CosmicBills

And I'm a big one... I'm not trying to be argumentive though, I just love talking about story stuff. A good movie/tv show can be just like a good book. Lots of ways to interpret analyze it to make it more fun or you can just enjoy the show. There is no right or wrong way about it. It's whatever works best for you.

True. But sometimes there is overwhelming evidence pointing to one answer...

Correction: Boone does flash between being normal and being bloody (once) but Locke never flashes in and out of the chair (he is out of the chair, boon turns from normal to bloody then he is in the chair). And Locke says (as he is falling out of the chair) "Don't take it away".

Yes it did flash back between normal/bloody Boone...at the same time Locke was flashing between being in the chair and not.

As Duey said earlier, it was a test of faith so to speak. He was losing his legs slowly the more he dragged his feet. He had to fulfil the plan the island set before him...ie Find the Plane and Sacrifice Boone. As soon as both those things were accomplished, his legs were restored. That is a fact you can't overlook either. His legs returned as soon as the plane fell...

Ah, I understand what you are saying now. But, see that's where we differ completley. Locke isn't seeing the future, he never claimed he did. Like he said, the "island tells him what to do"...meaning it shows him how to get from point A to point B. If he was seeing the future, why would he "see" the plane crashing? It happened (by the show's account) 10 years before they even got on the island. Or, why would Boone be talking about his Nanny who died when he was 6? Both those events occured in the past . That's key. What they did was provide him with the tools he needed to complete/continue his quest. Locke is not clairvoyant. The way the dream/vision was given to him, it was presenting him a choice: Find the plane and take Boone with you OR end up losing your legs. The fact that the "island" chose to show his mother (not his father) in the dream is signifigant too, his mother made a similiar choice (money over her son), whereas his father actually NEEDED the kidney to survive (not that it makes it any better). Lock doesn't need his legs to live, but he WANTS them, like his mother wanted the money...sacrifice one thing for another. There is just far too much proof in the story that Locke consciously made a choice to think anything but, IMO.

JJ Abrahms who concieved the whole premise of the show and the head writer/Exec producer is a really talented guy (did Felicity, Alias, Armageddon, Joy Ride among other things). Damon Lindelof, another head writer worked mainly on Crossing Jordan. David Fury (who writes Locke, Hurley and Clair) worked on Angel for the most part. Christian Taylor is young and did Six Feet Under Paul Dini (who writes Charlie) has done a bunch of Cartoons (Batman, Superman, Tiny Toons etc) Drew Goddard (who writes Kate) did mainly Alias and Angel shows Lynne E. Litt did a bunch of Nash Bridges and Law and Orders... I am not 100 percent sure on who they all write, I just heard Fury did Locke, Hurley and Clair's backstories and arcs and other writers did the rest of the main characters....

I think I get what you are saying (that Locke didn't have a choice...Boone was going to get hurt either way?)... But I'm not sure that would work (if that's what you are saying). Only because the island (according to the dream) gave him a choice, either keep going or end up in the chair. So, Locke had the power to prevent Boone from being injured. If he decided not to pursue the "hatch" any more, Boone wouldn't have been bloodied but Locke would have lost the use of his legs.

Isn't that further proof that Locke didn't really care what happened to Boone so long as he got what he wanted? If he did care, wouldn't he have stayed and made sure Jack saved him?

Could be. Good catch.

That is just not possible. He said several times the "island would tell him" what to do. And it did in the dream: Find the plane, risk Boone or end up back in your chair.

I contend you aren't looking deep enough at all. Of course Locke knew that Boone being bloodied (not killed...but at the very least injured) would be required to open the hatch. Did he know how it would happen? No. But he knew it would be required because the "island" told him so. When he was having the dream it kept showing himself in the wheelchair and screaming...he was making a choice: be back in the chair or keep going on despite what may happen to Boone. If that isn't enough proof, look at the backstory with his father that was going on at the same time. It parrells the story exactly. Writers don't just write stuff (most of the time) because it's cool...everything has a reason, a logic to it, ESPECIALLY on this show. Why else show Locke's father taking advantage of him to better/lengthen his own life? It makes what Locke does to Boone all that more tragic and compelling. Even though Locke may be a nice guy, he's weak and willing to do whatever it takes to remain on the island's good side.

Do you mean it "did" make it clear? Because that was one of the big clues showing that Locke was knowingly sacrificing Boone for himself...

He's up there. But just for fun: Tony Soprano Jack Bauer Homer Simpson Hawkeye Pierce George Costanza/Larry David I dunno, I am sure there are others.

