The Locke-Must-Live Mobilization Force [Archive]

ozanna

05-17-08, 02:43 AM

I don't know that I'd say that Locke needs to be redeemed. Unlike Sawyer he hasn't committed any crimes. He needs to stand up for himself and get out of Ben's clutches. TPTB did the same with Sawyer, made him look like a loser, and now look at him. Locke is the person who believes in the island, but unfortunately lets himself be filled with doubt. This is what Ben did to Sawyer, but Sawyer has managed to believe in himself and rise above all the crap, in a small way. Sorry to keep going on about Sawyer, but I see him and Locke as kindred spirits, so to speak. They have a bond now, and they really need to get together and find out what the hell is going on with Ben. Once again Locke has lost his way. IMHO I think maybe Sawyer can help him to find it.

Locke was always the one who took an interest in the other losties. Claire, Shannon, Boone, Sawyer, Michael and Walt. He tried to help them with their problems. Then he found the damn hatch and it all went wrong. But he was right about the freighter, and Sawyer was with him. Now they have gone their separate ways - for the meantime. S5 could be awesome if TPTB don't stuff it up. Maybe we'll find out something about the island at long last.

If they kill him, there really is no point to the island any more. The only original lostie of any importance would be Sawyer and what can he do on his own ? Probably kill himself because Kate has gone away. No, he's not that stupid !

sgtdraino

05-17-08, 03:28 AM

First, I believe the chances that Locke could be killed off this season are absolutely zero. Don't worry, I don't have any spoiler information about this, it's just a gut feeling. TPTB have started an arc with Locke as The Island's new chosen one, and they're going to take it somewhere before they think of ending the character.

As for Locke being befuddled by Ben, I don't think we'll have to worry about that much longer either. My hunch is that, like the O6, Ben will leave Lost Island at the end of this season. I think he will use the Orchid to travel into the future and end up in Tunisa, wearing Halliwax's Orchid jacket.

nicholas urfe

05-17-08, 04:13 PM

the way Locke's been going I can see them turning him into a dictator .

I really have a bad feeling about the way he's headed and I have a terrible feeling he'll end up back in that wheelchair by the very end .

Locke's my fave character but since blowing up the sub , getting sawyer to do his dirty work (kill cooper) and murdering naomi , I really think TPTB are treating Locke like a patsy , he's just a tool for them .

I think he's a very tragic character and I could live with that 'cept , as I say , I feel even the writers are exploiting him .

Susan B Anthony

05-18-08, 03:19 AM

I don't think they will kill him outright, but I can see them leaving it sort of ambiguous, like leaving him shot and bleeding in the pit...which of course will mean he's not dead. I think Ben and the O6, and maybe even some others (Desmond?) will leave the island and at least Locke and Sawyer will remain, but we may not see them for a while.

I just hope they don't take all of the action off-island next season, though, with the Linus v. Widmore arc and the O6 trying to get back to the island. Those are both interesting plotlines, but I think the island needs to remain central for Lost to keep its anchor.

And contrary to some of the sentiment expressed here, I have been very pleased and intrigued by S4 Locke, just as I have all along. I think he has shown he is a constantly evolving character and as such, full of surprises. I'm glad he hasn't remained static like some of the others. I mean, how long is it interesting that Jack is a tortured soul, self-appointed reluctant-leader with control issues and a need to rescue women? Whee. I wonder what he'll do this week. Maybe we'll find out that he's headstrong yet caring. :DeadHorse: Even Sawyer has gotten a predictable case of do-the-right-thing bad-boy-with-a-heart-of-gold syndrome.

At least with Locke you can never get too comfortable that you know what he's going to do. This drives some people crazy (as we see on this forum) but to me, it keeps him the most interesting character on the show.

DR76

05-18-08, 03:49 AM

I don't know that I'd say that Locke needs to be redeemed. Unlike Sawyer he hasn't committed any crimes. He needs to stand up for himself and get out of Ben's clutches. TPTB did the same with Sawyer, made him look like a loser, and now look at him.

Locke did murder Naomi in cold blood and forced Hurley to follow him and Ben to Jacob's cabin. And yes, Sawyer has killed three men. Jack tried to murder Locke and participated in the torture of Sawyer. Kate has killed her father, committed insurance fraud, assaulted a Federal agent, evade capture and committed a bank robbery . . . and still feels no remorse for her actions. Sun has killed a woman. Jin has a history of violent "enforcement" for his father-in-law. Michael has killed two women. Juliet killed one of the Others in cold blood. Desmond has killed one man in anger. Hurley ran down a man and killed him with that van. Sayid has murdered one man in Iraq in order to free Nadia, tortured Sawyer and has a future as a hit man for Ben. God only knows how many people Ben has killed.

The island is starting look like Murder, Inc. I don't see why we have to discuss the redemption of one or two characters - namely Locke and Michael - and pretend that the other Losties need no redemption.

sgtdraino

05-18-08, 05:38 AM

Locke did murder Naomi in cold blood

That's debatable. The most recent poll has only 25% of respondents believing Locke to be guilty of that.

and forced Hurley to follow him and Ben to Jacob's cabin.

Technically, just to the DHARMA pit. After that, Hurley was free to leave.

Jack tried to murder Locke and participated in the torture of Sawyer.

He also killed Marshal Mars.

The island is starting look like Murder, Inc. I don't see why we have to discuss the redemption of one or two characters - namely Locke and Michael - and pretend that the other Losties need no redemption.

I think most of us would agree that all of the characters are seeking some sort of redemption. Locke and Michael are just the two most popular topics right now, because Locke is the most interesting character on the show, and because the circumstances of Michael's crime were so extraordinary.

Draco

05-18-08, 07:50 AM

The island is starting look like Murder, Inc. I don't see why we have to discuss the redemption of one or two characters - namely Locke and Michael - and pretend that the other Losties need no redemption.

Well, there's no doubt that every character needs a shot at redemption, I think that's what the show's central theme is all about. Currently, the focus is on Locke (Aside from the fact that this is the Locke forum) because it's possible that he is the character that has been lead more and more astray from his original path/figure. So, moral redemption aside, many of us have been waiting for some sort of redemption in storytelling terms.
Time and again, Locke has been forced to do things that were completely outside of his character and contraddicted previous events/choices, just because the plot demanded it.
Although I would certainly like Locke to regain at least part of his original mystique, I am willing to follow his current development and crisis as well, provided that a leading theme/arc of some story emerges (the "chosen one" theme, although not one of my favorites -it has slaughtered both the Star Wars and Matrix sagas- might just do that).

Brian, although I tend to get frustrated as well when I think that Locke's downward spiral started when he found the hatch, it is also true that it was the hatch's discovery that led the losties to Desmond and possibly, on the long run, to Penny and to actual rescue, so in a way Locke was right about the hatch. Of course, I only wish he had not been butchered in many other ways from then on! Indeed, I wish he'd get at least some ackowledgment of that choice...

Jack T Kirk

05-18-08, 08:23 AM

I don't think the hatch ruined Locke's character at all...I think the hatch was when Locke really started to get interesting. Sure, when things are relaxed and everyone is happy and camping, Locke is free to roam the woods and be his natural self. What's really interesting is to see Locke under pressure...to see him wrestle his way out of the box.

In Deus Ex Machina Locke said that his favorite game was mousetrap. The island is full of trappings that Locke has fallen into and has been gracefully saved from, time and again...the hatch, the pit, the cabin. Every time he is swept out of the trap, he is placed on his feet again and goes from naive prey to realizing himself as the hunter. Like many biblical heroes, he is a meek and fallible man through whom a higher power is doing great things.

Locke was confused by Ben earlier this season, but I think since the Barracks he is slowly starting to sort things out for himself again. Right now, he's merely tolerating Ben's snooty attitude. I believe that Locke will pull the wool over Ben's eyes in the season finale.

My only real complaint is that he hasn't had enough screen time or lines this season...that is the product of rushed storytelling and I think that is what is leaving some viewers confused or put off when it comes to his character. The problem is that we rarely see scenes from Locke's perspective now, making it harder to empathize with his actions.

Brian

05-18-08, 01:02 PM

Brian, although I tend to get frustrated as well when I think that Locke's downward spiral started when he found the hatch, it is also true that it was the hatch's discovery that led the losties to Desmond and possibly, on the long run, to Penny and to actual rescue, so in a way Locke was right about the hatch. Of course, I only wish he had not been butchered in many other ways from then on! Indeed, I wish he'd get at least some ackowledgment of that choice...

I agree that finding the hatch was, in the long run, a good thing but the button pushing and dishwashing in S2 was a little too much for me. Remember, we had just finished watching season one where, with the exception of not being able to yank Boone out of the Beechcraft, he could do no wrong. I think the final nail in the frustration coffin, for me, was the meltdown after Desmond ran out of the Swan.

He's still my favorite character, and I still believe that he will, in some way, ultimately be a deciding force in the show and other character's outcome. I also know that you can't have the high points of a character without the lows but it seems that when Locke has a low, it's really low. :)

I'll always be a Locke fan and I don't see anything changing that in the near future regardless.

Draco

05-18-08, 01:23 PM

Oh, absolutely: the hatch frustrating Locke was good in late season 1, until he opened it. Season 2 in its entirety, from pushing the button to doing the dishes, to the desperate housewives duets with Jack, to the ridicolous ballet with Eko (now I don't push it and you push it, no, then again, I don't push it and you don't push it either) the the final "I was wrong" is an abysmal phase.
I would be tempted to say that we can only go up from there, but I'll shut up, as reality has taken the unpleasant habit of proving me wrong...

DR76

05-18-08, 05:14 PM

AceOfDiamonds

05-18-08, 10:22 PM

Butchered? Is the only way Locke will be accepted and liked as a character is when he was being the Yoda-type "warrior" who knew everything in Season 1? He was getting boring in that persona and static. I didn't mind when the writers really began revealing Locke's flaws in Season 2. It made more interesting and complex. Is the only way he'll be accepted as a character is as the Yoda wannabe from the first season? I hope not.

