LOST

[Hurin]

WTF? Why all this talk of Jacob killing the MIB, the MIB being dead, and/or the smoke monster assuming the (dead) MIB's form?

This is a television show. . . with carefully chosen dialog in order to convey meaning under tight time constraints. So dialog is used as economically as possible. In other words. . . people say things for a reason. . .

Jacob asked if the light would kill him. His mother said outright "no," but it would make him "worse" than dead. And judging by the effect it had as soon as the MIB fell into it, that would seem to have been borne out.

Ergo, the light did not kill the MIB. So the MIB didn't simply die and his form is not just being "used" by the smoke monster. The smoke monster is the MIB transformed into his pure essence. . . distilled malevolence (as Jacob put it a few episodes ago).

So, unless you're saying that Jacob killed the MIB only in the most clinical terms (heart stopped beating). . . it's pretty clear that the MIB is still on the island, can assume a corporal form, and is able to interact directly with the world and other people. . . ie, he's still alive.

Edited May 13, 2010 by Hurin

[jenius]

Hurin you kill me. "He's not dead! I want to argue semantics!!!" The show's a wee bit convoluted for all that. The guy has a corpse... it's okay to say he died. If you prefer to think of him as a butterfly, and his corpse is just the remnants of his cocoon, and he did not die but elevated to some other plane... that's cool too.

[Hurin]

Hurin you kill me. "He's not dead! I want to argue semantics!!!" The show's a wee bit convoluted for all that. The guy has a corpse... it's okay to say he died. If you prefer to think of him as a butterfly, and his corpse is just the remnants of his cocoon, and he did not die but elevated to some other plane... that's cool too.

Sigh. . .

It's not arguing semantics. But since you're obviously confused, you're attempting to convey it as such rather than acknowledging that the writers themselves could spend a week with you explaining everything and you'd still come onto these forums and wonder aloud why Ben Linus was allowed to be a teacher after all the terrible things he did on the island.

I suppose in the next episode we'll see MIB reborn in some fashion.

What part of him (alive) falling into the light and the smoke monster emerging from the light a moment later did you fail to comprehend as being the MIB already bing "reborn." Why are you waiting for a scene that already happened?

I don't get all the "you can't come back from being dead" stuff... except for the guy who keeps coming back from being dead.

So again, you think he died (repeatedly?). Where exactly did he die? You are aware that Locke is not the MIB and the MIB is not Locke, right? Locke did die. And he hasn't come back. So, how has the MIB (or Locke, even) "kept coming back from the dead?" This isn't arguing semantics. You're just confused and being a douche about it when someone points it out.

When a character with some authority says: "the light won't kill you". . . tells you that it will transform you into something evil. . . and then the person shoving you into it tells you that he's not killing you. . . and then you fall into it and emerge transformed into a black pillar of smoke. . . guess f'ing what, you didn't die.

Is he stuck in some sort of purgatory because Jacob was under a spell that kept him from killing his brother but he went ahead and killed his brother anyway?

Again, using the word "kill." Despite the writers going out of their way via several means to make it very, very clear that Jacob did not kill him. And, of course, there's that whole thing about him not being able to kill him even if he had intended to do so.

Now, I'm willing to allow for the slight chance that the writers could --after the fact-- throw in some nonsense and muddy this up a bit. And you might miraculously fall butt-backwards into some semblance of being bizarrely vindicated. But if that occurs, it'll be through pure luck and arbitrarily introduced plot twists designed as "gotchas" for the audience who was actually, ya know, paying attention and understanding the clear meaning of the dialog as delivered. It won't be because you actually demonstrated that you have an unmuddled thought rolling around in that head of yours.

Hurin you kill me. "He's not dead! I want to argue semantics!!!" The show's a wee bit convoluted for all that. The guy has a corpse... it's okay to say he died.

So back to this. This is bs and you know it. You're crying "semantics" rather than just admitting that you aren't very good at figuring out what the writers are (pretty clearly) trying to tell you. Aside from bizarrely looking forward to seeing the MIB "reborn" in a future scene despite it already having been rendered unnecessary/redundant (the light in the cave already having transformed him into smokey, obviating the need for a "rebirth"), you said that Jacob killed him and puzzled over how he could then be allowed to come back to life (yet again!?!). This despite every effort on the part of the writers (via their carefully designed scenes and dialog) to stop someone like you from ever needing to wonder this by making it (they futilely hoped!) clear that Jacob did not kill the MIB and that the MIB did not die. So, stop being a douche just because you can't figure out the meaning behind directly delivered dialog. You claim the story is "convoluted". . . it is. . . but not the parts that apparently have you so baffled.

You can't wonder aloud about how the writers are contradicting themselves and then cry "semantics" when someone points out that not only are they not contradicting themselves (in this case), but actually went to some pains to explain to those actually paying attention how they were not doing so. They give their characters dialog for a reason. So, what you disingenuously characterize as semantics, others would call actually paying attention. You should try it too. You might say fewer f'ing stupid things.

Edited May 13, 2010 by Hurin

[Uxi]

oops, forgot I was in a discussion on this in this forum.

And finally, saying that Sayid never should have believed that Nadia being returned to him was possible. . . why? Because it's unrealistic? The guy turns into a farting pillar of smoke. And, as Sayid said, <i>he</i> (Sayid) had been resurrected himself. At this point, given what Sayid has already seen and experienced, he had no reason to doubt that such a thing was possible.

Ah, I wasn't aware that smoke pillars could do resurrection. Next time I see one in whatever other form of entertainment, I'll make sure to note that as one of it's capabilities.

Was Sayid always that naive or just since his own revival? Maybe Desmond mentioned to ask SmokeMan where he was going to get her body to bring life back into.

[jenius]

Man you protest too much. The guy has a corpse. Would you argue with me that a ghost is still alive? Well yes, you would, because you love to argue. "No officer, it's cool, I didn't kill this guy whose corpse I'm dragging because I saw an apparition."

It's pretty cool that Jacob can't hurt the MIB... but he can bludgeon him and turn him into a corpse (but not kill him... the other kind of turning him into a corpse).

C'mon, use your catch phrase now... I love it.