The visions dealt with openning the box. He knew that Boone becoming injured would have to occur (just like finding the plane -- he new the direction to look -- and using the name of Boone's nanny to get him to go on). Sure, he yelled and told Boone to get out...I'm not saying he didn't have a moment of doubt. But the fact remains, had he really wanted to prevent Boone from being injured, he would have stopped his quest. But in the end, his quest was more important to him than Boone. (hehehe, Locke Appologist. We just got done with the Drew Appologists, now we have a new sect )

Name one time where someone used Locke. (Not trying to be argumentitive, just wondering). Every time Locke has helped someone, it's been on his terms (Charlie, Jack, Boone, the kid) and has served a purpose for Locke. To say Locke didn't knowingly sacrifice Boone is too short sighted for you. Locke said several times during the episode that the "island would tell" him. It had told him before and he did as it asked. Once he dreamed of Boone and the plane, he knew what was to come. Maybe not the specifics, but he knew that in order for him to find the answer, Boone would have to be injured. So, if he really cared about Boone more than himself, he wouldn't have pursued it...sounds awfully sacrifical to me. Besides, it parrells the back story perfectly...too much so for it not to be the case.

Maybe not. The Island is key for Locke's own survival. The island healed him, allowed him to walk again, gave him the purpose he had searched for his entire life. It also allowed him to fulfill all his dreams. He was so in love with the island he didn't want to leave (remember his conversation with Walt?)...the island helped LOCKE. But that was slowly being taken away from him. To get all that back, and then have it be taken away is something that no one would take that well. Locke was trying desperately to hold onto it...much as Locke's father was trying to hold onto his own life... They both were willing to use and sacrifice their sons (albeit Boone is more Locke's adopted son) to keep their dream alive.

I disagree. Locke knew that Boone it would take Boone getting bloody to find the answer he was searching for. That is what made the story about his father so much more compelling. The same way he knew the plane held the key, and talking to Boone about his nanny would convince him to continue on... Locke is a lot of things, but dumb isn't one of them.

He knew what was going to happen when he sent him up the tree. He saw it in his dream when Boone was bloodied. Had he truly cared about Boone, he wouldn't have let him go. He was so focused on his quest, he wouldn't let anything stand in his way, even if he had to emmulate his father's actions. It's a cool story, but Locke just got added to my sh-- list

Yet, he did the same exact thing to Boone. He knew what was going to happen...and he let it. Just like his father did to him. He sacrificed someone for the betterment of his own life. Maybe Locke isn't the good guy we think.

Quick, where's OJ?

The Director's Guild does not give directing credits unless they work on the whole film. Rodriguez asked QT to direct one scene (since he was busy with another movie). The Guild wouldn't let Rodriguez add QT to the credits, so he quit the guild and made him a guest director. It's an odd rule that I don't completley understand (others here may know better), but I remember a similar incident coming up when Spielberg was directing Jurassic Park, he let George Lucas do the editing of the film since he needed more time for Schindler's list. Lucas even did the reshoots of the T-Rex attack...yet the Guild wouldn't give him a co-credit on the film even though he directed almost half the movie...very odd. As for Rodriguez doing "sub standard" films of late, I dissagree. The man just does things his own way (he shoots, directs, edits, writes and scores most of his films). The guy is really good at what he does. I'm not saying Sin City will be good, I have no clue, but with that cast and Rodriguez directing, I have high hopes.

Hahahaha! Good point. I must admit I missed the whole "kissing on the field thing" as the WS this year was bloody boring. Had St.Louis decided to put up a fight I might have found it more compelling. As for the movie, I have no clue if it's going to be good. The Farrelly's are hit or miss for me. I either love 'em or hate 'em. I think HHGTTG will be fantastic. Love the books, and love the fact they are using Douglas Adams' script that he wrote before he passed. It is difficult material though to translate to a film, but I'll see it even if it blows just as an homage to Adams.

Also, Fever Pitch is directed by the Farrelly Brothers who happen to make pretty funny movies (sometimes). So there's hope. But it's curious to see that the trailers are not advertising it as a Farrelly Bros movie. I figured that would be a big selling point. It could be because they want to market it more as a date movie/ro-com than a low brow humor type movie. I just remember during the ALCS last year hearing how conflicted the Farrelly Bros were when the Sox were making their comeback. The movie called for the Sox to lose and a Boston victory would require an entirely new ending (along with the couple millions of dollars to reshoot it probably), but as life long Boston fans, how could the Farrelly's root against it?

Well, by that logic you shouldn't have any problems with Bonds, McGwire or Giambi either. Since baseball didn't ban steroids until last year. Now that Congress sees steroids as a "hot topic" which they can use to get their own mugs on the front page, they will be chomping at the bit to "clean up" the NFL. It will get ugly...and soon.