believe that the writer's did this to make us believe Claire was the one in danger and not Charlie. This whole scene would have made sense if someone from the beach had started screaming that Claire was in danger and then Desmond and Charlie ran back to save her. And then, knowing that Charlie couldn't swim and would die trying to save her - Desmond saves her first. Now that I would have understood!
Okay, let's agree that Claire was not meant to die, because Desmond does not predict her death. So, while Desmond, Charlie and the others were in the wood, Claire is suddenly pulled under by the undertow and finds herself in trouble. Since she does NOT die, someone else on the beach saves her or she makes it back to shore by herself. We all saw how desperate Claire was - so her rescue would have happened within minutes - BEFORE Charlie even made it back to the beach. Therefore the conversation would have gone something like this..
Charlie: Has anyone seen Claire?
Red Shirt: Didn't you hear? She almost drowned! But she's safe.
Well, the only creative way out of her death I can think of is Sawyer and Kate finding her as they row back to camp. It's pretty coincidental, but the world is full of infinite possibilities for someone to survive and still remain missing. But, now I'm really thinking we should take the writers to task for making us all think too hard.
And for making us imagine hypothetical conversations with unimportant extras.
I liked the hypothetical convesations with unimportant extras, though we could have started naming them Reservoir Dogs style. :) Mr.Pink and Charlie. Insert easy joke here ______! :)
meljo93
02-16-07, 03:36 PM
The way we see it happen, Desmond is already inland when he "remembers" what happened to Charlie.
Does he really have time to rationalize his actions? (I'm with Charlie, so he won't drown, and someone else will save Claire because she wasn't in my "memory") I don't think so... I think he just acted.
Hodgepodge
02-22-07, 12:48 AM
Moving to the Character Interactions forum for further discussion. Please follow the link.
AceOfDiamonds
02-22-07, 08:00 PM
The way I see it is, Fate has it in for Charlie. Fate -- or the island, or God, or whoever -- is thus conspiring to kill Charlie.
Whether or not Claire needs to die as well in order to ensure Charlie's death is inconsequential. If Fate is plotting Charlie's demise, by any means necessary, than Claire can be used and manipulated like a prop. Claire's survival doesn't matter to Fate, assuming that Fate's primary objective is to kill Charlie. If a dead Claire will ensure a dead Charlie, the sacrifice is well worth it from Fate's perspective.
So, Desmond is not lying to Charlie when he says that Charlie's the one in danger. Because Claire's particular role in the drowning incident was entirely unimportant. Yes, Claire would have died had Desmond not saved her. Charlie would have died too -- he probably would have attempted to rescue her, even if Claire had long been dead in the water, just because of his feelings for her.
BUT, the fact that one particular incident in this chain of events involved Claire's near-death doesn't change the fact that Desmond is really trying to save Charlie. Fate has never targeted Claire before. Targeting her this single time was only as bait to ensure Charlie got into the water. In all the past circumstances, Charlie would have died by other means on his own. Fate just isn't afraid to sacrifice someone else as necessary if it means Charlie dies as well.
So in this one particular instance, Desmond saved Claire and Charlie by rescuing Claire. BUT, in every other instance, Charlie's was the only life at stake. That's why from Desmond's perspective, Charlie's really the one he's saving.
vBulletin® v3.8.3, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.