Here's my prediction for the next new episode: upon discovering that Claire is no longer pregnant, Kate goes to Sawyer and demands he return the baby. Sawyer plays it coy, but eventually reveals that he never had the baby.

but only after getting kate to make out with him again. that clever sawyer.

Huh, are you sure? I didn't tape it so can't rewatch it, but I thought Charlie was saying HE'D dreamed about the black rock... either way, it's what I thought, that Claire had also.

Just to clarify, I never said it was a rumor, I said people were turning a vague statement into some sort of promise, which it appears is the case. Your post says that the "Exec. Producer David Fury" posted to SciFi Wire that "Despite the surreal, bizarre aspects of the island, there will be an explanation for it. It may not come for a very long time, but certain information about the island will explain how things are possible. We'll try to root it in real science or real pseudo-science. There will be no mystical reason or an island of monsters."

Even this is ONE producer saying it's ROOTED in "real pseudo-science" (I agree, WTF does that mean? ), and he doesn't define "mystical reason". With all the "reboots" that other shows like Alias have had, maybe they got a little LESS "pseudo-scientific" than planned, maybe there will be an explanation that fits, who knows. What seems clear is they are NOT saying what they're being quoted as saying:not to pick on this one post (it's just the most succinct), the difference is, "no supernatural element" and "everything was scientifically possible", when the producers are calling it "pseudo-science" and seem to be leaving the door open for what we might call "supernatural".

What's the difference, you ask? Example: That new movie "White Noise" is based on a contacting-the-dead "pseudo-science", there's a website and an organization devoted to it, researching it, etc. I wouldn't call that "scientifically possible", but some would!

I've never seen The Prisoner. I was just thinking that would be a cool twist. I mean, as the show stands now it doesnt seem like they are really concerned with getting off the island, they're more focused on solving the island. So I'm thinking this could be a cool twist if the show ever shifted from figuring out what the island is to trying to get off it.

From the ABC Lost episode guides:

You should rent it. It's a bizarre series about a secret agent who resigns in anger from his post and is subsequently drugged and kidnapped. He wakes up in a village on an island where all the other residents are actors and everyone calls him "Number 6." A series of men (each called "Number 2") try extract the reason for his heated resignation. Weird stuff happens.

I hated the last episode, but the series is worth watching.

Only if they're being chased by a big weather balloon.

OK you win, I doff my chapeau to you, sir.

Certainly no argument from me; the quote I just threw out because I thought both sides were reaching extreme interpretations of the situation, when (as you say) the actual information is much more vague and flexible.

Personally, I welcome the mysti--er, pseudo-scientific streak they've established in the show from the get-go, as they really don't (as some people complain) seem to be using it thus far simply for cheap plot mechanics. Which isn't to say they won't at some point, but many of the the various science-stretching elements introduced (Locke's healing, Claire's pre-destination, etc.) certainly have potential for the exploration of these situations' implications and consequences, above and beyond "and thus they escaped the polar bear" uses.

Here's a brief interview with co-creator Damon Lindelof, where he tries to clarify some things (whether these statements actually do is a different matter):

The statements are sort of contradictory... "firmly ensconced in science fact"... "[nothing] that has no rational explanation in the real world that we all fuction within" ... but also ... "nothing is flat out impossible."

Oh, also look for a DVD release over the summer before season two airs.

Hmm, interesting. One thought: I didn't take them as contradictory, I took the "nothing is impossible" to be referring to the spaceships and timetravel, ie, he's saying that they're not going to have an explanation that's "impossible".

However, as anyone who's surfed the net a fair amount knows, there are a LOT of things that I would probably classify as "impossible" but a lot of, umm, "science-fiction" types, or flat-out wackos, would NOT consider impossible. So this might not clear much up at all.

any idea who this is (in the red outline)?

isn't that the nanny that we meet later? the one who gives the letters to michael?

I think it's a cardboard cutout of Ted Danson.

Finally watched this episode and made my way through this thread. Great ep. I was thinking there wasn't much that could be said of Michael/Walt's story. They said that Michael wasn't around for Walt's first 10 years. That tells me the kid is gonna hate him just for that. But they came up with a deeper story that works well.

As for all the "fact" or "fiction" debate. I don't care, I love sci-fi. The show is good either way.

Exactly. That would be the biggest "M. Night Shayamalan" twist of all time. Getting people who hate sci-fi to watch a 24 episode season(or two) of a sci-fi show. That would be great.

I don't buy the interview. The internet has definitely blown comments out of proportion. And the "psuedo-science" bit does throw a wrench into the belief everything should have a real sceintific angle. I say, either stop watching or let it go and enjoy the ride. It is going to be about the journey, not the destination. The destination is never going to live up to peoples expectations.

On to revive the next 10 page lost thread...