I emphasize with certain elements of your argument, but I'd have to say we were watching two completely different versions of Season One of Lost if you felt any sort of infallible Yoda vibe from Locke then. Aside from following a vision that led to Boone's demise (and being, in my opinion, unjustly blamed by Jack for it), Locke looked absolutely pathetic in his flashbacks. And despite a few good scenes of mentoring in Season One, we also had plenty of scenes where Locke managed to look a bit foolish. He withheld the truth about the hatch from the other survivors, withheld Walt burning down the raft from Michael, and -- here's a huge scene that foreshadowed several of Locke's future issues for me -- tried to teach a small child how to throw a knife. It was badass, sure, but I also related with Michael when he was like "WTF?" in response to Locke's behavior.

What I liked about Season One Locke was that the scenes of badass mentor Locke and the scenes of frustrated, angry, manipulated, "boobish" (to borrow Homer's favorite term) Locke were more equally balanced in the first season. Locke had his enemies in Season One (Jack and Sayid didn't like him one bit later in the season, and the more they got to know him the less they seemed to like him. Shannon and Michael were also obviously not on friendly terms with Locke and for obvious reasons we could relate to,) but Locke also had his friends. (In season one his friends included Charlie, Claire, Boone, and Walt.)

That was the even-handed portrayal of Locke -- the notion that yes, Locke's style was inevitably going to piss off quite a few people, but at the same time, there was also this vibe in season one that Locke really did care about everyone (even the survivors who were "antagonistic" towards him more often than not, like Jack and Sayid.) Locke built the cradle for Claire, got Charlie off his drugs, and gave Vincent back to Walt, all out of altruism. The notion was that Locke as a "man of faith" had very different methods than Jack, and he had very different pitfalls and weaknesses (see: what happened to Boone), but his intentions were equally as pure. Locke may have wanted everyone to stay on the island, but he still wanted everyone to benefit from its power and be healed, just like he was.

That storyline for Locke unraveled in Season Two, which really culminated for me in the disastrous way his relationships with Claire and Charlie were untangled. Note that Jack, despite his ever-increasing depth and character growth into darker and darker corners (he's revealed to be a bit of a stalker, he has bouts with alcoholism, he has serious trust issues, etc.) still has friends like Kate and Juliet backing his every move. I was kind of hoping that even if Locke was taken in a darker direction, the friendships that had been fostered in Season One would largely remain intact. If anything, my expectation of Season Two was something like: "Jack and Locke are going to divide into two competing groups, with Claire and Charlie and a few others on Locke's side, while Kate and Sayid and a few others would stick with Jack." That's what Season One seemed to be building up to, and somehow that was totally derailed.

I guess the essence of my argument is I would feel a lot better about Locke's growing obsession with the island and his growing desire to protect it if his Season One defining benevolence towards his friends was still present. In recent seasons I've really only felt that kind of a bond, briefly between Locke and Sawyer (The Brig) and Locke and Desmond (Season Two finale, after which somehow that brilliant and potentially Locke-redeeming storyline between those two was put completely on hold. I still maintain that if only Desmond had managed to have one or two serious one-on-one conversations with Locke after the S2 finale, Locke could have been "straightened out." Why in the hell Locke and Desmond didn't have a scene together after the Season Two Finale when the two should have had a damn long conversation about everything that happened pisses the crap out of me to this day and is one of the few things I really really hated about Season Three.)

Sorry. End of rant.

RangerMel

05-18-08, 11:48 PM

Where we see most of the Losties trying to redeem themselves for bad things they've done off island, Locke is the exact opposite. In the past he was a fairly decent guy, if not a little pathetic, but the island is turning him into a monster.

A monster so obsessed with his own "destiny" that he will murder people, or conspire in their murder, kidnap others at gunpoint, and basically do whatever he feels justified in doing.

Not so different from Michael's behavior at the end of Season 2. But at least Michael had a semi-valid reason.

I hate Locke these days. :mad:

sgtdraino

05-19-08, 01:48 AM

the island is turning him into a monster.

Bah, biased perspective.

Not so different from Michael's behavior at the end of Season 2. But at least Michael had a semi-valid reason.

Michael murdered two innocent people in cold blood for his own selfish reasons. The Others didn't even tell him to do it, and it was never indicated that Walt's life was in any danger. There is absolutely zero validity to his motives.

I hate Locke these days. :mad:

When did you not? I cannot remember a time when you did not hate Locke, or said anything nice about him.

Some people just seem to have a real axe to grind when it comes to Locke, and there is truly nothing the character can do "right" in such people's eyes. I continue to wonder what the common factor is that makes them like this. Sometimes it seems such people have a higher-than-average opinion of Jack, but I'm not sure it's as simple as that.

DR76

05-19-08, 01:55 AM

I emphasize with certain elements of your argument, but I'd have to say we were watching two completely different versions of Season One of Lost if you felt any sort of infallible Yoda vibe from Locke then. Aside from following a vision that led to Boone's demise (and being, in my opinion, unjustly blamed by Jack for it), Locke looked absolutely pathetic in his flashbacks. And despite a few good scenes of mentoring in Season One, we also had plenty of scenes where Locke managed to look a bit foolish. He withheld the truth about the hatch from the other survivors, withheld Walt burning down the raft from Michael, and -- here's a huge scene that foreshadowed several of Locke's future issues for me -- tried to teach a small child how to throw a knife. It was badass, sure, but I also related with Michael when he was like "WTF?" in response to Locke's behavior.

What I liked about Season One Locke was that the scenes of badass mentor Locke and the scenes of frustrated, angry, manipulated, "boobish" (to borrow Homer's favorite term) Locke were more equally balanced in the first season. Locke had his enemies in Season One (Jack and Sayid didn't like him one bit later in the season, and the more they got to know him the less they seemed to like him. Shannon and Michael were also obviously not on friendly terms with Locke and for obvious reasons we could relate to,) but Locke also had his friends. (In season one his friends included Charlie, Claire, Boone, and Walt.)

That was the even-handed portrayal of Locke -- the notion that yes, Locke's style was inevitably going to piss off quite a few people, but at the same time, there was also this vibe in season one that Locke really did care about everyone (even the survivors who were "antagonistic" towards him more often than not, like Jack and Sayid.) Locke built the cradle for Claire, got Charlie off his drugs, and gave Vincent back to Walt, all out of altruism. The notion was that Locke as a "man of faith" had very different methods than Jack, and he had very different pitfalls and weaknesses (see: what happened to Boone), but his intentions were equally as pure. Locke may have wanted everyone to stay on the island, but he still wanted everyone to benefit from its power and be healed, just like he was.

That storyline for Locke unraveled in Season Two, which really culminated for me in the disastrous way his relationships with Claire and Charlie were untangled. Note that Jack, despite his ever-increasing depth and character growth into darker and darker corners (he's revealed to be a bit of a stalker, he has bouts with alcoholism, he has serious trust issues, etc.) still has friends like Kate and Juliet backing his every move. I was kind of hoping that even if Locke was taken in a darker direction, the friendships that had been fostered in Season One would largely remain intact. If anything, my expectation of Season Two was something like: "Jack and Locke are going to divide into two competing groups, with Claire and Charlie and a few others on Locke's side, while Kate and Sayid and a few others would stick with Jack." That's what Season One seemed to be building up to, and somehow that was totally derailed.

I guess the essence of my argument is I would feel a lot better about Locke's growing obsession with the island and his growing desire to protect it if his Season One defining benevolence towards his friends was still present. In recent seasons I've really only felt that kind of a bond, briefly between Locke and Sawyer (The Brig) and Locke and Desmond (Season Two finale, after which somehow that brilliant and potentially Locke-redeeming storyline between those two was put completely on hold. I still maintain that if only Desmond had managed to have one or two serious one-on-one conversations with Locke after the S2 finale, Locke could have been "straightened out." Why in the hell Locke and Desmond didn't have a scene together after the Season Two Finale when the two should have had a damn long conversation about everything that happened pisses the crap out of me to this day and is one of the few things I really really hated about Season Three.)

Sorry. End of rant.

So what are you saying? That you wanted Locke's character to remain as he had been in Season 1? Why? That's a disaster for any fictional character to remain static . . . unless the author or writers have every intention of doing so.

I have always noticed that when it comes to fictional characters, a lot of people seemed to express this desire for characters to remain one way throughout the story. Surely you're not like that.

AceOfDiamonds

05-19-08, 03:00 AM

So what are you saying? That you wanted Locke's character to remain as he had been in Season 1? Why? That's a disaster for any fictional character to remain static . . . unless the author or writers have every intention of doing so.

I have always noticed that when it comes to fictional characters, a lot of people seemed to express this desire for characters to remain one way throughout the story. Surely you're not like that.

I absolutely detest static characters, and I'm thankful that so many characters on Lost have shifted allegiances, mindsets, and priorities. However, just because I prefer fluidity in character development doesn't mean that fluidity in any direction, for any reason (or in Locke's case, oftentimes, hardly any reason at all) is valid. Character progression and regression is a good thing so long as it's gradual, realistic, and believable. I'll give TPTB due credit, I'm not one of those who's pissed off unconditionally at every move they've made. I've agreed with TPTB's direction for Locke, I'd say, 90% of the time. Unfortunately, it's that 10% that sticks out like a sore thumb with Locke in particular because it involves a few very critical "desicions" he made -- that seemed utterly counterintuitive given the personality and mentality TPTB gave him to begin the series with.

That's not to say that I ever viewed Locke as perfect, or wanted perfection in his character. As I said, season one Locke was 100% right-on by TPTB: a perfect mixture of strength and weakness in Locke's character development. Since then, TPTB have sort of lost their way. "Fire and Water" was, in my opinion, the absolute low point. What I don't like is when TPTB changes Locke's direction as a character on a whim to further the plot and to further the plot alone, with no consideration to his character's actual motives -- the actor himself, T'OQ, has complained on more than one occasion about this. I think sometimes TPTB overrely on Locke as a "plot device" whenever they need to set up the next big "mythological reveal" (or, in some cases, as when Locke blew up the submarine, delay the next big mythological reveal.) Again, it's only my opinion. But I'd never advocate a "static" John Locke, just a "consistent" and "believable" one.

sgtdraino

05-19-08, 03:25 AM

That's not to say that I ever viewed Locke as perfect, or wanted perfection in his character. As I said, season one Locke was 100% right-on by TPTB: a perfect mixture of strength and weakness in Locke's character development. Since then, TPTB have sort of lost their way. <snip> What I don't like is when TPTB changes Locke's direction as a character on a whim to further the plot and to further the plot alone, with no consideration to his character's actual motives -- the actor himself, T'OQ, has complained on more than one occasion about this. I think sometimes TPTB overrely on Locke as a "plot device" whenever they need to set up the next big "mythological reveal" (or, in some cases, as when Locke blew up the submarine, delay the next big mythological reveal.) Again, it's only my opinion. But I'd never advocate a "static" John Locke, just a "consistent" and "believable" one.