I asked if MIB had become Smokey as some means of Limbo from being killed by a man who couldn't kill him. You're saying "He wasn't killed, he just BECAME Smokey and left a corpse behind in the process". I appreciate you finding worlds of difference in the two sentences.

[Uxi]

Heh, some of that stuff reminds me of the silly theories certain folks had about Palpatine being a clone of Sidious, etc Smoke IS MiB, but FakeMom seemed to know what would happen about the fate worse than death and all that. How could she have known that, but for personal experience? FakeMom must've had the ability to turn smokey herself (or knows someone?) who wasted all the villagers in a manner similar to MiB killing the crew of the ship Richard came on.

[Hurin]

Man you protest too much. The guy has a corpse. Would you argue with me that a ghost is still alive? Well yes, you would, because you love to argue. "No officer, it's cool, I didn't kill this guy whose corpse I'm dragging because I saw an apparition."

It's pretty cool that Jacob can't hurt the MIB... but he can bludgeon him and turn him into a corpse (but not kill him... the other kind of turning him into a corpse).

C'mon, use your catch phrase now... I love it.

I asked if MIB had become Smokey as some means of Limbo from being killed by a man who couldn't kill him. You're saying "He wasn't killed, he just BECAME Smokey and left a corpse behind in the process". I appreciate you finding worlds of difference in the two sentences.

Dude. . . you're seriously unable to interpret and understand dialog.

When the writers tell you something (via dialog from more than one character) several times, they're doing it for a reason.

I'm sorry you find that (and so much else) so hard to comprehend. But, then again, I've come to expect no less from you. Which is why I ignored your last attempt to stir up trouble. I made a new rule long ago. . . past a certain point, I refuse to argue with proven idiots.

Warmest Regards,

H

Edited May 13, 2010 by Hurin

[jenius]

I'm a douche, I'm an idiot... and it's me who is the incendiary one? Well Sir, I genuinely appreciate your magnanimous decision to stop insulting me over my understanding of corpses equating physical death.

[Hurin]

oops, forgot I was in a discussion on this in this forum.

Ah, I wasn't aware that smoke pillars could do resurrection. Next time I see one in whatever other form of entertainment, I'll make sure to note that as one of it's capabilities.

Was Sayid always that naive or just since his own revival? Maybe Desmond mentioned to ask SmokeMan where he was going to get her body to bring life back into.

Well, I can't tell if you're being willfully obtuse, or, well, sorry, but just dense. Because even a f'ing idiot could see that what I meant was that if you witness a person transform himself into pillars of smoke (among all the other literally incredible things, including your own resurrection, that you've seen on the island) all bets are off where "contraints of reality" are concerned. So, if you're witnessing and experiencing all these other miraculous events, is it so far-fetched to believe that someone could be returned from the dead (even as you're looking at the visage of someone who has already died, and you yourself have already died and yet are back).

But wait, I'm breaking my rule again. Please see above. Heck, you're the inspiration for it (mangled quotes aside).

Toodles,

H

[Hurin]

I'm a douche, I'm an idiot... and it's me who is the incendiary one? Well Sir, I genuinely appreciate your magnanimous decision to stop insulting me over my understanding of corpses equating physical death.

Who said you're incendiary? I just told you that I don't find arguing with idiots to be productive. Because not only are they unable to understand your point of view, they can't even really demonstrate that they have a cohesive understanding of their own. Though, to their credit, they do tend to realize that they are idiots on some level. But, unfortunately, that just causes them to try to salvage some semblance of a valid point by choosing some simplistic angle that might make sense were it divested from the larger context of the discussion. But since it isn't, the person just looks even more hapless.

Best,

H

Edited May 13, 2010 by Hurin

[jenius]

This has been the silliest argument I've seen in a while.

WTF? Why all this talk of Jacob killing the MIB, the MIB being dead, and/or the smoke monster assuming the (dead) MIB's form?

because he has a corpse.

Jacob asked if the light would kill him. His mother said outright "no," but it would make him "worse" than dead. And judging by the effect it had as soon as the MIB fell into it, that would seem to have been borne out.

and now his physical body is a CORPSE.

Ergo, the light did not kill the MIB. So the MIB didn't simply die and his form is not just being "used" by the smoke monster. The smoke monster is the MIB transformed into his pure essence. . . distilled malevolence (as Jacob put it a few episodes ago).

All would be true... if he were NOT a corpse. He's dead... he's a corpse. He continues to exist on DIFFERENT plane but it's pretty hard to argue that he isn't dead... cause he has a corpse.

So, unless you're saying that Jacob killed the MIB only in the most clinical terms (heart stopped beating). . . it's pretty clear that the MIB is still on the island, can assume a corporal form, and is able to interact directly with the world and other people. . . ie, he's still alive.

I'm saying he's dead... which is true. I'm not saying "he has ceased to exist." I'm hopeful that we will see Jacob's first encounter with the re-manifested MIB in the next episode.

Now simmer down... simmer...

[Hurin]

Now, that, my moronic, hypocritical friend, is retroactively engaging in semantics in order to wiggle your way out of prior idiocy on your part. And, ironically, you only find it necessary to do so now that you start to grasp what I was saying originally. . . which you originally dismissed as mere semantics.

[jenius]

Now that that's out of the way, why would the MIB be "distilled malevolance"? It seems him who has been wronged pretty hardcore in the backstory we were given. Was he wrong in seeking vengeance against the woman who raised him? Well yeah... but she thanked him twice while dying. Does the light suck away all that is good of a person and just leave the bad? Is that why MIB had a corpse... did Jacob simply kill everything good in him (including his physical body) leaving a rampaging negative spirit in its wake? These are the answers I look forward to when we get to meet the "new" MIB (or at least, that's what I hope is about to happen).

[jenius]

Now, that, my moronic, hypocritical friend, is retroactively engaging in semantics in order to wiggle your way out of prior idiocy on your part. And, ironically, you only find it necessary to do so now that you start to grasp what I was saying originally. . . which you originally dismissed as mere semantics.

Wait, arguing your points is arguing semantics? If your points themselves were not a case of arguing semantics then wouldn't I have been unable to do what I just did? How is the idiocy on my part when your arguments are all so easily defeated? Why would what you "originally" said be off limits? Isn't the fact your argument had no substance proof it was just a case of semantics as I originally point out?

