Friday, February 19, 2010

More Questions ... Or Answers? A Look at "The Substitute"

     First of all, thank you to all my readers who have harassed me for a blog.  I am honored.  Honestly, there is not much for me to say.  I am truly "lost" with this season.  But I mean that in a fun way.  This season has taken me for a very satisfying ride and we are only on the third episode.  Well, I think it's clear to say that "The Substitute" was the first episode of the season that we know will be considered a classic.  Events such as Ben revealing himself as the European History teacher, the young stigmata child saying, "You know the rules.  You can't kill him," and even Helen suggesting inviting Locke's father to their eloping were even more satisfying than Jack sitting on the plane next to Rose in the first moments of the season.  But as I've been thinking what I want to say in this blog, I've come up with some questions and possibly some concerns about what we are going to see in the last thirteen hours of Lost.
    
The Stigmata Child ...

    Perhaps I am being too hasty by calling him the "Stigmata Child," but after many years of Catholic School, I know a Christ Allusion when I see one.  Though it's worth noting that the blood is running down his arms and not coming out of his hands.  Perhaps the child is actually bleeding from the heart (literally and figuratively).  Many are saying that the child is a young Jacob, which is completely possible.  Though one can't help but think that might be coming out of left field (that's a lot to say about a show that has a character who becomes a puff of smoke).  Why would a young Jacob be on the island?  Consider this: Aaron was wanted by the others because he was "special."  Could it be that a version of Aaron (perhaps the one that will eventually reunite with his mother, the rifle-baring Claire) is wandering the island making warnings to the Man in Black (and Jacob I would assume).  It seems to me that this specter is acting as a referee between the two opponents.  But who exactly is the "him" that the child speaks of?  Is is the already killed Jacob?  Is it Sawyer?  Or is it the already deceased and "ripe" John Locke?  
 
Is Jacob Dead? ...
    Was it just me or did Ilana look more upset about the death of her "What Lies Beneath the Shadow of the Statue" companion that she did about the death of Jacob?  It is my suspicion that the death of Jacob happens quite often and is the actual source of the white ash this group of followers uses to protect themselves from the Man in Black.  I also noticed that Ben doesn't even flinch when he watches her take the ashes.  To the naked eye, it seems that even Ben is out of the loop lately, but I am started to think more of our ambiguous friend.  Not to mention, he is a history teacher now ... those people are smart!
 
The Flight ... 1
    Are we sure that the flight we saw Jack and Rose on is the same flight that we saw Locke and Boone on?  What about Claire?  It has been noticed by many that Claire's sonogram contained the date October 22, 2004, one month after the date of Flight 815.  Blooper?  No way!  The producers would never let that happen.  First I considered the possibility that the flight in the "non-island" world took off a month later.  But then Helen (portrayed beautifully by Katey Sagal) mentions to Locke that their wedding is coming up in October.  Assuming the producers would not blow something so important, I am going to go out on a limb (at the risk of falling off) and say that Claire and Locke were on two different flights.  Could the same be said for some of our other castaways?  We know that Kate and Claire were on the same flight.  We know Kate and Jack were on the same flight.  We know Charlie and Sayid were on the same flight with Jack.  But did we see Locke with anyone but Boone?  Also, it has been reported that Shannon will be returning to the series.  Perhaps she is on the same flight as Claire, Jack, Rose, Kate, and the rest of the gang, following her brother one month later.  One more note: If Rose works for Hugo and they were on the same flight, wouldn't they have said hello or something?  Not if they were on a completely different flight one month apart!
 
     There is so much going on.  We have Kate helping Claire after kidnapping Claire (I think there is a lot of symbolism in Claire giving Kate her credit card - talk about identity theft!!).  We have Sayid coming back to life but being affected by something.  We have Richard's confrontation with the Man in Black.  What is it that he wants from Richard?  Also, we are one step closer to finding out what the hell those damn numbers mean ... or did we take two steps back?  We'll soon find out!

