I believe the name of the book was “Bad Twin”.
Look for it at you’re local bookstore in May. Only $21.95 in hardcover from Hyperion.
[sub]OK Lost writers. You owe me one.[/sub]
“The Bad Twin”. It’s a book being published to test the theory that Lost fans will buy anything.
Well, I for one love Charlie’s turn - very “Paradise Lost” IMHO. . .
By Gary Troup, which anagrams to Purgatory.
::Sigh:: :rolleyes:
It’s crap like that blatant tie-in that will sink the show.
Yep, that’s what I saw too.
WE’VE HAD BACK TO BACK BAD EPISODES FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE SERIES!
I agree with middleman’s views. But I understand why Ethilrist and others disagree. In my opinion the show is making a very familiar morph (Xfiles/Alias…etc) from a scientific based mystery to a character-conflict mystery. Too much of this character vs character theme and not enough solve-the-mystery-of-the-monster stuff which I so dearly enjoy. I lost interest in xfiles when it went from chasing aliens and monsters to FBI conspiracy plots. I fear the same thing is happening here.
That said, I still want to know why Sawyer jumped into the passenger side of the car, did a 1 Mississippi-2 count, and then went back in for the money. Why didn’t he just walk out immediatly with the cash and drive off?
No one has brought up the most egregious and irritating “convenient plot” point.
Sawyer says “Jack is coming for the gun” and what does Locke do? Change the combo? “No, that would just slow him down, Jack would get in eventually” - wtf?
It’s a safe. A big, steel doored safe. What is Jack going to do, kick the door down?
Sawyer’s entire plan was based on the idea that Locke would have exactly that implausible reaction, otherwise Locke would’ve just changed the combo and the con ends there. (Unless Sawyer knocks him out when he opens the door).
Just way too implausible.
I may be misremembering, but I think he came back in to pick up the money after he went out to the car. So the time line looks like:
Tearful farewell as the cutie takes off with the fake money.
Sawyer walks out to confront his partner and likely dies as a result; he’s not carrying the money so if she hides in the bushes and watches for a minute, she won’t realize the con is still on. That she didn’t step around the corner and check the money is evidence of just how good Sawyer is at this…
Cutie heads for the horizon.
A short time later, Sawyer walks into the house and picks up the money.
And I could have sworn that most of the first season had four- or five-episode uninterrupted blocks…
Remember that “evil twins” theory of explaining the island going around a while back that someone wrote up and claimed it to be an insider spoiler?
I sure hope that manuscript wasn’t related to that because it was lame as all hell.
Also, I was right on with my “charlie sure is a selfish dick” rants of earlier threads.
So Sawyer is the “new sherriff”…to what end? Just so he can get back at Jack, just so Charlie can get back at Locke?
All of these plot convolutions are starting to get messy. More and more it seems like the writers are just padding out the series with these soap-opera-esque subplots.
OK. I was only speculating as to why Jack still had the key around his neck. Why would he keep those guns locked in the case inside the vault with a gazillion unlocked guns???
Next week… Rouseau. Can’t wait for that!
Not for me. I don’t agree with your assertion that this was a bad episode.
I liked it, too. If folks are going to require the story line to be advanced in order to declare an episode “good”, then their watching for the wrong reasons. The writers have consisted said that the show is primarily about the characters. This show was all about the characters, and especially about Sawyer, of course.
Now, I like a good story line advancement as much as the next guy, but you might as well stop watching if all you want is mystery solving episodes. It ain’t gonna happen, Hoss.
I think we have to take into account that some of the character’s “out of character” behavior may be a result of the sickness described by Rouseau. Sawyer’s gambit to be the new “sheriff” in town didn’t take long-term consequences into account, nor did Michael’s leaving the group. Charlie (evidenced last week) is obviously having similar problems.
Can anyone quote Rouseau’s comments on the sickness? I think she mentioned something about her group succumbing to treachery, which we are starting to see with our Losties. I’m looking forward to a Danielle flashback, and hope we get one soon.
As for Locke hiding the guns as opposed to changing the combo. John knows Jack would just work on getting around the door, but he won’t go off into the jungle alone searching for them. Jack believes remaining with t he group is important to their survival. I’m also sure he wouldn’t resort to hurting Locke to get the location in light of how poor the results of torturing Sawyer were. I’m sure that made sense to Locke, who knows his way around the jungle.
I think a satisfying structure would be to present mysteries and then after a few weeks solve them, giving viewers greater satisfaction, but in a way that leads to deeper mysteries and so forth and so on until the end when the larger picture is revealed. Sort of a parallel to life, or so many believe.
I never said I didn’t like it because it did not advance the mythology. I didn’t like it it wasn’t interesting (to me) and the twists seemed contrived. I don’t mind if they want to focus on the characters, but I want to focus to be compelling television.
I was not compelled or entertained in the last two episodes and that is cause for concern for me. YMMV.
However, blondebear sums up my fears exactly:
I thought Locke looked a bit suspicious at Sawyer’s suggestion to change the combination. Loke may not have trusted Sawyer’s motives maybe thinking he would somehow get the combo, too. I took that as just another manipulation by Sawyer. As for Kate suggesting he warn Locke, I think he knew she would want to warn Locke to move the guns BUT she would want to stay and keep her eyes on Jack and AL. Yeah, it is a reach but aren’t con-men supposed to be good judges of people’s characters and potential reactions? Apparently his whole con of that woman was based on her not falling for his original con and wanting to join him in his other cons.
I’ve been saying all along that Rousseau’s comments in the the season 1 episode “Solitary” are key:
When he brought the case to the vault, he also definitely took the key off his neck and hung it on a hook, in the vault as well.
Good point – this is definitely a possibility as to why a few of them seem to be reverting to the extreme “bad” parts of their own personalities.
Sawyer’s actions are not completely out of character for him – after all, he’s spent a lot of his life pulling cons on people and doing whatever the hell he wants to do, with little regard for others. But on the flip side, he has been blending in a little better, and Kate has really been digging him – which makes us all wonder why he would want to sabotage it. But then, he’s also doesn’t seem to be thinking completely rationally about the whole “stash” bit. I mean, why wouldn’t Jack divvy up the contents of his stash after he left on the raft – in Sawyer’s mind, he wasn’t coming back – the whole point was to leave the island and find a rescue ship. Why would he expect his stash to be intact when nobody thought he would be coming back, at least without rescue teams from civilization?
The “sickness” first mentioned back in episode 1.8 – I’m quite sure we’ll be seeing more about it (or more OF it) in the future.