Entertainment
 

Talk:I Do

From Lostpedia

Contents

Kevin?

It sounds like a Kate flashback (especially since the marshal is involved) yet in the guest cast list in the infobox, "Kevin" is hyperlinked to Sarah Shephard's first fiancee, played by a different actor. Someone want to remove that link until a separate page is created for this new Kevin? Joelvanatta 05:37, 24 October 2006 (PDT)

Is anyone else RIDICULOUSLY excited for Nathan Fillion?--BrightStars1212 05:39, 25 October 2006 (PDT)

Oh yeah - Malcolm Reynolds on Lost!  :) --Pedxing 10:14, 2 November 2006 (PST)

This morning KROQ, radio station here in L.A., had Jorge Garcia on and he said that tomorrow's ep is Jack-centric. Just throwin' it out there... --CrystalSkull 08:32, 7 November 2006 (PST)

The episode itself might be centered around Jack but when we talk about the episode being "centric" we refer to the flashback, which is definitely, definitely Kate-centric. -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  08:39, 7 November 2006 (PST)
Well Kevin and Bean asked whose flashbacks we'd be seeing and Jorge replied "Jack". And seeing as how it's yet to be confirmed, I don't think we should be making any assumptions yet. --CrystalSkull 07:47, 8 November 2006 (PST)
Yet another great example of why we wait for official confirmation of flashbacks... --   Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 21:27, 8 November 2006 (PST)

Didn't it feel like just another episode?

What gives? I expected more after they hyped up this "FALL SEASON FINALE"...Just seemed like another Lost-isode. btw, someone sign up Nathan for to become a Season Regular...he is amazing. lax01

I agree, it was a let down, not because it was a bad episode, but because of its placement, it was not cool until the last 10 minutes, whereas it should have been cool throughout. --Turniphead Danny 20:17, 8 November 2006 (PST)

Ditto. The flashbacks were disappointing, not really revealing much. So Kate has feelings for Sawyer and didnt run as usual. Maybe she didn't know that she couldn't swim off the island, but wouldn't she and Sawyer at least try? It seems out of character for either of them to accept defeat that easily. Lostbutnotforgotten

Well, I would say that the flashbacks were done and used really well. You show this woman, Kate, manipulating and lying to her husband to be, and then in the present she is trying to get Sawyer to get her a fish biscut. Then, as time goes on, she cannot handle the pressure of lying, and falls apart. Simillarly, on the island she falls apart. I think if you look at the juxtaposition of the flashbacks in relation to what they show how Kate is on the island, it provides inside into her, makes her more interesting.--Turniphead Danny 21:04, 8 November 2006 (PST)

I agree the flashbacks were disappointing... It felt like it was unnecessary. I feel like I am getting tired with the flashback nowadays, although some of them are excellent. As for the idea of Kate and Sawyer swimming across the ocean to the Main Island sounds virtually impossible since there are rip tides and strong currents. --    Nusentinsaino     talk    contribs    email  

Disappointing, I thought this was gonna be one of the best episodes, way over hyped, and wasn't a seconday character gonna die?...


I totally agree. This was about as basic as it gets. The Flashbacks have lost all their interest for me. Sawyer's one was basic and told us nothing we didn't already know and made no difference to what we know of his character. Kate's was worse!

We know she said she was married and had had previous experience of pregnancy tests... and thats all we got.. bland and basic. The first seasons reveals were interesting.. these new ones add nothing at all.. don't test what we know.. just reinforce it.

Sun and Jin's seemed to be universally lauded as mundane and Jack's was hard to watch coz of the pain he was in and made for interesting but unresolved watching.

Locke's was surprisingly simplistic too, as was Eko's, but for some reason they were very entertaining. I think its because Locke and Eko are such strong characters and we want to know how they got to be who they are.

All in all the main story is suffering from a painful slowness that could be avoided without the dragging out of unnecessary back stories and as people have said.. these 6 shows were not a 'mini series' as promised.. they were 3 subplots for the 3 main factions of Losties and made the who thing so jumpy and gives us too much to focus on.

It's sad because its like a slow down.. not a failure.. just a ponderous weighting down of what has been a roller coaster ride.

