'Lost' Season 5 Preview!!!

Trek Update

For Father's Day this year I bought my dad a DVD collection of the Star Trek series on TV. It's a compilation of fans' favorite episodes from all the series as well as from the actors who played all the captains. I have to admit that I'm not a big fan of Deep Space Nine, Voyager, or Enterprise, but watching the original series as well as the Next Generation offering was a treat. It reminded me of why I liked Star Trek in the first place and why I'm excited for the new reboot, which is coming out next summer.

I really like getting lost in all the sci-fi elements: visiting alien planets, going back in time, intelligent machines, etc., but I also think there was great chemistry of acting going on as well. The three principle characters in the original series (Kirk, Spock, and Bones) are amazingly interesting archetypes. While the psychological underpinnings of Captain Picard and Data’s quest to be human are equally entertaining.

However, Star Trek has a way of braining up its dialogue (making it difficult for the uninitiated to follow), while dumbing down the plot (making it difficult for critics to get on board). I'm imaging that Abrams and co. are taking a cue from Battlestar Galactica: juicing up the action-adventure, while honing in on dramatic elements, like the friendship between Kirk and Spock for example. I liken this unto the reboot of the Bond movies that eerily mimicked the Bourne series as well as 24. Here's hoping the J.J. Abrams can bridge the gap between uber-talkative with intriguing plot, yet still action-packed.

Also, ew.com has posted some amazing pictures from his new reimagining:

Apparently the feud between J.J. Abrams and William Shatner hasn't really gone away. Here's an interview with J.J. trying to defend himself.

The Wrath of Shat!

William "the Shat" Shatner has recently answered questions regarding his non-appearance in JJ Abrams new Star Trek movie. Personally, I think the man is an overacting genius and I'm disappointed that he's not gonna make an appearance. But then again he did die in Star Trek: Generations--however, didn't Spock die in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn? I'm just saying.



Are you telling me you wouldn't want this gutsy performance in your new Star Trek movie JJ?

Fall Indie Rock Preview!!

Here's some beautifully bodacious bands that are coming out with new music!!

Sept 9
Okkervil River


Sept 23
Cold War Kids

Jenny Lewis


TV on the Radio



Sept 29
Travis


Sept 30
Ben Folds


Oct 6
Oasis



Oct 7
Of Montreal


Oct 13
Los Campesinos


Oct 14
The Cure

Kaiser Chiefs

Keane


Oct 21
Brett Dennen


Oct 28
Bloc Party

Deer Hunter

Snow Patrol


Nov 24
The Killers

24: Redemption Trailer

Check it out!! Jack is back for a prequel to the upcoming season. This TV movie is set in Africa and is meant to bridge the gap between season 6 and 7!!

Battlestar Republicana

I'm prone to exposing my geekiness on this little ol' blog of mine from time to time and I'm sure that revealing my love for the geekiest of all sci-fi shows won't help my coolness factor, but here goes: Battlestar Galactica is amazing!! I know you are disgusted and wondering how any sane and normal person could love such a moronic, fanboy series. But I do--even to the chagrin of my wife, who tends to humiliate me whenever possible on this point. Oh and yes, that's the first time I've referred to my wife on this blog, because I was recently married! But most people who read this already know that.

Anyway, I like to think of myself as a critical thinker who doesn't waste his time with the majority of the popular dreck that passes for entertainment nowadays. For this reason, I've had to come up with a justification for addicting myself to this sci-fi, action, melodrama. I guess that by defining it as I did might explain my love for it.

Don't get me wrong, it is science fiction, which crosses the border into Dwight nerdom. But I've always been a fan of sci-fi since I was little. I remember watching Star Trek with my dad at a young age and wondering if man would boldly go to other planets. BSG is different from Star Trek in its approach, however, because it is a serialized drama, much like Lost. In other words, each episode connects to the previous and subsequent episode. I like to look at it like watching different chapters from a very riveting TV book or something.

It's action-packed. Sure, I'm a guy. I like those action sequences. The action is set in space, but unlike Star Trek, which takes everything on a future based on logic and almost gentlemen-like warfare. BSG takes the Star Wars approach (old ones), which is very messy and entertaining battle sequences that are found in almost every episode. Oh, yes they're always at war with robotic humans (Cylons)...come on that's cool!

