2nd season characters are so darn annoying now...

[h***@gmail.com]

Just finished watching the 2nd season. And I must say that Jack is
'Thee' most annoying character on the show. He always has his nose in
someone elses business. And he is anywhere and everywhere. You can't
take a piss in the Jungle without Jack coming behind the corner to say
"What you doing out here.' Its like he is stalking everyone. I wish
Jack would just get a hobby and let everyone do their own damn thing.
LOL But ultimately all the characters have been very annoying the 2nd
season. And I am also dissapointed in Sawyer's development. He is such
a cliche. All he does is look and talk like a badass, spouting bad one
liners. Coudn't the writers give him some more personal depth. He is
very typical and you can predict his views on every situation. Whenever
there is the chance for him to take the moral road you can bet he will
do the opposite. Hurley is no fun anymore. And Kate is like background
scenary. Lets hope on the 3rd season we get to see some 180 degree
character turns.

[c***@yahoo.com]

Post by h***@gmail.com
Just finished watching the 2nd season. And I must say that Jack is
'Thee' most annoying character on the show.

Lost truism #1: Jack is an idiot.

Post by h***@gmail.com
LOL But ultimately all the characters have been very annoying the 2nd
season.

Actually, most of them regressed to the Dark Side, possibly none more
than Micheal or the Hobbit.

Post by h***@gmail.com
And I am also dissapointed in Sawyer's development. He is such
a cliche. All he does is look and talk like a badass, spouting bad one
liners. Coudn't the writers give him some more personal depth. He is
very typical and you can predict his views on every situation. Whenever
there is the chance for him to take the moral road you can bet he will
do the opposite.

Not always. Frex, he allowed Kate to see where he had the guns stashed
so that Jack could get heroin for Libby.

Post by h***@gmail.com
Hurley is no fun anymore.

Now that we know about Dave ;)

Post by h***@gmail.com
And Kate is like background scenary.

Meh. She can stay there. There are several other underutilized
characters that are more interesting.

Post by h***@gmail.com
Lets hope on the 3rd season we get to see some 180 degree
character turns.

More Henry. More Eko.

Brandon

[Winston]

Jack's character is behaving like he needs to for LOST to develop the
story. Lost is not a character study anyway. If I had to take care of
the people the way Jack has I would have everybody ask me before they
do anything dangerous. Sawyer has come along way from the days when he
was tortured by Sayid. He has choosen to do the right thing many
times. He was more than helpful to Michael on the raft. He was
really compasionate also when AnnaL and Libby were killed. If I'm
walking through the jungle, I want sawyer and Kate with me and I want
them armed, cause they will shoot and ask questions later. The show
needs sawyer to say those smart ass remarks. It provides relief for
the viewers who are thinking the same thing. Now Kate, I never get
tired of seeing her smile. She has a smile to rival Julia Roberts. I
love the way she is protective of Claire and Sun. She does worship
Jack a little too much and I hope they don't let him break her heart.
With Jack's past marriage, I think that in the end they will end up
together. Sawyer may fall in there somewhere too. I really thing the
most romantic character on the island is Locke. JUST KIDDING. Sorry,
I couldn't resist. LOL.

[h***@animail.net]

Post by Winston
Jack's character is behaving like he needs to for LOST to develop the
story. Lost is not a character study anyway.

It's a character-driven drama though, so character study is an issue.
I rather like Jack being an asshole. He's certainly more interesting
that way than he was in S1.

Post by Winston
If I had to take care of
the people the way Jack has I would have everybody ask me before they
do anything dangerous.

And you'd probably get the same response Jack does from the losties and
a sizeable portion of the audience if you did it the same way Jack
does. The trouble is that he's acting like a leader, not a good leader
particularly, but a leader. And he has no real legitimacy. He wasn't
elected or selected in any other way. There are other leader types
wandering about (Locke, Eko and Sawyer especially), but he acts as if
he was the undisputed leader of the losties. He isn't, and so his
leader-like behavior rankles. It might help if he was a good leader
and made better decisions so that the losties would come to accept his
leadership even if they didn't select him in the first place, but he
isn't, he doesn't, and they don't. This is actually good for the story
line.

Post by Winston
Sawyer has come along way from the days when he
was tortured by Sayid. He has choosen to do the right thing many
times. He was more than helpful to Michael on the raft. He was
really compasionate also when AnnaL and Libby were killed.

Yes, he has, but he started very far down (sub-human IMO) and his
improvement, although realistic, is erratic with a lot of setbacks.
Also, the pattern it's taken is a bit cliched IMO.

Post by Winston
If I'm
walking through the jungle, I want sawyer and Kate with me and I want
them armed, cause they will shoot and ask questions later.