Absolutely agree. Locke has always had flaws, it's just that in more recent seasons TPTB have failed to remain consistent about the way the character behaves. For me, one of the most significant instances of this is when Locke did an about-face on pressing the button. I still believe, from the way the plot arc was set up at the beginning of the season, that it was originally intended that Jack and Locke would face off at the end of Season 2, with Jack trying to stop the button being pressed, and Locke trying to keep pressing it. Man of science versus man of faith. Instead, in the space of a few episodes, we have Locke going from pro-button, to losing faith in it, to vehemently anti-button enough that he takes over the hatch with Desmond and becomes determined to stop it being pressed. To me, that felt terribly out-of-character. Not necessarily in losing faith, but in proactively trying to stop the button from being pressed. Locke is a character who generally prefers to let other people make their own choices, except in cases where those choices may cause drastic harm. In the case of the button, we already know that pushing it doesn't cause harm, so it seems out-of-character for Locke to stop others from pushing it if they want to.

nicholas urfe

05-19-08, 01:47 PM

I had no problem with him deciding to stop push the button , he clearly felt he 'd been taken for a sucker again .

my problem is hhim doing things for no good reason - blowing up the sub , killing naomi .

Locke doesn't really have any friends , Boone and Walt were the closest and they're gone .

He seems to have gone from wanting to protect eveyone to being a pawn of The Island .
And I have a terrible feeling that it's not gonna end well for him .

sgtdraino

05-19-08, 05:43 PM

my problem is hhim doing things for no good reason - blowing up the sub , killing naomi .

Simply because you don't know or understand Locke's reasons, doesn't mean he doesn't have good reasons.

Locke didn't blow up the sub, he faked it.
Locke stopped Naomi to save the island and everyone on it. If he hadn't, everyone at the radio tower (except Ben) would be dead now.

Locke doesn't really have any friends , Boone and Walt were the closest and they're gone .

Locke has sacrificed his friendship with others, in order to do what was necessary to help them. Wouldn't that be something? If the only way you could save your friends, would be by doing something that would cause them to hate you? Locke is the most self-sacrificing character on the show.

He seems to have gone from wanting to protect eveyone to being a pawn of The Island .

Locke believes that working for The Island is the best way to help and protect everyone.

nicholas urfe

05-19-08, 08:17 PM

Simply because you don't know or understand Locke's reasons, doesn't mean he doesn't have good reasons.

Locke didn't blow up the sub, he faked it.
Locke stopped Naomi to save the island and everyone on it. If he hadn't, everyone at the radio tower (except Ben) would be dead now.

How do you know this ?
it's supposition.

Locke has sacrificed his friendship with others, in order to do what was necessary to help them. Wouldn't that be something? If the only way you could save your friends, would be by doing something that would cause them to hate you? Locke is the most self-sacrificing character on the show.

Locke believes that working for The Island is the best way to help and protect everyone.

So stopping jack from leaving , hiding the sub etc. is protecting everyone ?

But my point is - I don't know why Locke is doing these things .

altho I agree with you in the sense that Locke believes he's working for the island , unfortunately that's rather like these religious zealots who believe they're doing the work of God , even terry O'quinn said this , he said it seems like Locke has gotten religion and he could become a very dangerous person .

Do you really think Locke has been given a vision of the future by the island ?
It told him to hide the sub ?

Locke&Load

05-19-08, 08:45 PM

Bottom line, yes Locke has flaws. He is not perfect. But then again, nobody really is. He has good times and bad times, like every other character on the show ........and for people in real life as well. He is loved, hated, admired, and manipulated, but he is not a monster.

sgtdraino

05-19-08, 09:15 PM

How do you know this ?

The Island told me. ;)

it's supposition.

No more so than your own assertion that Locke had no good reasons for doing what he did.

So stopping jack from leaving , hiding the sub etc. is protecting everyone ?

Well, we've seen the future, and the O6 generally don't look very happy off the island.

But my point is - I don't know why Locke is doing these things .

You went farther than that, and asserted that Locke did these things for no good reasons.

altho I agree with you in the sense that Locke believes he's working for the island , unfortunately that's rather like these religious zealots who believe they're doing the work of God

One man's religious zealot is another man's visionary. History written by the winners, and all that.

even terry O'quinn said this , he said it seems like Locke has gotten religion and he could become a very dangerous person .

Dangerous is not necessarily the same thing as "bad" or "evil." I am dangerous to criminals.

Do you really think Locke has been given a vision of the future by the island ?

Not directly, no. I believe The Island tells Locke that certain things will happen, certain things should happen, and certain things must be prevented from happening. I believe The Island tells Locke that this is for the greater good of everyone, especially the 815s. On the other hand, it is still very hard to say whether The Island is actually being honest about all this. It has lied before. On the other hand, so far it does seem to have peoples' best interests at heart, in a general sense.

RangerMel

05-20-08, 07:30 AM

Michael murdered two innocent people in cold blood for his own selfish reasons. The Others didn't even tell him to do it, and it was never indicated that Walt's life was in any danger. There is absolutely zero validity to his motives.
And Locke murdered Naomi and egged Sawyer on to murdering Cooper. Because the island told him to and it's his "destiny."

When did you not? I cannot remember a time when you did not hate Locke, or said anything nice about him.
I liked the character in season 1. I've mentioned that before but that was a looooong time ago.

Some people just seem to have a real axe to grind when it comes to Locke, and there is truly nothing the character can do "right" in such people's eyes. I continue to wonder what the common factor is that makes them like this. Sometimes it seems such people have a higher-than-average opinion of Jack, but I'm not sure it's as simple as that.
Jack messes up and acts like a pompous jerk from time to time, but he's not a consistant screw-up, like Locke. Look at how he's letting Ben jerk him around, again.

TonyLee

05-20-08, 08:15 AM

Hmmm..I wonder how I would act after someone stole my kidney?
lost season 3 (http://lostseriesdvd.com)

sgtdraino

05-20-08, 08:21 AM

And Locke murdered Naomi

Debatable. Only 25% of our members agree with you.

and egged Sawyer on to murdering Cooper.

Locke never told Sawyer to kill Cooper, let alone "egged him on." I don't deny that Locke hoped Sawyer would kill him, but Locke did not try to influence Sawyer himself.

I liked the character in season 1. I've mentioned that before but that was a looooong time ago.

I challenge you to find me one single post where you have said that you like Locke (in the present tense). If you succeed, I shall have it framed. :)

Jack messes up and acts like a pompous jerk from time to time, but he's not a consistant screw-up, like Locke. Look at how he's letting Ben jerk him around, again.

Hah! I could post a poll that askes "Is Jack a consistent screw-up?" but I think we both already know what the results would be. Jack screws up way more than John Locke, he just tends to somehow not be held accountable for it.

klm4446

05-20-08, 08:25 AM

Force mobilized. I am in!! I do NOT believe Locke is in the coffin and do not expect him to die before the series finale--if EVER. However, if he does I will gladly join forces with those who wish to rip off heads and spit down necks of the culprits.

I have to say I agree with A LOT of what sgtdraino was saying. Just as Locke has faith in the island, perhaps the viewers should have some faith in his character.

We do not know the extent of what Locke knows. We didn't see the ending of his conversation with Christian in the cabin with Claire. We don't know what else happened when he was left for dead by Ben before he got out of the hole. All the countless times he's been off in the woods. We just found out that he is possibly "chosen" or special in some way. (Many of us knew this long ago) :)

We are willing to read between the lines on so many things that we haven't seen yet cannot do this in regards to Locke's actions? I will continue saying, it will be shown that Locke is not crazy nor a monster. And, I believe his character has remained fairly consistent and more realistic than some. Killing Naomi does not make him a cold blooded, murderous dictator. Naomi landing on the island is what resulted in Keamy and company now being in the position to destroy everyone and everything. Locke was trying to save everyone's life. Long live John Locke.

LPU

05-20-08, 10:40 AM

No need to beat up Mel. Plenty of us Locke fans hate Locke right about now, so fan or not, she's hardly alone in that boat. What I hate even more is the fervor, the lengths that some will go to to defend the guy, even when he may be indefensible. I'm over it enough at this point that I'd almost change my name just not to be associated with it.

Jack T Kirk

05-20-08, 11:13 AM

Locke Push-ups has been turned!

:lightsabre:

LPU

05-20-08, 11:16 AM

Nah, I still hold out hope that TOQ and Locke will have a return to form, and I certainly don't want him to get the axe.

Brian

05-20-08, 11:52 AM

Jack messes up and acts like a pompous jerk from time to time, but he's not a consistant screw-up, like Locke. Look at how he's letting Ben jerk him around, again.

But it's the flaws that make the characters interesting, right?

I'm sick of every single thread where Jack's name comes up, turning into a Jack -bashing thread. He's not that bad! His flaws make him interesting.

Odd you don't feel the same way about Locke. Locke's flaws make him someone to be ridiculed every time his name his mentioned. Jack's flaws make him and interesting character.

Maitiu

05-20-08, 02:42 PM

And Locke murdered Naomi and egged Sawyer on to murdering Cooper. Because the island told him to and it's his "destiny."

Yeah, he killed Naomi. He also should've shot Jack, fatally or otherwise, and taken the satellite phone and destroyed it. The fact that Jack didn't listen to Locke directly led to the deaths of Danielle, Karl, Alex, all Locke's redshirts, possibly Claire, and everyone who is killed by Keamy in the finale. That's alot more blood on Jack's hands then there ever was or will be on Locke's hands.

And I hate how Jack gets a free pass on the fact that he was willing to execute Locke in front of every single one of the survivors. Screw you, Rose and Bernard. Did you somehow forget in the thirty seconds between the time Jack attempted to fire a gun at Locke and the time where the two camps split up that Jack was a technicality away from murder as well? This is the kind of stuff that bugs me, Jack is never held accountable for anything yet Locke needs to be redeemed for something that, as far as I can tell, was the right thing to do.