It is melodramtic. I know this isn't the typical facet that most guys might like, but every episode hinges on personal relationships, deep character layering, religious symbols, current political bravado, and an intense cerebral mystery. My heart pumps a little when I watch it as it always keeps me guessing.


John McCain - Col. Tigh & Sarah Palin - Pres. Laura Roslin

Now, that you know why I love this little cable TV show I had to mention something else about it that I found funny. The recent revelation that Sarah Palin will be John McCain's running-mate has prompted people to notice an odd similarity with the would-be president and his vice with that of some major characters on BSG that I thought was pretty uncanny. Check it out.

New Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince Trailer!!!

I'm a total geek for Harry Potter, thanks to my little sister. Check out this trailer for the new movie. It reminds me of a prequel to the Silence of the Lambs or something. It's eerie.

E-Mail Conversation with My Family After Looking Over the Headlines on Yahoo

The names of the guilty have been changed to protect their identities.

Brother #3: Some sad news for Aaron. http://tv.yahoo.com/show/30728/news/urn:newsml:tv.ap.org:20080722:obit_getty



Brother #1: She was actually really funny on that show, which I confess I watched repeatedly, since back in those days you were either watching sit-coms or nothing.

I believe Bea Arthur has purchased a burial plot in Arlington.

Brother #3: I confess an affinity to Bea Arthur's character--she was so wise, so patient; there is no better example of how, as we age, we move from innocence to experience--forged, if not new and attractive, then at least strong and true, by the refiner's fire.



Thankfully, ARAM still has the unholy trinity of Bob Saget, John Stamos, and, closest to his heart, Dave Coultier, aka "Uncle Joey."

Me: I'm still trying to fugue out how four senior citizen women managed to afford a home in Palm Beach on Social Security. You had the senile old woman, called "Maaahh" by Bea Arthur. You had the senile old religious woman, played by Betty White. Then you had Bea Arthur's central role. You also had the harlot-ish one lady that was always tramping around.

So sad that I know so much about that show. So very sad.

Brother #2: "purchased a burial plot in Arlington"?

More like Uncle Sam begged her to accept a burial plot in Arlington

There are hundreds of thousands of people buried in Arlington, who, were they able to speak, would utter these words: "I give up my spot for Bea Arthur, please undig me"

Bea is rough yet polished on the exterior and delicate and charismatic on the inside, like a cigarette

My wife and I watch that show regularly. It's on the Lifetime Channel (46) at 11:00 with back-to-back episodes. My favorite character is Rose (the one who is supposed to be naive). Their apartment is huge ... they each have their own bedroom and the condo has a giant living room attached to a giant dining room and then there's a huge private patio in back and the kitchen is giant, roughly three times the size of a normal kitchen. On one episode they show the interior of the bathroom which was about 20 x 20, three or four times as large as any normal bathroom. And supposedly they all work at these volunteer-type jobs.

Me: Brother #2 ….

I'll have to ask you to turn in your gun and your badge. That you know what channel Lifetime is numbered AND what time Golden Girls is on .... it's too much.

Things I Find In My Basement

I was digging out my basement this week, looking for stuff to sell on E-Bay. Underneath a mountain of pogs and unicorn sketches, I found a yellowed copy of a movie script that I wrote up in high school. At the time, I had dreams of becoming a film producer. Those dreams have long since faded, just like the yellowed copy of the movie script.

While the script is too long to post, I will include a draft copy for the theatrical trailer of the film.

(camera is zoomed in on hands working at a grill, the hands are somewhat worn, somewhat large, and are skilled in the arts of the grill. The hands are slicing peppers and dicing onions with knives, flipping meats over with spatulas, and using a blow torch to light up a Cherries Jubilee cream dessert).

Narrator Voice: "Jack Parcetti was just an ordinary man. He had his ordinary job, doing ordinary things."

(Camera zooms out, we see Steven Seagal in a lab coat and hair net at the grill. He weighs at least 275 pounds.)


Guy in a navy blue suit with five o'clock shadow and aviator sunglasses who is obviously a cop or agent of some kind: "Jack, we really need your help on this one. These guys are coming in, and they're coming strong."


Parcetti, played by Seagal: "I'm just a cook ...."

Guy in a navy blue suit with five o'clock shadow and aviator sunglasses who is obviously a cop or agent of some kind: "You're just a sissy, that's all."

