Lost 3.17: "Catch-22"

Cafe Society
201

[QUOTE=Peter Morris]
She didn’t. The Helicopter flew over the island, and stalled. The pilot bailed out. The helicopter carried on for a way, and crashed out to sea.
[/QUOTE]

I like that, except:

1.) Our losties heard the copter coming in over the water… they didnt hear it go overhead. (they heard it off in the distance in front of them over the water, quiet then getting louder, not coming from over them louder than getting quieter)

2.) the pretty red lights (beacons on the pilot?) came from in front of them and disappeared behind them.

3.) While a fixed wing craft could certainly glide for awhile with a stalled engine, AFAIK, a copter would fall like a rock in a similar situation… (not vertical, but close enough)

202

It’s funny… I thought this thread was supposed to be a discussion of this week’s episode. :smiley:

–FCOD

203

[QUOTE=Loach]
If you want to use the 6th or 7th definition of con you can twist it to mean any kind of dishonesty. To use the very specific term con men, not even close. A con man, or confidence man is someone who runs a confidence scheme on someone. Someone who often uses the victims own greed to defraud them out of their money. Sawyer is a conman. Nikki and Paulo are murderers and thieves. All of them are criminals but not the same type of criminal. It’s like saying a bank robber, an embezzler and a blackmailer are all con men.
[/QUOTE]
Another good example of a con man is that father who conned his son out of a kidney and later conned a rich widow until his son caught up with him. If I could only remember what show that was.

Of course, you’d have to use those twisted dictionary definitions of “con” for those to apply.

204

[QUOTE=randwill]
Another good example of a con man is that father who conned his son out of a kidney and later conned a rich widow until his son caught up with him. If I could only remember what show that was.

Of course, you’d have to use those twisted dictionary definitions of “con” for those to apply.
[/QUOTE]

How about you create a “Lost is nothing but a crappy show about cons” thread and you can do your shitting in there?

Then, those of us who don’t want your crap cluttering the actual show threads can avoid having to deal with your whines?

-Joe

205

I think it really would be a good idea to have a separate thread for complaining about the show. I used to enjoy reading the weekly “Lost” threads, but lately they are so full of sarcasm and contempt that they aren’t much fun to read.

206

[QUOTE=randwill]
Another good example of a con man is that father who conned his son out of a kidney and later conned a rich widow until his son caught up with him. If I could only remember what show that was.

Of course, you’d have to use those twisted dictionary definitions of “con” for those to apply.
[/QUOTE]

Uh, no. You wouldn’t. Loach never claimed that Anthony Cooper was not a “confidence man” in the traditional sense of the term. He used his son’s desire to know his long lost father to pull the kidney con. He was using the rich widow’s desire to have a happy relationship with a man to con her out of money.

And YES, the general notion of deception / manipulation / (and yes, even official con-artistry) IS one of the major themes of the show. It’s intended as one of the major themes of the show, tying together or relating many of the experiences of the main characters.

SO WHAT?

Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to the latest 24 thread to complain about how too many of those episodes involve some sort of terrorist threat or danger to one of Jack Bauer’s loved ones. I mean, I hate terrorist threats and danger to loved ones – why can’t they do something else? But I love the show, so of course I’m going to keep watching 24…

207

[QUOTE=simster]
2.) the pretty red lights (beacons on the pilot?) came from in front of them and disappeared behind them.
[/QUOTE]

Right – the lights appeared after the chopper (or whatever it was) crashed into the water. And they appeared over the ocean, from the same general direction. Would have to be the parachuting pilot, wouldn’t it?

Maybe the pilot started steering the descent towards land (so as not to descend out over the ocean), and then lost consciousness during the descent? Okay, maybe it’s stretching, but either that – or she had really bad aim, or the winds were so strong that they prevented her from landing on the beach.

So, what does everybody think will be the next attempt Death makes on Charlie? So far, Desmond has helped him escape:

  • lightning
  • drowning (to save Claire)
  • hitting his head on a rock and drowning (to get the bird for Claire)
  • spear to the throat, from Danielle’s death trap

With all these death traps of Danielle’s around the jungle, it’s a wonder more Lostaways haven’t been hurt by them. And in Jack and Kate’s case, it just got them “caught in a net”.

208

[QUOTE=Merijeek]
How about you create a “Lost is nothing but a crappy show about cons” thread and you can do your shitting in there?

Then, those of us who don’t want your crap cluttering the actual show threads can avoid having to deal with your whines?

-Joe
[/QUOTE]
Seconded.

209

[QUOTE=Merijeek]
How about you create a “Lost is nothing but a crappy show about cons” thread and you can do your shitting in there?

Then, those of us who don’t want your crap cluttering the actual show threads can avoid having to deal with your whines?

-Joe
[/QUOTE]
Yes please!!!

–FCOD

210

Great.

Now, maybe you guys can come in and do the same when BSG starts up and people spend dozens of posts about how it suxxors…

-Joe

211

[QUOTE=Monstre]

So, what does everybody think will be the next attempt Death makes on Charlie? So far, Desmond has helped him escape:

  • lightning
  • drowning (to save Claire)
  • hitting his head on a rock and drowning (to get the bird for Claire)
  • spear to the throat, from Danielle’s death trap

[/QUOTE]

Spontaneous combustion would be sweet! See is ol’ Des can figure out how to avoid that one!

212

[QUOTE=ZipperJJ]
Spontaneous combustion would be sweet! See is ol’ Des can figure out how to avoid that one!
[/QUOTE]

“The only way we can put the fire out is to smother it with baseball bats, brotha.”

