Lostpedia
Lostpedia
Lostpedia
7,497
pages

Talk: The Man in Black/archive1

Back to page |
< Talk:The Man in Black
Sign in to edit

This is all theory[]

Please place section entitled "As John Locke" under theory based on the policy guidelines. Mister vijay 15:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Jacob said to him "You found your loophole", it's obviously him. --Blueeagleislander 06:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

-Well This does not proof that they are the same person. Although there are several facts that proof it. And they are explained after every point you have made. (fallowing)

Occam's Razor[]

I assume you've heard of "Ockam's razor". It's a logical rule that states "The simplest explanation for a phenomenon is most likely the correct explanation." or further more that "the principle recommends selecting the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions". Mister vijay 17:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Our hypothesis indroduces some assumptions, but yours introdruce a bunch of them. You are saying that many thing we saw in the show have a different meaning than the obvious. You are suggesting things that conflict with what we see, you are denying things that the only possible alternative explanation would have to have thousands of assumptions. Stop and think man. And with some effort you might understand it.

Enemy[]

Point: 1) The character played by Titus is Jacob's Enemy despite the fact that the refers to Jacob as "my friend" in his dialogue.

  • Counterpoint:1) He also said that he wanted to kill him... and then got to at the end, with Jacob referring to the conversation involving the loophole.
  • Reponse:1) True he said: "Do you know how badly I want to kill you?". This give rise to the theory: they are "enemies" and are enemies for hundreds of years.

Look at the complex relationship between Jack and Locke. In seson 4 he puts a gun to Locke's head and pulls the trigger. I guess they are "enemies" at that point. In season 5 though when asked about his relationship to the deceased he says "friend". This relationship evolved and changed over 5 seasons as the characters evolved and grew. But based on this theory of the relationship between Jaocb and his "enemy" the nature of that relationship remains so much the same for over a hundred years that the conversation picks up exactly where it left off over a hundred years later. This, however, is unverified. You write Jacob "refers" to the conversation he had over a hundred years ago. Why is he necessary referring to that conversation? Why is this so "obvious"? Many different characters can have the same or similar objectives, goals or plans. Many characters say they want to kill Ben, but they are not the same character.

Have you thought that he was being sarcastic? He said "One day I will find a loophole my friend". Just to remind you that the loophole means a way of killing you. "One day you are going to pay for you crimes my friend." That what Sherlock Holmes said to Professor Moriarty, and they were enemies, right? DUH!


Shapeshifter[]

Point: 2) This character referred to as "Jacob's Enemy" can change his shape. At best this is unverified. We never see this character visually change his shape.

  • Counter point: 2) The dead body of Locke, and the dialogue verify who that was.
  • Response: 2) The dead body of Locke what? We do not see this character visually change his shape. What dialogue verifies who who was? when? I have no idea what you're saying.


The Incident part 2 shows clearly that the person who we thought was Locke ressurrected by the island or by Jacob is not who we thought it was. Going further, the dialogue between this person and Jacob at the end of the episode do imply that he is the same person from the beginning of the episode or some kind of reincarnation of him. Between that and saying that he can shape shift is not a very big step, even thought that is not very clear yet. You denying it is more assuming than accepting it.


There is some inconsistencies regarding the shape shifting. In "The Substitute", Ilana states, that "He's stuck that way", but in the previous season we saw him in the form of Alex (and propably Christian too). When and why he became stuck ? After killing Jacob ? Pirate87 08:09, February 24, 2010 (UTC)

Well, obviously we don't know for sure yet. But that seems to be the prevalent theory. -- Managerpants  Contribs  Talk  11:47, February 24, 2010 (UTC)
Someone dropped a line on another page that burning the cabin locked (hmm) him into his current human form. It's worth keeping in our hip pockets because Ilana had to have some reason for ordering the fire.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 14:26, February 24, 2010 (UTC)
Didn't Ilana say that he was stuck now that Jacob is dead? Parableman 04:03, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

History[]

Point: 3) "He spent many years attempting to find a loophole to kill and defeat his nemesis, Jacob." Which episodes have flashbacks that "reveal" that he spent many years attempting to find a loophole? Since you can't point to an episode that confirms that this also is a "theory".