Woman in a black pant suit probably purchased at Dress Barn or other low budget store because she is obviously a cop: "That's not the Parcetti I knew. What happened to you?"

Narrator: "But then Jack Parcetti's ordinary life blew up in his face."

(Scene shows an Asian woman in her 20's being escorted off a playground by masked thugs in Karate uniforms. Asian woman is put in the back of a black sedan. The sedan is parked inside of a garage. Daylight shot of garage from exterior, camera zooms out to show that the garage is attached to a modern looking house up in the hills of California wine country, with a rock garden, Asian sculptures, and zebras in the massive yard. Camera than shows a stop watch clicking backwards, when it hits one, camera zooms out to show the house, garden, zebras, sculptures, and vineyards blown up with a massive fire bomb. Fade to black ....


Later that night, police tape is surrounding the once peaceful area. We see the blue and red flashing lights of police cars, small fires are still spewing here and there, including a shot of a zebra carcass being consumed by fire. We see the guy in a navy blue suit and the woman in a pant suit looking over the crime scene. The navy blue suit man throws up, the woman is crying. We see a photo on the ground, edges burnt by fire. It's a photo of the Asian woman that was blown up .................... she is with someone in the photo, but the face of the other person is covered by dirt. The wind blows, revealing the face of the person with the Asian woman ..................... it's Jack Parcetti.

Shot goes back out to show the yellow crime tape, we see those skilled hands of the grill man, they rip the tape right in half. Parcetti walks up to the cops.)

Parcetti: "Was it them?"

Guy in navy blue suit, still wearing sunglasses even though it's dark: "Yeah. It was them sickos. Those thugs make me sick." (Man barfs again.)

Woman cop in sensible pant suit: "Jack, this is real bad."

Parcetti: "Bad? It's only gonna' be bad for those monsters who killed my wife and zebras."

Narrator voice: "And Jack Parcetti will prove that he is no ordinary man at all."

(camera zooms in on the skilled hands of Jack Parcetti. They wipe the food off the knives, then sharpen the knives. The hands take the spatula and flip the last of the pancakes on the grill. Then those hands wipe off the spatula and sharpen the edges of the spatula. The hands rip off the lab coat, revealing a black trench coat and camouflage pants with tactical belts and straps. The knives are affixed to the belts and straps. The spatula is put into a shoulder holster. We see a full view of Jack Parcetti, he pulls of the hair net. Then, those skilled hand reach down and grab a pancake. Parcetti puts the pancake in his mouth. The whole friggin' pancake.)

Parcetti, still chewing the pancake, begins to talk right at the camera, spewing pancake bits right at the camera: "I'm coming for you, Mr. Chang."


(Parcetti than takes a stack of pancakes and puts them in his coat. Foggy mist arises from the ground. Parcetti disappears into the mist. The mist fills the screen, and blood red calligraphy lettering shows up on screen, revealing the name of the movie)

This fall, Steven Seagal is Jack Parcetti, Vincent D'Onofrio is Detective Tommy McHammond, and Toni Collette is Agent Susan Harper. With Maggie Cheung as the Asian wife of Parcetti and David Carradine as Mr. Chang.

Michael Bay's Rejected "The Dark Knight" Script

Apparently, Michael Bay wrote an unsolicited script for The Dark Knight that was ultimately rejected by Warner Bros. Though this is the first I’ve heard of it, I have the exclusive leaked images to back it up. Here are some choice excerpts.