--MRNasher

Totally Thought They were Going to Shoot Sawyer

I thought they were going to shoot Sawyer, and then make it all: Jack, you can save Sawyer as soon as you stitch up Ben. --Turniphead Danny 20:48, 8 November 2006 (PST)

Um...

Where's the "Explosive Ending"? Where's the Second Lost Experience? weren't both of these things promised to us?--NotARedHerring 20:39, 8 November 2006 (PST)

  • 1. Second Lost Experience? Promised? No. I sure as hell hoped for it though.
  • 2. explosive ending. Yeah, what the hell? Why no explosive ending
    • Yeah even one or two explosions would've been cool. Maybe the explosive budget was cut
      • You mean you thought "explosive" was meant literally? --Amberjet11 08:38, 9 November 2006 (PST)
Or even figuratively. That was suspenseful, but no where near explosive...--NotARedHerring 14:21, 9 November 2006 (PST)
I got the sense that the writers overestimated how much people care whether Ben lives or dies. At this point, I really wouldn't blame Jack for picking up a bone saw and going to work on the rest of the others too. Now that would have been an explosive ending! -BearDog 14:26, 9 November 2006 (PST)
  • Yeah, least informative flahback since Every Man For Himself, no deaths, and the most predictable plot thus far. Good thing we get weekly sneak-peaks though, eh?--MightyRearranger 10:05, 10 November 2006 (PST)
  • Anybody have any idea when those mini-web/phone-episodes are set to begin? We may not have been promised another TLE, but we were totally promised those. --Frankie Viturello 08:46, 11 November 2006 (PST)

Did anyone see that "Shat-tastic" Commercial?

Shat-tastic!

Oh my god, that was hilarious. Shat-tastic!

Did anyone else see just that single line after a segment of The Nine? Which randomly replaced a bunch of commercials?--NotARedHerring 21:39, 8 November 2006 (PST)

Hehe, yeah it looks interesting! :D --Wattage 22:15, 8 November 2006 (PST)
I didn't watch The Nine, what was it?

Yeah, I saw it. I can see the reviews now..."Network takes shat on viewers with new game show." --   Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 22:41, 8 November 2006 (PST)

And what the hell is up with that military officer holding a [his?] kid? Perhaps he's connected to the Hanso Foundation and the kid is a life extention program...oh, wait, we're talking about a commercial...I was about to say that Shatner was "him"...nevermind. --Frankie Viturello 08:44, 11 November 2006 (PST)

uncut version?

We had some nice b00bies in this episode. For anyone here who likes the actor I guess, do you think the DVD version will have the Sawyer scene with kate uncut? --Wattage 22:14, 8 November 2006 (PST)

No. Also, boobies is not spelled with two zeroes. Don't be afraid to use letters. --Turniphead Danny 22:18, 8 November 2006 (PST)

  • And also, how juvinile is the word "boobies" anyway. Jeez. You'll have better luck seeing some for real if you use words like "breasts".
  • What exactly would you be expecting in an "uncut" version anyway? This is a TV show, not a porn movie.

I'd pay extra for an extended unrated cut....Kate sure did have a lot of sex in the last episode hehe lax01

  • Besides it being very unlikely to happen on a network TV show DVD set, the actress has gone on record to voice her preference not to do nude scenes. --Jackdavinci 22:06, 14 November 2006 (PST)
  • I really don't care about your ethics, go debate ethics on usenet. We're talking about b00bs here brah. --Wattage 14:59, 10 January 2007 (PST)
  • ...This is a family drama on ABC. I'm assuming you're just some immature 7 rear-old who, after watching this episode, realizes that "ZOMG KATE'S B00B1ES WERE SH0WZ1NG!!1!1!!!eleventyone11!." So, at any rate, you need to get a life. :: |†|[ K i t s u n e ]|†|

Preview for 3x07

Link - Nothing much in it, don't discuss it here though, I'm just providing a link since we don't have a page for the next episode. -Chris[dt7] 02:15, 9 November 2006 (PST)

Transcript

From when Juliet tells Kate to put the hood on to take Kate to Jack (take from the Closed Captioning):

Danny: I don't understand. It's supposed to be two weeks.
Juliet: Our schedule's been moved up.
Danny: What. Is that an order?
Juliet: It's coming from him.
Danny: That's stupid.
Juliet: It's not my call. That's the way it is Danny.