  • Counterpoint:3) Its in the dialogue!
  • Response: 3) What dialogue? When? Do you want me to make your argument and find supporting evidence because I can't. I have no idea where to look.
  • Sometime in the 1800's, "Jacob's Enemy" is trying to find a loophole to kill Jacob. In 2007, "Jacob's Enemy" finds a loophole to kill Jacob. Much time has passed in between. Ergo, "He spend many years attempting to find a loophole to kill [...] Jacob."  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  22:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Your response is based in 2 logical fallacies: circular reasoning, which is defined by wikipedia as "a logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premises" For example: "Why am I the boss? It's because I call the shots around here." Why do you call all the shots around here? "Because I am the boss"
  • Umm... No? I don't assume my conclusion. We know for a fact that he was trying to find a loophole to kill Jacob in the 1800's. We know for a fact that he was trying to find a loophole to kill Jacob in 2007 (and succeeded). The number of years between the 1800's and 2007 is "much time" (subjective, granted, but I think most people would agree). That's pure simple deduction, my friend.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  00:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • You write out your reasoning and you assume that the "he" in the first sentence refers to the "he" in the second. You assume that Titus and Terry are playing the same character. There's no visual morphing of Terry into Titus. That's the premise that you're assuming and the position that I'm questioning.Mister vijay 00:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • We're clearly meant to ascribe some association between Locke and Jacob's enemy, whether or not that relation is "taking the form of" doesn't matter. From a storytelling point of view, and the way things are presented narratively, we're meant to believe that Locke has something to do with Jacob's enemy due to the planned killing of Jacob and the loophole. What you call fallacious, I call cohesive.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  01:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, taken from Lostpedia:Theory policy "It is also possible to create statements that appear on the surface to be a theory, but fall short due to a logical fallacy; such statements are sometimes referred to as crackpot theories." For example, 

   * The Island chose Locke because he is special.
   * The Island chose Walt because he is special.
   * Locke and Walt are the same person.

The contents of the actual quote you're referring to doesn't clearly state anything. You've come to your conclusions based on the above logical fallacies.Mister vijay 23:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

  • You're wrong Mister. To reiterate above - FACT: he was trying to find a loophole to kill Jacob in the 1800's. FACT: he was trying to find a loophole to kill Jacob in 2007. If you refute those two facts please explain why. If you accept those two facts, can you not say then that he has spent over a hundred years looking for the loophole? If not, why not? --Integrated (User / Talk) 07:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree 100% w/ Integrated. I think it's really quite funny when people are so focussed on discovering the intriquicies of the show that they read way to far into aspects that are meant to be straight-forward and obvious. It's like the family guy gag when Peter and Brian are sitting at the breakfast table, and Peter looks, suprised, to Brian and says: "Brian! There's a message in my Alphabits! It says 'Ooooooooooo!'" Brian then looks at him, annoyed, and replies "Peter, those are Cheerios."-- Roobydo  talk  contribs  14:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Hahahaha funny stuff :) Yea this reminds me of when Ben said he was going to "fulfill a promise to an old friend" which spelt it out very cut and dried that he was going to go kill Penny, but people refused to believe it. --Integrated (User / Talk) 20:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

- The argument used by Mister vijay is funny, but does not apply for the discussion. We are discussing by logic here mate. And your point is logically invalid, what we are discussing is not. Is a logical discussion based on facts. The way we interpret the facts is our problem and we can discuss them in here. Actually MANY unanswered questions from the show are answered here in LostPedia articles based on assumptions way more exaggerated than this.


Smoke Monster[]

Point: 4) This character "Jacob's Enemy" has the ability to steal people's memories. At what point in the series does ANY character steal another person's memory??

  • Counterpoint: 4) Erm, the smoke monster?!
  • Response: 4) The smoke monster can steal a person's memory? A) Ultimately what relevance is that to Jacob's Enemy? B) Can you show me a scene where this happens that mirrors what we see happen in the 6 episodes that "Imposter-Locke-Jacob's Enemy" appears in? Is there really a precedence for this? I want to discuss that theory.
  • Addendum (added later): If I were to want to discuss that theory it would be on the talk theory page of the smoke monster! :) Mister vijay 03:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not interested in what "general consensus" says but I think I will listen to Official Lost Podcast transcript/March 21, 2008 where the writers address this issue. In the summary page it says "on the undead door there's only three pictures. One of them is Christian Shephard, and one of them is Yemi. And the other one is..." Carlton: "Kate's horse. Just a picture of a horse. So Kate's horse is undead." But I will have to listen to the entire podcast again to confirm the context of these comments. In any event, this is talk page about "Jacob's Enemy" and I am questioning how so many different entities are now tied together with this character. Other mysterious happenings can be discussed but I would prefer we clearly separate characters and phenomena and not mix them all together unless it's clearly shown or stated in podcasts/episodes.Mister vijay 23:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