The question is, who will they shoot? Both have a tendency to kill
people accidentally and/or mistakenly. Both are also emotionally
unstable and given to panic. They're as likely to shoot you (or me) as
anyone else. If I'm in the jungle, I want Locke and Sayid for
protection. Maybe Eko. Actually, I don't want any of the losties
since they're all nut cases, but those 3 would be my choices from
what's available.

Post by Winston
The show
needs sawyer to say those smart ass remarks. It provides relief for
the viewers who are thinking the same thing.

That's often the case, but not always. Some of his cracks are just
plain mean and bigoted...to Hurley and Jin especially.

Post by Winston
I really thing the
most romantic character on the island is Locke. JUST KIDDING. Sorry,
I couldn't resist. LOL.

Laugh all you want, but I'm an older woman and I'd take Locke on in a
heartbeat. ;) Of course, I'd probably cheat on him with Sayid, but
Locke is who I'd come home to.

himiko

[Richard DeLuca]

Post by h***@animail.net
Laugh all you want, but I'm an older woman and I'd take Locke on in a
heartbeat. ;) Of course, I'd probably cheat on him with Sayid, but
Locke is who I'd come home to.
himiko

And Sayid would step on you to get to some twenty year old princess.
Then again, since you'd cheat on your man, it serves you
right..........;->

[Jack Locke]

Post by Richard DeLuca

Post by h***@animail.net
Laugh all you want, but I'm an older woman and I'd take Locke on in a
heartbeat. ;) Of course, I'd probably cheat on him with Sayid, but
Locke is who I'd come home to.
himiko

And Sayid would step on you to get to some twenty year old princess.

That would require some serious acting on Naveen Andrews' part, given his
preference for older broads.

[Richard DeLuca]

Post by Jack Locke

Post by Richard DeLuca

Post by h***@animail.net
Laugh all you want, but I'm an older woman and I'd take Locke on in a
heartbeat. ;) Of course, I'd probably cheat on him with Sayid, but
Locke is who I'd come home to.
himiko

And Sayid would step on you to get to some twenty year old princess.

That would require some serious acting on Naveen Andrews' part, given his
preference for older broads.

Now we're confusing Naveen Andrews with Sayid- not fair........:-)

[h***@animail.net]

Post by Richard DeLuca

Post by h***@animail.net
Laugh all you want, but I'm an older woman and I'd take Locke on in a
heartbeat. ;) Of course, I'd probably cheat on him with Sayid, but
Locke is who I'd come home to.
himiko

And Sayid would step on you to get to some twenty year old princess.
Then again, since you'd cheat on your man, it serves you
right..........;->

And I would forgive him and take him back...but I'm still keeping Locke
around. ;)

himiko

[Steven L.]

Post by h***@animail.net

Post by Richard DeLuca

Post by h***@animail.net
Laugh all you want, but I'm an older woman and I'd take Locke on in a
heartbeat. ;) Of course, I'd probably cheat on him with Sayid, but
Locke is who I'd come home to.
himiko

And Sayid would step on you to get to some twenty year old princess.
Then again, since you'd cheat on your man, it serves you
right..........;->

And I would forgive him and take him back...but I'm still keeping Locke
around. ;)

The really interesting question would be: Where would Locke be spending
his time when *you* were not around? He has a habit of running off (cf.
Helen, Boone, etc.)--and it's not for carnal rendezvous.

[h***@animail.net]

Post by Steven L.

Post by h***@animail.net

Post by Richard DeLuca

Post by h***@animail.net
Laugh all you want, but I'm an older woman and I'd take Locke on in a
heartbeat. ;) Of course, I'd probably cheat on him with Sayid, but
Locke is who I'd come home to.
himiko

And Sayid would step on you to get to some twenty year old princess.
Then again, since you'd cheat on your man, it serves you
right..........;->

And I would forgive him and take him back...but I'm still keeping Locke
around. ;)

The really interesting question would be: Where would Locke be spending
his time when *you* were not around? He has a habit of running off (cf.
Helen, Boone, etc.)--and it's not for carnal rendezvous.

I think that's a lot of his appeal...the fact that he has a rich and
interesting life of his own. OK, it's a bit on the geeky, nutso side,
but then so is my private life. Me and Locke with Sayid on the
side...I can live with that. ;)

himiko

[Steven L.]

Post by h***@animail.net
And you'd probably get the same response Jack does from the losties and
a sizeable portion of the audience if you did it the same way Jack
does. The trouble is that he's acting like a leader, not a good leader
particularly, but a leader. And he has no real legitimacy. He wasn't
elected or selected in any other way. There are other leader types
wandering about (Locke, Eko and Sawyer especially), but he acts as if
he was the undisputed leader of the losties. He isn't, and so his
leader-like behavior rankles. It might help if he was a good leader
and made better decisions so that the losties would come to accept his
leadership even if they didn't select him in the first place, but he
isn't, he doesn't, and they don't. This is actually good for the story
line.