More 'Arrested Development' Movie News

Indie film is dying -- unless it isn't

By Andrew O’Hehir

All winter and spring, people in the independent-film business have been murmuring politely behind their hands and pretending not to see the 800-pound walrus in the corner of the room: The indie industry is undergoing a sudden and largely unexpected meltdown, or in the business-speak recently employed by Sony Pictures Classics co-president Tom Bernard, "a periodic market adjustment."
Nobody's ignoring it anymore, not after Saturday's address to a Los Angeles Film Festival conference by Mark Gill, CEO of the independent production and financing outfit the Film Department and former president of Miramax and Warner Independent. Gill's speech, entitled "Yes, the Sky Really Is Falling," was followed by a thoughtful Sunday column from the Philadelphia Inquirer's Carrie Rickey, cataloging everything that has gone wrong for small films, and the companies that make them, in the last six months.
It's a short but bloody history: Warner Bros. shut down its Picturehouse and Warner Independent subsidiaries and slashed the staff of New Line Cinema by 90 percent. Paramount Vantage, another "studio specialty division" that was born just two years ago, is being reabsorbed by Paramount Pictures. ThinkFilm, a true independent distributor, is being sued by vendors who say they haven't been paid and is under fire from documentary filmmaker Alex Gibney, who claims the company botched the release of his Oscar-winning "Taxi to the Dark Side." Think's future is in doubt, as is that of Sidney Kimmel Entertainment, which has reportedly downsized itself by half. According to Gill, who ought to know, at least five other indie distributors "are in serious financial peril." (I could probably guess who three or four of those are, but it's indecent to speculate about other people's livelihoods.)
At the big winter-spring marketplaces of Sundance, Berlin and Cannes, the apparent indie boom of the last few years turned awfully tepid, awfully fast. There were lots of terrific smaller-scale films at those festivals, but hardly anything that looked or felt like an international art-house hit on the scale of "Pan's Labyrinth" or "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly" -- the movies that enable indie distributors like IFC or Miramax or Sony Classics to take chances on riskier fare. And as Rickey details, it's been a relatively weak year at the box office, with expected hits like "The Counterfeiters," "The Visitor," "In Bruges" and "Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day" failing to cross over to mainstream moviegoers (or at least not in sufficient numbers).
Perhaps your heart does not bleed overmuch, amid the general economic and spiritual turmoil of our country, for a few middle-sized motion pictures that failed to meet expectations -- or for a few dozen movie-industry executives forcibly ejected from the corporate suites of Manhattan and Burbank. First of all this isn't really about them, although most of them are decent and knowledgeable people who care more about movies than about money (or they wouldn't be working on the weedy intellectual fringe of the entertainment industry). It's also insufficient to retreat to some 2002-style panegyric about how a digital democracy is dawning and these old-school gatekeepers must perish in the tar pits of economic history for a new model to emerge.
That argument has a pseudo-Marxist ring of historical inevitability about it, but it's mostly wrong. Nobody in the film business questions that the current mode of distribution for independent film -- in Rickey's article, Emerging Pictures CEO Ira Deutchman calls it the "post-studio, pre-Internet era" -- is somewhere between transitional and dysfunctional, and that some version of electronic home delivery is likely to dominate the marketplace within five to 15 years. But as God is my witness, we need gatekeepers! If anything, we need them in the digital era more than ever. At least in the short term, the current marketplace implosion is likely to have a highly undemocratic effect on both filmmakers and film lovers, delivering still more practical control over what we watch and when to a shrinking group of ever-larger entertainment conglomerates.
Even as the potential moviegoing public has become distracted by an explosion of electronic options and devices unimagined a generation ago, the marketplace has been swamped by a poisonous glut of new movies. As Gill explains, in 1993, the Sundance Film Festival received roughly 500 submissions. For 2008, that number had swollen to more than 5,000. The reasons for that are various: The cost of producing a small-budget motion picture has fallen sharply in the digital age, and the success of a handful of indies in the late '90s and early 2000s drew investors large and small to pour countless billions of dollars into filmmaking.
It hasn't turned out to be a sensible investment. Gill calculates the odds of losing all your money on an independent film at 99.95 percent. Most of those 5,000 movies, in his words, are "pre-ordained flops," made by people "who forgot that their odds would have been better if they'd converted their money into quarters and taken the all-night party bus to Vegas." First of all, there's the simple fact that the market can't support more than 10 percent of those movies in a given year, and probably a much lower ratio than that. In 2007 a reported 603 films were released theatrically in the United States, the vast majority of them coming and going almost unnoticed. Everyone in the business agrees that number is unsustainably high; a more reasonable level might be 250 to 300.