 


notes



1 It's worth noting that after some comments and further thought, there probably was only one flight.  A comment was made that the date on Claire's sonagram was most likely her due date.  That's a possibility.  I'm still wondering ...

Wednesday, February 3, 2010

"Look's Like We Made It ..."

 

    "It's okay.  We made it."

    "Looks like we made it."

    Occurring in the first minute of the Season Six Premiere in a conversation between Jack and Rose, these lines may be the key to the entire season - and the entire series.  The creators have introduced what seemed like alternate realities.  But is that what they are?  I'd rather not think of it so simply (despite the complexity of alternate realities).  But are they flash forwards?  Flashbacks?  Flash anything?  Notice that our normal sound initiating a flash did not occur last night.  The sound was different.  If we are dealing with alternate realities, perhaps we can call these "Flash-sideways.1"  But again, I don't want to think of them as alternate, because that implies that one of them is not real.  They are both definitely real!

    The writers seem to be giving us a "What if?" look at the series.  Science Fiction often asks the question "What if?" concerning an aspect of humanity.  In an egotistical sense, the show is not asking about life, but asking about the series itself.  What if Oceanic 815 never crashed?  What if they "made it"?  Apparently, the castaways' lives would have merged together anyway.  We are left with so many bonding relationships in the premiere episode.  Jack meets Locke and offers to save him (I must admit, it had never occurred to me that Jack is a spinal surgeon and Locke broke his spinal cord - DUH!).  Kate meets Claire and "steals" her (and Aaron).  Sayid and Jack save Charlie's life - who is "supposed to die."

    The big question of the season will be how these two realities will come together - if they ever do.  According to Juliet (our tragic figure), the plan "worked."  She must know something.  I want to point out that she says something to Sawyer about meeting for coffee.  How much do you want to bet that somewhere along the way, the Sawyer who never got to the island meets Juliet at Starbucks at some point?  Juliet knows something.  She feels it.  Or she knows it.  Perhaps the group that is on the island in 2007 is actually the same group that did NOT crash in Oceanic 815.  Did they ever say that's how they landed?  No.  Maybe this group that landed safely will eventually get to the island in another fashion and will find themselves in the situation we are seeing on the island.

    It was not a shocking revelation to us when the "Man in Black" revealed he was the Smoke Monster.  Though Ben's realization of it was a great moment!  Go back now and watch all the moments where Smokey had influence.  Ask yourself why?  Why did he kill Eko?  Why did he kill the pilot in the pilot (ha)?  Could that pilot have gotten them home safely, so the MIB felt the need to kill him?  Does Lapidis not have the same talent for saving his passengers?

    I always love to look closely at the BOMP!  Last night's BOMP did not come to me as a surprise, but the symbolism behind it is fascinating.  Sayid was baptised and then rose from the dead.  I seem to remember someone doing that at some point.  I'm not sure.  I went to Catholic School for thirteen years, so maybe my information is a little scrambled.  The writers have given us characters like "Christian Shephard" and "Jacob," but none of us thought that the Middle-Eastern man would be the Christ Figure?  Again ... DUH!  I expect we will see more Christ-like action coming from our resurrected torturer.

    So many things to look at and there will be more viewing of the two-hour episode before next week.  For right now, I've asked a lot of questions and I hope to answer them with more theories as we get further into the season.  What a great start!  I can't wait to continue! 
    

notes



1 For the record, I came up with this term BEFORE reading any other analyses of this episode.  So, suck it, Darlton!

Sunday, December 6, 2009

Holiday Favorites

 