Maitiu

05-20-08, 02:51 PM

By the way, did we ever determine whether Locke's gun was loaded or whether it was a Locke-Can't-Die-So-The-Gun-Will-Jam-Twelve-Times-Thing? The gun was certainly loaded in the finale and was shown to be fully loaded while Locke was in the pit. I can't imagine a reason Locke would remove the five other bullets. So, I've been leaning towards island intervention ever since "Meet Kevin Johnson".

Gilligan

05-20-08, 03:34 PM

I think when the Smokey clears and the series is ending, Locke will still be on that island.

Alive.

AceOfDiamonds

05-20-08, 08:13 PM

And I hate how Jack gets a free pass on the fact that he was willing to execute Locke in front of every single one of the survivors. Screw you, Rose and Bernard. Did you somehow forget in the thirty seconds between the time Jack attempted to fire a gun at Locke and the time where the two camps split up that Jack was a technicality away from murder as well? This is the kind of stuff that bugs me, Jack is never held accountable for anything yet Locke needs to be redeemed for something that, as far as I can tell, was the right thing to do.

On a similar note, I really enjoyed (NOTE: sarcasm) how TPTB found a creative and innovative way for Locke to take all the heat for Jack's desicion in season two that the Swan hatch was a joke.
Here's an excerpt of the conversation around season-two time:

"Hey, so Locke is right about the hatch and Jack is completely and utterly wrong, right? So Jack's going to suffer the consequences for attempting to convince everyone not to press the button?"
"...Nah, we decided to have Locke magically do a complete and utterly unwarranted 180 based on the events in a single episode in which Locke watches an orientation video that somehow undermines his faith in the island, despite the fact that his faith in the island has dictated every action he's ever taken, and will continue to dictate his actions in Season Three and beyond."
"...why? Shouldn't Jack take the heat for actually making an error in logic for a change?"
"...Nah, we'd rather have Locke blamed for everything -- makes things easier, keeps Jack's rep nice and purty. Besides, we've already managed to completely disintegrate Locke's once-strong friendships with Charlie and Claire early on this season. We might as well continue destroying the character's credibility."
"So, basically, Locke will be all for the island whenever defending the island requires him to look like an ass. But whenever defending the island and supporting his mission would actually redeem him, or whenever a desicion would reflect positively on him, we'll just have Locke temporarily lose his sanity so some other character like Eko can hog the credit?"
"...pretty much."

And that's why I hate TPTB.

lizzo

05-20-08, 08:25 PM

Ace, you're my new hero. I've wanted to take action against TPTB ever since Fire & Water. I'm all in for Mobilization.

Brian

05-20-08, 10:22 PM

By the way, did we ever determine whether Locke's gun was loaded or whether it was a Locke-Can't-Die-So-The-Gun-Will-Jam-Twelve-Times-Thing?

The one Jack tried to shoot him in the head with? I think he unloaded it. His line, to Jack after he failed to check and see if it was loaded before pulling the trigger in Locke's face, was "It's not loaded". He probably had a good idea that there was going to be a split when he met up with everyone and he may lose control of the gun. Nothing worse than getting shot with your own gun.

sgtdraino

05-20-08, 11:09 PM

No need to beat up Mel. Plenty of us Locke fans hate Locke right about now, so fan or not, she's hardly alone in that boat.

Mel can take care of herself. She implied she was once a Locke fan, which detractors of Locke will sometimes do to make themselves appear more fair-minded. I was challenging that contention. I've been here a long time, and have never in my memory heard her speak well of the character. If she proves me wrong, then I shall eat a slice of humble pie. :)

What I hate even more is the fervor, the lengths that some will go to to defend the guy, even when he may be indefensible.

Since some of us are still able to make good arguments in Locke's defense, clearly he is not indefensible.

Locke Push-ups has been turned!

Clearly a sleeper agent the whole time. ;) My little brothers had to cue me in on the naughty joke built into his username.

By the way, did we ever determine whether Locke's gun was loaded or whether it was a Locke-Can't-Die-So-The-Gun-Will-Jam-Twelve-Times-Thing? The gun was certainly loaded in the finale and was shown to be fully loaded while Locke was in the pit. I can't imagine a reason Locke would remove the five other bullets. So, I've been leaning towards island intervention ever since "Meet Kevin Johnson".

I think he unloaded it. His line, to Jack after he failed to check and see if it was loaded before pulling the trigger in Locke's face, was "It's not loaded". He probably had a good idea that there was going to be a split when he met up with everyone and he may lose control of the gun. Nothing worse than getting shot with your own gun.

I originally thought the gun was fully loaded, and that Locke must have unloaded it after his confrontation with Jack at the radio tower, but now I think that doesn't really make sense. When Locke first finds the gun in the pit, he opens up the cylinder and looks at the shells. The only way to tell if they're live, is to see if the primers are dented where the hammer struck them. The resolution is not quite good enough for the audience to see whether they are or aren't.

However, we see Locke rotate the cylinder a bit before he closes it. The only reason I can think of why he would do this, is to orient the cylinder so that a live round would fire next. If all the rounds were live, there would be no reason to rotate the cylinder.

Add to this the notion of why Locke would unload the gun after the confrontation. If he somehow knew somebody would get it away from him, then why even carry it in his waistband? Might as well hide it in your pack, since an unloaded gun is only a bluff at best.

So, nowadays, I've come to the conclusion that there was only one live round remaining. Locke chose to use this round to shoot at the sat phone, rather than at Jack.

Brian

05-20-08, 11:11 PM

However, we see Locke rotate the cylinder a bit before he closes it. The only reason I can think of why he would do this, is to orient the cylinder so that a live round would fire next. If all the rounds were live, there would be no reason to rotate the cylinder.

I forgot about him opening and rotating the cylinder. I stand corrected. Thanks Sarge!

nicholas urfe

05-21-08, 03:07 PM

The Island told me. ;)

No more so than your own assertion that Locke had no good reasons for doing what he did.

i've yet to see a good reason for these things .

One man's religious zealot is another man's visionary. History written by the winners, and all that.

Dangerous is not necessarily the same thing as "bad" or "evil." I am dangerous to criminals.

Not directly, no. I believe The Island tells Locke that certain things will happen, certain things should happen, and certain things must be prevented from happening. I believe The Island tells Locke that this is for the greater good of everyone, especially the 815s. On the other hand, it is still very hard to say whether The Island is actually being honest about all this. It has lied before. On the other hand, so far it does seem to have peoples' best interests at heart, in a general sense.

When did it tell him to hide/desstroy the sub ?

And killing naomi makes little sense , if he'd wanted to stop calling the boat he should've destroyed the phone , can't see the need to kill her , she was more use alive .

there's been several hints this year that Locke is headed towards becoming a tyrant , someone who justifies his actions like Ben does , not someone who has the other Losties best interests at heart .

The Life of Riley

05-21-08, 03:35 PM

He also killed Marshal Mars.

I am not a Jack lover (very far from it, actually), but euthanizing someone after they have sustained serious injury and asked to be killed (and after Sawyer failed at doing this and punctured the already-suffering man's lung) is not the same as Locke throwing a knife into Naomi's back.

That being said, Locke is one of my favorite characters and I would be extremely disappointed were he to be killed off.

Lawboy

05-21-08, 04:00 PM

We all gotta die sometime. Fact of life, whether TV or reality. And Locke seems to already be on life number 5 with all the things he has been through. So if he does die finally and his lives run out, I just want it to be very meaningful to the story of Lost. More meaningful than say, Eko or Shannon, or Boone or Paolo/Nikki, or Libby/AnaL, or pretty much any other death. It has to be crucial to something, and not just tangent to it.

Homer Noodleman

05-21-08, 04:09 PM

Jack T Kirk

05-21-08, 04:34 PM

The other question is, was killing Naomi a good thing?

Locke apparently got a Giant Walt delivered message to do it to "protect the island", but is that message necessarily trustworthy? We've seen that Island Yemi wasn't who he seemed to be, so are we sure who Giant Walt was? Could killing Naomi have been the wrong thing to do?

The truth is, we have no idea what Naomi would have done had she stayed alive and thus in charge. We've seen the Captain was against Keemey torching the island, Naomi may well have agreed with him -- particularly in light of the hints that Keemey is suffering from the sickness.

Killing her may have been manipulation of Locke to get Naomi out of the way, and the far more malleable Keemy in charge, for reasons that may not be remotely in anyone's interest.

Protecting the island at all costs only flies as a motive, if it even flies at all, if the island is worth protecting. I've seen nothing that would make me believe that.

Killing Naomi was a writing blunder that we are supposed to quietly accept. Sure, if you try, you can explain it, but it was completely unnecessary. It didn't do anything for Locke or add anything to his purpose; it was just a cheap thrill thrown in to make the finale more 'exciting'. The writers have only disappointed me in this way twice; this, and in 'Fire and Water' where Eko totally blows the story of the baptism of Christ. Yeah, you can explain that by saying that Eko was just a gangster in a priest's clothes, but there was no need for him to get that story wrong, it was simply the writers' careless ignorance, or gutlessness, or both. Any time that the writers stop caring about what the characters would do and focus instead on thrills is a knock to the credibility of the show, IMHO.

That being said...you can't even really argue that Locke killed Naomi to 'protect the island', because Tall Walt never said "hey, go throw a knife in her back!" All Walt said was "get up, you have work to do." So, for whatever reason or lack thereof, Locke decided to kill her on his own. I can't see any possibility of arguing the necessity of killing Naomi either, since it did not stop the call from being made.

AceOfDiamonds

05-21-08, 05:21 PM

That being said...you can't even really argue that Locke killed Naomi to 'protect the island', because Tall Walt never said "hey, go throw a knife in her back!" All Walt said was "get up, you have work to do." So, for whatever reason or lack thereof, Locke decided to kill her on his own. I can't see any possibility of arguing the necessity of killing Naomi either, since it did not stop the call from being made.