Then there's the fact that while enthusiasm, access to technology and an eagerness to become famous may be widespread, talent and craftsmanship are not. As anybody who's ever served on a film-festival selection committee learns the hard way, most of those movies should never have been made in the first place and definitely should not be inflicted upon the public. There has indeed been an explosion of ultra-low-budget filmmaking -- just try to wade through the self-produced movies available on YouTube -- but so far it has not revealed a nation full of unheralded Orson Welleses in embryo. If anything, it has produced a deluge of abysmal crap that makes the genuine discoveries harder to see. As Gill acidly observed: "The digital revolution is here, and boy does it suck."
Is he just an old-economy pterosaur cynically trying to fend off the evolutionary trend that will make him obsolete? Sure, maybe. But that doesn't make him wrong. However independent films will be distributed in the future, I suspect a two-tier economy will be involved. There will still be a professional film industry that produces and distributes a relatively small number of movies that cost hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars, whether they reach you in theaters, through a cable box, on your computer or iPod or through some other pipeline not yet devised. There will also be a purely digital universe of films that cost almost nothing to make and almost nothing to watch -- sort of a purified, film-school version of YouTube, minus any dreams of media stardom or celebrity coke parties.
There are two contradictory ways of looking at the current crisis, and as is customary with these things, they're both partly accurate without quite grasping the big picture. On one hand, this rapidly snowballing market crash seemed to come out of nowhere. Indiewood movies, meaning those distributed by the studios' specialty divisions, have dominated the Oscar nominations for the last three or four years. Just last fall, Miramax and the now-defunct Paramount Vantage shared the production and distribution of "No Country for Old Men" and "There Will Be Blood," the year's two most acclaimed American films. You might have heard about a little Fox Searchlight release called "Juno," which approximately everyone in the country saw twice. It looked as if the mid-level quasi-independent film was conquering the adult moviegoing market, turning the big studios into teen-oriented sequel factories and driving smaller, more adventurous art-house cinema to the margins of the margins.
On the other hand, even if nobody saw this coming, we should have seen something coming. The national economy has slipped into what looks like a protracted recession, the supply pipeline is clogged with crap, the future of film distribution is literally up in the air and the audience is distracted, distraught and fragmented. Newspapers, broadcast TV, the music industry and other media have suffered precipitous downturns. What a great moment for dark and quirky motion pictures! Seen in that light, a market crash was an enormous duh, and perhaps a necessary correction, as they say in business school. Maybe all that stock-market money had to go down the toilet to get the industry focused on making fewer and better films, a solution that would make many of these problems go away.
Of course my judgment, like that of Mark Gill and Carrie Rickey, may be clouded by my desire to make a living: If independent film disappears as an economically viable industry, I'll have to find something else to write about. Be that as it may, I'll sign on with their guarded optimism; as the president always tells Congress during the State of the Union address, the "economic fundamentals" beneath the whole enterprise remain strong, and down cycles give way to up cycles just as surely as rain produces flowers. Gill cites marketing data suggesting that 10 percent of the public tell pollsters they prefer independent films to mainstream fare, which if anything is a historic increase. (Indies traditionally account for 5 or 6 percent of ticket sales.)
Does that polling data actually mean that one in 10 Americans would rather see Werner Herzog's new Antarctica documentary (doing very well in limited release, thank you), or revisit Kieslowski's "Three Colors" than stand in line for Christopher Nolan's latest Batman flick? Or does it just reflect a momentary semiotic uptick in the number of people who want to appear hip and sophisticated? I think we know the answer to that question, but there's a trickier one out there: How does the economic, social and cultural climate surrounding filmmaking affect the work? And in the age of the iPhone and the Wii and the whatever else, are there still budding Fellinis and Tarantinos interested in creating spellbinding visual narratives that demand your full attention for 90-plus minutes?
Sure there are. Sony's Tom Bernard told Rickey that the obituary for art-house movies "appears every 17 years, like the locust." The indie booms of the '80s and '90s crested and collapsed in their turn, but the best filmmakers always survived -- and without fail every year moviegoers turn some totally unlikely release into a big hit. As far as the old-fashioned movie experience is concerned, Gill is probably right that in a few years we'll have half as many films released in half as many theaters. This will be a sad transition for many of us, sure. But the movies weren't killed by television, they weren't killed by VHS and DVD, and they can't be killed by whatever's happening now.