I agree that characters and phenomena should not be mixed together, but as the show have given us some information that can co-relate characters and phenomena, is good for us to discuss about the points which we can connect them. I think people are going to far saying that the smoke monster IS a person. But the relationship with it and resurrected John Locke is clear.
  • I just wanted to add my two cents. We can safely think that Jacob's Nemesis or Man in Black might be another dead man embodied by smoke monster. So there might be only one nemesis, which is smokey.

Richard[]

Point: 5) Richard who has been on the Island for a "long time" looks at Locke and never questions that this is Locke. While he says "I've never seen a man brought back to life" he also says "If I had to guess it was Jacob who is responsible for this". So now we're bringing in the assumption that Richard is completely misguided despite many many episodes that prove otherwise.

  • Counterpoint: 5) Richard does question this is Locke. He actually says to him "you seem different..."
  • Response: 6) You say he "questions this is Locke". Apparently his objections were not strong enough to convince him to ever contradict Locke's constant question "Am I the leader?" Richard replies "Yes". His actions speak louder than one comment he made. He brought him to Jacob. That's enough for me to say Richard was, under your theory, taken for a fool despite his "knowledge" of the Island.
  • Yes, Richard was fooled. That's the point. He see's Locke, assumes (by Occam's Razor) that it is Locke, and is confused at how Locke came back to life because as far as he knows, that's impossible. Turns out he's right. Doesn't mean he wasn't fooled. That's not a huge assumption to make, it's just what is clearly in the episode.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  22:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • As I said above Richard says some contradictory things in that episode but his actions speak louder than his words. The assumption is not that he was fooled it is that despite his close relationship with Jacob, he's not aware of Jacob's supposed "nemesis" nor is he aware of the scope of the power of this nemesis. That's a huge gap in his knowledge.Mister vijay 00:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I disagree. It's unclear whether even Jacob knew about the full extent of his enemy's powers. It seems likely that he wouldn't be expecting the ability of his enemy to somehow exploit whatever the loophole is (otherwise, why would he need a loophole? Additionally, in the opening scene it seems like Jacob doesn't know what such a loophole could be.) If this is the case, then certainly Richard wouldn't be aware. Either way, it doesn't seem like such a flaw to assume that Richard didn't know about Jacob's enemy (or at least about the notion that he could take the form of Locke.)  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  00:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Well at least we've gotten to a point where we can leave behind the word "obvious" and use a different word instead, "unclear" to characterize this issue.Mister vijay 00:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Is funny that Mister vijay says that we are wrong making those assumptions about "resurrected Locke" being the same person/entity as Titus' character, and being related to the Smoke Monster, which have solid ground in my opinion, and have the audacity of making the assumption that Richard ,"despite his close relationship with Jacob, he's not aware of Jacob's supposed "nemesis" nor is he aware of the scope of the power of this nemesis." Dude THIS is a pointless assumption as you have nothing to support that except for the fact that he did not recognize John Locke as any different person or "thing" than Locke himself. Actually, even say that is a assumption as that is based only in Richard's attitude towards Locke. And I believe that he seemed to be suspecting and concernead about Locke rather than faithful as he always was.


Ben[]

Point: 6) Ben who has been on the Island for 35 years and has knowledge about many of the Island's mysteries also doesn't question that this is Locke. His lines are "BEN: Sun, I had no idea it would happen. I've seen this Island do miraculous things. I've seen it heal the sick, but never once has it done anything like this. Dead is dead. You don't get to come back from that, not even here. So the fact that John Locke is walking around this Island... scares the living hell out of me." He uses the word "FACT" to confirm that John Locke is walking around this Island. Now we saying Ben is misguided despite many many episodes when his knowledge was very great.