I love the "now that you grasp what I was saying originally". My original quote said:

The guy has a corpse... it's okay to say he died. If you prefer to think of him as a butterfly, and his corpse is just the remnants of his cocoon, and he did not die but elevated to some other plane... that's cool too.

Where are you finding something new from that in my "he's dead, he has a corpse" rant?

Edited May 13, 2010 by jenius

[Hurin]

Wait, arguing your points is arguing semantics? If your points themselves were not a case of arguing semantics then wouldn't I have been unable to do what I just did? How is the idiocy on my part when your arguments are all so easily defeated? Why would what you "originally" said be off limits? Isn't the fact your argument had no substance proof it was just a case of semantics as I originally point out?

As I said, past a certain point, I don't argue with proven idiots. . . but I will repeat something I said prior that neatly addresses your repeated use of the word "corpse" as though it means anything in the current context:

But' date=' unfortunately, that just causes them to try to salvage some semblance of a valid point by choosing some simplistic angle that might make sense were it divested from the larger context of the discussion. But since it isn't, the person just looks even more hapless.[/quote']

[jenius]

So, because in your head you had built this up to be an argument of more than semantics, the fact it was just an argument over semantics makes me an idiot?

Apology accepted... but you're going to have to work on being more gracious the next time I hand you your ass in an argument.

[Hurin]

So, because in your head you had built this up to be an argument of more than semantics, the fact it was just an argument over semantics makes me an idiot?

Apology accepted... but you're going to have to work on being more gracious the next time I hand you your ass in an argument.

Though I'm sure others are still waiting to hear about all those other times the MIB died and "came back" that you assert happened. You know, before you realized that you were being a f'ing idiot, figured out what I was saying, and then adjusted your own argument so that you could play it off as though you were never really that confused.

Allow me to refresh your memory. . .

I don't get all the "you can't come back from being dead" stuff... except for the guy who keeps coming back from being dead.

And that's just one of the points I brought up above that demonstrates that you're very confused by some very basic plot points. None of which you addressed. But you seem to think that if you just hang in there long enough, you'll win through attrition. Which, I guess is true since I don't really value or respect your opinion enough to carry on much longer. So you'll eventually get the last word.

Face it man. . . the writers tried desperately to get it through your head that the MIB was not being killed. They failed. Because, well, let's face it, you're sorta dumb. When I pointed out (without even addressing you directly) what the writers were trying to make clear to you (via multiple statements from multiple characters) that the MIB was not being killed but instead transformed, you decided to pretend that you weren't confused and accused me of engaging in semantics. Ironically the only way you could even approach redeeming yourself was engaging in semantics yourself while pretending to have never been confused.

Some of the lemmings around here might buy it if they pay about as much attention to this conversation as you apparently do while watching this show. . .

But, please do get back to us about all those other times the MIB "came back" from being dead. That really seemed to trouble you and I'm sure we'd like to clarify for you and set your mind at ease. I can't promise to actually take part since your f'ing idiocy has reminded me why I don't visit these forums very often. But, surely, there's someone here who will pick up the torch and carry on trying to explain basic plot points to you and possibly even diagram out the dialog so that it's more easily grasped.

One final tip: Context is important. In a fictional universe like Lost, constantly going on and on about "corspe = dead" is f'ing idiotic given what we've seen in this series. It's just unbelievable that this has to be explained to you and that you would actually accuse others of engaging in semantics while they're trying to do so. But then again, you never miss an opportunity to pick an ill-conceived fight with me. Shame on me for obliging and rising to the bait this time. I won't make the mistake again.

Edited May 13, 2010 by Hurin

[jenius]

Face it man. . . the writers tried desperately to get it through your head that the MIB was not being killed. They failed. Because, well, let's face it, you're sorta dumb. When I pointed out (without even addressing you directly) what the writers were trying to make clear to you (via multiple statements from multiple characters) that the MIB was not being killed but instead transformed, you decided to pretend that you weren't confused and accused me of engaging in semantics.

Am I sorta dumb... or did the writers have him leave behind a CORPSE?? Again, you're going back to semantics. He's not dead... he's "transformed". Yes, he transformed from a physical entity, with a body, to a spirit. Some people call that "dying." How is your argument over whether or not "dead" is the right term NOT a matter of semantics?

Times MIB will come back from "dead" to be "living" (although, maybe 'living' is the wrong term):

1) When Jacob "transformed" him from a person with a body to a corpse and a black smokey monster.

2) When the black smokey monster transformed itself into (un)Locke as the rules seemed to have changed at that point making it capable of leaving the island... the "loophole" as Jacob put it.

Now, stop being intellectually dishonest. What troubled you was why the MIB was being referred to as "dead". Now you're changing the focus of your argument onto one sentence of my original post. Go ahead now and argue with me over whether or not the instances I've allude to really represent someone coming back from the grave. An argument there would be pretty useless though, those are the things I said I hope the show would expound upon.

I've already asked my questions about the first rebirth:

Now that that's out of the way, why would the MIB be "distilled malevolance"? It seems him who has been wronged pretty hardcore in the backstory we were given. Was he wrong in seeking vengeance against the woman who raised him? Well yeah... but she thanked him twice while dying. Does the light suck away all that is good of a person and just leave the bad? Is that why MIB had a corpse... did Jacob simply kill everything good in him (including his physical body) leaving a rampaging negative spirit in its wake? These are the answers I look forward to when we get to meet the "new" MIB (or at least, that's what I hope is about to happen).

[chowyunskinny]

and here's Evangeline Lilly thigh deep in an inflatable kiddie pool

[Hurin]

Am I sorta dumb... or did the writers have him leave behind a CORPSE?? Again, you're going back to semantics. He's not dead... he's "transformed". Yes, he transformed from a physical entity, with a body, to a spirit. Some people call that "dying." How is your argument over whether or not "dead" is the right term NOT a matter of semantics?

Your focus on the corpse is just. . . bizarre.

Has it occurred to you that, in the context of this show, the corpse is perhaps not evidence of him dying, but instead evidence of him shedding his corporal form because he no longer needed it? Did it occur to you that the body was found in a tree quite some time and quite some distance from the cave? In which case, is the body evidence that Jacob "killed" him or that he is "dead" or just evidence that he's been transformed and no longer needed it? Indeed, perhaps he no longer wanted it. If the latter, the words "killed" and "dead" have no real meaning there. . . and they are not accurate descriptors of the what happened to him. Not in any way. Which, now pay attention. . . is probably the f'ing reason multiple characters told you that the light wouldn't kill someone put in there.

