Quake3World

What...no topic?!

let's be honest, it's a bit cack.

phantasmagoria wrote:let's be honest, it's a bit cack.

Raises hand high.... Hello I am still lost

This was a weird show early but now I fear for my sanity.......

I kind of lost interest

get it? lost interest

It is quality

Good opening episode for the new season...

Isn't it on at the same time as 24?... Pwnt.

I'll have to download it on Tuesdays.

Edit: I'd just seen an ad for Heroes and got mixed up.

I used to love this show when it was fresh and exciting. Now its fresh and annoying. Seriously, how many different phenomena can this show create, and then abandon?

yet I'm still watching it lol

still think it's excellent. Very nice move in the latest episode with whitmore as a youth.

truth
they show suddenly got engulfed in this whole timetravelling thing, and it took the characters about 4 minutes to accept this seemingly mindblowing experience, but this last ep redeemed a lot.
whitmore as a footsoldier on the island sheds a lot of light on his interest in it, as do we now know why richard alpert was the same age in all his appearences.

oh and im partial to the way flashbacks, flashforwards and the 'present' (which is now all over the place) blends to one timeline.

i do think the show is focussing too much on these support characters now btw. jack kate ben sayid etc were far more interesting characters than faraday and his whiny chick and their psychic chinese friend. I also hope they'll explore the whole dharma thing more - my favorite plotline of the show.

actually, now that i think about it, we also now know why Richard Alpert was visiting Locke when he was still a child.
this happened in one of the flashbacks in S4 I think, where Richard came to Locke's house telling his fosterparents Locke was special blabla, made him do some tests.

When Locke told Richard he was their leader (in S5E3), Richard said they normally choose their leaders of a much younger age. Locke tells Richard to come visit him in a few years because Locke isnt born at that point in time yet.


shi, it's actually starting to make some sense

I've watched the show and MKJ is correct that somethings have "opened up" but I still don't understand why Richard Alpert doesn't age.

i actually like faraday's trio. If anything, kate and jack are the ones that bore the living fuck outta me.

GONNAFISTYA wrote:I've watched the show and MKJ is correct that somethings have "opened up" but I still don't understand why Richard Alpert doesn't age.

for all we know all appearances of Alpert over the years were only 5 minutes apart for him.

[edit] would require some massive timemanagement from his part tho but i think you know what i mean

My favourite's still Desmond, 'cos the writers are always fucking with his head, and he's a nice bloke, perpetually confused.
And he called his kid Charlie

MKJ wrote:
for all we know all appearances of Alpert over the years were only 5 minutes apart for him.

[edit] would require some massive timemanagement from his part tho but i think you know what i mean

what on earth are you talking about? The question is, why doesn't alpert show signs of aging when he's so old.

MKJ wrote:

GONNAFISTYA wrote:I've watched the show and MKJ is correct that somethings have "opened up" but I still don't understand why Richard Alpert doesn't age.

for all we know all appearances of Alpert over the years were only 5 minutes apart for him.

[edit] would require some massive timemanagement from his part tho but i think you know what i mean

That makes no sense to me. They haven't done anything to explain why he doesn't age.

if I meet you today and I travel 50 years into the future and meet you again, you will be an old man while I will still look and be the same age. if I were to timetravel all over the place, both forward and back, I will always still look the same won't I, even tho the rest of the world will have changed (but only for me).

lets say the Alpert in the 50s is the 'real' Alpert - that is to say, he doesnt seem to know anything about timetravel when Locke implied it. lets assume he's 30 years old there.

2 years later they discover the timetravel dealio (again an assumption, no idea when they unlocked it). he travels to the future, meets Ben before he killed his dad. He believes Ben to be a good leader and he travels back in time when Ben first arrived. Tells him to prepare and that theyll meet again in several years (which, from richard's point of view, has already happened).
He does the same thing with Locke; he sees what Locke can do when he first arrives, thinks he's a solid leader. Goes to Locke when he's injured, tells Locke to tell his past self to make Locke their leader. etc.

4 appearances of Alpert in a span of 50 years, tho from Alpert's perspective, maybe a few months. he will still be 30 years old.

.. thats pretty much the whole deal with time and the traveling through it - its all very confusing since there are no constants. right now we're looking at it from our timeline, making us the constant (or 'index'). changing the constant will also change the perception chronologically.

to give a reverse example - Marty McFly experienced a timeframe of over a hundred years, but for him he only spent a few days in each decade. 2 weeks for him, 100 years for us. zoink.


its prolly nothing like that on Lost and Alpert will turn out to be some supreme ghostlike being or whatever but the Time is Relative POV is the most predictable answer to the question atm

or, he really is a million years old and the same island properties that cured Rose's cancer and regenerated Locke's spine is also 'curing' old age.
but thats a copout


i too found Desmond calling his kid Charlie quite striking btw. named after the guy who reunited him and his love, but also named after the guy who broke them apart. n1

i don't think alpert time travels. If he did, he'd remember giving locke the compass.

not if the 50s alpert is the starting point

Speculating about Lost.

hahaha

MKJ wrote:not if the 50s alpert is the starting point

hm perhaps u're right.

MKJ wrote:if I meet you today and I travel 50 years into the future and meet you again, you will be an old man while I will still look and be the same age. if I were to timetravel all over the place, both forward and back, I will always still look the same won't I, even tho the rest of the world will have changed (but only for me).

lets say the Alpert in the 50s is the 'real' Alpert - that is to say, he doesnt seem to know anything about timetravel when Locke implied it. lets assume he's 30 years old there.

2 years later they discover the timetravel dealio (again an assumption, no idea when they unlocked it). he travels to the future, meets Ben before he killed his dad. He believes Ben to be a good leader and he travels back in time when Ben first arrived. Tells him to prepare and that theyll meet again in several years (which, from richard's point of view, has already happened).
He does the same thing with Locke; he sees what Locke can do when he first arrives, thinks he's a solid leader. Goes to Locke when he's injured, tells Locke to tell his past self to make Locke their leader. etc.

4 appearances of Alpert in a span of 50 years, tho from Alpert's perspective, maybe a few months. he will still be 30 years old.

.. thats pretty much the whole deal with time and the traveling through it - its all very confusing since there are no constants. right now we're looking at it from our timeline, making us the constant (or 'index'). changing the constant will also change the perception chronologically.

to give a reverse example - Marty McFly experienced a timeframe of over a hundred years, but for him he only spent a few days in each decade. 2 weeks for him, 100 years for us. zoink.


its prolly nothing like that on Lost and Alpert will turn out to be some supreme ghostlike being or whatever but the Time is Relative POV is the most predictable answer to the question atm

Goddamned nerd

fuck you