    As the holiday season approaches, I like to enjoy the art of film.  I have always loved movies, but Christmas lends itself to some classic cinema.  While Hollywood keeps pushing out "Holiday Movies," I think it's safe to say that most of us enjoy the old classics.  Just recently, I went with my family to see Disney's A Christmas Carol on the IMAX screen in Atlantic City.  Marketed as Disney's first A Christmas Carol, (which is not true ... remember Mickey's?) Jim Carrey portrays the infamous miser as well as multiple other roles, including the three specters that are sent to salvage what is left of his heart (which is three hundred sizes too small).  Gary Oldman is a highlight as Bob Crachit and The Ghost of Jacob Marley.  The movie was excellent and deserved all the praise it has received from the critics.  My mother exclaimed, "That was the best version I've ever seen."  Well, with all due respect, I would not give it that distinction, but I would argue it's the best in a few years.  After enjoying the IMAX experience, I was inspired to write about some of my favorite holiday movies and suggest them to my readers.

    

Scrooged (1988, starring Bill Murray)

    Richard Donner (director of the original 1978 Superman film) takes the reigns of this modern adaptation.  One of my favorites, it follows Frank Cross, a shrewd television executive who cares more about being on top than taking part in the Christmas Festivities.  In an attempt at meta-theatricality, he also happens to be in the middle of producing a live television broadcast of Scrooge, starring Buddy Hacket (who actually appears in the film).  Joined by his love interest, played by Karen Allen, Murray brings the story to the 20th century and is hilarious along the way.  Besides the great comic moments, such as Murray being hit repeatedly by Carol Kane (as the Ghost of Christmas Present), Donner accomplishes the hard task of giving the slap-stick comedy the sentimental ending it needs.  Does it pull at the heart strings in the end?  Absolutely!  But it's exactly what the Spirits of Christmas call for!  Rent this film right away!  Side note: Notice an appearance by John Glover (Smallville, Roundabout's Waiting for Godot) as Murray's adversary and Kathy Kinney (Mimi on The Drew Carey Show) as a bit part of the Nurse. 

 

National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation (1989, starring Chevy Chase)

    Recently, I brought this film up to my father-in-law, who replied, "I've never actually seen the whole thing ... it's just silly slapstick!"  Well, Bah-Humbug to you, too, Dad!  This film, starring Chevy Chase once again as Clark Griswald, combines the terror of the visiting family with the tending of the ... visiting family.  Possibly the best of the "Vacation" movies, this one makes us laugh constantly and reminds us that families are not perfect.  It also makes us appreciate everything that our parents did for us during the holidays while we sat back and took it all for granted.  I suggest turning on TBS right now because it's probably on!  Laugh, laugh again, and then laugh harder!  I'll get my father-in-law to agree eventually.

 

A Christmas Carol (1984, starring George C. Scott)

    Forgive me, but George C. Scott is hands down the best Ebenezer Scrooge of all time.  Sorry, Mr. Sim, you were wonderful, but your movie is long and drawn out (and sometimes you're too creepy to look at).  This 1984 version (actually made for television) depicts the classic, Dickensian skinflint we all grow to adore.  It also gets to the point quickly.  With a running of time of 100 minutes, this is the perfect version to sit and watch after Christmas Eve dinner.  You can get into the true spirit of Christmas and still be in bed before Santa arrives.

 

It's A Wonderful Life (1946, starring Jimmy Stewart)

     Frank Capra had no interest in creating a "Christmas" movie.  It just so happens that his everyman tale takes place during the holidays.  Actually, the majority takes place during the life of it's protagonist, George Bailey, and only in the final half hour do we see Bedford Falls decorated for the holidays.  When the movie was first being advertised, it was marketed as a romance film between it's leading man and Donna Reed.  Audiences were pleasantly surprised to find a story that everyone could relate to and enjoy on a personal level.  Probably one of the most quotable movies of all time, it's become a staple during the holiday season.  In fact, until NBC purchased the rights, the movie could be found on television practically every hour from Thanksgivings to New Years Day.  Amazingly, there are still people I talk to who say, "I've never seen the whole thing!"  There is no reason for that!  I order you to go out and watch it from beginning to end, and I challenge you not to tear up when George is proclaimed to be "the richest man in town!"