-Joe

213

[QUOTE=pinkfreud]
I think it really would be a good idea to have a separate thread for complaining about the show. I used to enjoy reading the weekly “Lost” threads, but lately they are so full of sarcasm and contempt that they aren’t much fun to read.
[/QUOTE]
Really? So you’d be in favor of censoring all negative comments about the show in these threads? And be left with giggling fanboys/girls talking about how hunky Sawyer is and how hot Kate is and that this is the greatest show in the history of television, ect?

214

[QUOTE=Monstre]
And YES, the general notion of deception / manipulation / (and yes, even official con-artistry) IS one of the major themes of the show.
[/QUOTE]

Isn’t it also one of the major themes in life? We’re all manipulating to our own end.

215

[QUOTE=randwill]
Really? So you’d be in favor of censoring all negative comments about the show in these threads? And be left with giggling fanboys/girls talking about how hunky Sawyer is and how hot Kate is and that this is the greatest show in the history of television, ect?
[/QUOTE]
How about a compromise? Post original negative comments in this thread, but start a new thread to complain about the same inane crap week after week.

–FCOD

216

[QUOTE=Loach]
If you want to use the 6th or 7th definition of con you can twist it to mean any kind of dishonesty. To use the very specific term con men, not even close. A con man, or confidence man is someone who runs a confidence scheme on someone. Someone who often uses the victims own greed to defraud them out of their money. Sawyer is a conman. Nikki and Paulo are murderers and thieves. All of them are criminals but not the same type of criminal. It’s like saying a bank robber, an embezzler and a blackmailer are all con men.
[/QUOTE]
You said it, not me. I’d say that a bank robber who holds a gun to a teller and demands money is not being very deceptive. An embezzler cooks the books. And a blackmailer isn’t deceiving you; he’s got something on you and wants money not to spill the beans.

Nikki and Paulo were deceptive and had to gain the confidence of the television producer in order to murder him and steal from him. I know it’s not the definition that Mike gives to Margaret in “House of Games”, but I believe it is fair to say that Nikki and Paulo conned the guy. You don’t have to twist the dictionary definition to make that fit.

217

[QUOTE=simster]

3.) While a fixed wing craft could certainly glide for awhile with a stalled engine, AFAIK, a copter would fall like a rock in a similar situation… (not vertical, but close enough)
[/QUOTE]

Helicopters auto-rotate, which is similar to gliding in a way.
The passage of air over the blades while falling forces the blades to spin - generating a little lift. Not enough to fly, but enough to slow the fall, move forward, and give the pilot some control.

But I guess, unless it was really high, you’d have to bail out before you had auto-rotated a significant distance. What the actual glide distance would be on an auto-rotation, I don’t know. It’s more likely the parachute glided.

In a way, Nikki and Paolo were con men. At least a case could be made. It’s not as if they cornered him in a dark alley and murdered him. Nikki had to gain his trust and fake being in love with him for possibly a long time. Paolo had to work to be his cook. It was closer to a Sawyer-style con than a back alley murder.

[QUOTE=randwill]
Really? So you’d be in favor of censoring all negative comments about the show in these threads? And be left with giggling fanboys/girls talking about how hunky Sawyer is and how hot Kate is and that this is the greatest show in the history of television, ect?
[/QUOTE]

No one is trying to force censorship on anything. They’re asking you to be decent enough to stop ruining their time in these threads.

I’m a person who has in this thread defended the reasonableness of your being irritated on the show, and yet I generally agree with them - you come to these threads to spoil the fun, whatever your reasons for being spurned, and it contributes nothing. You should either be original/episode specific critic and not a predictable box of annoying with your posts, or take them to another thread. It’s not censorship, it’s asking you to do the decent thing.

For what it’s worth, I’ve been extremely dissapointed with this show at times, and when people have asked me about it, I urged them not to start watching. I’ve also shared a lot of criticism of the show and writers on these threads. But no one, as far as I’m aware, has ever accused me of thread shitting, because I don’t come into these threads with the sole purpose of having an axe to grind and spoiling everyone’s fun.

218

The problem is, randwill, your ranting isn’t very clever. It’s the same shit week after week and, while everyone’s been doing a great job ignoring your repetitive nonsense for a long time, enough is enough. It’s not even really threadshitting, it’s more like threadfarting. Like you can’t even work up the effort to say something you haven’t said every week since the beginning of the season.

219

My original comment, at the top of the thread, was just intended as a little snarky fun since it’s a foregone conclusion that any episode of “Lost” will contain at least one instance of somebody conning (in a broad sense) somebody else. In another thread somebody provided this link to a comprehensive list of all the “Lost” deceptions and cons: Deceptions and cons | Lostpedia | Fandom.

The snarkiness of my OP is a result of my frustration over what I see as an opportunity to present a compelling science fiction and/or fantasy mystery show squandered and turned into a mundane “who does Kate really love?” soap opera . . . with a smoke monster. Not that I don’t like good character drama. But since nothing anyone says or does can be taken at face value, my interest in the characters has waned. I feel like the writers have fallen back on the “whose zoomin’ who” thing too often. Since that seems to satisfy the majority of the posters here and the larger viewing audience (ratings are, indeed, up) I realize that I’m in the minority.

220

Wait a minute! I just had a realization!

Desmond was in the Royal Scot’s Guard? Does that mean he wore a kilt! Oh my … swoons

Why are we assuming that the parachutist was the helicopter pilot? Doesn’t it seem more likely that there were two people on the copter? Unless they knew the copter would not make it back out, but if that’s the case how do they propose to rescue Desmond?