Again, that's not semantics. . . that's clarifying your pre/misconceptions. Because the way you describe it, in the context of the show, would not accurately describe to someone what actually happened in that episode.

Ask yourself this: If the body being left behind makes you want to say that Jacob killed the MIB. . . would you describe what happened in this episode to a friend as: "Jacob killed the MIB. The MIB is dead." Of course not. That's not nearly a description of what happened. And anyone familiar with the show would say: "I thought Jacob couldn't kill the MIB". . . and/or someone familiar with the dialog of that episode would say: "Didn't both Jacob and the mother say that the light wouldn't kill him but would instead transform them?" Which, of course, was all I said as well. . . which you deemed inappropriate.

And, I'll point out that I brought it up in the larger context of some people claiming that the MIB truly died (in body, spirit, everything), and that the smoke monster assumed his form. . . and that the MIB is therefore not the smoke monster. A view I'm still not totally convinced you weren't also holding before you started to actually think things through via this discussion.

Times MIB will come back from "dead" to be "living" (although, maybe 'living' is the wrong term):

1) When Jacob "transformed" him from a person with a body to a corpse and a black smokey monster.

2) When the black smokey monster transformed itself into (un)Locke as the rules seemed to have changed at that point making it capable of leaving the island... the "loophole" as Jacob put it.

What's with the sudden change in tense?

Now, stop being intellectually dishonest. What troubled you was why the MIB was being referred to as "dead". Now you're changing the focus of your argument onto one sentence of my original post. Go ahead now and argue with me over whether or not the instances I've allude to really represent someone coming back from the grave. An argument there would be pretty useless though, those are the things I said I hope the show would expound upon.

Sweet Merciful Crap! That's such a blatant dodge! You're referring to the MIB taking the form of bodies brought to the island as further "coming back" from the dead on the MIB's part? And then preemptively dismissing any attempt to point out that that's horsecrap. Jeez, just admit that you were confused and have nothing there.

And, btw, the "loophole" was (apparently) assuming Locke's shape in order to convince Ben to kill Jacob. Having Ben kill Jacob was the loophole. There's nothing about the MIB taking Locke's form that changes "the rules" or allows the MIB to leave the island. I just don't know where you're pulling that from. . . it seems to be just more evidence that you have no f'ing clue about even the most basic plot points of this show. But I also suspect you're desperately trying to divert attention from the fact that you can't find one single additional instance where you can reasonably claim that the MIB died again and "came back". . . so you're now just making stuff up and then preemptively saying: "But don't try to argue that this isn't "coming back." Jesus, since when do we consider the MIB taking the forms of dead people as "coming back" from the dead each and every time. Did he die and "come back" when he took Christian's form with Claire? When he impersonated Richard's wife? (if that was indeed him). Or just when he took Locke's form? You're seriously making that claim with a straight face? That is just pure, utter horseshit and you know it. It's a blatant dodge.

Look, by its nature, this show is supposed to have twists and turns. It's supposed to be confusing. I don't claim to have all the answers. All I know is you seem to be way confused about even the limited number of answers we appear to have been given. And the more you say, the more confused you appear to be (if you're not just playing dumb now in an attempt to muddy the waters even further).

Edited May 13, 2010 by Hurin

[EXO]

I think I suspended Hurin for personal insults. It's a new board, not sure.

This is exactly why I never started a LOST thread myself... it's a really good intelligent series that spawn a lot of dumb arguments.

[spacemanoeuvres]

WTF? Why all this talk of Jacob killing the MIB, the MIB being dead, and/or the smoke monster assuming the (dead) MIB's form?

This is a television show. . . with carefully chosen dialog in order to convey meaning under tight time constraints. So dialog is used as economically as possible. In other words. . . people say things for a reason. . .

Jacob asked if the light would kill him. His mother said outright "no," but it would make him "worse" than dead. And judging by the effect it had as soon as the MIB fell into it, that would seem to have been borne out.

Ergo, the light did not kill the MIB. So the MIB didn't simply die and his form is not just being "used" by the smoke monster. The smoke monster is the MIB transformed into his pure essence. . . distilled malevolence (as Jacob put it a few episodes ago).

So, unless you're saying that Jacob killed the MIB only in the most clinical terms (heart stopped beating). . . it's pretty clear that the MIB is still on the island, can assume a corporal form, and is able to interact directly with the world and other people. . . ie, he's still alive.

holy hell, did I start this whole mess?

At any rate, this makes sense and I'm glad someone took the time to explain it.

I have to admit I'm not that into the show anymore so I wasn't picking up on a lot of the clue's, or whacks over the head, the writers have included regarding the pseudo-science/magic stuffs in the show.

Thanks?

[jenius]

I'm pretty sure none of this is your fault. Hurin just had a bone to pick. I told him it was perfectly acceptable to think of MIB's death as a transformation and made a butterfly analogy. He then summarized his argument by saying I never considered that maybe the MIB was like a butterfly, shedding his one existence to enjoy another. So... yeah... whatevs.

On to the next point though, if there's nothing special about the MIB being Locke, why the big ruse? Why didn't the MIB assume the form of someone who had died previously, convince the survivors that there was a malevolant force, and kill Jacob a long time ago? What kind of plan is:

1) People will be brought here by Jacob

2) I will watch people, maybe kill a few

3) People will escape... but I'll convince one of them to bring them all back

4) I will hope the one I've convinced kills one person in particular

5) They will return

6) I will assume the now dead one's identity

7) I will convince my stooley to kill Jacob

I will then convince the people brought here to kill each other

9) I will leave

We already saw MIB send Richard to kill Jacob. Why not act like Echo's brother when Echo arrived on the island. Have him say "OMG, there's this guy here who has been tormenting me." Echo would have slit Jacob's throat, the end.

[azrael]

On to the next point though, if there's nothing special about the MIB being Locke, why the big ruse? Why didn't the MIB assume the form of someone who had died previously, convince the survivors that there was a malevolant force, and kill Jacob a long time ago? What kind of plan is:

...