--scojo 02:48, 9 November 2006 (PST)


Observations

Mr Friendly and Pickett are not "in" with Juliet's desire to see Ben dead.

Kate fails to inform Jack that the are on a smaller island and a one hour head start won't get them anywhere.

  • If Kate is as intelligent as her character seems to be, she may have realized that the only way they could have gotten to the smaller island was on a boat (they certainly didn't swim there), and is already planning on demanding that the Others take her and Sawyer back to the main island.

Alex is able to get into the rock quarry to talk to Kate unobserved a day or two prior, but triggers an alarm when she storms in in this episode.

Pickett holds his wife's death against Saywer, but not Kate or Jack, even though all three were totally uninvolved with her death...although it could be argued that Jack might not have done all he could to save her, and thus should be more of a target of Pickett's anger than Sawyer.--ASEO 06:57, 9 November 2006 (PST)

  • Didn't Alex also say something similar to what Walt said - "Don't believe anything" or some such? Walt was referring to the mock-up encampment. Was Alex referring to the stuff around the Hydra?
    • She said, "Don't believe anything they tell you. They'll kill your boyfriend like they killed mine." This was directed at Kate. I'm assuming she's saying they killed Karl. As for what she was referring to, I believe she was telling Kate, don't believe them when they say they won't kill Sawyer if you cooperate, because they'll kill him anyway, as they did my boyfriend.

Ben

Ben had X-rays and tests one week earlier. Wasn't he being held captive inside the Swan one week earlier? --Burt Gummer

Not necessarily. Remember Michael set him loose before he rounded up Jack, Kate, Hurley, and Sawyer. Once he hightailed it back to the Others, a little medical attention would have been warranted after the beatings he caught. That time frame could be legit, and might also help us to know how long Jack, Kate, and Sawyer have been at the Hydra. -BearDog 15:07, 9 November 2006 (PST)

As Ben prepares for surgery, he makes the comment "see you on the other side" -- we see an awkward look from both Jack and Juliet. I wonder if this raises Jack's suspicion that Ben somehow knows about what Juliet asked Jack to do? Ben asks about whether Alex asked for him (she did) -- then we see him lowering his head, almost as if he were at peace expecting not to wake up --maxximase

  • I think the "see you on the other side" (as listed in the themes section of this episode) is more of a re-occurring quotation that the writers like to use...I mean, it does has significant meaning each time it's used,and I'm sure that Ben was eluding to something along the lines of what you're saying, but this is the third time we've heard it in 3 seasons...once per season (Season 1 - Anthony Cooper, Season 2 - Dave, Season 3 - Ben) It's totally a life/death themed statement. --Frankie Viturello 08:42, 11 November 2006 (PST)

Jack

Before surgery, Jack had an opportunity to demand answers. Where are they? How to get home? Who are the others? What is Dharma? Why kidnap people? Why, Why Why? But Jack did not demand such answers. Now that Jack has given himself an hour to fix Ben, he should also demand the same answers.

Yeah, I still am amazed at how un-curious the Losties are about their situation --Doc 07:57, 10 November 2006 (PST)

They aren't uncurious. The writers just need to keep us in the dark for at least another few years :)

haha no love for Captain Tightpants here??

Seriously, wasn't Nathan incredible? --lax01

  • There wasn't nearly enough of him. Particularly in the hotel room sequence! And I was a little creeped out that Kate was on a first-name basis with Edward Mars already. He's like Javert to her Valjean. --Amberjet11 09:10, 9 November 2006 (PST)

No nickname?

I thought it was funny that Kate told Sawyer she'd seen Jack -- she actually repeated this twice -- and he didn't come up with any cute nicknames. He must really have been despondent! --Amberjet11 09:09, 9 November 2006 (PST)

I'll bet he had a few float through his head, just not ones to repeat in mixed company! ;) -BearDog 14:20, 9 November 2006 (PST)

Jacks Story?

I am very confused at what Kate is suppose to say when she is "safe". Can anyone clarify this...I tryed scanning the First couple of episode synopsis but I can't see it...and I don't have the DVD up here at the moment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ScottHarrison (talk • contribs) .