  • Counterpoint: 6) That dialogue confirms to me that he is kinda scared and confused as to what is happening.
  • Response: Is he really confused? Look at his words again. Does he really ever suspect that A) That Locke is an imposter. B) That Locke is really the smoke monster. Again I can cite dialogue that counters that idea but his actions speak louder than words. He never seems confused that this is Locke. His confusion/fear stems from other sources. That's another discussion though.
  • Yes he's confused, he admits that he's never seen anything like this before, and to the best of his knowledge, this is impossible. Of course he's confused. He uses the word "fact" because that's what his perception is. Furthermore, the idea that Ben has no idea what he's really doing has been the whole point of his arc for the last half of the season.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  22:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • We can go on all day saying "Yes he was confused" and "No, he wasn't confused" but at the end of the day the dialogue and the actions speak for themselves. You say his perception is that it is fact. That's really what I'm getting at. He trusts his gut, his perception.Mister vijay 00:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • How does this dialog prove anything? How many times now has Ben fooled us? How can anyone even begin to start trusting Ben? Anything he says or does should not be taken as truth without questions. Ben has fooled everyone multiple times. He is a master manipulator. For all we know the killing of Jacob could be entirely Ben's plan and everyone is just a pawn of his. I do not believe this is Ben's plan at all. I am just saying that we can't leave that idea out of our minds and we definitely can't start trusting Ben. He has never given us a reason to trust him. His words can't be taken as truth. --Ilostmyself 00:26, February 1, 2010 (UTC)

Same than the argument about Richard. You are saying that the fact that Ben believed that that person was Locke is a proof that he is misguided and don't know what he is doing. Assumptions, assumptions. We know already that Ben don't know all secrets of the island, he does not know where the monster resides, he have net met Jacob, he was scared out of hell Alex came to him in the monster chamber. Ben did not know everything about the island, and is plausible that he believed that Locke has ressurrected as he knew John was "special". Again, your argument is against yourself.

The Island[]

Point: 7) The following dialogue was taken from "Follow the Leader": BEN: Your timing was impeccable, John. How did you know when to be here? LOCKE: The Island told me. Didn't it ever tell you things?

  • The conclusion that this person speaking is "Jacob's Enemy" posing as John Locke, we have to assume now that "Jacob's Enemy" has a close relationship with the Island. That the Island speaks to "Jacob's Enemy".
  • Counterpoint:7) Or that using John Locke's memories, he knows what Locke would say, and is in fact lying.
  • Response: 7) There's a lot of possibilities but nothing is "obvious" or confirmed. Maybe he's using Locke's memories, maybe he knows what Locke would say, maybe he's lying, maybe he's omniscient. Let's not discuss theories but rather what's confirmed. Mister vijay 00:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

First time you make a good point, but again against yourself. You must have a very low IQ. WHY the hell would "The island told me" be a sign that this person is John Locke himself. What by the mercy of God make you say that the fact that "Locke" said that, it mean that he has a connection to the island and the island speaks to him as a fact? Mate none of us who are discussing the topic said that. You said that. You are assuming that. We don't even know what that means so everything we say about that is theory.

Jacob[]

Point: 8) BEN: No, John. And clearly it hasn't told you where Jacob is, or you wouldn't need Richard to show you.LOCKE: You've never seen him. BEN: What? LOCKE: Jacob. You've never seen him, have you?

For this dialogue to make sense you'd have to now assume that "Jacob's Enemy" doesn't know where Jacob is despite evidence to the contrary in the flashback scene that is the only visual evidence we have. Futhermore, for this "theory" to make sense, you'd have to say that "Jacob's Enemy" is "pretending" or lying to Ben.
  • Okay this is somewhat unrelated to this point but at least you call him "fake locke" which implies maybe there's a possibility this is not Titus's character?Mister vijay 00:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Counterpoint: 8) Or, only the leader can actually go in to see Jacob, and thats another reason why Ben goes with him, because Ben is in the fact the leader, as Locke is dead.
  • Response: This is just wild speculation. Nothing you say has any evidence to suggest that is the case.

That was a a bit over the top but here we go. The fact that John asks Richard to take him to Jacob does not proof anything for either side. He can be posing as John or be John himself. If he is posing as John, he would ask Richard for Jacob as John did not know where Jacob was. If that was John himself he simply asked it cause he didn't know where it was. But for that to be correct it would bring a lot of speculation as How John knows Jacob is not in the cabin he used to visit, How he knows that Richard knows where Jacob is, Why would he want to kill him.

Christian[]

Point: 9) In the episode "Dead is Dead" Christian Shepard tells Sun to wait for John Locke. For this theory to work you'd have to assume that Christian is misguided or somehow aligned with "Jacob's Enemy" despite many episodes that contradict this idea including his assertion that he can speak on Jacob's behalf.

  • Counterpoint:9) Again. Christian has been seen in the cabin, which is currently being questioned as to whether it was Jacob we saw originally or not...
  • Response: Feel free to question all you want but in the theories page.
  • With one dead character who appears walking around on the Island and has something to do with Jacob's Enemy. It's complete wild speculation that the other dead character who appears walking around on the Island has anything to do with Jacob's enemy. </sarcasm> The idea that Christian Shephard is aligned with Jacob's enemy is the clearest solution we can assume from everything we've seen (including the fact that someone else has been using Jacob's cabin).  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  22:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • What you're saying is that since Locke whose dead body is shown and Shepard who has been confirmed dead by podcasts and characters (Jack) there is a connection between them. All right. I accept that. But you further say that Locke is connected to Jacob's Enemy and since Locke is connected to Jacob's Enemy therefore Christian is connected to Jacob's Enemy because they both are confirmed dead. That I reject because I don't connect Locke to Jacob's Enemy because of the reasons I have been citing here that I won't repeat.Mister vijay 00:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Two things. First, Christian could have been lying about being able to speak on Jacob's behalf. Jacob's nemesis is obviously a liar, so it would conceivable for anyone aligned with him to be liars, too. Second, and most importantly, something that hit me last night: what if Christian IS Jacob's nemesis? (Or was, as he's taken Locke's form now.) Christian was dead on Flight 815, but has been seen by Jack and others on the island. Locke was dead on the more recent flight and has been seen "alive." Of course, people found Locke's body, so that begs the question of where Christian's body went to. Perhaps Jacob's nemesis hid Christian's body. In any case, it was an interesting thought I had that I wanted to share. Jinxmchue 05:51, October 21, 2009 (UTC)

Lol. You are quite funny trying to be serious mister, but your arguments are one worse than the other. We did not assume Christian is Jacob's enemy, what we are saying is that based on what we have seen on the show, we can say that there is a relation between them as the events which lead into the murder of Jacob.

  • Whose to say that the island didn't need Jacob murdered for the events to take place to make MiB human and be defeated by Jack?

Loophole[]

Point: 10) To round off my top ten list, "Jacob recognized his nemesis through his disguise." This theory requires the following assumptions: A) Jacob never explicitly makes reference to the physical difference between Locke and Titus. So we have to assume that Jacob doesn't consider this important. Why? Well, it's too obvious to mention.

  • Counterpoint:10) But Jacob did recognise his enemy, and his enemy admitted who he was. It was in the dialogue!
  • Response: Where in the dialogue indicates that Jacob "recognized" his "enemy". When did his "enemy" "admit" who he was? Where in the dialogue?I have no idea what you're talking about. Did we watch the same episode? More importantly, have we just ignored or forgotten about the rest of the series? Someone who watched ONLY this finale would come to this logical conclusions not someone who watched the other 101 episodes. Mister vijay 00:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • The following dialogue is from memory, but it's approximately what was said:
Jacob: "So you found your loophole." (positing that Fake Locke is the same guy from the teaser)
Fake-Locke: "Yes I did, and you have no idea what it took to get here." (confirming his identity)
Ben: "Do you two know eachother?"
Fake-Locke: "In a manner of speaking" (further confirming his identity)
  • I can quote mutiple lines from multiple characters in multiple episodes to provide counter evidence but your argument really stands only on this exchange the meaning of which is entirely present only in your comments to the right. If you look above I also cite the same dialogue and give another explanation. Locke has met Jacob in his own past, we see that in that episode in his post-fall experience. That is a far more clear reason then to connect two characters played by different actors in scenes separated by hundreds of years.Mister vijay 00:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • If you wish to deny the dialogue thats fine, but it was completely obvious to me that the most recent Locke and Jacob's enemy were the same. They even had the reflection of the conversation between Ben and Widmore where we find out Ben cannot kill Widmore as it isn't in the rules, same with Jacob's enemy and Jacob. -- Plkrtn  talk  contribs  email  14:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Always this word "obvious". I have no idea what you're saying about the "rules". There's no mention of the word "rules" in the dialogue between Jacob and his supposed enemy. You write "If you wish to deny the dialogue, that's fine." In my points I cited various actual dialogue from a few different episodes. In your response you not only fail to cite actual dialogue but when you refer to dialogue you "conclude" things that are contradicted.Mister vijay 17:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


Lol (even louder!) - Dude you are a joke! 1- Do you really think Jacob would say "Hey you are not John Locke, you are my nemesis from the 1800's! (That just happens in cartoons dude, when the characters have to narrate what is going on). 2-Yes, you are denying the dialogue. You say that is more clear that that person is Locke himself them Jacob's nemesis. That is forcing things a lot my friend. (you are not my friend, the same way jacob's nemesis meant at the 1800's). You have to make many assumptions to say that this person is John Locke himself. The whole scene implicate that the person is Jacob's nemesis. If is not, it was intentional by the producers. Your arguments cannot support it at all.



Juxtaposition[]

With the intention of clarifying what is being said in the "obvious"-"not obvious" discussion above, I made reference to a literary technique that uses comparative methods called "Juxtaposition". Lost will open an episode with a unexplained moment or a moment in time and then return to that moment at the end. This is one form of juxtaposition. When we see two things placed near or next to each other to give them meaning that each alone does not have. We've seen another variation on this used in Ji Yeon where the flashback of Jin is intercut with a flashforward of Sun to lead the audience to believe Jin is a member of the Oceanic Six. What gives the final scene meaning is its placement in the episode in comparison to the placement of Jacob's flashback. So in the story logic of this episode the assertions are certainly obvious and logical. However, my thread was to question the story logic of the series not the finale. But we can agree to disagree. Mister vijay 19:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

That was the smater thing you wrote here. I just disagree that the discussion does not fallow the story logic of the whole show. Actually, reviewing all episodes, I realised how this episode gave sense to many thing that were obscure before. If Jonh Locke is indeed a resurrection, several points of the show are going to lose sense and the relevance of many characters is going to be lost.


Closing Comments[]

Thanks guy for taking the time to respond to my points and my final comment is this: When I watch shows like "X-Files" and "Heroes" that have characters who can shape shift as a plot device it is clearly shown (ie. we see characters visually morph) and there are clear rules by which limits this ability. In the podcast and the episodes the monster and the appearances of monster related phenomena are talked about in different terms that do not clearly establish the premises talked about in this thread. Within the Lost universe there are many concepts and characters introduced over the course of 5 years but the Titus character was thrown in at episode 102 with 17 episodes to go and this is supposedly connecting multiple entities in the show that previously were said to be different in podcast interviews. In the last 17 episodes I personally would like to see the fate of the characters that were established in the past 5 seasons resolved and explored further. I have little to no interest in seeing Titus return. If Locke is not Locke then fine I accept that but I refuse to accept that this is the same character that Titus played in season finale. Locke may be undead as the podcast suggest Christian is but this is a different and separate explanation. Thanks, again.Mister vijay 01:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

  • After all the talk about Locke being special and how he has a destiny, I also hope that something gets resolved that allows Locke's personal story to continue (say, for example, Fake Locke is still really Locke in mind and spirit, he just has a new outlook on life... sort of like a Trill or something), but given what we've been shown I just think it's hard to deny a connection between Fake Locke and Jacob's Nemesis. Hopefully we'll both be satisfied with how this turns out. My final comment is that, when shapeshifting is being used as a plot device then I agree that it's likely to be shown. However in this case it's being used a mystery, which makes it much more likely that they'd hide it from you. At any rate, like I said, hopefully it's somehow still sort of Locke (shapeshifter, fake dead body, clone or otherwise).  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  01:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


I also want the final season to be about the destiny of our characters but we all want to mysterious things to be explained. But I also want it to cover the history of the entities of the island. I would like to know about the egiptians, about the origin of the others, about the island proprierties, the history behind the oceanic flight. This is part of the show since the first episode. And the introduction of a character in season 5 finale, 18 episodes before the end (16 episodes, season intro and finale with double episode), in the context in which he appeared, make it very likely that he will be part of the closure of the show and the whole history of Lost. And this fact is the reason why we believe that this character has a relation with many island mysteries from the past 5 seasons. I think you have to agree that is way more plausible to create a character that have relation with the rest of the story than a random character that was there just as a red-herring for the audience.

Community content is available under CC BY-NC-ND unless otherwise noted.
More Fandoms