We already saw MIB send Richard to kill Jacob. Why not act like Echo's brother when Echo arrived on the island. Have him say "OMG, there's this guy here who has been tormenting me." Echo would have slit Jacob's throat, the end.

I believe MIB said Locke was a candidate, he made a good target (i.e. he was a fool for believing) and they brought back his body (he has to be dead to assume his form). Perhaps Echo was crossed off early so they won't have been ideal and his brother wasn't a candidate.

[EXO]

I think Jenius hasn't been paying attn. while watching. A lot of those questions have answers. Maybe too busy taking valk pictures.

[jenius]

If MIB is just taking the appearance of Locke, and has not been reborn in some way as Locke, then what does it matter that Locke was a candidate? I thought MIB just had to convince someone to kill Jacob?

EDIT - I reread this and it's pretty poorly worded. I realize he has not been reborn "as Locke" but rather as something Locke-inspired.

Edited May 13, 2010 by jenius

[Hurin]

holy hell, did I start this whole mess?

At any rate, this makes sense and I'm glad someone took the time to explain it.

I have to admit I'm not that into the show anymore so I wasn't picking up on a lot of the clue's, or whacks over the head, the writers have included regarding the pseudo-science/magic stuffs in the show.

Thanks?

I'm pretty sure none of this is your fault. Hurin just had a bone to pick. I told him it was perfectly acceptable to think of MIB's death as a transformation and made a butterfly analogy. He then summarized his argument by saying I never considered that maybe the MIB was like a butterfly, shedding his one existence to enjoy another. So... yeah... whatevs.

If MIB is just taking the appearance of Locke, and has not been reborn in some way as Locke, then what does it matter that Locke was a candidate? I thought MIB just had to convince someone to kill Jacob?

EDIT - I reread this and it's pretty poorly worded. I realize he has not been reborn "as Locke" but rather as something Locke-inspired.

Wall of text. . . engage. . . (this is what happens when you have three days --off-and-on-- to cogitate on a single post)

You're perpetuating at least two or three bizarre, out-of-the-blue theories based on nothing from the actual show (except, of course, very apparent confusion on your part and bizarre interpretation of some pretty clearly written dialog and scenes). . . indeed, your contentions actually contradict what the writers have put into the dialog and scenes for an explicit purpose. But, to make it worse, all these contentions on your part seem to emerge as a consequence of that first bizarre assertion you made that you're unwilling to just acknowledge and "walk back" in the face of more reasonable points of view based on the dialog as it actually appears in the show. Indeed, rather than just admit a mistake, you Instead you go forward with that mistake as the foundation for even stranger assertions with only hope that future, yet-unseen episodes will show you what you oddly assume now needs to have happened (eg., MIB being "reborn" in other forms instead of just changing his appearance, ya know, like he does when he turns into freakin' smoke!)

But first. . .

Man, it must *really* annoy you that someone found my post to be helpful and explanatory. So much so that you felt the need to respond to him in my stead and then mischaracterize the entire affair. To say nothing of how shabby it is to do so while you knew I couldn't intervene. But, now that I have the chance: Note that first (before you ever mentioned a "butterfly"), you said that the MIB had been killed and was dead. You then, in the same post, went on to demonstrate your further confusion (asking why the MIB can "keep coming back" from death multiple times). Only later did you bring up your "butterfly analogy". . . which seemed to demonstrate that your cluelessness quotient had been decreased somewhat by the discussion at that later point. Yet you still found it necessary to continue pretending as though you hadn't been confused, and in doing so, you found it necessary to keep belittling the very clarification your confusion/carelessness/misinformation made necessary.

So. . . if you're going to reply to someone who's actually directly addressing me and thanking me for the explanation that you seemed to have such a problem with (because it explained away misconceptions you were perpetuating), at least do me the courtesy of not being blatantly dishonest in summarizing this affair. It's funny how you chose to skip over the entire beginning where your demonstrable (initial) confusion was most apparent.

Looking back on this thread, it's a great example where you seem to have a penchant for asking obvious, ill-informed, and/or silly questions just to perpetuate discussion for discussion's sake. I mean, looking back, nearly every question you've asked either has a readily apparent answer (to those paying attention), or was downright silly at the outset. And any time you actually offer what you think is accurate information, it always seems to have some fundamental fact wrong or ill-founded assumption underpinning it.

Here's one final example: Even while exposing the fact that you're confused about one topic (what happened to the MIB and whether the MIB has actually died before or since), you expose that you're fundamentally confused about yet another one: The "loophole." You say: "black smokey monster transformed itself into (un)Locke as the rules seemed to have changed at that point making it capable of leaving the island... the "loophole" as Jacob put it."

Now, those paying attention immediately say: WTF? That's not the "loophole." The "loophole" refers to the ability to actually kill Jacob. The "loophole" isn't directly about leaving the island, and need not have anything to do with taking someone else's form (and how those two things --shape-shifting and leaving the island-- actually became related in your mind is a total mystery as well). How do we know that the loophole is about killing Jacob? . . because the writers do everything in their power to make this linkage pretty darn clear via dialog at the very beginning of the episode in which Jacob freakin' dies as a result of the "loophole" concept introduced in that very episode.:

Setting: In front of the ruined statue -- Jacob and MIB gazing out at a ship on the ocean.

MIB: Do you have any idea how badly I want to kill you.

Jabob: yes.

MIB: One of these days, sooner or later, I'm going to find a loophole, my friend.

Jacob: When you do, I'll be right here.

Later in that same episode, as the MIB enters that designated "waiting place" (the statue) with Ben. . . Jacob says: "I see you found your loophole."

Now, while other interpretations are perhaps possible (or will become possible with information provided in the next few episodes), it's pretty darn clear that the "loophole" is about getting around the rule that MIB can't kill Jacob himself. While exploiting this loophole and killing Jacob might indeed be a step towards MIB's longer-term goal of getting off the island, that's not nearly the same thing as saying that assuming Locke's form suddenly "changes the rules" and makes him able to get off the island, and then calling that the loophole itself as you did. That dialog pretty clearly explains the rule that the loophole will work around (inability to kill Jacob), and then we see the loophole put into effect at the end of the episode even as it is once again referred to as the "loophole." For the life of me, I can't imagine how your managed to come to your own conclusion. And, mind you, you won't be able to actually explain it using any actual dialog or provided explanations from the show itself.

