This is the Debate that Never Ends!!! Yes it goes on and on,,,,,,
I love WHH vs. Changed Past - It's a fantastic debate, and probably the best storyline written in this show. Just look at how much everybody discusses it, and how long the posts are. You just can't help but form an opinion and defend it with your life.
Let's look at the main questions and points surrounding each idea.
Changed Past:
1. It's not difficult to accept that the past can be changed. And if it couldn't, then why are characters like Miss Hawking so concerned about making sure everything happens the way it is supposed to.
2. Eloise the lab rat was sent to the future by Daniel who claimed that she had learned how to solve her maze an hour into the future. But less than an hour later her body was dead, and unable to solve the maze. Isn't that proof at that moment that the future was different.
3. If the past changes, the characters could easily keep their memories, and therefore there is no break in character development.
4. Miss Hawking forced Desmond and Daniel to the Island. Jacob forced Sayid, and encouraged a number of others to go. Ben brought back Locke. Wouldn't all these people have made it back anyway if WHH. Why does everybody have to force them along if it was going to happen anyway?
5. The numbers were playing again during the Ajira crash, which was well after Rousseau had shut them off.
WHH:
1. Since we've been given clues to the island history throughout seasons 1-4, changing the past would consequently render that history meaningless.
2. It doesn't render each character's past meaningless if they continue on remembering their old experiences, but why show us things like the blood stain on the Swan ceiling where Radzinsky killed himself. If the past was changed, then at the very least we won't find out why he killed himself in the original timeline, even if he kills himself in a new one.
3. What about Ben? If the past was changed, am I supposed to believe that the young Ben we came to learn about, isn't the same Ben that we watched in the early seasons. We all wanted to know how our Ben grew up, not how alternate Ben grew up.
4. What about the Flashbacks where Ben killed his dad? The ones as a boy would have occurred before the losties altered the timeline, while the ones where he killed his dad would have happened after. Are these two different Ben, and completely unrelated circumstances? They couldn't be if they were in the same episode, so it would take a massive effort to explain all of this if they decided to reveal there was an altered future.
5. The runway was built during the Ajira crash, which we know Ben was building in season 3.
It's a facinating arguement. The point about Daniel's rat Eloise is hard to argue against. How did she learn to run the maze an hour into the future if she was dead in that future? There must have been a change.
Also equally hard to argue is Ben and his father's history. It's the only major relationship that existed both before and after the alleged time shifting event, and it appears to the be the same relationship on both sides. So how am I supposed to believe the timeline was changed? What changed?
I don't know what to tell you. I think the most logical and simplest explanation is if you go with WHH. That's not to say it's right, but it would be a much easier road to explain everything, because simply, they wouldn't have to explain anything else. If instead you go with the Changed Timeline, there would be a lot of elements that needed a much deeper explanation.
Daniel's Rat? Well maybe that was a small oversight and Desmond should have woken up 2 hours later after the rat had run the maze during the hour it was supposed to be learning the maze.
The repeating numbers during the Ajira crash? Rousseau's message couldn't have simply been playing over them, because the whole point was to stop any broadcast, but there was a 3 year window for somebody, anybody to restart them. That's not a biiiig stretch.
Miss Hawking and Widmore's intrusion into everybody's life? There are 2 possibilities here. One, perhaps they knew what would happen, and despite knowing that it would happen anyway, they couldn't help but get a first hand look. So the fact that they were there offering advice didn't change a thing, and in fact their presence was merely apart of WHH.
Or perhaps it is possible that if WHH doesn't happen, then the entire universe implodes. So in other words, it's possible for Desmond to make his own choice, but if he doesn't get to the island, then time/space collapses, or something like that. I realize that disproves in a roundabout way a pure WHH stance, but if the options are WHH or utter annihilation, then I'll buy Hawking and Widmore's reasons for intereferance, and the storyline as a whole.
Now compare that to not believing WHH. How do they explain the difference between child Ben and adult Ben, and why did we spend so much time watching him grow up if child Ben isn't the same character as Adult Ben. Is the child Ben we saw in "The Man Behind the Curtain" even the same person as child Ben from season 5?
What about the need for the countdown timer, or Chang's reference to "The Incident" in the orientation video. If the timeline changed, have we still not seen the causes of these two events? How do they explain that "The Incident" in season 5, wasn't "The Incident" Chang referred to and that caused the need for the countdown timer? Are we going to see that "Incident?"
And what about Radzinsky's blood stain. Didn't we wait 3 seasons to meet Radzinsky and find out what really happened to him to make him kill himself in the hatch? So if the timeline changed, are they going to have to explain how season 5 Radzinsky really isn't the same guy we once knew only as the blood spot? Will we see what happened to original timeline Radzinsky?
I'm not biased. I'm really not. But if you look at the probably of each of these stories, and the loops they would have to jump through to explain a timeline change, it would be a massive and tedius undertaking.
I'm just saying. It's not impossible that WHH is wrong, but I think a logical person, who isn't emotionally involved in their answer, would have to conclude that it would be way easier to tell the remainder of this story if WHH is true.