Here is Jacks line from the Transcript

JACK: Well, fear's sort of an odd thing. When I was in residency my first solo procedure was a spinal surgery on a 16 year old kid, a girl. And at the end, after 13 hours, I was closing her up and I, I accidentally ripped her dural sac, shredded the base of the spine where all the nerves come together, membrane as thin as tissue. And so it ripped open and the nerves just spilled out of her like angel hair pasta, spinal fluid flowing out of her and I: and the terror was just so crazy. So real. And I knew I had to deal with it. (He's crying). So I just made a choice. I'd let the fear in, let it take over, let it do its thing, but only for 5 seconds, that's all I was going to give it. So I started to count, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Then it was gone. I went back to work, sewed her up and she was fine.

CCTV Monitors

  • Did anyone investigated what was on the monitors in the Hydra CCTV room? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Taboracek (talk • contribs) .
    • Looks like the usual, Jack's room, cages, walkways. -- Paladine<c.t> 21:19, 9 November 2006 (PST)

Jack vs. Sawyer -- separate page?

Since the Jack vs. Sawyer feud has been ongoing since the first season, I was wondering if it would warrant its own page. The Economics page has some elements of their feud, but I was thinking to expand it into a comprehensive study. What do you guys think? Worth it? --Amberjet11 09:50, 10 November 2006 (PST)

It might be interesting to do one about Rivalries, in general. Certainly the Jack Sawyer one would cover most of the article, but there's good stuff from the second season between Charlie and Locke too. The Jin/Michael rivalry from the first season was fun to watch too, even though it's already resolved. -BearDog 10:03, 10 November 2006 (PST)
I'd like to start it next week...but I'll wait to hear from some other people if it's worth it. This could very well be the first page ever started by me! So we've already got Jack vs. Sawyer, Charlie vs. Locke, Jin vs. Michael...but there's also Jack vs. Locke and Sawyer vs. Hurley (the latter of which was more comical, the former more dramatic and kind of whiny -- hence Ana Lucia's comment that "Jack and Locke are busy worrying about Locke and Jack"). Would Kate vs. Edward Mars qualify as a rivalry/feud?  :-D --Amberjet11 10:16, 10 November 2006 (PST)
Heck yeah it qualifies! Plus Hurley/Jin (remember the urchin?), Ben/Juliet, Pickett/Sawyer, Sawyer/Sayid (Everybody seems to hate Sawyer, don't they?), Losties/Tailies, maybe even Losties/Others if we can keep it brief! I think it's a good idea! -BearDog 10:28, 10 November 2006 (PST)
Oh, I forgot about Sawyer/Sayid! We can do Sayid/Ben as well, and Danielle/Others, Ana Lucia/Losties...oh, and should we include flashback feuds/conflicts/rivalries, or would that be too much? --Amberjet11 10:30, 10 November 2006 (PST)
Okay, I started the Rivalries page -- an outline for it, anyway. --Amberjet11 10:46, 10 November 2006 (PST)


Kill Bill / Point Of No Return??

Yes, we know you like those movies, but come on, do they really have ANY REAL CULTURAL CONNECTION to LOST? No, of course they don't (except for Michael Bowen being in Kill Bill Volume 1, and your reference doesn't even deal with that) There are LITERALLY THOUSANDS of movies that deal with the subject of marital infidelity and/or men and women's inability to maintain a healthy married relationship...those two hardly seem appropriate or have any real connection. --Frankie Viturello 07:47, 16 November 2006 (PST)