What always seems to happen is that you are shown to be confused about something basic. . . and then when someone points out your confusion, you start engaging in hypothetical questions or unsubstantiated arguments that are totally at odds with what we already know, and rarely rise above the nature of: "Why didn't the Hobbits just fly Eagles to Mordor." The answer: Becaue that's not the freakin' story we're being told. . . pay attention!

To illustrate, you're now asking: Well if it was just about trying to kill Jacob, why didn't he just try to have anyone do it?

The answer:

First, because, had MIB done that and succeeded prior, that would make the current story we're enjoying sorta difficult to tell, now, wouldn't it? It is a fictional story after all and asking questions like that (like decrying how unrealistic it was for the ship to not break apart when it hit the statue and then asserting that there must be some signifigance to such a "miracle". . . sheesh) shows an astounding blind spot in your ability to understand the nature of storytelling, its techniques, and its conceits.

Second, they actually address this, in that he did freakin' try to have others kill Jacob before he succeeded in having Ben do it. You yourself point this out even while simultaneously asking why he didn't try it. In other words, Ben was perhaps only the last successful one in a (perhaps) long line of potential "loopholes." Recall (as, miraculously, you seem to do) that, after the conversation on the beach related above, MIB attempts to do exactly what you ask why he didn't do: He attempts to have Richard kill Jacob. We know this takes place after the initial "loophole" conversation because the statue is in pieces when Richard confronts Jacob (the statue having been destroyed by the ship upon which Richard arrives).

So, the signifigance of taking Locke's form and having Ben do it? Why not, as you ask, just appear as anyone and ask just anyone to kill jacob? Well, if you had been paying attention, you'd realize that it's all about motivation. He tried just sending in whoever he came across, but Jacob (as we saw with Richard) was able to stop them, dissuade them, and even turn them against the MIB. He (MIB) needed someone who hated Jacob and was therefore uncommonly motivated to kill him. It also didn't hurt that he (MIB) appeared to Ben as Ben's dead daughter and ordered him (Ben) to follow "Locke's" orders. And, finally, Ben had been manipulated into believing that there was indeed something very, very special about John Locke (whom he believed he was obeying). In other words, Ben was in a unique position to be manipulated by MIB and to be successful in actually killing Jacob.

Of course, because you're not paying attention, you embarrass yourself. And because you embarrass yourself, you're unwilling to accept accurate information when it is presented to you. You instead start asking these silly questions and grasping at straws rather than just accept the dialog and the direction it's taking you. Yes, plot twists happen. And dialog can intentionally mislead. But they'll generally leave subtle clues that such a thing is on the way. You're not pointing to any such clues, you just pull things out of your butt in order to grasp at any means by which your odd conclusions might still be valid. It's fine to ask people to question their assumptions and preconceived notions. . . so long as you have some valid reason for doubting them yourself. But you never provide any such reasons. Case in point: How you're now arguing that every time the MIB takes the form of another person, he's somehow being reborn. You're doing this rather than admit that you were mistaken in stating that the MIB has repeatedly "come back" from death.

Seriously, there's not one other person using the phrase "reborn" in describing/discussing MIB's shape-shifting or seriously arguing that each time the MIB has taken the form of someone else that he is dying and/or being reborn. And there is absolutely nothing in the show to make you or anyone else think that the MIB has to die himself and/or be "reborn" in order to take anyone's form. You're just going through these linguistic contortions in order to retroactively support a silly contention you found yourself needing to make rather than admitting that you were confused. So, now instead of what everyone else is talking about (MIB taking the form of those who have died (though not their actual bodies), you're asking about MIB's "rebirths" as other people. . . continuing to introduce square pegs and asking us how they fit into round holes that you've pulled out of nowhere because you're just unwilling to ever admit a mistake or that you were confused.

Of course, none of this would be a problem if you weren't so fundamentally hostile and unwilling to ever admit a mistake and/or accept inconvenient facts/information without also making things personal (and yes, both times --one I ignored and this one-- you immediately made it about me and carrying out your petty little vendetta from years ago rather than the substance of what I was saying).

So. . . since reasoning with you is fruitless and calling you names is forbidden (but fun!), I'm left with no recourse but to just ignore you. Say whatever you want. You and I both know, despite your public assertions to the contrary, who has been confused and dishonest here. And it wasn't me.

I'm sure you'll come up with some subtle (or more overt) taunt that you hope will cause me to re-engage. But it won't work. You're clearly just not worth any effort whatsoever. I'm actually embarrassed as hell that I have spent the time to write so much above in reference to you or anything you've said. >EXO<, please, for the love of God, if I ever am stupid enough to reply directly to anything that comes out of Jenius's pie-hole again, just please perma-ban me.

Edited May 16, 2010 by Hurin

[Uxi]

You're pretty amusing to read, but can't seem to take what you dish out. You spent 3 days on that post?

I used to think you were semi-rational. Not sure what happened to you when you went away to your own site, or what happened to it there. plonk

[Hurin]

You're pretty amusing to read, but can't seem to take what you dish out. You spent 3 days on that post?

I used to think you were semi-rational. Not sure what happened to you when you went away to your own site, or what happened to it there. plonk

Actually, I never "went away" to my own site, but was here and there simultaneously. But was then asked to come here and be the admin for this site. At which point, my partner and I (who was also co-opted by MW) decided to just shut down MN as we always promised to do if we lost enthusiasm for it. But, as usual you distort and dishonestly frame information in order to take a silly cheap shot. Bravo. You must be so proud of yourself.

Why am I not an admin anymore? Because I resigned and stopped visiting hardly at all when I noticed that there were more and more people like you (and Jenius) around and fewer jsarclights, ewilens, or even bsu legatos (who pretty much disagreed with anything I ever wrote). At that point, it's time to go. And I actually regret even making the limited number of posts that I've made recently. There's no point. And discussions like this, with folks like you (and your petty little vendettas) are a waste of time. I had that time to spare in my mid-twenties. Not so much any more in my thirties.

