[QUOTE=Tyrrell McAllister]
That is a very common style of dialogue, and it annoys me to no end
[/QUOTE]
Me and my friends all talk like this lol, but I admit that to someone on the outside it would seem confusing or annoying. We wouldn’t use our stylized speaking style and catchphrases on strangers. We also tend to talk very similar to the dialogue style on Buffy.
The thing that really gets me though is the way that they speak on 7th Heaven. It’s some weird, unique style of speaking that is nothing like real life. But all the characters speak that way so it must be either intentional or just the product of the particular style of the writing staff. For the life of me though, I can’t figure out how to describe or duplicate it. It doesn’t annoy me though, I find it oddly fascinating and even strangely comforting.
[QUOTE=Draelin]
I honestly don’t know if this will add or subtract to your theory, but we have evidence of one other child actually being born on the island–Alex. Danielle was pregnant when she first arrived on the island.
[/QUOTE]
Right, yes, forgot about her. But she was a she. I’m also not 100% convinced that the Sheera Alex is Danielle’s Alex. At least not yet.
the whole time travel idea really brings into focus the Losties flashbacks. We always assumed it was just a way to get to the know the Losties… but what if the whole time the writers were trying to tell us… “hey, the whole island deals with going back in time, idiots!”
[QUOTE=wasson]
I read an interview with one of the producers who says that was a key scene of high importance, and by the end of the series we’ll know exactly why those 2 dead people were there, why they had the stones, and we’ll understand that the producers always knew what the “end” of the story would be.
[/QUOTE]
Not sure I remember the stones. Was this the “adam and eve” dead people found in the cave? Or is this two other dead people that I don’t recall at the moment?
[QUOTE=Dob]
the whole time travel idea really brings into focus the Losties flashbacks. We always assumed it was just a way to get to the know the Losties… but what if the whole time the writers were trying to tell us.. “hey, the whole island deals with going back in time, idiots!”
Cant wait for next week!
[/QUOTE]
In the Entertainment Weekly interview last week the producers said that this weeks flashback would be different than it was done before and never will again. This was a one shot deal.
[QUOTE=wasson]
I read an interview with one of the producers who says that was a key scene of high importance, and by the end of the series we’ll know exactly why those 2 dead people were there, why they had the stones, and we’ll understand that the producers always knew what the “end” of the story would be.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=jackdavinci]
Me and my friends all talk like this lol, but I admit that to someone on the outside it would seem confusing or annoying. We wouldn’t use our stylized speaking style and catchphrases on strangers. We also tend to talk very similar to the dialogue style on Buffy.
The thing that really gets me though is the way that they speak on 7th Heaven. It’s some weird, unique style of speaking that is nothing like real life. But all the characters speak that way so it must be either intentional or just the product of the particular style of the writing staff. For the life of me though, I can’t figure out how to describe or duplicate it. It doesn’t annoy me though, I find it oddly fascinating and even strangely comforting.
[/QUOTE]
Not to continue the hijack, but I just wanted to be clear that I wasn’t criticizing “talking in catch phrases”. To continue with the Garden State example, there’s nothing wrong with Portman’s character and her mom having some cute shorthand they use with each other. What was wrong was Portman’s character thinking she could use that shorthand with others without filling them in on what it meant. There’s nothing remarkable about you and your friends using a stylized speaking style, provided that you are all familiar with the conventions of that style. I’m assuming that you don’t, for example, use jargon like “in it” in the course of serious conversation unless you can reasonably expect that your friends will know what you mean.
One more season would be plenty. Just wrap it up. It’s already gotten so complex that most veiwers can’t remember some detail from two years ago that is suppose to mean something today.
What’ll probably happen is it’ll be unceremoniously cancelled with no resolution, which I’m sure would be a relief to the writers.
Then, people with too much time on their hands would write dreadful ‘fan-fiction’ wrapping it all up. Shudder.
Then onward to the next time-wasting, flash-in-the-pan, artistically bankrupt, take the money and run phenomenon that is the essence of American televison.
Here’s what still bothers me: if Desmond was shot back in time by the turning of the key, if it wasn’t merely a psychological state, i.e., his life “flashing before his eyes,” if time travel is a capability the Dharma Initiative folk are perfecting (and I’m intrigued by this idea as postulated by some of the folks here). . . why would he have been knocked “back” by something as seemingly innocuous as another blow to the head (cricket mallet)?
