6x01-6x02 LA X Parts 1&2: Ginger Ale Talk

Overall thoughts
RACHEL: So I need to ask you before we start getting into the analyzing and stuff — overall, were you happy with the premiere?
SUSAN: Yes and no.  It was well done and I cannot put into words how much I love Michael Emerson.  Last night was his best run with Ben yet.  But, I’m also seeing signs that the writers might be taking us somewhere I don’t want to go and negating some of the things that were important to the storyline we’ve been following for 5 seasons.  So, I like the episode, but I’m still hesitant.
RACHEL: I know! Michael Emerson was amazing and Terry O’Quinn did a great job as well.  I think that’s how I feel too.  I loved the premiere but I’m wondering how they’re gonna bring these two timelines together in a way that’ll.. work. 
SUSAN: Yeah.  Last night, I was amazed, for sure, but part of it felt.. dream-sequency?  Like the old “We don’t know how to work this in, so we’ll say it’s a dream” and of course they aren’t saying it’s a dream, but it could easily be a similar type of brush off.

Lost x 2

RACHEL: So alternate reality, what do we think of this?  I know we somewhat speculated about this at one point.  It’s even being dubbed “flash-sideways” already.  
SUSAN: I think we did predict this in some way.  I’m okay with it, as long as it doesn’t negate what we’ve been doing for five seasons.  I have to recognize that as a possibility though.
RACHEL: True, that is a possibility.  I thought it was interesting that the alternate timeline didn’t just pick up from the flight as if it hadn’t crashed but instead made significant little changes.
SUSAN: Well, I’m taking it as “this is the world withouth the island”.  Rather than “this is time restarting right at the point of the crash”.
RACHEL: So a world without an island affect their lives?
SUSAN: Yes, so, Hurley maybe came up with the numbers on his own.  And then, maybe, that’s why he doesn’t think they’re unlucky.  I think we’re looking at a butterfly effect here.  Charlie chooses to try to swallow the heroine instead of flush it.  The stewardess chooses to give Jack one bottle instead of two.  Maybe Claire isn’t on the plane because the psychic never told her to go, because he no longer had the premonition of the crash.
[simultaneously]
RACHEL: Is that also why Walt and Michael aren’t on the plane?  Walt is never “special” in this timeline either.
SUSAN: Maybe Walt never has special powers if the island doesn’t exist so his step-father wants to raise him. 
SUSAN: Ha, same train of thought.   I have two thoughts on that.  Either Walt is never special.  Actually, three.  Michael and Walt’s mom never split or she never gets cancer or beats the cancer (four). 
RACHEL: I wonder.. in this alternate timline, is Claire still pregnant?
SUSAN: I wonder the same.  They were careful not to show her belly.  Which is pretty huge because a whole PERSON that doesn’t exist in the other timeline. 
RACHEL: Definitely.  And a lot of importance was placed on Aaron and his birth in the original timeline.
SUSAN: Yes, I hope that gets addressed.  I tend to think, she will be though. 
RACHEL: Also, when Jack and Locke have that conversation and Jack tells him that he’s a spinal surgeon.  I thought of you and how you made that connection recently.
SUSAN: We called that! Wasn’t that awesome?  I was pretty happy in that scene. 
RACHEL: That was! So now I’m thinking, will Jack “fix” Locke in this timeline?

What do the two timelines MEAN

SUSAN: So, I was just contemplating it.  I think the reason they don’t crash is really because Desmond isn’t on the island.  I think that’s why he was the one who had to appear on that plane.  There was no hatch for him to be in, so there was no button to push, so there was no button to not push, so there was no crash.
RACHEL: Right.  There’s no more island, period.  Which makes me wonder what happens to Ben, Juliet, Richard and the Others in the alternate reality? Are they all dead?
SUSAN: Well, there was an island though.  There were houses in that underwater CGI scene (which, can I just say, not a big fan of the blatant CGI) which implies Dharmaville so something sunk the island after that was created.  Des lands in 2001 right? So sometime between 1977ish and 2001 something sinks the island. 
RACHEL: The hydrogen bomb? Presumably that’s what sunk the island when Juliet detonated it.
SUSAN: Hmm could be.  I don’t know if I buy the mutliples of themselves in the same timeline though.
RACHEL: You think it’s multiples of themselves? Rather than two separate timelines?
SUSAN: Well, what I mean is, for the island sinking in timeline 1, Juliet, Jack etc. would have to be present in timeline 1 at the time of the sinking.  But Jack, etc. are also present in the plane about the sunken island which means they appear twice in timeline 1.
RACHEL: Unless rather than sinking with the island, it’s at that moment that they’re transported back to 2007.
SUSAN: But there are still multiples in the same timeline.  What I mean is, in timeline 1, Jack exists in 1977 then detonating the bomb and Jack, albeit another version of Jack, exists again in 2004 about the island his other part caused to sink.  I guess I’m thinking the cause of the event must exist in the same timeline.
[simultaneously]
RACHEL: I see what you’re saying now. Maybe it doesn’t though.  Maybe there was one timeline and then when the h-bomb detonated, it split?
SUSAN: I guess there can be two ways of looking at this.  We can see a time reboot, or we can see a time forking.
SUSAN: LOL, we’re so similar.
RACHEL: LOL, we are! I like the idea of a split.  But can both timelines continue to exist? Or will they have to eventually.. meet up again?
SUSAN: I think they meet.  I think they have to or I’ll be angry, LOL.
RACHEL: Agreed!
SUSAN: I’m starting to lean towards split as well.  So everything is the same until 1977.  My original issue still sticks though.  I don’t like Jack existing twice on the same timeline.
RACHEL: But hasn’t it been that way for a while? Because when they were in 1977 on the island, their off-island selves still existed. 
SUSAN: Yes.  Okay here is my dilemma.  Timeline 1: Sawyer crashes on island, Sawyer time jumps on island, Sawyer time jumps to 1977, Sawyer exists while his younger self continues to live the same life he lived, Sawyer helps bring about bomb to reset timeline, Sawyer time jumps from bomb to 2007.  Timeline 2: Sawyer does not crash on island, Sawyer continues on to LAX, Sawyer never goes to 1977 to bring about the bomb that puts the island under water.  (Yes, I’m very confused.)
RACHEL: I’m confused too! But it’s like what you said earlier.  Maybe we’re not supposed to look at it as - crash vs. no crash.  Maybe it’s island vs. no island.  That’s why in your timeline 2, it doesn’t matter that Sawyer never goes to 1977. 
SUSAN: Well, my point there was, we need a cause for the island to be underwater.  Oh wait, I think I get it.  In 1977 Sawyer is both helping to blow up the island, and a child who just lost his parents.  So.. that child then would be the one on the plane. 
RACHEL: Yes!  Okay, that makes sense to me too.
SUSAN: So they were already coexisting with themselves.  No wait.  Dammit.  My head hurts.
RACHEL: Maybe we should move on to the 2007 on-island Losties? LOL. 
SUSAN: Yes, okay, let’s leave that one alone for awhile.

More “lists”

SUSAN: Whose names are on the list?  Do you think that’s why Sun didn’t time jump?  I was trying to remember who was on the original list that Ben had.  And why?
RACHEL: I think whoever Jacob has touched is on the list.  I got the impression that it was done to protect them.  The Temple Others seem.. more ruthless than Ben’s Others.  They were totally ready to shoot them all on the spot without question.
SUSAN: Oh so you’re thinking this is a recent thing.  I was thinking more this list has been around for a long time.
RACHEL: I guess I assumed it was recent because Jacob gave the Anhk to Hurley recently.  And the list was inside it.  It could be an old list too.  BUT - remember at one point Tom told Jack he wasn’t on the list?  I’m pretty sure he told one of them that.
SUSAN: Checking Lostpedia.

“In “Par Avion”, Mikhail states that Kate is not on the list because she is “flawed”; Sayid is not on the list because he is “weak and frightened”; and Locke is not on the list because he is angry.”

“In “I Do”, Danny Pickett mentioned that ‘Shephard wasn’t even on Jacob’s list.’”

RACHEL: But it seems they are now, right?
SUSAN: I would be interested to know if Locke were on there.

The Man in Black

SUSAN: What do you think the Man in Black’s name will be?  They seem to really not want us to know yet.  Which means I really really want to know.
RACHEL: If they go by the Bible, it would be interesting if his name is Esau.
SUSAN: I was also thinking something like Lucifer.  I feel like it might be something so obvious they feel they can’t say it.
RACHEL: Maybe he’s Jacob also.  Maybe they’re two sides of the same person.
SUSAN: I was just thinking that too!  I’m so happy we’re friends.
RACHEL: Hahah - me too!  
SUSAN: I was thinking about that when I was rewatching season 1.  The clothing changes [light vs. dark] seemed so significant, and maybe that is because the characters were showing their light or dark sides at the time.  So maybe these two are just the ultimate manifestation of that?
RACHEL: I can see that.
SUSAN: I keep thinking about how when Ben asked if they’d met before, Jacob said “In a manner of speaking”.
RACHEL: Because Ben had met Smokey who is MIB and if they’re the same.  That would fit!  Which brings up another question of mine.  Now that we know who the Smoke Monster is - Why did he “work” for Ben if Ben worked for Jacob?  Why allow himself to be “summoned” by Ben at all?
SUSAN: Well was Ben really working for Jacob?  I mean, I think we established when Ben thought he was following Jacobs instructions, he really seemed to be following the Man in Black’s
SUSAN: I think the Man in Black was grooming Ben to kill Jacob for a long time.
RACHEL: But Ben was also working alongside Richard Alpert, who is definitely on Jacob’s side.  Unless the Man in Black duped them all?
SUSAN: Well Richard can’t really DO anything right?  He just kind of takes orders from the leader.  So if you manipulate the leader, you manipulate him as well.
RACHEL: I want to agree.  But at the same time, Richard seems to get more direct contact with Jacob than any of the leaders. 
SUSAN: Really? When does he have contact with Jacob?
RACHEL: Doesn’t he?  LOL.  Cause he knows where Jacob is, he can bring them to him, he tells the leaders when/if they’re summoned?  Then again, Fake Locke duped him.  So maybe he was manipulated after all.
SUSAN: He certainly knows a lot about the island.  But I don’t think we’ve ever seen him contact Jacob.  I’m starting to think of him kind of like a referee.  He knows all the rules, and makes sure the game is played fairly.
RACHEL: But.. that’s probably as far as it goes.

Kate Hate

RACHEL: Oh! I need to get this off my chest.  Throughout the episode, I was getting increasingly annoyed with Kate.  She just keeps pushing herself onto Sawyer and I feel like, given his display of grief last night, Sawyer loves Juliet.  NOT Kate. 
SUSAN: OMG YES.  First she goes to Jack first instead of him, and I think, “Oh good, she’s chosen Jack”.  THEN she tries to stay behind with him to bury Juliet, and I think “Back up bitch”.  And THEN she plays nurse with his [Sawyer’s] head wound.  And I hate her.
RACHEL: Me too! And in next week’s promo, she goes after Sawyer and tells Jack that SHE can bring him back.  Of course, because she just assumes that Sawyer will get over Juliet in two seconds and go back to fawning over her. 
SUSAN: Ugggggh. 
RACHEL: If she has to have a romantic love interest, just stick her with Jack. 
SUSAN: I don’t think it should be either honestly.  I think Jack should end up alone. 
RACHEL: I actually think that makes the most sense for Jack too.

The Temple

RACHEL: What did you think of the Temple’s fountain (of youth?) and their attempt to heal Sayid?
SUSAN: Something just struck me as you said that.  Sayid and Ben went into the temple for the same reason.  Exactly the same reason in fact.  The gunshot wound was in the same place.
RACHEL: That’s right! During that scene when Dogan asked who caused this, I also thought of how Roger Linus was the one who shot him.
SUSAN: He created the same fate for him that Ben had.
RACHEL: Another thought! When Richard took Ben, he said that Ben would be one of them.  Does that mean.. Sayid is too now?
SUSAN: Presumably?
RACHEL: Oh! Maybe Jacob needed one of the Losties to become one of them [an Other].  The MIB took Locke.  So maybe Jacob needed someone to inhabit? Speak through?  
SUSAN: Well, I think a lot of people thought that.  But then when Cuse and Lindlelof were on Kimmel and he asked if Sayid was now inhabited by Jacob.  They said Sayid was now inhabited by “something”.
RACHEL: Crazy thought - What if something is Christian’s spirit? The real Christian.
SUSAN: Or Ben?  Like somehow part of young Ben is now in him, and part of adult Sayid went into Ben?
RACHEL: Oh!! I like that!

Juliet’s final moments

SUSAN: Before I forget - I wanted to bring this up, because I’ve been thinking about it a lot and I like what it might mean.  Y’know when Juliet is dying?  And she says, “We can meet for coffee, we’ll go dutch”.  That was pretty reminiscent of Charlotte’s death right? Like.. she had the time sickness.
RACHEL: Yes! That crossed my mind also.  And how her final thought was “it worked”.  It made me think that in her dying moment, she was given a glimpse or knowledge of the other timeline.  I’d like to see Juliet say that to someone [specifically Sawyer] like we did with Charlotte and Faraday. 
SUSAN: Yesss.  Exactly my thoughts.  I’m hoping that happens.

[Pictures courtesy of Lost-Media.com]