I'll give a slightly different skew than carelessness as to why Locke "killed" Naomi. I think Naomi presented a problem for the writers that had to be retconned out of existence. Simply put, Naomi knew too much. To keep her alive would risk revealing far too many details about the freighter's real mission, who Abbadon really worked for, what those four "scientists" were really sent there for, etc. It's clear that Naomi and Abbadon do not work for Widmore because Keamy's mission is completely independent of the scientists, who, under Widmore's secondary protocol, were just intended to die on the island like the Oceanic survivors and the Others. Keeping Naomi alive, but in clear capitivity of Jack or Ben or Locke or anyone, would either answer far too many questions too early on in the narrative OR require a massive suspension of disbelief, as we'd have to simply accept that Jack/Ben/Locke/whoever wouldn't bother to ask Naomi all sorts of questions.

So Naomi was killed in part because she's expendable (whereas Jack is not,) but also in part because TPTB needed to ensure she wasn't alive much longer. That was the one action Locke took in the S3 finale that totally jarred with me, but TPTB have used Locke in the past -- as I've mentioned before in this very thread -- for the mere purposes of advancing the plot or advancing the mythology (or in this case, preventing the mythology from being known too soon) and with total disregard for his characterization. Thus, Locke becomes a tool for the writers to ensure that mythology and plot development happens exactly when and how they want it to happen. Need the Flame destroyed so there's no more evidence to be found there? Locke'll do it. Need the submarine destroyed so escaping the island isn't a possibility yet? That's Locke job. Need Charlie to go over to the dark side and need someone to unrealistically antagonize him to make it happen? John Locke will handle that.

BTW, my interpretation of the subsequent Locke/Jack showdown was actually good writing (whereas Locke "killing" Naomi prior was bad writing,) IMO, because I don't think it was a matter of "Locke is inconsistent because he'll kill Naomi and not kill Jack." I think Locke was told by the island to kill Naomi and then Jack and whoever else risked making that phone call, but it was Locke's own "weakness" (or his "strength," depending on whether you view the island as an absolute good worth being protected or not) in that he cared too much for Jack to actually follow the island's/Jacob's orders. Again: I think taller Walt told Locke exactly what was going to happen and exactly what Locke needed to do, including killing Jack, but Locke couldn't do it. Subsequently, the timeline was changed, the Oceanic Six would ultimately be "rescued," and the island started its own "secondary protocol" which included new plans that would utilize Jack and the other Oceanic Six in the future to ensure they came back.

At the very least, my interpretation fits in somewhat better with the relatively pacificistic interpretation of Locke we used to say way back when, back when Locke was actually better written. My disagreement with TPTB is really that I don't even think Locke would have killed Naomi even if ordered to in the first place. At least what then happened between Jack and Locke made more sense.

Jack T Kirk

05-21-08, 05:45 PM

At the very least, my interpretation fits in somewhat better with the relatively pacificistic interpretation of Locke we used to say way back when, back when Locke was actually better written. My disagreement with TPTB is really that I don't even think Locke would have killed Naomi even if ordered to in the first place. At least what then happened between Jack and Locke made more sense.

Your view makes sense. I agree that the writers were in over their heads with Naomi and had Locke kill her to keep her from revealing her agenda...if her character stuck around then we'd have another "Henry Gale" situation...something that this show does not need any more of!

I think they should have made it clear that Naomi was bad news. It would have been better if Naomi and Locke encountered each other alone in the jungle...then Naomi would have had an opportunity to show her sinister side.

LPU

05-21-08, 09:23 PM

Since some of us are still able to make good arguments in Locke's defense, clearly he is not indefensible.

Terry OQ would seem to agree with me, judging by his reaction to the knife incident. Again, either way, in no way, shape, or form to I want to see him dead.

RangerMel

05-21-08, 10:01 PM

But it's the flaws that make the characters interesting, right?
Odd you don't feel the same way about Locke. Locke's flaws make him someone to be ridiculed every time his name his mentioned. Jack's flaws make him and interesting character.

How dare you use my own words against me! I reserve the right to be hypocritical. :nanabobo:

But i do feel that way more Jack bashing occurs than Locke bashing. I don't know why but Jack really doesn't annoy me as much.

Terry OQ would seem to agree with me, judging by his reaction to the knife incident. Again, either way, in no way, shape, or form to I want to see him dead.

What i would like to see is TPTB change the way they write his character. The thing i liked about S1 Locke was that in his flashbacks he was ineffectual, pathetic, and kind of a loser ... but on the island he really had a chance to reinvent himself. He became a hunter, a provider, a respected member of their little community. And at the time i thought the whole man of science/man of faith thing made him a great counterpoint to Jack.

I miss the old Locke. I don't think it's too late for them to turn it around for Locke. What will really piss me off is if they end the show without letting Locke take control of his own destiny.

Draco

05-22-08, 08:28 AM

TPTB have used Locke in the past -- as I've mentioned before in this very thread -- for the mere purposes of advancing the plot or advancing the mythology (or in this case, preventing the mythology from being known too soon) and with total disregard for his characterization. Thus, Locke becomes a tool for the writers to ensure that mythology and plot development happens exactly when and how they want it to happen. Need the Flame destroyed so there's no more evidence to be found there? Locke'll do it. Need the submarine destroyed so escaping the island isn't a possibility yet? That's Locke job. Need Charlie to go over to the dark side and need someone to unrealistically antagonize him to make it happen? John Locke will handle that.

Very well said. I think this is a quite ruthless move by TPTB, who capitalize on the actor's skill and the character's success. I think any other character who had done all these things would be utter trash by now. Unfortunately -or fortunately, if you wish- TOQ/Locke is possibly the only one who has shoulders big enough to sustain this burden, and so they use it for this purpose time and again.
Just think that the viewers are the island, Locke is Locke and TPTB are Ben and Richard, and you'll get a good picture of the situation! :rolleyez:

AceOfDiamonds

05-22-08, 04:56 PM

Very well said. I think this is a quite ruthless move by TPTB, who capitalize on the actor's skill and the character's success. I think any other character who had done all these things would be utter trash by now. Unfortunately -or fortunately, if you wish- TOQ/Locke is possibly the only one who has shoulders big enough to sustain this burden, and so they use it for this purpose time and again.
Just think that the viewers are the island, Locke is Locke and TPTB are Ben and Richard, and you'll get a good picture of the situation! :rolleyez:

Agreed. I think I've made a related point somewhere in this topic, too, regarding that very facet: namely, that if Jack or Sawyer or another character had been charged with acting in the same inconsistent and maddening way that Locke has episode by episode, that character would be universally despised and TPTB would be universally hated for ruining him (or her.) It's really a testament to Mr. O'Quinn's phenomenal acting job that he can still Locke as remotely sympathetic and likable enough to retain his fanbase. It's those spilt second moments in episodes where T'OQ acts his ass off to sell Locke's motives and his underlying benevolence that win me back, over and over again.

And it's precisely for that reason why killing Locke off is such a terrible idea. T'OQ has shouldered Lost behind his back, won an Emmy for his hard work, and in exchange, he's seen his character continually crapped upon (sorry for the imagery, but it's true) by TPTB. My biggest hope was that Locke would have the chance to totally redeem himself by escaping from his imprisonment in previous seasons and kicking serious ass in future episodes. But if Locke dies, that opportunity is wasted, and Locke's motivations may never be truly adequately known, explained, or justified.

sgtdraino

05-23-08, 05:11 AM

That being said...you can't even really argue that Locke killed Naomi to 'protect the island', because Tall Walt never said "hey, go throw a knife in her back!" All Walt said was "get up, you have work to do."

In point of fact, we will never know what Walt said, because we the audience did not get to witness the full extent of the interaction between Locke and Tall Walt. This was done on purpose, because TPTB want us to fight over whether Locke's actions were justified or not. Makes for more interesting television.

It's clear that Naomi and Abbadon do not work for Widmore because Keamy's mission is completely independent of the scientists,

I think the reverse is true. It's been established that Frank's job was supposed to be dedicated to flying the scientists around, not the Kommandos. The only other pilot on the boat is Naomi, who has already been established to be a mercenary. Ergo, it is clear that Naomi was the official combat pilot for the Kommando team. She really was "senior management." And everyone on that boat (except Michael) works for Widmore.

I think they should have made it clear that Naomi was bad news. It would have been better if Naomi and Locke encountered each other alone in the jungle...then Naomi would have had an opportunity to show her sinister side.

TPTB don't want it to be clearer, they want us doing what we are doing now: Arguing, debating, and discussing what the truth of the matter is. :)

Maitiu

05-29-08, 07:09 AM

Not too long before we know if we'll have to break out the torches and pitchforks.

AceOfDiamonds

05-29-08, 07:10 AM

Troopers,

Today's the big day. Today we learn whether or not we mobilize in defiance, or celebrate. Today we learn whether or not our hero and savior, John Locke, has been offed on the island, offed in a coffin...or will live to see another glorious day.

Remember, my brave mobilization force, that TPTB must experience the full force of our collective wrath should our beloved hero perish. If the greatest character on Lost is to die, we must fight back, in such a gruesome way as to absolutely undermine TPTB's faith in their convoluted desicion making process.

Yet if Locke lives? Why, then we may celebrate in paradise, my brethren.

clayseason1

05-29-08, 09:02 PM

There are certain things in this life that are inseparable -- like bread and butter -- peanut butter and jelly -- milk and cookies -- LOST and Locke. You can have one without the other but why bother?

Count me in if they count him out.

AceOfDiamonds

05-30-08, 02:20 AM

Hey, can y'all do me a favor?
I can't watch the episode tonight, and so I'm trying to avoid spoilers at all costs until I see it tomorrow.
However, whether Locke is dead or alive, in the coffin or not in the coffin, is my single exception to that rule. Could some of y'all consider PMing me as soon as y'all know the answer to that question?

If Locke is in the coffin (or dead by some other means), just PM me that one sentence.
If Locke ISN'T dead / in the coffin, just PM me that he's fine. Please DON'T PM me the identity of who actually IS in the coffin if it isn't Locke. Likewise, please DON'T PM me any other details regarding the episode: like what the frozen donkey wheel is, etc.

Thanks!

AceOfDiamonds

05-30-08, 03:16 AM

...Well, I've been informed that the mobilization plans are in full force.

Also, that DocArzt guy is totally an ass.