That aside, though, you know I can't possibly take anything you say seriously given what I've seen you actually claim/write in the past. So I see no reason to start doing so now. I mean, with everything you write, you either intentionally get things wrong (see a page or two back), or are actually incapable of comprehending what you read (see immediately above where you claim I spent three days straight writing a post and then oh-so-smugly roll your eyes at something I clearly didn't mean literally. . . since I was careful to say "off-and-on". . . which, guess what, means something).

Anways, feel free to say whatever you want without fear of "wall of text" replies. . . I can't claim that I won't see it since we both know I'll probably be checking in a few more times. But I can assure you that I won't be responding. Because before I decided Jenius wasn't worth an ounce of effort, I had already perfected that calculation while reading what you laughably pass off as reasoned opinion. I mean, I can't seriously read your opinion on something without thinking that the only truly reasonable explanation for why you think these things is that you must be things that I can't actually say here. I've had patience and argued (at length, some would say ad nausedum) with plenty of reasonable, honest people here. . . but with you, there's just no recourse but to surrender to. . . well, I can't really finish that sentence.

So, there you have it. You win. Enjoy MW.

[jenius]

Eh Hurin, I'm not going to re-engage you... I never wanted to engage you in the first place. You got yourself suspended because you were so stuck on a word that you couldn't let it go. You stuck to it so hard and fast that you even came around to paraphrasing me later in defense of your own argument. Look at you now mischaracterizing this argument as if it started with a post a page ago. That's not where it started at all. It started when I said it was petty of you to want to debate semantics rather than posting something with substance in the post immediately before mine. That was my pot shot. That was me saying your previous post seemed like silly agitation over words. How did you respond? You responded by turning back a page and re-reading one of my previous posts. What does that have to do with my pointing out that you were fixating a little too hard on semantics in the post I had responded to? Nothing.

Honestly, I am okay, not in the least bit embarrassed, about not being an expert at Lost, or any of its loopholes or plot twists. I’ve never watched a lost episode on DVD before. I don’t go to Lost websites, don’t write essays about Lost while being suspended from my favorite forums, and I don’t even have people to chat about Lost with at a water cooler at work. I can’t even swear I’ve seen every episode of Lost. If I’m wrong about anything I’m not going to be shamed. People post in threads like this to clear the air and they don’t expect to be attacked for word choice (and then later be full-on attacked when the attacker doesn’t like having it pointed out that it’s pretty petty to argue semantics). When I try to clear up some points you used that as evidence I was confused. Kudos Sherlock… Kudos. I never declared “I know everything about Lost.” Generally speaking, it also seems a little sad to try to speak ultra definitively about a show while simultaneously saying “you shouldn’t ask too many questions, that’s just the way it is.” Finally, it seems a little high and mighty to say "you're an idiot, you're a douche, and I stopped coming to Macrossworld because it was full of idiots and douches." How do you think that makes you sound? Do you think you sound like a member of the community who should be esteemed?

Anyway, I don't know if tomorrow's show will be a rerun or another new episode. If it's a re-run I won't watch, I don't watch re-runs, but if it's new I'll probably come back here and make a post. If it shows some confusion I welcome a clarifying response that doesn't sound like it's coming from someone who spent days grinding their axe.

[Hurin]

At any rate, this makes sense and I'm glad someone took the time to explain it.

I have to admit I'm not that into the show anymore so I wasn't picking up on a lot of the clue's, or whacks over the head, the writers have included regarding the pseudo-science/magic stuffs in the show.

Thanks?

I've been remiss in not actually directly responding to a very nice post!

You're very welcome. I'm glad, given the circumstances, that you found my post to be substantive and helpful in clearing up misunderstandings rather than just engaging in "semantics."

As I think you'll find, you really only need to watch each episode once. And you don't need to be a rocket scientist or "study" the show just to ask yourself, "I wonder why they're being so careful to have the characters say these things so directly, and repeatedly." Which, of course, was my only point before things went horribly awry.

Take Care,

H

[jenius]

My fiance just made we watch last week's Lost, she had missed it while she was away in DC. Here's some stuff from the show that was beaten over my head so hard that only an idiot could possibly misinterpret it... (and I apologize for having paid such poor attention and having been such an idiot as to say it was alright for myself and others to say MIB had died).

Jacob and MIB can't hurt each other... they can however hurt each other.

"What's down there."

"Life, death, and rebirth." Man... does that make it okay to say someone pushed down there would go in alive, die, and be reborn?

"If I go down there, will I die?"

"It's worse than death." Like maybe you die and are then stuck to exist forever as a tortured soul?

Also note, the episode ends with Jacob saying goodbye emotionally... not typically something you do to someone who is alive and well.

So now, I'm still curious, if the only reason MIB appears as Locke is to give Ben the motivation to kill Jacob, why has the show had "why Locke" dialog not answered with a simple "it was the only way to convince Ben?" I mean, I'm okay with it really being just to convince Ben but it seems like kind of bad writing to say "here are reasons why MIB picked Locke" and have that not be the really substantial reason why it happened.

Edited May 18, 2010 by jenius

[Hurin]

Well, I guess EXO is going to have to ban me because there's just too much here to leave alone. . . though I'll remain civil.

Jacob and MIB can't hurt each other... they can however hurt each other.

Arguing that they can kill/hurt each other for short-term gain (winning this argument) at the expense of one of the prime "rules" of the plot that makes the entire thing make sense seems a bit odd. If they can kill each other, it renders about 80% of the last two seasons pointless. If not the whole show. There's no show if Jacob could have just pushed MIB off a cliff a thousand years ago (or vice-versa). Further, the ability to give each other "boo boos" via fisticuffs may not actually fall within the confines of "harming" or "killing" each other.

"What's down there."

"Life, death, and rebirth." Man... does that make it okay to say someone pushed down there would go in alive, die, and be reborn?

"If I go down there, will I die?"

"It's worse than death." Like maybe you die and are then stuck to exist forever as a tortured soul?

This contradicts your argument that the MIB is repeatedly dying and being reborn whenever he takes someone's shape. Is he a tortured soul in purgatory? If so, how can he "keep coming back" from death? He's already dead. More to the point, you can't say someone is dead or killed if they are immediatly revived. And there were people saying MIB was dead and that Smokey had taken his form (more on this after the next paragraph).