 

 Dr. Seuss' How the Grinch Stole Christmas (1966)

    While I give Jim Carrey at lot of credit for his portrayal of the green goblin in 2000, no one can argue that it's the stronger version.  With a running time of a meager twenty-six minutes, the original story is by far the superior.  Brilliantly narrated by Boris Karloff, this animated classic touches the heart of all who view it.  After we watch him steal everything from the families in Whoville, we still sympathize with the lovable ogre as he tries his damnedest to stop his sleigh from crashing into the morning celebration!  What other movie convinces its audience to change their view so quickly?  As fast as the Grinch falls in love with Christmas, we fall in love with the Grinch!  Watch and feel your heart grow three sizes!

 

    No matter what your traditions are, take some time to cuddle up with a cup of tea, hot apple cider, or hot chocolate and enjoy yourself!  Christmas may not be about gifts, but that doesn't mean you can't give yourself the gift of getting lost in a beautiful holiday film!  Merry Christmas to all!   

Thursday, October 29, 2009

More Religion on LOST ...

 

    I feel terrible!  I have not been writing nearly enough about LOST.  That does not mean I am not watching.  Bonnie and I are almost done with the second season (remember the Hatch?).  We are still discussing and debating the idea that John Locke has actually been the "Man in Black" from the beginning.  Sometimes that theory works beautifully and other times not.  While usually I would dismiss a theory for its inconsistency, one should not do that with LOST.  Bonnie has suggested that in the third episode, when John Locke meets Smokey, is the "Man in Black" enters him, thus using Locke as a vessel throughout the show that he can enter and exit as he pleases.  This would explain why sometimes Locke is very "Man in Black"-ish and other times he is not.


    But this posting is not about that.  I've often discussed the correlations between religion and LOST.  By now, it's easy to assume that the writers are using religion as a basis for many plot points, yet we still don't know what they mean.  108?  Jacob and Esau?  What else?  Recently we viewed the episode entitled "S.O.S."  In this often-forgotten episode, the flashback is about Rose and Bernard (the first guest stars to get flashbacks).  In this episode, we discover that Rose was diagnosed with cancer not too long after she meets, and is courted by, Bernard.  After their marriage, Bernard takes her to Australia to see a "Faith Healer" named Isaac.  Isaac fully admits that he is unable to heal Rose, though Rose decides to tell Bernard that he was successful, hoping Bernard's constant worrying will cease.  Of course, on their way out of Australia, they crash on the island, where all diseases are "cured," such as Locke's need for a wheelchair. 


    The name “Isaac” appears approximately eighty times in the King James Bible.  Isaac is the son of 100-year-old Abraham, who is destined to not to have children until God blesses him and his wife, Sarah, with a son.  God then asks Abraham to sacrifice young Isaac to show his devotion.  Eventually, God changes his request to a minor circumcision, the first on record.  So why name a Faith Healer “Isaac”?  The connection is not as strong as some of the others in the show, but, in the Bible, Isaac bares two sons: Jacob and Esau. 


    Let’s assume for a little while that the “Man in Black” is Esau.  According to the story, Isaac goes blind due to old age but before he dies, is supposed to bless the eldest son with the blessing he received from his father, who received it from God.  Esau, jealous of big brother Jacob, pretends to be Jacob by gluing hair on his arm (apparently Jacob was quite hairy).  This naturally begins a battle between the two brothers, much like the battle between Cain and Abel (see my Cain & Abel / Locke & Ben theory on this blog). 


    If the writers are following the Bible as a guide, we may find out that Isaac the Faith Healer is the father of Jacob and the “Man in Black.”  It would seem that, like in the Bible, Jacob is the favorite son and Esau hates him for it (“Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated” Malachi 1:2-4).  It could be that while Jacob is the one responsible for sending the Oceanic Six to the island, it is his father, Isaac, sending the others.  It stands to reason that if Isaac had healed Rose, she may have wanted to stay in Australia longer, therefore avoiding the fated Oceanic Flight 815. 