On the bright side, the sheer unbridled anti-John-Locke idiocy advocated by TPTB has made it awfully easy for me to mobilize. Hey, this is Lost: where we kill off the actors who win us the Emmys! This is Lost: where any and all challenges to Matthew Fox's ultimate authority are humiliated and eliminated!! This is Lost: where we film like four coffin scenes, and then choose the worst possible scene to include in the finale because we suck!! This is Lost: where every character but John Locke gets a happy ending!!

Well this is me, giving TPTB the finger and boycotting Season Five!!

Also: no, I didn't even have to watch the other 99.9% of the episode to know it sucked. Any scenairo in which Locke dies sucks. Hell, my dog could write a better season finale than this. I gotta hand it to TPTB though, they sure as hell have strung out the Locke fans through four seasons of absolute crap. I think T'OQ should just say "You know what? I'm done, I quit," and leave before he can be even more humiliated for his efforts.

Maitiu

05-30-08, 03:18 AM

Goddamnit. I should've listened to AceOfDiamonds over in the spoiler forum. I got my hopes up due to DocArzt's proclamation that LostFan108 had lied about Locke being in the coffin. I was praying that it was Ben or Desmond when that last scene rolled around. Then when he said bad things had happened on the island I found myself praying it was Sawyer, who happens to be my second favorite character. But I knew it was Locke.

So, when are we burning down ABC Studios?

Maitiu

05-30-08, 03:26 AM

Well, the unfortunate thing is that the rest of the episode is really very good. Locke, especially, had a very good episode. He got what should've been his happy ending. However (and there's always a however with Locke), apparently things happened on the island after Jack left and because Jack left that forced Locke to leave the island, where he apparently met his demise. It's upsetting, especially when you realize that we won't know why he left the island for eight months and how he died for a year.

AceOfDiamonds

05-30-08, 03:29 AM

I really feel far worse for Terry O'Quinn than any of us poor saps.

I mean think about it from T'OQ's perspective.

You've dedicated your career into making a character who the writers seem hellbent on humiliating, discrediting and mystifying into someone inherently likable. You bust your ass off outacting Matthew bleepin' Fox and most the other actors on the show, and against all odds, you acquire a strong fanbase for your efforts. Then the writers, convinced that your character exists as nothing more than a plot tool with which to advance or restrict the flow of the mythology, continually rewrite your character until his motives make absolutely no sense and he has no relationships or friendships with anyone because he's off blowing up hatches one instant and then acting as Ben's underling the next.

Yet despite your continual objections to TPTB's shoddy writing for your character (see: Season Two comments, Season Three finale comments regarding killing Naomi, and now this) you stick through it, and act so well that the goddamn Emmys give you an award, despite the fact that your character has degraded into a pathetic punching bag that Ben, Jack, Sawyer and others repeatedly pummel. You are interviewed and you say all the right things, voicing your personal objections but still showing strong support for the show and hoping that Locke gets his crap straight.

And how does TPTB repay you for your Emmy and your hard work and all the crap they've done to you? Well, they kill you off before your character can achieve redemption.

I MEAN CRAP, EVEN DOMINIC/CHARLIE GOT HIS CHANCE AT REDEMPTION BEFORE HE DIED!!! Even Charlie was redeemed in the eyes of the viewers. Couldn't T'OQ at least get a scene where Locke was like "Damn, I made some serious mistakes, and damn, I wish I had remained close with Claire and Charlie, and damn, I'm sorry for occasional errors in judgment, but I'm still a fundamentally good person and I ain't going to be bossed around by Ben anymore!" COULDN'T WE HAVE AT LEAST GOTTEN THAT MUCH?!?!?!?!

I'm totally hatin' on TPTB right now and they totally deserve it. Bleepers.

AceOfDiamonds

05-30-08, 03:33 AM

Well, the unfortunate thing is that the rest of the episode is really very good. Locke, especially, had a very good episode. He got what should've been his happy ending.

But of course we'll never actually be able to see Locke even enjoy a moment, a spilt second of his happy ending on the television screen, because TPTB filming a scene in which Locke is A: not dead and B: actually in a position of relative power, authority, likability, and happiness is oxymoronic. That's the nature of John Locke: even when he should win, he really loses. Hey, was John right about the hatch when he told Jack they should enter the numbers based on faith in the island? Well y--no, wait, TPTB somehow convinced Locke to change his mind so he could take the blame for his once-right position and we could all glorify Eko instead.

LPU

05-30-08, 03:36 AM

He's dead and it sucks, but he's not dead. That scene is 3 years in the future, and once they get him back to the island hey, all bets are off.

AceOfDiamonds

05-30-08, 03:44 AM

He's dead and it sucks, but he's not dead. That scene is 3 years in the future, and once they get him back to the island hey, all bets are off.

I'd almost rather see T'OQ, in a defiant and beautiful gesture, give the ol' finger to TPTB for the way they've treated Locke these past few years and actually quit the show. I'd really rather Locke stay dead, actually, because as a Locke fan I'm sick and tired of being toyed with every freakin' season finale. At least characters like Charlie only toyed around with their fans for one finale.

Let's recap:
Season Two finale: Locke's fate is ambiguous, he is one of three characters who may or may not be dead. (Eko and Desmond were the other two.)
Season Three: Prior to the finale there was a period of time there where TPTB totally had Ben shoot Locke so all us Locke-fanboys were worried sick about whether he'd be okay.
Now, Season Four finale: Locke's in the coffin.

I mean seriously WHAT THE HELL. Meanwhile like how many finales have we gone through where Jack or Sawyer or Kate's lives were threatened or their future status was left in doubt?!?

I mean this is what I'm sick of, we Locke fans are played like accordians, Locke is constantly either A: reduced to pathetic wailing, B: demonized into a pseudo-villain, or C: continually left in a state of "dead or alive?" hijinks. I'm sick of that crap. It'd be nice to have a moment, just ONE goddamn moment, where Locke got to be himself again and TPTB left him the hell alone.

But since that never will happen, I don't want Locke resurrected. I don't want to go through any more of this bullcrap. Just let Locke die so I never have to worry about TPTB abusing him again.

LPU

05-30-08, 03:45 AM

:rotfl: man your mobilization force is falling down around you.

Maitiu

05-30-08, 03:46 AM

That's one thing that angered me. Locke finally becomes the uncontested leader of the Others and fulfills his destiny only to find that his leadership undermined when unfortunate events happen because...Jack left the island. WTF? I just...argh.

I'm really hoping we get to see Locke happy on the island with the Others next season. At least for a little while. Because this is some :bs:.

Homer Noodleman

05-30-08, 03:47 AM

Some chosen one. The hubris soaked boob has been headed towards this fate since Season One.

Regardless, if'n I were you, unless TPTB finally got fed up with Terry Quinn whining in the media because his character wasn't an action hero, I suspect Locke will still have a role to play. It might be primarily in flashbacks, but he'll still be around. After all, Locke still has to learn how Norman Croucher really made it to the top of Everest. Hint -- it wasn't because it was his destiny.

LPU

05-30-08, 03:49 AM

Locke still has a huge role to play, so I'm not worried. He, Sawyer, Juliet, Alpert (is that it?) constitute the main island folk now, so still plenty of TOQ to be had.

AceOfDiamonds

05-30-08, 03:51 AM

Yeah, Homer, right now I'm just really upset. Maybe I'll cool down later, like after I actually see the episode in question. But frankly, being a Locke fanboy these past four years has been an utterly painful and dejecting experience. And at this rate, even if Locke was somehow resurrected (though characters on Lost generally "stay dead" once they die, said TPTB once) I'm sure TPTB would just piss all over him all over again. The happy ending us Locke fans had hoped for will never come: Locke will always remain miserable, unloved, borderline-evil, and nothing like how he was once written so long ago. :(

EDIT: Come to think of it, I don't even know if Jin died (or not.) Man, losing Locke was bad enough, but two of my top five characters in one night? (Locke was first, Jin fourth on my list.) Damn.

sgtdraino

05-30-08, 04:18 AM

Now we know that Locke is in the coffin.

But do we really know he is actually dead?

Ben was in there. The whole thing could be a big setup to get Jack pointed in the right direction.

Or not. Like someone else said, all bets are off.

AceOfDiamonds

05-30-08, 04:27 AM

The "Locke is a corrupted con artist working as an underling under Ben's control to decieve Jack and the other Oceanic Six members" plot concept is worse for me then Locke just being dead.

Homer Noodleman

05-30-08, 04:30 AM

Maitiu

05-30-08, 04:33 AM

I'm just holding out hope that this Chosen One/Messiah role they've been building up for Locke comes to pass and he gets resurrected when they bring him back to the Island. Chances are that they'll blow it and have Jack somehow come in and clean up after Locke has screwed up in some unimaginable way. So, yeah, I'm hoping he's actually dead.

AceOfDiamonds

05-30-08, 04:35 AM

I'm hoping TPTB intend for Locke to be resurrected, but T'OQ just gives 'em the finger and walks away.
I'd love it if that happened.

Maitiu

05-30-08, 04:41 AM

Some Locke fans have been peddling the "Locke's stupid behavior is really a brilliant ruse" line for several seasons now. Me, I think his brilliant plan led to him swinging from the end of a rope. He never had a plan, he just sat around and waited to be told what to do.

I don't think any of us would deny that Locke's had some pretty low points on this show. However, most of us attribute this to poor or inconsistent writing. We were hoping, and I still am, that he would have a return to form at some point. In some ways, I thought he was headed in the right direction in this episode. It's apparent that Locke was right during his conversation with Jack and he became the Others' leader. It's the mantle we've been waiting for him to take up for a while now and it's disheartening that we know that there's a limit to the amount of time he gets to inhabit the role.

Khan

05-30-08, 04:43 AM

I'm too busy to get around to all the lovey Jack tricks in the finale tonight but this conversation is too good to pass up.

AceOfDiamonds TPTB also once said no time travel and they can twist, turn and flop around like fish out of water but it's time travel and they lied.
We don't know Locke is really dead, I doubt it personally. It could be some Dharma drug or hocus pocus , like moving an Island, putting him in a state of suspended animation. And why not? There are ghost's in Lost for heaven's sake, there is no point in thinking any new, old or really trite scifi trick is off limits.
And if he is dead then he still has a role, Jack's dead daddy gets enough time to warrant weekly credits.

Homer Noodleman

05-30-08, 04:48 AM

Maitiu,

Since Season One I've been saying over and over again that this is what Locke's character really was. So, I don't see it as bad writing, I see it as misplaced expectations by his fans.