It should also be pointed out that saying something is filled with "life, death, and rebirth" doesn't mean that it's a mechanism that will kill, revive, and give you the body of someone else. Hell, people describe compost heaps as being about "life, death, and rebirth". . . or the serengeti plain. Neither of which will kill and then ressurect you as your dead uncle. You seem to be tying this in with your argument (which you made from necessity rather than because that's where the "facts" lead) that the MIB has died repeatedly because that's what he needs to do to take the shape of others. Again, this is based on nothing (so far) that we've actually seen or been told.

But again, this all obscures the point. Before this all got started when you made yet another (unfortunately, this time, successful) attempt to make this a personal fight between the two of us, there were folks saying that the MIB died altogether. . . and that Smokey was a separate entity that was then able to take MIB's form. What I wrote, which you dismissed as semantics (others did not) attempted to clarify that the MIB was not dead and that the MIB is Smokey (whether you want to get hung up on whether he was killed first, then revived, whatever. . . that's your hang-up). So when I say that the cave didn't kill MIB, that's because it didn't. Because he's still alive, and can now turn himself into the smoke monster, and take the shape of others. The rest of this was just a result of your (repeatedly demonstrated) need to makes things personal whenever I post anything you don't like. Note that my initial post was addressing the posts of several people (not just you), didn't call anyone out by name, and that nobody else had a problem with it (some even acknowledged and were pleasant about the added/clarifying information). I wonder why you responded so differently.

Also note, the episode ends with Jacob saying goodbye emotionally... not typically something you do to someone who is alive and well.

You (knowingly?) neglect to take into account that, at that point, Jacob doesn't actually know what happened to his brother. For all he knows, his mother lied, and he did kill his brother (finding MIB's body may have misled him to this conclusion). Or, he knows that he has done something terrible to his brother and is expressing remorse/regret now that he has calmed down. Either way, what you describe above doesn't necessarily mean what you assert.

So now, I'm still curious, if the only reason MIB appears as Locke is to give Ben the motivation to kill Jacob, why has the show had "why Locke" dialog not answered with a simple "it was the only way to convince Ben?" I mean, I'm okay with it really being just to convince Ben but it seems like kind of bad writing to say "here are reasons why MIB picked Locke" and have that not be the really substantial reason why it happened.

Jack does actually ask directly "Why Locke?" The MIB (who, admittedly, we trust at our peril) says: "Because he was stupid enough to believe." But think about who told Locke to go and bring everyone back to the island. It was Christian (who at this point, we should probably believe was the MIB in disguise). But this all just brings us further "off the rails". . . the issue was that someone (who could that be?) had argued that the "loophole" was constitued by Locke changing form, which "somehow" changed the rules and allowed the MIB to leave the island. I'm still not seeing anything above to validate that claim. Instead, I'm just seeing new, diversionary arguments that the "loophole" being only about (Ben) killing Jacob is "bad writing." All I can tell you is that a "loophole" was only ever mentioned in one episode. That episode began with them talking about killing Jacob, and the need for a "loophole" to allow it. It ends with Jacob dying moments after Jacob saying that the MIB had "found his loophole". . . and the loophole has not been mentioned before or since.

So, well, again, feel free to spin more theories that contradict what we've been told and is commonly accepted. Thanks to the twisting nature of the show's plot and its penchant for "gotcha" twists, you may in fact end up falling ass-backwards into being right in some fashion (as I've said before). But I'm always struck how these theories take on a "retroactive" feel to them. Like you work your way backwards into them only after you say something based on a faulty memory (perfect example: You had to go looking for ways to say that the MIB had died repeatedly only because you had said the writers weren't following their own rules and that the MIB "kept coming back" from death. . . and this shape-shifting was the only straw you could grasp when it was pointed out that the MIB hadn't died other times --if ever--). Eventually, you find far-fetched interpretations or minutia with which you go back and buttress whatever you've said. But pretty much, this just leads you to then ask why all these square pegs aren't fitting into the round hole. . . the answer is that you're starting off assuming/asserting that the hole must be round in the first place. And the only reason you're doing that is because you're unwilling to admit that you might have been mistaken when you off-handedly mentioned that the hole was round at the outset.

Okay, >EXO<, you can ban me now. Clearly I can't help myself. And I've broken my own promise.

[eugimon]

My fiance just made we watch last week's Lost, she had missed it while she was away in DC. Here's some stuff from the show that was beaten over my head so hard that only an idiot could possibly misinterpret it... (and I apologize for having paid such poor attention and having been such an idiot as to say it was alright for myself and others to say MIB had died).

Jacob and MIB can't hurt each other... they can however hurt each other.

"What's down there."

"Life, death, and rebirth." Man... does that make it okay to say someone pushed down there would go in alive, die, and be reborn?

"If I go down there, will I die?"

"It's worse than death." Like maybe you die and are then stuck to exist forever as a tortured soul?

Also note, the episode ends with Jacob saying goodbye emotionally... not typically something you do to someone who is alive and well.

So now, I'm still curious, if the only reason MIB appears as Locke is to give Ben the motivation to kill Jacob, why has the show had "why Locke" dialog not answered with a simple "it was the only way to convince Ben?" I mean, I'm okay with it really being just to convince Ben but it seems like kind of bad writing to say "here are reasons why MIB picked Locke" and have that not be the really substantial reason why it happened.

I'm going to duck in here real quick, the actor that plays jacob answered some of these questions and hulu has a clip of it:

http://www.hulu.com/collections/453/149379

[Hurin]

I'm going to duck in here real quick, the actor that plays jacob answered some of these questions and hulu has a clip of it:

http://www.hulu.com/collections/453/149379

Hopefully that lays to rest any claims that the MIB is dead (as normally understood) and that the smoke monster is a separate entity that has taken his form. Though I'm sure we'll still hear about how "becoming incorporal" must (somehow) entail dying (for some reason) and how it was therefore perfectly fine to call him "dead" even though doing so could (and apparently did) mislead casual viewers. People can use their own terminology as much as they want. But it's a shame when it can lead to confusion. . . like people believing that the MIB is not the smoke monster.

To be fair though, actors aren't always the most informed about the underlying plot of a project. Some of them are just collecting a paycheck.