Link

Wedding Engagement Photos!!!

We took engagement photos last weekend and they're now online for your viewing pleasure. I must warn you that they're not your typical engagement photos. In case you're wondering where we got some of our inspiration, check out the stuff below. Also, thanks to Leo Patrone for taking such amazing photos.

Emma and Jed's Engagments

Leo Patrone Photography

First of all, Emma and I are keen on 50s and 60s sensibilities: we both love the Beatles, Beach Boys, and very 60s movies like Breakfast at Tiffany's. (That should be pretty obvious in our photos.) Also, we love indie rock: The Killers, Jenny Lewis (Rilo Kiley), Arcade Fire, etc. So basically, we just stole elements of photos, movies, music videos that we liked and applied them to our little photo shoot. Questions?


The Bealtes


Jenny Lewis


The Killers


The Umbrellas de Cherbourg


American Gothic


Amelie


The Beach Boys


Breakfast at Tiffany's


Buddy Holly


Arcade Fire


Kate Nash



Grease


Beck


Lily Allen



Challengers


'To Sir with Love'

Internet Killed the Video Star II

Here's more evidence that MTV is decidedly pointless and the internet is the only way to really view music videos nowadays. This new Weezer video showcases some of YouTube's most famous stars. See if you can spot them:



If you don't recognize all of these "famous" internet stars, this link catalogues all of them.

'Lost' and Other Nonsense

Duane, feel free to have your little coup...for now. I've got some errant posts running around my head that need to put down to rest on JedBoy--it's just finding the time has been difficult. So, Duane, seriously, write as much as you want. And in an effort to add something to this blog, I've decided to add an email that I get weekly from the one, the only, Hayley. Most of you probably don't know her, but she's got the goods when it comes to pop culture, so I thought I would interject one of her many analyses of my favorite TV show to this humble little blog. With her permission of course:

All that is gold does not glitter; not all those that wander are lost. - J. R. R. Tolkien

So its been three years and Kate keeps going through that last day on the island and trying to make sense of it. What I'm trying to make sense of is how are they protecting the people on the island by lying? I mean, it makes sense to lie because who would believe them and because who wants to make Widmore (or whoever planted the shipwreck - is there another option?) a bigger enemy, but how is that protecting them? So I guess they decided to go along with the shipwreck story that everyone saw on TV and that's why then chose where to be found. Nobody can even find the island though, so how does that protect them? Sounds more like protecting yourselves. I guess if they tell the truth and someone does start an investigation into it all and goes after Widmore they are thinking he found it once so he could find it again and when he does ... but those chances don't seem high.

Who's still alive and on the island (besides the Others): Sawyer, Juliette, Charlotte, Miles, Rose, Bernard, Locke (at least until he gets killed) - will we see Michael as a specter? Jacob's representative Christian finally released him and let him die.

Who's futures are not perfectly clear: Claire - I suppose that the fact that she came to visit Aaron and Kate like the other specters confirms that she is dead and probably died in the house explosion that Sawyer 'rescued' her from, but still. She did seem different than the other specter visitors who always seem indifferent and condescending. I suppose it could have just been a dream after all ... Daniel - I am going to assume that he and those extras in the raft with him were still close enough to the island to vanish with it, but that's not for sure. Jin. Okay, so it seems a far stretch that he could possibly still be alive since the ship blew up and even if he did make it he had no island to swim back to. That was one of the most frustrating scenes - they totally had two seconds to wait for him. Kate tried to run in after him, Desmond and Sun were yelling to wait, bot noooo, Jack had to go. Sun's screams were heart-wrenching. I suppose they needed Jin to go to fuel Sun into the bold and calculating woman we saw in the future - I love it, but it will be very interesting to see how deeply she has let herself hate and what she is now capable of. Does she want to work with Widmore to destroy her father or for his help to find the island? Both?

Who has to come back to the island: Jack, Kate, Aaron, Sayid, Hurley, Sun, Walt (Poor, tall, ugly haircut Walt, who none of the 6 came to see). I presume 'all' refers to the flight members, not to Desmond or Frank. What is Ben's investment in getting them back - is it all about revenge and the game he is playing with Widmore? Does he want to get back into the Island's good graces? He claimed that whoever moves the island can't come back. Is this true? Perhaps by telling Locke that and by moving the island himself he keeps a certain degree of power/allegiance with the island. Now we know why he had the parka on and a cut on his arm, when he was cranking the gears in the Journey-to-the-Center-of-the-Earthesque ice chamber, but how did he get to Tunisia? When the island moved did it just teleported him to Tunisia by default? It doesn't seem to be a random location since he had been there before, his fake name was in the hotel records. Hmmmm, Ben, Ben, Ben... what is up your sleeve? PS, you were freaking me out when you went all Psycho on Keamy! (I wonder if we'll see Keamy in flashes next season.)

