1) Eko's response to why he was marking the trees : "these are the ones I like." I don't know what he's up to, but I still loves him. Even with all the baptism stuff.

That, to me, was the saddest thing about the fire -- it destroyed all those trees.

Oh, Ana-Lucia? If you ever make Jack say "hittin' that" AGAIN I will die trying to kick your ass.

Damn skippy!

That, to me, was the saddest thing about the fire -- it destroyed all those trees.

Oh man, I hadn't even pinged that, I was too busy screaming at how stupid Charlie was being setting the fire in the first place (I was praying it was a misdirect and one of the Others - or the other Others - did it). He's lucky Eko didn't step up and punch him a few times himself (or that the whole group didn't line up a la the hysterical woman scene in AIRPLANE).

That, to me, was the saddest thing about the fire -- it destroyed all those trees.

Aw, man, Jessica made me have an emotion about the episode. I hope you're happy!

(I hadn't thought of that before, was too bogged down in the eye-rolling. But it is sad.)

HA! X-post. Waves at Nora

What's shaking?

t /natter

I have to ahem it to watch it again. I thought the fire was in the brush, off to the one side of the camp. I didn't think it was where Eko was marking trees.

Huh.

ETA; Words for sense-making

Gee, I think I'm really in the minority here--I liked the ep! Sure, nothing advanced the story arc, but I thought it was more of a character study of Charlie, who I didn't mind for his whining this time around (I hated the last Charlie-centric ep, with him ripping off the copier guy's daughter).

If Charlie went off the deep end and kind of evil, then that could be better than his constant whining.

I'm hoping that this is exactly where they're going with him. I've thought all along that his utter neediness gives him great potential as a character, potential that so far the writers have ignored by shunting him off into potential fatherhood with Claire. I'd really like it if now he's burned that bridge and can chart some new territory elsewhere.

I did love the dream imagery, especially Hurley in Jesus robes--hee!

If Charlie went off the deep end and kind of evil, then that could be better than his constant whining.

Hopefully he'll be more the Gary Oldman Dr. Smith, rather than the Jonathan Harris portrayal.

Hopefully he'll be more the Gary Oldman Dr. Smith, rather than the Jonathan Harris portrayal.

If he goes evil, I doubt it will be in a leadership capacity. I see him in more of a weasely sidekick role. Charlie & the Brain, perhaps?

Of course, he's kind of screwed now that Locke has so visibly kicked him to the curb. The boy needs someone's boots to lick, pronto.

I wonder why Locke kicked him to the curb with such violence? I could have easily seen him zone Charlie out or use C's slipping mind to his advantage.

Perhaps to get back in good with the other Lostaways? Climbing on Charlie's back to increase his own social status, and giving him a good kick down , for good measure, a la the strata/conflicts of European immigration to the US in the 19th-early 20th centuries?

This just in from the brilliant Phil Nugent:

BTW, it just this minute hit me that naming a married couple "Bernard" and "Rose" might be an obvious reference to the British filmmaker Bernard Rose, who made one of the better scare pictures of the '90s, Candyman, in which lily-white Virginia Madsen discovered a mythic avenging black phantom (Tony Todd) lurking in the Cabrina Green housing project, as well as Immortal Beloved, starring Gary Oldman as Beethoven, a slightly tonier endeavour that is hilarious if you watch it in the wrong spirit. (Its Beethoven does everything short of trashing a dressing room because they haven't separated out the brown M & Ms.) He also made Paperhouse, a 1988 cult movie about a little girl who may have reality-shaping imaginative powers much like the ones that some have attributed to young Walt. Is this old news to those who've been paying attention, or am I the first person to mention it on-line? Do I get a no-prize?