     Before we know it, we’ll be heading into Season Six!  Another topic that needs to be discussed is the titles to the first few episodes of Season Six.  We’ll get to that soon … For now, tune into ABCs new hit, FlashForward.  It’s terrific for any LOST fan!  I’m sure I’ll be commenting on it in The Correct Opinion soon.


 


Tuesday, August 18, 2009

A Look Back at John Locke

 

    At the conclusion of LOST's fifth season, we learned about a certain "Man in Black" (let's call him Esau) who appears to be the adversary of the mystical Jacob.  This character made a clear threat to Jacob that he will try to kill him at some point.  Jacob did not seem concerned until he was being killed by Ben, who was being guided by Esau disguised as John Locke.  We also learned that the John Locke of season five was actually dead, and we were watching Esau pretending to be John Locke in order to fool Ben into following him.  Wow!  That was confusing!  Nevertheless, we need to take a second and answer a question: Why was John Locke chosen by Esau?  Why not Jack?  Sawyer?  To investigate means to watch the series from the beginning; it will also gear me up for the final season, beginning in January 2010. 

 

    Only three episodes into the series, it's interesting to look closely at Locke.  While Jack is trying to save Kate's U.S. Marshall and Sayid is playing with blocked radio frequencies, Locke is busy observing.  Call this a hypothesis, rather than a theory.  What if Locke died on the plane?  What if Locke has never been "Locke"?  What if he is Esau?  While there might be many holes in the hypothesis, there is evidence as well.  We know that Locke's flashback's will reveal that he was crippled by his father's window push and somehow began walking on the island.  But is this actually possible?  Or is it Esau walking on the island?  Further, we must remember that the flashbacks are not memories.  They are flashbacks that provide information.  We learn information about John Locke off the island.  This is not proof that the John Locke "on the island" experienced any of those events.  Further, in the Locke flashbacks, have we ever seen evidence that this wheel-chair-bound man would know how to kill a wild boar?  No.  But Esau, who has been on the island for centuries, would.

 

John Locke

 

    In the first three episodes, John Locke observes the other islanders trying to survive.  After helping Jack move victims in the first few moments of the series, John Locke does nothing to help others until he finally finds Vincent - Walt's dog - by creating a dog whistle.  Before this, he does have a very interesting exchange with the young boy about the game of backgammon.  Not only does he talk about how the ancient game is over 5000 years old (how old would Esau be?), but he also points out the battle between the white and black pawns.  On the surface, this appears to be something of a race reference since Walt is African American, but it could also refer to Jacob (who was wearing white at the top of season five's finale) and the "man in black." 

 


 

    One must also point out the unusual ending of episode three, entitled "Tabula Rasa."  We hear the song "Washed Away" coming out of Hurley's earphones as we see the first acts of kindness and community of the island.  Boone (oh, remember Boone?) gives Shannon (OH, remember Shannon?) a pair of repaired sunglasses, Sayid gives Sawyer a piece of fruit, and Michael brings Walt his dog (found by Locke).  Locke does not do anything but watch.  There is definitely a creepy feeling emulating from the still-mysterious Locke as he watches the father and son finally communicate.  Though the "bomp" is more calming that what we will get used to in the series run.  Could it be that Esau, our "man in black" is watching his plan form?  If so, is that the secret "miracle" he tells Walt about and not the fact that he could not walk before crashing on the island?  If the miracle is their arrival on the island, that would explain Locke's insistence that they remain on the island.  It should also be mentioned that the title "Tabula Rasa" refers to a theory by the philosopher John Locke.  Simply, it states that we are born blank.  We have the freedom to be the author's of our own souls.  It is actually Jack who makes the reference to the theory when he tells Kate that he believe they should all "start over" since they are not on the island.  Perhaps Esau agrees.

 

    After more episodes, many of these thoughts might be proven wrong.  That is my new project.  I will look closely at Locke and write as frequently as possible about whether or not John Locke might actually be Esau, the "Man In Black" the entire series!