The Others do stick to their promises. Wasn't that a weird look between Sayid and Kate though when they saved Ben and fought Keamy? Was there more to the bargain than we heard? The Coffin: the two biggest theories for who was in the coffin have always been Locke and Ben. I had always leaned towards Ben based on Kate's disdainful reaction to Jack when he asked her is she was going to go. The minute Ben walked into the room though, it had to be Locke. Who killed you Locke, and made it look like a suicide? Was it Sayid? I have to admit, I was extremely proud of myself for remembering the name Jeremy Bentham as the coffin guy from the finale last year. So, Locke, why the alias? Is it simply to be incognito because John Locke is supposed to be dead and because Widmore's guys are probably after you? - "Jeremy Bentham was one of the founders of the Utilitarian philosophy in the 19th century - the path to goodness consists of finding or doing the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Bentham developed this philosophy with James Mill, whose son, John Stuart Mill, refined it (JS Mill argued, correctly I think, that there are qualitative differences between goods - saving someones life is worth much more than giving someone $100 as charity). Bentham is also known for devising the Panopticon prison - a design which allows the prison guard to observe all prisoners, who are unaware that they're being observed."

This name goes along with some of the other philosophical names chosen for characters on the show. So Locke/Bentham has been coming to see all of them. He came to see Walt, and by the fact that Hurley recognised the name he must have come to see him too (everyone else is coming to see Hurley, so why not?) and Jack confirmed that he had come to both himself and to Kate.

The islands wrath: Is it on Jack specifically or on all of them for leaving? Jack was certainly taking it personally, but if they all need to come back, then its really all of there faults that bad things have been happening since they left. Next season they will hopefully provide flashes of Locke's visits. Ooh, zinger on Jack when Locke said, 'If you lie to them half as well as you do to yourself...' Was it always meant to happen like this - for Locke to die because Jack was meant to be the leader? His tattoo says something like, "He is among them, but he is not one of them." Will that come into play again? Could Jack have been like Locke on the island if he had gotten over his cynicism and insecurity and let himself believe? It seems that Aaron is the chosen one who will end up the new Locke, though. That kid is a miraculous survivor like John.

Here's the thing though, we're getting some mixed signals from the island. All the visitors from the island are telling them we need you, come back, but then Claire comes and says don't you dare take him back. Are there two conflicting powers on the island? Is what Jacob/Christian/Claire wants different from what Richard/Locke/The Others want? It shouldn't be too hard to find everyone, its just a matter of convincing them. Ben knows how to reach Sayid who knows how to reach Hurley, in his new Sayid instigated witness protection program. Will Sayid be coming to collect the others - I presume they are all being watched. Aaaaaaah Sawyer - could I love you any more? That was beautiful. Had to love Sawyer's grin when he came swimming out of the ocean and saw Juliette boozing it up and he was just as casual as ever. I guess they'll be assuming their friends are dead. It makes me even more frustrated with jerkface Jack for being such a bum about Kate following through with Sawyer's last whispered wish. (Which was most likely about his daughter Clementine.) I get that he is feeling guilty and confused... I think next season will be kind of a redemption season for Jack.

Best acting moment: No surprise, it goes to Michael Emerson as Ben. In the Orchid when Locke asks him if that's the magic box and Ben shook his head in frustration and said, 'no John, its not,' and then spoke to him like he was five ... classic. When brief conversation between Ben and Pretty Eyes Richard was also amusing.

Most satisfying episode moment: The Des and Penny reunion. Oh sweetness. I hope you are happy and I hope that you can avoid Ben and I hope to see much more of you both.

Most intriguing new character development: Charlotte - So she 'finally' got 'back' to the island and she is still trying to figure out where she was born. What? whas she born there? Is she somehow a key in the island pregnancy dilemma?

Biggest question in my mind right now: When they do finally find and get back to the island, wherever it may be, how much time will have passed on the island? The Orchid video said it was a study of space and time both, so when the island moved did it move both space and time? It would be nice to get some more history of the island itself.

See you in another season, Brotha.

By: Hayley Mann