He was never a mystical guru, or a mighty hunter, or a brilliant tactician. He was a pathetic loser who externalized his problems and always gloomed onto the wrong authority figure, and stuck to them like glue no matter how much he got kicked around by them.

LPU

05-30-08, 04:52 AM

Yeah, but to have that character experience no growth and repeat those same mistakes over and over again, that's bad writing.

AceOfDiamonds

05-30-08, 04:55 AM

It's the mantle we've been waiting for him to take up for a while now and it's disheartening that we know that there's a limit to the amount of time he gets to inhabit the role.

I'm reasonably certain if Season Five just picks up in Flashforward 2008 land, we won't even see one millisecond of John Locke as leader of the Others.

Really, I don't mind the fact that Locke is a character of many weaknesses and many faults. Contrary to Homer's personification of "every Locke fanboy" as some drooling-at-the-mouth action-hero-lover, I always, even back in Season One, knew that Locke was imperfect, that Locke had serious issues, and that Locke couldn't always be trusted (see: what happened to Boone.)

But I always loved T'OQ and his acting so much, I just wanted to believe that TPTB had a plan for Locke that would involve his redemption as a character and his growth into a more heroic figure. I didn't want an action figure hero Locke -- in fact, John Locke always struck me as better in the role of a "mentor" -- or, so to speak, a "farmer" as opposed to a "hunter." Locke annoyed me most when he did his action hero stuntdevilry and thought he could single-handedily save the island and thus, save the world.

EDIT: This post was partially ninja'd by Locke Push-Ups: bravo.

Khan

05-30-08, 04:59 AM

Since Season One I've been saying over and over again that this is what Locke's character really was. So, I don't see it as bad writing, I see it as misplaced expectations by his fans.
He was never a mystical guru, or a mighty hunter, or a brilliant tactician. He was a pathetic loser who externalized his problems and always gloomed onto the wrong authority figure, and stuck to them like glue no matter how much he got kicked around by them.

That has to be the best synopsis of your take on the character Homer and gives me an idea for a thread if I decide to hang around, only I don't know where to put it.
It would be about fan expectations as opposed to what we see on the screen. People can identify with a character , hone in only traits they admire, be reminded of someone they know, wish they were that type of person, be fan of the actor and love every role they play, etc.

Homer Noodleman

05-30-08, 05:00 AM

I gotta admit that, as much as I enjoyed you guys squirming, even I was baffled over how relentlessly boobish he was. Geez, Ben was taunting him in the last few episodes worse than even Charlie ever did. I agree it would have served his character better to have him a bit more tempted by the farmer side of his persona.

Homer Noodleman

05-30-08, 05:03 AM

Khan,

Sounds like it would be a great thread for Character Interactions. It's gonna be a looooong hiatus.

Khan

05-30-08, 05:11 AM

That's about the only place , although it's closer to character/fan interactions...hmmmm that could be it's title.

AceOfDiamonds

05-30-08, 05:19 AM

I gotta admit that, as much as I enjoyed you guys squirming, even I was baffled over how relentlessly boobish he was.

But you see, this is essentially similar to my point: recently, Locke's descended into the realm of such constant and relentless boobosity, to borrow your term, that he isn't even a realistically portrayed human being anymore. (And as a person of faith myself, every time Darlton would attempt to explain it away in podcasts and whatnot as Locke "believing" or "being the man of faith" I freaking cringed. I'm sorry, but most men of faith, the pastors and priests and rabbis among us, don't act so damn irrational. Believing in a higher power does not excuse oneself into acting like an idiot.)

At least in Season One, Locke was more balanced in his portrayal: yes, he had moments, even that far back, of boobosity (see: Boone) but they were balanced with moments that were humanizing. Locke acted shady at times, and he clearly had his own agenda, but he also built Claire a cradle and treated Charlie and Boone as if they were friends. Locke was human. He desired companionship even as he sought after the island's secrets and strove for glory.

Seeing Locke regress was depressing, but I always assumed that since Locke was such a well-loved and well-developed character, and since T'OQ really poured his heart into the role, that Locke's regression was a temporary storytelling device and that better days would come. Heck, TPTB nearly promised us this several times over (see: comments TPTB made after fan backlash in Season Two, with statements that "Locke would be back" in Season Three.)

Locke never even had a single really great moment, and that's what peeves me. I'd be totally cool with Locke being in the coffin if he had that one Charlie-esque moment to shine in the finale where Locke was able to restore relationships, make amends, or even just come to a full understanding of the island and his purpose before he died. Note that I'm asking for just a moment. Locke could be a total boob for like, 95% of the episode for all I care: just give us that damned moment to remind us that he's inherently a good-hearted person, that he really does care. That's all I wanted. And based on what I've heard, I highly doubt we'll ever get it.

sgtdraino

05-30-08, 05:53 AM

Since Season One I've been saying over and over again that this is what Locke's character really was. So, I don't see it as bad writing, I see it as misplaced expectations by his fans.

Well, you're nothing if not consistent! :) Personally, Homer, I think you are the one who has misplaced expectations about Locke. You made up your mind a long time ago about what you believe the character to be, and ever since then, you can only see the things that you feel support your own expectations. Just like Jack, when it comes to Locke you have blinders on.

This episode consisted of nearly 2 hours of showing us that Locke was right about almost everything.

I don't know what TPTB will have in store for the character next season, but if I had to put money down, I'd bet that we will indeed be seeing Locke on the island interacting with the Others, and I think we may also see flashbacks of Locke visiting the O6.

I am really curious to see what will follow for the character after the point that we see him in the coffin. Perhaps I am still in denial, but it is very hard for me to believe that TPTB will keep him killed off (if he is even dead). True, they've done lame things before, but talk about shooting yourself in the foot! If he is in fact dead, I reckon we'll end up with Ghost Locke... but I really hope that doesn't happen. Locke is at his best tromping through the jungle and discovering mysteries. If he's a ghost, his jungle tromping days would be over. Ghosts don't throw knives. And that would be just weeeeaaaak for the show beyond belief.

We shall see!

MaggiePixel

05-30-08, 06:06 AM

...If he's a ghost, his jungle tromping days would be over. Ghosts don't throw knives. And that would be just weeeeaaaak for the show beyond belief....If ghosts can pick up babies, why wouldn't they be able to throw knives?

Island Hobo

05-30-08, 06:19 AM

In the words of Arnold

"He'll be back."

Homer Noodleman

05-30-08, 12:00 PM

Ace,

I don't think Locke's story is over yet. During the early days of picking the Teams in the polls section, I pointed out we knew Future Jack's fate was, that he was a drunken pill-popping mess, but we didn't know Future Locke's fate. Well, we do now - his group is dead and he swung from the end of a rope.

The point is, both of the men who held so tenaciously to their views have reached a juncture where they believe things have gone horribly wrong. The truth is, neither of their paths, both taken so blindly and with such conviction, were the correct paths in terms of outcome.

Locke&Load

05-30-08, 02:06 PM

[QUOTE=sgtdraino;2180195]Well, you're nothing if not consistent! :) Personally, Homer, I think you are the one who has misplaced expectations about Locke. You made up your mind a long time ago about what you believe the character to be, and ever since then, you can only see the things that you feel support your own expectations. Just like Jack, when it comes to Locke you have blinders on.

This episode consisted of nearly 2 hours of showing us that Locke was right about almost everything.

I couldn't have said it better myself Sgt.:) Yes it dishearting to see Locke in the coffin, but there is hope. If he is intended to stay dead, why have Ben say they had to go back with Lockes body?

What bothers me a little is how other people are saying Locke got tricked or thrown off the island. I call BS on that. If the only way to save or protect the island was to get the O6 back and Locke knows this, then I believe it was he choice to leave the island to get them back.

Locke said it best himself. "Just wait till you see what I'm about to do". If there is one person who can return from the "dead" it is John Locke.

Gilligan

05-30-08, 02:09 PM

Maybe Locke really is alive.

Maybe this is all an elaborate ruse to get the O6 back to the island.

Maybe season five begins with Locke's eye flying open.

Susan B Anthony

05-30-08, 07:05 PM

What bothers me a little is how other people are saying Locke got tricked or thrown off the island. I call BS on that. If the only way to save or protect the island was to get the O6 back and Locke knows this, then I believe it was he choice to leave the island to get them back.

I'm not sure where you're seeing this (haven't had a chance to go through a lot of the finale post-mortem yet), but I don't see why anyone would reach this conclusion. We know it is possible to come and go from the island. We saw Richard, Ethan and Tom do it. So to me it is totally plausible that Locke voluntarily left the island to contact the O6 with the knowledge that he could return. Walt told Hurley Locke ("Bentham") had come to see him, but we don't know when. Locke may have been coming and going for three years. As Ben's successor, he should have access to all the powers of the island.

I too was sad to see Locke in the coffin because I think LOST without Locke is too dismal to contemplate. But I think we will certainly see him back on the island, pre-coffin. And I agree that Ben's comment that they have to bring Locke back to the island is also a little suspect and leaves room for hope that some version of Locke will return. I hope it isn't a Spock-esque resurrection, because that would seem pretty contrived to me. And I don't see how it could be a ruse cooked up by Ben, because they would have to know that Jack was going to break into the mortuary at that particular time, or else let Locke lay in the coffin for days on end.

I am disappointed with the concept that we have seen the last of the onscreen gold of Emerson-O'Quinn scenes. Say what you want for the characters, that is some high class acting. But TPTB have gotten us this far and I for one am going to stick with them. I actually like what they have done with Locke -- he is a deeply flawed human being who has been thrust into a role that he doesn't really understand but wants desperately to get it right.

Susan B Anthony

05-30-08, 07:11 PM

That has to be the best synopsis of your take on the character Homer and gives me an idea for a thread if I decide to hang around, only I don't know where to put it.
It would be about fan expectations as opposed to what we see on the screen. People can identify with a character , hone in only traits they admire, be reminded of someone they know, wish they were that type of person, be fan of the actor and love every role they play, etc.