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

Though a Slow Start, Hung has Potential

 
    HBO has been known to give us some "out there" shows.  Some, such as Six Feel Under have proved to be great, award-winning shows.  Others, such as The Comeback, have proved to ... you know ... not be.  Anyway, like its lead character Ray Drecker, HBO's newest half-hour comedy Hung started off slow but definitely shows great potential to be the next big thing on HBO.  The plot is quite simple: History teacher / basketball coach Ray Drecker needs money so that he can have custody of his two distant teenagers.  To leave the kids with their beauty queen mother (played by Anne Heche) and her rich, successful husband would be terrible!  So with the help of his "motivational class"-mate Tonya, Ray finds away to use his "best tool" to his advantage; Ray becomes a gigolo.  Tonya, a past one (two)-night stand, acts as his pimp. 

 

    HBO's 45-minute pilot received some poor reviews.  As usual for HBO series, the show focused merely on exposition with very little action.  As always, viewers were a little doubtful of whether or not this was the show for them.  For those of us that stuck around for episode two, we were disappointed to see there was simply more exposition.  What viewers forget is that if you go back and watch all the favorite HBO series' pilots, exposition has always been the focus.  Go watch the pilot of The Sopranos or Sex and the City and tell me what actually happens.  But after three episodes, like it's predecessors, this series has shown true promise to be entertaining, even if it simply takes The Full Monty a small step further. 

 

    As individuals, the cast is strong.  Some work might need to be done on getting them to work on the same plane.  Anne Heche, while a talented actress, seems unsure as to what role the ex-wife is really going to play.  Is she a friend or foe?  The writers seem to be more interested in her relationship with the troubled teenagers (who are more troubled in the parents' eyes than in reality) that she does with her ex-husband.  The best part about Heche on screen are her loud-mouth mother and new husband Ronnie, played brilliantly by Eddie Jemison of Ocean's Eleven.  Hopefully, the writer's will give her character more motivation and direction.

 

    While the character of Lenore is a great start, the shows needs to bring more women for Ray to share his "gift" with.  Starting off with such an attractive woman like Rebecca Creskoff was too easy for Ray.  Was it really that difficult to be with such a woman?  If the show wants an audience to believe there are actually trials and tribulations to being a male prostitute, it better give us some women that we believe are hard to fornicate with.  Lenore has promised more clients to come, but it's doubtful that Lenore is friends with many upper-class, ugly chicks. 

 

    With all that said, this show is written really well and it's two leads Thomas Jane and Jane Adams are a lot of fun together.  While the sexual tension between them is acknowledged from the start, the subtext of the romantic tension is subtle and terrific.  Hopefully the writers will fine tune a few of the relationships and get us more involved in the comedic side of the situation.  With that said, don't give up on this show!  The next few episodes may prove that this show is not meant to be hung out to dry. 

Thursday, May 14, 2009

We Finally Meet Jacob ...

 

    So the Producers of LOST finally allowed us to meet the mysterious Jacob and now we have more questions than ever!  Who is this guy?  Why are we not meeting him until now?  Why did he agree to see John Locke and not Ben?  Was he really meeting with Richard Alpert all those times?  Why did he want these people on the island?  Is he really dead?  What does it mean if he is dead?  My head hurts!

    Like past season finales of LOST, season five seemed to not end a story, but begin a new one.  While the entirety of Season Five dealt with science, mainly physics and time travel, this two-hour episode entered with full force, the world of religion.  While Jack has been slowly becoming a man of faith, Faraday has contrasted him with the question of whether or not we can change the past.  The appearance of Jacob completely changed the theme of the season.  While Jack continued the mission that Daniel Faraday started, the producers revealed how the power of Jacob has influenced the islanders for many years previous to their arrival.  This was all concluded with Ben's angry rant about being denied divinity after being so faithful.  Like many believers of God, Ben breaks down and questions how someone so powerful and so good can do so many bad things and still expect people to be have faith. 