  • Yeah, I agree with this, Frankie. I think a cultural reference should have more irrefutable evidence than just sharing a common theme, since Lost shares a lot of general common themes with a lot of pop movies, that's why it reverberates with audiences so much. But the "woman on the run/relationship problems" idea is used in a ton of thrillers, just checking Hitchcock's filmography alone hits a bunch. I was considering moving that one line to theories myself, and might end up doing that. --PandoraX 07:56, 16 November 2006 (PST)
  • It's not just the theme of marital infidelity and/or relationship problems. It's specifically about female murderers/fugitives being unable to form healthy relationships. Did you even see those movies? If you have, you would understand the reference. Beatrix Kiddo (aka The Bride) goes into hiding as Arlene when she finds out she's pregnant, giving up her career as a deadly assassin. She's set to marry her boyfriend Tommy Plympton when Bill puts the hit out on her. As Bill explains: 
  I'm calling you a killer. A natural born killer. You always have been, 
  and you always will be. Moving to El Paso, working in a used record 
  store, goin' to the movies with Tommy, clipping coupons. That's you, 
  trying to disguise yourself as a worker bee. That's you tryin' to blend 
  in with the hive. But you're not a worker bee. You're a renegade killer 
  bee. And no matter how much beer you drank or barbecue you ate or how 
  fat your a-- got, nothing in the world would ever change that.
  • Maggie/Nina is a criminal and drug addict sentenced to death for killing a police officer, but after the "lethal injection" she wakes up to begin training as a government assassin. She takes another alias, Claudia, and tries to live a normal life. But we see, for example, that she can't even go grocery shopping like a normal person, filling her cart with cans of ravioli because she sees a woman taking one or two of them (reminiscent of Kate and "taco night"). She gets a boyfriend, J.P., and falls in love, but cannot tell him her secret or open up to him emotionally. In one heartbreaking scene, she and J.P. go to Mardi Gras, and in the hotel room, she goes into the bathroom and finds a rifle in the bathtub (to be used to assassinate one of the revellers outside). J.P. declares his love for her outside the door and proposes marriage, not knowing why she won't answer him. She can't marry J.P., she can't escape her life as an assassin (unless she fakes her death again), and she can never really allow herself to fall in love. --Amberjet11 08:03, 16 November 2006 (PST)
  • Hmmm... I don't know about this one. When you think about it, the list of movies about characters who can't escape their pasts is huge. I don't know if shared themes is enough to merit mention in the article. I might push for direct references in the Cultural References section.-BearDog 17:54, 16 November 2006 (PST)
  • But how long is the list of films specifically for women who can't escape their criminal pasts and therefore can't fully commit to romantic relationships? I can only think of those two. There are plenty that fall into "can't escape their past," or "romantic commitment issues," but not many fall into both. --Amberjet11 08:09, 17 November 2006 (PST)
  • To answer the question posed directly above, I can think of about 10 off the top of my head; Hitchcock movies alone use this motif quite often (and in fact, movies such as Marnie are a lot more similar plot-wise to Kate's background). KB is not a direct reference. It is one of many stories that shares plot similarities and themes. As mentioned elsewhere in this section, if we got carried away listing them all, the list would be endless. --PandoraX 12:11, 21 December 2006 (PST)
  • Regarding Kill Bill Kiddo wanted to leave because of her love for her unborn child, not Bill or some other guy. The fact that she met some other guy is incidental, and her inability to 'escape' wasn't because she couldn't continue to stay on the run for fear of being caught but because she sought revenge for her attempted murder and the (as far as she knew at the time) death of her unborn child. There was no romantic commitment issue at all in KB, other than the love for and desire to be with her child. --Camper 08:39, 17 November 2006 (PST)
  • In KB it wasn't so much why she left, it was more about her attempt to marry Tommy Plympton. I can't find the exact quote, but the gist is that Bill asked her if she really thought it would work out, and she said, "No, but I would have tried." Kate's marriage to Kevin reminded me of that, strongly, not to mention Kiddo's explanation that she couldn't be pregnant AND an assassin (remember when Kate was yelling about the pregnancy test to Kevin?). --Amberjet11 09:00, 17 November 2006 (PST)
  • My only hang-up about putting them in the references section, is neither of those movies is directly referenced. It's unfortunate, but anytime there's a woman on-screen, hollywood will give her a relationship problem. La Femme Nikita and Alias are also both examples. There's probably about 15 Lifetime MOW's about a middle aged woman who did something in the 60's and the FBI finally catches up. In both Kill Bill and Point of No Return, the protagonists aren't fugitives. They're assassins. So we're already generalizing back one category to "criminals". Rather than list every movie that ever shared a theme with the episode, I strongly believe that we should limit Cultural References to direct references, and discuss thematic correlations in separate comparison/contrast articles, or in the individual Character's Theory pages. -BearDog 10:16, 17 November 2006 (PST)

More detail needed in part of synop

The whyole thing with Pickett heading to the cages and "Jacob's list" is missing from the synopsis. I know it happened as the usrgery began but I can't remember the sequence exactly. Can someone fix that? --Jeff 22:08, 11 April 2007 (PDT)

Retrieved from "http://lostpedia.wikia.com/wiki/Talk:I_Do"