This could either be a forum for some really interesting discussion, or it could become an excuse for personal attacks. You would have to make sure that "Locke is a boob" doesn't become "Locke fans are boobs." I think it is interesting to look at what "type" of person gravitates to this or that character, but it would need to be more sort of self-analysis rather than concluding that other fans must be idiots or shallow or arrogant or immature or just plain horndogs (well, I guess most people might admit to that one). I will admit that I want Locke to be right and to prevail in the end, and part of that is probably about who I am, and not necessarily whether the character is inspired or boobish.

It would be interesting to give it a try and just shut it down if it gets ugly. You could do a thread for the character in its individual character forum, or in character interaction.

RangerMel

05-30-08, 10:01 PM

Maybe Locke really is alive.

Maybe this is all an elaborate ruse to get the O6 back to the island.

Maybe season five begins with Locke's eye flying open.

So ... Locke was just hanging around in that coffin, hoping that Jack would break in and look at him? That would be even more stupid than Michael being the man on the boat. So you're probably right.

Khan

05-30-08, 10:22 PM

This could either be a forum for some really interesting discussion, or it could become an excuse for personal attacks. You would have to make sure that "Locke is a boob" doesn't become "Locke fans are boobs." I think it is interesting to look at what "type" of person gravitates to this or that character, but it would need to be more sort of self-analysis rather than concluding that other fans must be idiots or shallow or arrogant or immature or just plain horndogs (well, I guess most people might admit to that one). I will admit that I want Locke to be right and to prevail in the end, and part of that is probably about who I am, and not necessarily whether the character is inspired or boobish.
It would be interesting to give it a try and just shut it down if it gets ugly. You could do a thread for the character in its individual character forum, or in character interaction.

No one on this forum can claim to know more about personal attacks than me. Childish fan attacks can be a hoot and I often laugh my ass off when reading them, but I've had to put up with "suggestions" that it's all my fault although I have never attacked a poster who didn't attack me first.
I won't repeat the foolish reason why since it's utter BS and I'm still in a simmering pissed off mode since I never had a proper "it was a mistake" PM like the accusing one.

I understand your concern, if a simple topic can veer off into false accusations and poster bashing then any thread can.

The thread I wanted was a place for posters to express what they see personally in a character and how the character has lived up to or failed thier expectations. It can be logical or emotional, it's what they want to say and those who have something valid to respond.

There is ample space on this forum to have specific discussions, allowing posters to use a thread for it's purpose or starting one if they have no place to chat about a particular idea or slant.

We all have to be prepared for the idiots, arrogant, trouble makers, immature, selfish, bored, whinny, the "tired" who don't want posts other than what they want to see, and the ones who merely make mistakes.
If I could, I'd guard it, but if it happens it's not my place to stop it, a Mod would have to do that. I could do my best to temper the situation but I'm not a Mod.

I think the forum has more than enough people who know how to post without annoying the hell out of everyone else to have such a thread because the fanzillas and fools are going to without cause, other than a difference of opinion, poster bash anyway, it's just a matter of time and it can happen in any thread.

sgtdraino

05-30-08, 10:39 PM

I will admit that I want Locke

Horndog!

So ... Locke was just hanging around in that coffin, hoping that Jack would break in and look at him? That would be even more stupid than Michael being the man on the boat. So you're probably right.

Both Widmore and Ben have demonstrated an amazing capacity for predicting the behavior of other people, possibly to the extent of actually knowing some version of future events.

The fact that Ben was there is already pretty solid proof that he knew what Jack would do.

sgtdraino

05-31-08, 08:30 AM

Okay, LMLMF, I have the beginnings of an idea, see what you think...

One theory currently circulating the board is that the funeral could be a setup engineered by Locke and Ben in order to get Jack on board, and that Locke was only made to appear dead via the use of the Medusa Spider.

We could make our desire to keep Locke alive known to TPTB using a toy spider as our calling card. We could start a letter writing campaign where people send in billions of toy spiders to TPTB, until they get the message.

Thoughts?

Incidentally, today (5/30) was John Locke's birthday.

AceOfDiamonds

05-31-08, 06:32 PM

I dunno. What if TPTB get all the spiders, and misinterpret it as a sign that the fans want Nikki and Paulo to rise from the dead?!?

I mean, ick.

silversurfer

06-05-08, 10:04 PM

sgtdraino

06-06-08, 04:22 AM

I don't want to do that, because then they'd change their minds because we had foreseen it and it wouldn't be a surprise that Locke was alive. Let's keep it quiet though, because elsewhere on the webs people think that Locke is really dead.

That is true, if we pushed a particular plot solution for Locke's dilemma, TPTB might be disinclined to use it, because it's already been predicted.

Perhaps a more general show of support, then?

We could all send in pamphlets advertizing an Austrailian walkabout. :)

silversurfer

06-07-08, 06:36 AM

Did anyone else feel like they weren't so sure about the show anymore when they saw Locke in the coffin?

lizzo

06-09-08, 04:35 PM

Yes, I felt that way too. I get this nagging feeling in the back of my brain every time a character dies that my attachment to said character was/is being used/abused in some way by TPTB, and that they are enjoying letting us down by killing them. I don't know how to explain it, exactly, but I don't like it.

AceOfDiamonds

06-10-08, 03:33 AM

In general, I percieve Lost as a show that relies far too much on character deaths, under the flawed presumption that killing off significant characters at unexpected moments somehow makes the show "unique." Well, not really: I could watch any number of horror movies with far greater casualty rates if death and destruction was what I was after. The other argument would be that the increased number of deaths makes the show "more realistic." Really? The entire show revolves around a mystical island that can prevent people from dying if it wants to, not to mention an island with polar bears and Dharma stations and whatnot. Couldn't you rely on more innovative ways to keep us in suspense than the tired trick of relying on character deaths every single season? Particularly when the entire premise around the show centers around characters who really shouldn't be so easily killed, anyway?

Used far more sparingly, the death trick would probably have a far greater impact. By now, it's reached the point where I expect significant characters to die every finale, or in every critical episode. The first season handled this better by essentially minimizing the death count: when Boone died, it was really something thought-provoking. Why did he die? Was it Locke or Jack's fault(s), or was it the island's will?
When Charlie sacrificed himself, on the other hand, he did so...in the attempt to rescue Claire and the others...only his sacrifice really only led the freighter-folk into annihiliating lots of redshirts and nearly killing everyone, and Claire didn't escape the island's clutches anyway. I mean, deaths on Lost no longer even have any deep meaning: Ana-Lucia and Libby's deaths were meaningless, Jin's death was meaningless, Eko's death was poorly written and came literally two episodes after Locke was instructed by the island to save him (what, so Smokey and Jacob could kill him off two days later? Was Jacob just really pissed that the polar bears would finish the job before Smokey would have his chance?) Shannon died before her character could even be remotely sympathetically developed, Michael's death was far too soon and before adequate redemption could even begin to happen, Mikhail survives having his brain fried by a security system but is killed by detonating an underwater grenade (you see, TPTB can't even provide a consistent standard as to what threshold causes death,) Danielle's death left way too many open plots unresolved and us yearning for a flashback we may never see, and Charlie died for all the wrong reasons attempting to save a woman who wasn't even saved at all.

And now Locke is in the coffin, again far too soon, as we never even got to see him reach his potential, fulfill his destiny, or actually be proven right (or even proven wrong.) His character receives no redemption. But look at that gigantic list of characters who were killed off in fundamentally unsatisfactory ways. Again, if you over-rely on death as a plot device, it becomes trite to the point where you no longer can truly care about the characters (lest they suddenly abandon you) and where only a select few characters (Jack, Sawyer, Kate) are actually written with any sense of expectation that we'll continue to see more of them. Deaths should happen on Lost, but on an island that can apparently prevent people from dying at will, you'd at least expect deaths to happen for a reason. Why wouldn't the island protect Charlie from dying (and prevent Charlie from needlessly sacrificing himself) if, in fact, the island had no interest whatsoever in having the freighter-folk show up and threaten to destroy it? If Jacob is a true "force for good," why not ensure that Locke's reputation as island mystic / island-lubber could be protected by ensuring that Boone survived? If Boone lived, wouldn't Locke's reputation among the Losties be higher to the extent that he'd have more success in convincing Jack and company to stay?

These are the kinds of questions that deaths on a show like this can't adequately resolve, so it really reinforces the perception that, for sheer shock value alone, and with no consideration for greater storytelling implications, TPTB choose characters they want to kill off and have them killed. And the funny irony is, it's no longer even shocking to see characters on Lost die: it'd be far *more* shocking to see a season in which everyone lived, but the stakes were just as high as always and the show remained every bit as engrossing.

EDIT: The more I think about it, the more I realize that what I'm really railing against is the notion on Lost that there's really no consistency or rules in regards to what does or does not lead to death on the show. Even in most horror movies, there's generally an understandable "system" by which you can logically determine why a character's action or inaction, thoughts or behaviors led them to die. A serial killer for example has a "system" or a "code" of behavior by which some die and others live. Even in real life, supposedly as unpredictable as can be imagined, we all have an inherent understanding as to what we "can do" and what we "can't do." (We can't survive falling great heights without a parachute. We can't survive bullets to the brain, but we can survive gunshots to our knees or our hands. We can't survive falling into a pit of molten lava, but we can survive a similar plunge into the ocean.)

Science fiction, fantasy, and horror stories often thrive off the concept that there's a supernatural entity (such as Jacob/Smokey/our Island) capable of rewriting the rules regarding what causes death. In these cases it's particularly important to lay down a fundamental groundwork as to why the aforementioned intelligent entity allows some to die and prevents others from dying. If Michael shoots himself but doesn't die, and if Flight 815 crashes and forty-eight survive, and if Mikhail suffers massive internal bleeding and doesn't die, but Boone isn't protected from falling a few stories in a plane and if Shannon dies from a simple gunwound, an explanation is warranted. Otherwise, there's no real explanation as to why some characters die in some circumstances and others don't: the situation is immensely contrived. And I really don't think TPTB are going to give us anything coherent: the island will always just be the island, and the show will simply kill off whenever it wants to or needs to. Which is sad, because again, on a show where the "rules" of dying are rewritten, it pays to have consistency. Otherwise it really seems as if the island (or Jacob, or Smokey, or whoever) really isn't an intelligent entity at all, but is simply a tool used by TPTB to control who dies and when they die in the most unrealistic, unnecessary and narratively deceiving way imaginable. It really undermines the integrity of the show's writing.