Right now (at the start of episode 3.01), Jack, Kate and Sawyer are
indisposed.
I wonder who will be Acting Leader of the Lostaways in their absence.

Sayid doesn't seem to want it.
Locke's head is in the clouds as usual.
Eko is sick of being a warlord.

Maybe this is where they introduce a new character (presumably culled
from the redshirts) to assume temporary leadership of the Lostaways.

[Jack Thompson]

Post by Steven L.
Maybe this is where they introduce a new character (presumably culled
from the redshirts) to assume temporary leadership of the Lostaways.

Arnst's evil twin.

And then they blow him up good too.

[rwgibson13]

Post by Steven L.

Post by h***@animail.net
And you'd probably get the same response Jack does from the losties and
a sizeable portion of the audience if you did it the same way Jack
does. The trouble is that he's acting like a leader, not a good leader
particularly, but a leader. And he has no real legitimacy. He wasn't
elected or selected in any other way. There are other leader types
wandering about (Locke, Eko and Sawyer especially), but he acts as if
he was the undisputed leader of the losties. He isn't, and so his
leader-like behavior rankles. It might help if he was a good leader
and made better decisions so that the losties would come to accept his
leadership even if they didn't select him in the first place, but he
isn't, he doesn't, and they don't. This is actually good for the story
line.

Right now (at the start of episode 3.01), Jack, Kate and Sawyer are
indisposed.
I wonder who will be Acting Leader of the Lostaways in their absence.
Sayid doesn't seem to want it.
Locke's head is in the clouds as usual.
Eko is sick of being a warlord.
Maybe this is where they introduce a new character (presumably culled
from the redshirts) to assume temporary leadership of the Lostaways.

Nah, I think they'll be fairly leaderless, as usual. I mean, Jack is
only a nominal "leader" type anyway, hardly anyone pays attention to
what he does unless they have a good reason to - and much of the time
they spend doing thing he doesn't want them to do anyway :-)

But "disasters" generally force people to work together more than they
would otherwise, so the fact that Jack/Kate/Sawyer are in trouble will
probably force Sayid and Locke to work together to figure out a way to
get Jack back - if only so they'll have someone to butt heads with :-)

RWG (I vote for Claire :-)

[rs10r]

Post by Steven L.
Right now (at the start of episode 3.01), Jack, Kate and Sawyer are
indisposed.
I wonder who will be Acting Leader of the Lostaways in their absence.
Sayid doesn't seem to want it.
Locke's head is in the clouds as usual.
Eko is sick of being a warlord.
Maybe this is where they introduce a new character (presumably culled
from the redshirts) to assume temporary leadership of the Lostaways.

Like, Dude, it'll be Hurley. He has the message from the Other dudes,
and the lead Henry dude told him to tell all the dudes back at the camp
where their dudes Jack, Kate, and Sawyer went.

[h***@animail.net]

Post by Steven L.
Right now (at the start of episode 3.01), Jack, Kate and Sawyer are
indisposed.
I wonder who will be Acting Leader of the Lostaways in their absence.
Sayid doesn't seem to want it.
Locke's head is in the clouds as usual.
Eko is sick of being a warlord.

I agree about Sayid, but I'm not sure about Locke or Eko. We don't
know yet what the full effect of the hatch blast and revelation had on
them. I think they might yet fight for the leadership position. Locke
is looking for meaning and purpose; that doesn't mean he would look to
being a leader to find it, but I wouldn't rule that out either. As for
Eko, he may be sick of being a warlord, but I think he still is one. I
suspect his religious bent may result in some fairly fanatical
leadership that, in turn, might lead Locke (possibly with Sayid as
backup) to assume control...or try to.

Personally, I would like to see the women play a larger role as
leaders. I think Rose and Locke would make a great team. She
empathizes with his spiritual bent, but doesn't let it get as out of
control. I suspect such a team up would also make Bernard jealous
which could be an interesting little subplot and commentary on one
major issue with male/female working relationships.

Post by Steven L.
Maybe this is where they introduce a new character (presumably culled
from the redshirts) to assume temporary leadership of the Lostaways.

Also possible. In fact, most possibilities are possible which is one
of the grouses I have with the show. Still, I'll probably tune in for
next season, so obviously it's not too serious.

himiko

[rwgibson13]

Post by h***@animail.net

Post by Steven L.
Right now (at the start of episode 3.01), Jack, Kate and Sawyer are
indisposed.
I wonder who will be Acting Leader of the Lostaways in their absence.
Sayid doesn't seem to want it.
Locke's head is in the clouds as usual.
Eko is sick of being a warlord.

I agree about Sayid, but I'm not sure about Locke or Eko.

