I bet Locke maps to Randall Flagg most readily by end of season.

The creators have described him as their Randall Flagg character, so I think that's a pretty sure bet. Though I don't know that he's necessarily going to be a conscious servant of evil. Between the magical empowerment by disastrous events and the fact that he has good motivation to oppose rescue, I think there are enough common features that a point-by-point parallel isn't necessary for them to make the comparison.

True, but Fred and Andrew in their own show...

I prefer the notion of Illyria and Andrew in their own show. Preferrably pre-"Time Bomb" Illyria so that once he sufficiently annoys her she can go back into the past and eradicate him from existence altogether.

I prefer the notion of Illyria and Andrew in their own show. Preferrably pre-"Time Bomb" Illyria so that once he sufficiently annoys her she can go back into the past and eradicate him from existence altogether.

So, you're thinking miniseries, then

They could do a series based on the changes that would cause in Buffy Seasons 6 and 7 with Illyria taking Andrew's place. Though the Nerd Trio might not be so easily dismissed.

Imagine how that "tiny kings" crack would have gone over in Flooded...

okay, I'll bite. Why does the notion that they may be in purgatory or something make you react so negatively?

Not Gus, but I feel very similarly to him so I'll respond as well.

It's terribly hackneyed, plus, them being dead sort of invalidates any and all conflict from the concept. What does anything matter if they're dead? They're dead!

And I'll say again, the text of the show does not, I think, support this premise. I can't accept an afterlife, even a purgatory, where the dead need food, water, can get injured by boars, or give birth to a child. To me, that's really kind of a six-year-old vison of an afterlife: "Will I be able to still eat fried chicken (or insert other favorite food here) in Heaven?" "If I get my leg cut off in an accident, will I get it back in Heaven?" "Will I be able to keep my dog (or other beloved pet) in Heaven?"

I still like Locke as Fiver in the advisor/visionary role. It's not like these have to be perfect analogies (she says, contradicting her earlier point).

I still think it's way too early to say that Locke will be an advisor to Jack. And I don't see Locke as a visionary at all. He's too much of a pragmatist. A meat and potatoes kind of guy, who doesn't believe in magic, even though he thinks the island is special in that regard.

In fact, I think this last episode, and Locke's interaction with Jack, strongly hint that, if they divide into two sides, Jack will be leading (in an army commander fashion) the "we need to get the hell out of here side," and Locke will lead (in a high-priest fashion) the "let's stay and worship the island" fashion.

If the creators have said that about Locke...then I can see him less as a force of evil like Flagg, and more as someone who wants to be worshipped - to whatever end.

BTW, I assumed that Sawyer was reading WD because he was bored shitless and there wasn't much out there else to read. I did not think he was trying to be strategic about it.

They could do a series based on the changes that would cause in Buffy Seasons 6 and 7 with Illyria taking Andrew's place. Though the Nerd Trio might not be so easily dismissed.

If it was Illyria, Andrew would probably want to have powers, or pretend to.

I got it...

Andrew could become Persona Non Grata: The unwanted super hero.

Um, and the kid on the Island can read his comic... Yeah, that's it. Tying back to Lost, see?

In fact, I think this last episode, and Locke's interaction with Jack, strongly hint that, if they divide into two sides, Jack will be leading (in an army commander fashion) the "we need to get the hell out of here side," and Locke will lead (in a high-priest fashion) the "let's stay and worship the island" fashion.

Uh-uh. It will be good guys/bad guys ala "The Stand". Locke has exhibited no moral ambiguity, which is Hollywood for "not a bad guy."

Sean,

And I'll say again, the text of the show does not, I think, support this premise. I can't accept an afterlife, even a purgatory, where the dead need food, water, can get injured by boars, or give birth to a child. To me, that's really kind of a six-year-old vison of an afterlife: "Will I be able to still eat fried chicken (or insert other favorite food here) in Heaven?" "If I get my leg cut off in an accident, will I get it back in Heaven?" "Will I be able to keep my dog (or other beloved pet) in Heaven?"

I cannot speak to Dante's Purgatory but in Inferno, there were repeated punishments meted out against the inhabitants. The guests could walk through and observe what was happening to the others. IMO, what is happening to the people on the island doesn't lead me to believe one way or the other that they aren't in some kind of Limbo.

In Beetlejuice, we knew that the main characters were dead, and there was still some tension in the story. This is perhaps a bad example because the film is not good. But there you go. I could go into some other films where the participants were dead but there was tension: The Others, Sixth Sense

Locke has exhibited no moral ambiguity, which is Hollywood for "not a bad guy."

OTOH, Lost seems to be actually striving for non-Hollywood. It has many elements that we seldom see. Together in one show, at least

Locke has exhibited no moral ambiguity, which is Hollywood for "not a bad guy."

What about the Evil Look at the end of Kate's episode, as he looked jealously at Michael and Walt after having letting Michael take the credit for finding Vincent? I think he's lost either a son or a son figure, and he's found a replacement in Walt. And now that I think about it, Sun's becoming a mother figure to Walt. Which means Sun and Locke are gonna get it on.

Also, Locke went after the boar with no regard to Michael's injury.

Plus, he initiated the backgammon metaphor. He told Walt there were two sides, but he didn't say which side he was on.

He's also lied about having seen the monster.

There's a lot more than no moral ambiguity here, and I can very much see him deluding himself into believing he's on the right path when in reality, he's captain of the "bad" team.