I love WHH vs. Changed Past - It's a fantastic debate, and probably the best storyline written in this show. Just look at how much everybody discusses it, and how long the posts are. You just can't help but form an opinion and defend it with your life.
Let's look at the main questions and points surrounding each idea.
Changed Past:
1. It's not difficult to accept that the past can be changed. And if it couldn't, then why are characters like Miss Hawking so concerned about making sure everything happens the way it is supposed to.
2. Eloise the lab rat was sent to the future by Daniel who claimed that she had learned how to solve her maze an hour into the future. But less than an hour later her body was dead, and unable to solve the maze. Isn't that proof at that moment that the future was different.
3. If the past changes, the characters could easily keep their memories, and therefore there is no break in character development.
4. Miss Hawking forced Desmond and Daniel to the Island. Jacob forced Sayid, and encouraged a number of others to go. Ben brought back Locke. Wouldn't all these people have made it back anyway if WHH. Why does everybody have to force them along if it was going to happen anyway?
5. The numbers were playing again during the Ajira crash, which was well after Rousseau had shut them off.
WHH:
1. Since we've been given clues to the island history throughout seasons 1-4, changing the past would consequently render that history meaningless.
2. It doesn't render each character's past meaningless if they continue on remembering their old experiences, but why show us things like the blood stain on the Swan ceiling where Radzinsky killed himself. If the past was changed, then at the very least we won't find out why he killed himself in the original timeline, even if he kills himself in a new one.
3. What about Ben? If the past was changed, am I supposed to believe that the young Ben we came to learn about, isn't the same Ben that we watched in the early seasons. We all wanted to know how our Ben grew up, not how alternate Ben grew up.
4. What about the Flashbacks where Ben killed his dad? The ones as a boy would have occurred before the losties altered the timeline, while the ones where he killed his dad would have happened after. Are these two different Ben, and completely unrelated circumstances? They couldn't be if they were in the same episode, so it would take a massive effort to explain all of this if they decided to reveal there was an altered future.
5. The runway was built during the Ajira crash, which we know Ben was building in season 3.
It's a facinating arguement. The point about Daniel's rat Eloise is hard to argue against. How did she learn to run the maze an hour into the future if she was dead in that future? There must have been a change.
Also equally hard to argue is Ben and his father's history. It's the only major relationship that existed both before and after the alleged time shifting event, and it appears to the be the same relationship on both sides. So how am I supposed to believe the timeline was changed? What changed?
I don't know what to tell you. I think the most logical and simplest explanation is if you go with WHH. That's not to say it's right, but it would be a much easier road to explain everything, because simply, they wouldn't have to explain anything else. If instead you go with the Changed Timeline, there would be a lot of elements that needed a much deeper explanation.
Daniel's Rat? Well maybe that was a small oversight and Desmond should have woken up 2 hours later after the rat had run the maze during the hour it was supposed to be learning the maze.
The repeating numbers during the Ajira crash? Rousseau's message couldn't have simply been playing over them, because the whole point was to stop any broadcast, but there was a 3 year window for somebody, anybody to restart them. That's not a biiiig stretch.
Miss Hawking and Widmore's intrusion into everybody's life? There are 2 possibilities here. One, perhaps they knew what would happen, and despite knowing that it would happen anyway, they couldn't help but get a first hand look. So the fact that they were there offering advice didn't change a thing, and in fact their presence was merely apart of WHH.
Or perhaps it is possible that if WHH doesn't happen, then the entire universe implodes. So in other words, it's possible for Desmond to make his own choice, but if he doesn't get to the island, then time/space collapses, or something like that. I realize that disproves in a roundabout way a pure WHH stance, but if the options are WHH or utter annihilation, then I'll buy Hawking and Widmore's reasons for intereferance, and the storyline as a whole.
Now compare that to not believing WHH. How do they explain the difference between child Ben and adult Ben, and why did we spend so much time watching him grow up if child Ben isn't the same character as Adult Ben. Is the child Ben we saw in "The Man Behind the Curtain" even the same person as child Ben from season 5?
What about the need for the countdown timer, or Chang's reference to "The Incident" in the orientation video. If the timeline changed, have we still not seen the causes of these two events? How do they explain that "The Incident" in season 5, wasn't "The Incident" Chang referred to and that caused the need for the countdown timer? Are we going to see that "Incident?"
And what about Radzinsky's blood stain. Didn't we wait 3 seasons to meet Radzinsky and find out what really happened to him to make him kill himself in the hatch? So if the timeline changed, are they going to have to explain how season 5 Radzinsky really isn't the same guy we once knew only as the blood spot? Will we see what happened to original timeline Radzinsky?
I'm not biased. I'm really not. But if you look at the probably of each of these stories, and the loops they would have to jump through to explain a timeline change, it would be a massive and tedius undertaking.
I'm just saying. It's not impossible that WHH is wrong, but I think a logical person, who isn't emotionally involved in their answer, would have to conclude that it would be way easier to tell the remainder of this story if WHH is true.
