"I Hope You're Happy Now, Jacob"--The LOST Season 5 Thread

the lady's top really doesn't look '70s.

http://forum.lostpedia.com/juliets-flashback-really-flash-forward-t36977.html?s=7bcbe7d03d6f14166391a1d76bcade54&p=1633805

I for one don't feel those branches-as-decor were very 70s, to me. But I wasn't around in the 70s..

― she started dancing to that (Finefinemusic), Wednesday, May 20, 2009 9:45 AM (12 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

But this is what I'm talking about. Maybe "branches as decor" wasn't a "thing" in the 70s but there was nothing stopping someone from getting branches and using them as decor.

the husband and wife in particular, the hairstyle, the children's clothing, everything is wrong. nothing is brown or orange, like it should be in the 70's.

Sista
Stranded Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 42

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This really stood out to me. I am 30. I assumed Juliet is older than me. This set does NOT look like anything from the late 70s or early 80s, which is when Juliet would've been this age, in my opinion. Especially the parents' clothes and hairstyles, as someone else pointed out.

That whole scene was just weird. I hope there was a point to it; otherwise this is a glaring and distracting anachronism. The whole thing felt really "off" to me - I didn't like it.

SISTA!

The slipcovers on the couches. No such thing, in that form anyway, existed in the 1970s.

Uh so basically you're saying it's "wrong" because there aren't enough obvious '70s signifiers? Also I'm not sure why I'm the fucking idiot when you don't understand what "specific" means.

THE HAIRSTYLES AND THE CLOTHES. I SAID IT. SPECIFIC?

EVEN SISTA AGREES WITH ME.

Specific would be like "that sweater is a J. Crew sweater from 1993, so it is not from this time period" not THE HAIR AND CLOTHES SEEM WRONG BUT I CAN'T EXPLAIN WHY which btw you might have noticed no one is arguing with you about

including me

loving the sigs on that lost forum

http://forum.lostpedia.com/picture.php?albumid=1035&pictureid=10768

EVEN SISTA AGREES WITH ME.

― cutty, Wednesday, May 20, 2009 2:53 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

LOL

sorry i don't know the LL bean catalog

We are all saying the scene seems "wrong," I'm just saying there's nothing definitively wrong in it, or basically what slock1 said 15 minutes ago.

i don't know what you call dude's haircut either but no one was rocking that shit in the 70s

surprised people care so much about this throwaway scene

I fast forwarded jin/sun's wedding vows

ditto

You guys have to keep in mind that when there is a flashback, there is usually a lot of period markers.. the costumes and props usually SCREAM the era in a kitschy, obvious fashion..

oops, ambiguous flashbacks make me forget to finish sentences. All I'm saying is these people have a right to dissect this scene since we're usually given such definitive markers and this scene didn't seem to have much to do with anything. We just want it to mean something!

I really think they just chucked it in at the last moment as some sort of vague justification for Juliet being flaky and indecisive.

all I'm asking for is a nkotb lunchbox once in a while, why is that so wrong?

i don't know what you call dude's haircut either but no one was rocking that shit in the 70s

^^^ this! I'm not saying dad should've had a perm and chops, but he would've had something that pre-dated 70s style rather than something that post-dated 70s style.

Sorry, I had to get on a train and go to work. But I'm with n/a, basically.

you are fucking idiot too, then

OK, how old do we think Juliet is supposed to be? If she's the same age as Elizabeth Mitchell, then that scene takes place in 1980. Does that change anything? Maybe not.

1980 was still the 70's

But it's possible that she's playing younger. I mean, Jeremy Davies was born eight years before his character. Does that scene look particularly wrong for mid-80s? A lot less so, I'd think.

keep defending that shitty scene so help me god

Not defending it, just trying to figure shit out.

The furnishing of the Dharma houses didn't look particularly 70s either incidentally. I think they're just really lazy with interiors - see also Desmond knocking on the door of a terraced house on a British street then being seen inside an enormous American-style house with big windows. That happened a few times actually.

Alternatively ZOMG Juliet is from the future and lives with her future parents and Vincent and the horse.

from now on flashbacks should all just take place in the yogurt section of whole foods so we can tell if they're ok based on presence/lack of faggy yogurt.

LOOOOL

LOL Bean

here's an anachronism for you, if eloise is pregnant in '77 and daniel was born the same year, he'd be 19 in 1996 when he meets desmond.

we've been over that.

...and that was already discussed. he was apparently the youngest oxford dood etc

The British stuff is different because that's blatantly just a big wind-up.

s1ocki is my co-pilot

oh ok. damn long threads.

youngest oxford dude or whatever, did he get his first degree at 16 or something?

I really think they just chucked it in at the last moment as some sort of vague justification for Juliet being flaky and indecisive.

― Enormous Epic (Matt DC), Wednesday, 20 May 2009 15:06 (38 minutes ago) Permalink

^^What I'm thinkin. Lost does that a lot, right?--give us some shitty flashback to key events in a characters life so we know why they're about to make some shitty decision.

Totally willing to entertain Juliet Future Woman theories, tho.

would have been more effective if juliet just told the story of her parents. we didn't need the lame visual.

youngest oxford dude or whatever, did he get his first degree at 16 or something?

― Roz, Wednesday, May 20, 2009 3:59 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

that does happen... and he is supposed to be a prodigy so

farraday howser, phd.

would have been more effective if they introduced that backstory more than five minutes before they had her repeat her mom's speech word for word xpost

THIS!

would have been more effective if juliet just told the story of her parents. we didn't need the lame visual.

or perhaps an elaborate finger puppet display

when James told Jack "do your business!" i couldn't help but shout out "but what about the bomb?"

Maybe they also put that flashback in to show Juliet as the character who hadn't been touched by Jacob, in a "hey guess who's going to die?" way.

you know i always hated this thread title but the finale really made it work for me.