Locke and the Sub - Page 3

wed is quite the cheerleader over here...

well cheer for this one!

I got it. He locked the top hatch down and exited throught a port torpedo tube... that way nobody could come in after him to stop it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by benmer007

wed is quite the cheerleader over here...

well cheer for this one!

I got it. He locked the top hatch down and exited throught a port torpedo tube... that way nobody could come in after him to stop it.

Do we know it had a torpeo shoot or do all submarines have them??

I like the thought though, FINALLY Benmer007 has returned...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Integrated

Why was he wet? Probably slipped and fell in the water :P I think people are looking too far into this 'wet' thing, I agree he was wet but I don't think it's anything significant.

Locke is shown climbing down into the sub and he is not wet. So we know he was able to go from the dock to the sub without getting wet. Why then not exit the same dry way? This has to be a significant plot point. And they are clearly showing that Locke was in the water, what is not so clear is why.

Think about it from a logistical point of view. This is a tv show. Terry O'Quinn is not actually doing anything with a real submarine. So the only way he gets soaking wet is if it is part of the storyline. It is part of his costume for that scene.

A shirt having different sweat stains from one scene to another or different rips after a fight, or gloves on then gloves off etc. Would be possible continuity errors.
A character that is totally dry in one scene and then completely soaked in the next scene is not a production error that a show like Lost would make. Ever.

Well I dunno about "completely soaked". I think time will tell, but my guess is there will never be an explanation for it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by folie a deux

Locke is shown climbing down into the sub and he is not wet. So we know he was able to go from the dock to the sub without getting wet. Why then not exit the same dry way? This has to be a significant plot point. And they are clearly showing that Locke was in the water, what is not so clear is why.

Think about it from a logistical point of view. This is a tv show. Terry O'Quinn is not actually doing anything with a real submarine. So the only way he gets soaking wet is if it is part of the storyline. It is part of his costume for that scene.

A shirt having different sweat stains from one scene to another or different rips after a fight, or gloves on then gloves off etc. Would be possible continuity errors.
A character that is totally dry in one scene and then completely soaked in the next scene is not a production error that a show like Lost would make. Ever.

excellent points...I agree that he couldn't go from being dry to wet and not have a story line behind it. If they never explain this, frankly I see it as poor writing (or writing that intentionally pisses off the viewer, which is just as bad) If this is never mentioned again, I'm going to be VERY disappointed...although with the number of questions they keep bringing up, and so few of them being answered, I have a feeling I have to get used to disappointment

Quote:

Originally Posted by Logan42

I agree that he couldn't go from being dry to wet and not have a story line behind it. If they never explain this, frankly I see it as poor writing (or writing that intentionally pisses off the viewer, which is just as bad)

I think there are some questions raised which may never be answered (Like why Walt didn't want Locke to go into the hatch) but this isn't one of them. People are just reading too much into it, he could have just been sweating, or got wet from a wave or something while on the submarine, if you start looking for answers to questions that aren't even there of COURSE you're gonna end up dissapointed.

Yes this very well may be another question that goes unanswered. But I don't think this reading to much into it. I don't like that myself. I have read plenty of posts were people are making things more complicated than they actually are.
In this case the directors/writers seem to go out of their way to point this out for it to be no big deal. Will they ever address it in future episodes? Who knows. Do they have a reason for him being soaking wet? I say they would have to. Otherwise I would almost be forced to say there was no rhyme or reason to anything they do.
here are some screencaps.

Thanks for the pic...definitely soaking wet...sure doesn't seem like sweat to me. I can't see a reason for them to have him this wet, unless it had some kind of meaning to the story...if its just a wave or something like that, why even bother writing that in? Not sure why I'm focused on this, but its way more important to me than something like Jack's tattoos, which I couldn't care less about. If I never get an answer, oh well, my bad, but I really hope there's some meaning to it.

If you notice when Locke climbs down into the sub he knows how to turn on the lights and stuff like that (after the "little joke" about being in the navy to Ben), I don't know that the common man knows how to work stuff in a sub. If you look on the wall behind depressed Locke (when he's eating off the tv tray in his room) there is a poster or picture of special forces badges. Whoever called Locke to play Risk (at least we assume that's what the call was for, we assume it because of the proximity to the Risk game, but maybe it was something else) someone called him Colonel. (I would have chosen something higher...4 star General, or Admiral for a game of world domination) Maybe there is still more to Locke that we don't know. We don't know what he did as a young man (teens, early twenties). He does seem to have a great knowledge of survival skills - hunting with knives and tracking, etc... - as does Kate who admitted that she learned her skills from her dad, the one who had been in the military.

In this week's producers' podcast they say "it appears Locke blew up the sub." So there is not a diffinitive yes or no... yet. We are left to decide if "appears" means the sub is gone - so he blew it up, or that "appears" means just because we can't see it doesn't mean it's been blown up. Argh!!!!