    Ben's questioning of Jacob, the god of the island, was not the only religious theme of the show.  Ben made it quite obvious that Locke was acting like Moses, leading his people to the Promised Land.  It was a great moment when he said that, making it easy for anyone who was confused!  We also had the surprise appearance of Bernard and Rose (and Vincent).  Their short, but adorable, scene questioned people's belief about life.  While many people would agree with Sawyer and think they are crazy for living out in the jungle, it made so much sense when Rose and Bernard looked at it as a beautiful retirement.  After all is said and done, who really cares?  Death is inevitable.  One might say that Bernard and Rose have hit the nail on the head!  Now that they have figured out the secret to happiness, it seems even more likely that these two (being the first to figure it out) will eventually be the "Adam and Eve" skeletons that are discovered earlier in the series.  The atomic blast most likely will be the cause, leaving them to be found almost thirty years later.

    The biggest question is, surprisingly, not about Jacob.  It's about the other gentlemen who was with him at the beginning of the episode.  The man said that he wanted to kill Jacob and that someday he would find a "loophole."  Eventually, he does find a loophole by disguising himself as the deceased Locke and having Ben Linus do Jacob in.  This answers the question about why John Locke just "knew" things about the island.  But who is this guy?  If Jacob is the god of the island, is this guy Satan?  It looks like Season Six is going to be about the ultimate battle between good and evil.  It's not looking too good for the good side since it seems that Jacob was killed as soon as we met him.  But why are we assuming that Jacob is good?  LOST has fooled us before in thinking the obvious is true.  Perhaps Jacob was actually the "Satan" of the island and this "new guy" represent God.  Those questions will surely be answered in Season Six, when we explore the religious side of the island.  We will probably also see this man (Esau, perhaps? ... to cite Jacob's Biblical enemy brother) take the shape of other characters.  Most likely, we have already seen him take the form of Alex, Ben's daughter.  I was wrong.  It wasn't Smokey.  But I was right, something was taking the form of dead people.  Does this mean Christian Shephard is also NOT walking around the island?  Further, is it only dead people?  Even further, is it only dead people?  Can the people be alive?  Can it be other creatures such as the black stallion that Kate was so enthralled with in "What Kate Did" of Season Two?  Could Esau be SMOKEY?  My head is hurting more and more!

 

    While all of that is well and good, there is still the issue with the nuclear explosion.  Juliet's desperate attempt to stop Kate and Sawyer from being together was extreme, but will be the catalyst for the top of the final season.  What does this explosion mean for the islanders?  Will this mean that Flight 815 will not land?  Despite my past theory that if the flight does not land, there is no way for them to actually cause the explosion, there is another scenario.  If the theme of the next season is fate and destiny, then it's their destiny to show up on the island one way or another.  With this thought in mind, here is my theory: Ajira flight 316 will still crash on the island in 2007.  Nothing is preventing this crash from occurring.  Somehow our travellers (even the ones who died previously) will end up on that flight.  When it crashes, the people will find themselves in the exact same predicament as in Season One, but they will not know this has already happened to them even though the audience will.  Talk about dramatic irony!

    It will most likely be Richard that has to explain what has happened to them.  Locke and Jack will still battle out the science and fate war while Sawyer attempts to sleep with as many passengers as he can, finally falling for Kate ... or Juliet, who will be with the "Others."  No matter what happens, the door is open for so many possibilities since we now have a man who can take the form of dead (and living?) people.  Also, if this all happens, Jacob will also still be alive if and when flight 316 lands. 

    It's been an amazing season.  Here's looking forward to the sixth and finale season (especially episode 108).   Let's all relax for a bit and then spend the next few months coming up with more theories and predictions.  I am sure I am not the only one planning on putting all the previous episodes on my NetFlix queue and reliving the adventure!  One thing is for sure, we can thank the writers, cast, and crew for a season well-done!