One of the few interesting deleted scenes included in the DVD set
expands on the Jack/Locke/Sayid "leadership" dynamic. I'm assuming
it's taken from "SOS," the episode where Jack gets the bee in his
bonnet about contacting the "Others" to arrange for a trade: fakeHenry
for Walt and/or Mikey. In that episode, Kate says she's flattered that
Jack came to her to ask her about coming with him and he responds that
he asked Sayid first and he turned him down.

Anyway, the deleted scene is the one where Sayid turns Jack down. His
reasoning is that he doesn't think it's wise to let fakeHenry go under
the circumstances because it puts them at a disadvantage re: the Others
because fakeHenry knows that the three of them can't seem to agree on
anything. While I agree in principle with that intel would be
valuable, I'd still question Sayid's opinion that in itself is
sufficient reason not to make a trade if possible. I think the scene
shows Sayid's values are a tad bit...misplaced and that may be one
reason he wouldn't make such a great leader...

RWG (he may be a good tactician, but is missing a certain "human"
element)

[h***@animail.net]

Post by rwgibson13
One of the few interesting deleted scenes included in the DVD set
expands on the Jack/Locke/Sayid "leadership" dynamic. I'm assuming
it's taken from "SOS," the episode where Jack gets the bee in his
bonnet about contacting the "Others" to arrange for a trade: fakeHenry
for Walt and/or Mikey. In that episode, Kate says she's flattered that
Jack came to her to ask her about coming with him and he responds that
he asked Sayid first and he turned him down.
Anyway, the deleted scene is the one where Sayid turns Jack down. His
reasoning is that he doesn't think it's wise to let fakeHenry go under
the circumstances because it puts them at a disadvantage re: the Others
because fakeHenry knows that the three of them can't seem to agree on
anything.

A very revealing remark, not so much about Sayid, but about the
situation on the island. Pretty much confirms what many of us noted
and what Henry seemed to find interesting. He also contributed to some
of the internal disintegration...on purpose AFAICT. I wonder why they
cut this scene. Maybe because it's telling rather than showing? But
given how much of Lost is left vague, I would have welcomed hearing
this comment

Post by rwgibson13
While I agree in principle with that intel would be
valuable, I'd still question Sayid's opinion that in itself is
sufficient reason not to make a trade if possible. I think the scene
shows Sayid's values are a tad bit...misplaced and that may be one
reason he wouldn't make such a great leader...
RWG (he may be a good tactician, but is missing a certain "human"
element)

He's too pragmatic and ruthless. Luckily for the losties, he knows
that and resists the idea of being their leader. If they're smart,
they'll respect his wishes. But it wouldn't be surprising if, as they
become more and more fearful, they decide to ignore this detail and
persuade the best military tactician among them (which is Sayid AFAWK)
to be their leader. I think they and Sayid would soon regret it, but
it wouldn't be an unusual mistake to make.

The above is also true of Eko, but he's less self aware than Sayid. I
could more easily see him deciding he's got the ruthless stuff under
control and can therefore safely take charge. I think he's a bigger
danger in that direction.

himiko

[rwgibson13]

Post by h***@animail.net

Post by rwgibson13
One of the few interesting deleted scenes included in the DVD set
expands on the Jack/Locke/Sayid "leadership" dynamic. I'm assuming
it's taken from "SOS," the episode where Jack gets the bee in his
bonnet about contacting the "Others" to arrange for a trade: fakeHenry
for Walt and/or Mikey. In that episode, Kate says she's flattered that
Jack came to her to ask her about coming with him and he responds that
he asked Sayid first and he turned him down.
Anyway, the deleted scene is the one where Sayid turns Jack down. His
reasoning is that he doesn't think it's wise to let fakeHenry go under
the circumstances because it puts them at a disadvantage re: the Others
because fakeHenry knows that the three of them can't seem to agree on
anything.

A very revealing remark, not so much about Sayid, but about the
situation on the island. Pretty much confirms what many of us noted
and what Henry seemed to find interesting. He also contributed to some
of the internal disintegration...on purpose AFAICT. I wonder why they
cut this scene. Maybe because it's telling rather than showing? But
given how much of Lost is left vague, I would have welcomed hearing
this comment

Well, it kind of begs the question about what Sayid's real priorities
are (and it would seem to deserve a prodding from Jack about just the
issues we're discussing here) and the producers probably thought it
didn't really add all that much to the actual episode - it was mainly a
comment on the group dynamics. And the whole Jack/Kate subplot was the
B plot of the episode, in any case...I think the scene was written in
just to give Andrews something to do in the episode...

Similarly, there's another deleted scene where Sun approaches Claire
and comments on how beautiful Aaron is. Claire offers to let Sun hold
him and then asks her if she's ever had kids. Not sure which
particular episode it was cut from, but I thought it was really a nice
scene, especially if it was cut from an episode before the one where
she finds out she's preggers...

RWG (would have been a nice case of foreshadowing :-)