Unless you postulate that this is a wrinkle the DI’ers haven’t ironed out yet. “We’re gonna send you back in time now, Des. . . by the way, try to protect the noodle.”
However, I hate hate hate stories that rely on magical fate fairies to drive the plot. Someone brought up the Terminator movies, and that’s an interesting comparison. The first two were cool stories, I thought. At least consistent and mostly logical in how they handled time travel. The third one, however, story-wise, was absolute garbage, because it relied on magical fate fairies - that there’s some intelligent, unimaginably complex force working to influence the universe in incredibly complex and subtle ways to achieve a certain result.
[/QUOTE]
I disagree (about fate fairies in T3, not that it sucked). The way I see it is that the time travel paradox is the fairie. If you throw out parallel universes and whatnot, as soon as the Terminator went back in time, we know a couple of things can’t happen:
-John Conner can’t die
-Judgement Day can’t be prevented
it’s like looking at a snapshot of an object in orbit around the moon. You know what it’s path was a few hours ago. Whatever happened, it must get to where it is in the snapshot. Same with the Terminator movies. No matter what they do, at some point some big robot is coming back in time to kick ass because..well…he’s there.
However, I hate hate hate stories that rely on magical fate fairies to drive the plot. Someone brought up the Terminator movies, and that’s an interesting comparison. The first two were cool stories, I thought. At least consistent and mostly logical in how they handled time travel. The third one, however, story-wise, was absolute garbage, because it relied on magical fate fairies - that there’s some intelligent, unimaginably complex force working to influence the universe in incredibly complex and subtle ways to achieve a certain result.
[/QUOTE]
I disagree (about fate fairies in T3, not that it sucked). The way I see it is that the time travel paradox is the fairie. If you throw out parallel universes and whatnot, as soon as the Terminator went back in time, we know a couple of things can’t happen:
-John Conner can’t die
-Judgement Day can’t be prevented
it’s like looking at a snapshot of an object in orbit around the moon. You know what it’s path was a few hours ago. Whatever happened, it must get to where it is in the snapshot. Same with the Terminator movies. No matter what they do, at some point some big robot is coming back in time to kick ass because..well…he’s there.
[QUOTE=Scott O.]
Here’s what still bothers me: if Desmond was shot back in time by the turning of the key, if it wasn’t merely a psychological state, i.e., his life “flashing before his eyes,” if time travel is a capability the Dharma Initiative folk are perfecting (and I’m intrigued by this idea as postulated by some of the folks here). . . why would he have been knocked “back” by something as seemingly innocuous as another blow to the head (cricket mallet)?
[/QUOTE]
They cut to the naked scene after he got hit. But things may have happened to him in between they just didn’t show it.
[QUOTE=bouv]
I guess I’m the only one who wasn’t a fan. I was expecting answers, and yet again, just got more questions.
[/QUOTE]
You’re not the only one. This episode was a waste of time. Boring beyond belief. I wanted to see the plot advanced, instead we see a damn dream sequence. The only thing we find out is Charlie may die. BFD, his character hasn’t advanced since season one.
Nextweek, looks hopeful. But don’t forget, this show is notorious for showing previews that have absolutely nothing to do with the actual episode.
[QUOTE=Wile E]
The glaring discrepancy in this episode that bothered me the most, that no one else has mentioned, is that a scotman knew nothing about whiskey.
[/QUOTE]
That’ll be 'cos the Scots drink whisky Did you also notice the American “misspeling” of “honour” in the recruitment notice and the use of napkins rather than beer mats in the pub ? :smack:
So, What if the jewelry store clerk really was a figment of Desmond’s subconscious? It’s his subconscious telling him not to interfere with what happens in the future. Then the only proof of preordained destiny is Charlie was saved twice by Desmond, hardly irrefutable proof that you can’t change what was supposed to happen.
I agree that they should be wrapping up some major plot elements. If viewership allows them to continue, there are plenty of opportunities to come up with new mysteries.
Did you also notice the American “misspeling” of “honour” in the recruitment notice and the use of napkins rather than beer mats in the pub ? :smack: