Lost 1/19/05

[Hand of Evil]

Hey,

Can anyone tell me what happened at the end of the episode. Lost seems to run a little past the hour and I've been losing the last minute when the machine switches over to tape West Wing. I saw up to the point where Charlie was reading the diary and abviously found something in it, and then the scene was cut. Thanks to anyone who can let me know what happened.

Charlie finds a passage in the diary and runs to Jack, Shannon and Syhid with the information, Claire wrote in her diary of dreaming of black rocks...Charlie relates it to what Syhid was told and they wonder if it could be connected to the map

Fade to...

Locke and Boone are out in the jungle, Locke is blowning a whisle, trying to call Walt's dog. They hear something moving, coming to them...out of the jungle comes Claire, bady missing, looking dazed.

Show ends

 

[Staffan]

Also, before she knew about the case, when she took the gun away from Sawyer, she said that she doesn't like guns (and had no motive for lying, then).

You didn't happen the way she went absolutely Gun Fu during the bank robbery, did you? She may or may not like guns, but she sure knows how to handle them.

 

[Steverooo]

You didn't happen the way she went absolutely Gun Fu during the bank robbery, did you? She may or may not like guns, but she sure knows how to handle them.

And like I said before, both she and Jack can do whatever they feel they have to! She can not like guns, and still be expert with them... just like Faramir in The Lord of the Rings (book, not movie version).

Kate shot the bank robbers to keep them from killing the manager. Even then, she wounded them. If she'd a'wanted'em dead, they would've been. She wanted them disabled. And they were...

Now back to the original question: Were the guns hers, or the "Marshalls"? She said they were his. She says she doesn't like guns (expertise notwithstanding). If they had been HER guns, I think she would have wanted them, and would have found a way to acquire them, no matter what... just like she did with the airplane.

The fact is, she didn't care what Jack did with them. They were of absolutely no interest, to her. Ergo, they're not hers.

As for her combat expertise, I have no doubt she could handle anyone on the island (Sayid included) bare-handed. Look at the way she disarmed Sawyer, after he shot the bear. I think she could kill anyone (except maybe Locke) with a broken shovel (even if she had to take it away from them, first). I also don't think she would want to...

She doesn't like violence... Doesn't mean she isn't any good at it!

 

[Hand of Evil]

Guns to a thief is just trouble, robbery becomes armed robbery and then you have other issues, such as murder to worry about, so Kate's comment about disliking guns is really more professional than personal, she is very good at what she does, we just don't know everything she does. I think it is of note that she is in a relationship with Sawyer and JAck, both can be seen in her, pro and con, showing the elements of each, while defining those characters, it is why she is so interesting.

 

[fba827]

just like she did with the airplane.

Slightly off topic question. Is it just my imagination or was the box number of saftey deposit box that she was trying to get into (at the bank, with the plane in it) the same number as the Oceanic flight number?

Or maybe it was just my imagination.

 

[Hand of Evil]

Slightly off topic question. Is it just my imagination or was the box number of saftey deposit box that she was trying to get into (at the bank, with the plane in it) the same number as the Oceanic flight number?

Or maybe it was just my imagination.

Mmmmm, goes with my thoughts that some of the background stuff has relationship to the other people on the plane. Have to wait for the rerun.

Kate is a villian, it is easy to forget, in game terms she is a mastermind, we know she planned the bank job, she hired the thugs, she controlled them and she left them to take the wrap when it was all said and done (leaving them wounded). My kind of woman!

 

[Fast Learner]

Slightly off topic question. Is it just my imagination or was the box number of saftey deposit box that she was trying to get into (at the bank, with the plane in it) the same number as the Oceanic flight number?

Or maybe it was just my imagination.

819 and 819. Not your imagination, but rather another little freaky thing.

 

[David Howery]

random notes:
TV guide has a list of all the Lost episodes to date, and the major events in them. The last episode notes that Claire, when she reappears at the very end, is still pregnant. It seemed to me she wasn't, but I didn't get a very good look either...
I watched the repeat this week (where Sayid gets caught by the frenchwoman)... did you note that she said there is 'no such thing' when the monster is discussed? Also, she says Alex is her 'child'.. not son, child. Which makes me think my earlier theory is correct about the monster being a massively telekinetic/physcic Alex, the product of a scientific experiment.
In TVG again, the director of the show says he has been following the speculations about Lost on various websites, and said that some have been 'eerily close'... think he ever looks at this one?

 

[Zuoken]

random notes:
TV guide has a list of all the Lost episodes to date, and the major events in them. The last episode notes that Claire, when she reappears at the very end, is still pregnant. It seemed to me she wasn't, but I didn't get a very good look either...
I watched the repeat this week (where Sayid gets caught by the frenchwoman)... did you note that she said there is 'no such thing' when the monster is discussed? Also, she says Alex is her 'child'.. not son, child. Which makes me think my earlier theory is correct about the monster being a massively telekinetic/physcic Alex, the product of a scientific experiment.
In TVG again, the director of the show says he has been following the speculations about Lost on various websites, and said that some have been 'eerily close'... think he ever looks at this one?

I was wondering... did Rousseau ever specifically say that Alex was her son? Alex is a gender-neutral name, I wonder... just another one of those curious things I guess. Dosen't really have any revelance to the story ATM.

 

[Steverooo]

I was wondering... did Rousseau ever specifically say that Alex was her son? Alex is a gender-neutral name, I wonder... just another one of those curious things I guess. Dosen't really have any revelance to the story ATM.

No. Just "child".