Author Topic: Numbers...Valenzetti....An....swer?  (Read 3165 times)

Offline I_Am_Jacob

  • In the Loop
  • ****
  • Posts: 1141
    • View Profile
Numbers...Valenzetti....An....swer?
« on: May 24, 2010, 04:01:25 PM »
So remember the backstory of the Valenzetti equation? THE numbers were numbers that were inherent to an equation that would lead to the end of the world. People worked to change a number so they could save the world. Maybe the number that was changed was Locke's switched with Kate's....Just thought the whole misdirection about Kate kind of mirrored the "change a number" thought on the Valenzetti. Probably nothing, but this is how I think about my theories.

Offline lostfan777

  • In the Loop
  • ****
  • Posts: 1477
    • View Profile
Re: Numbers...Valenzetti....An....swer?
« Reply #1 on: May 24, 2010, 04:13:00 PM »
So remember the backstory of the Valenzetti equation? THE numbers were numbers that were inherent to an equation that would lead to the end of the world. People worked to change a number so they could save the world. Maybe the number that was changed was Locke's switched with Kate's....Just thought the whole misdirection about Kate kind of mirrored the "change a number" thought on the Valenzetti. Probably nothing, but this is how I think about my theories.

I think TPTB wanted us to come to some of our own conclusions which means no one can tell you you're wrong if that's what you got from it.  Congrats on having an open mind and finding some answers for yourself.  I'm doing the same.  That'll leave us in a better frame of mind than those that want it all spelled out on the DVD's!

Offline MachThree

  • Survivor
  • ***
  • Posts: 510
    • View Profile
Re: Numbers...Valenzetti....An....swer?
« Reply #2 on: May 24, 2010, 04:18:42 PM »
I never really knew how to treat the whole Valenzetti equation stuff.  It wasn't in the show itself, so I've never understood if its supposed to be canon, or not.  If it is, though, I like your theory!

Offline I_Am_Jacob

  • In the Loop
  • ****
  • Posts: 1141
    • View Profile
Re: Numbers...Valenzetti....An....swer?
« Reply #3 on: May 24, 2010, 04:20:28 PM »

I think TPTB wanted us to come to some of our own conclusions which means no one can tell you you're wrong if that's what you got from it.  Congrats on having an open mind and finding some answers for yourself.  I'm doing the same.  That'll leave us in a better frame of mind than those that want it all spelled out on the DVD's!

Yeah I am perfectly okay with being "Probably Wrong." You won't see me ignoring facts from the show though. Yeah I think you can clearly see the difference in reactions from people that were far too "Spell it out for me" oriented. I LOVED the finale.

I never really knew how to treat the whole Valenzetti equation stuff.  It wasn't in the show itself, so I've never understood if its supposed to be canon, or not.  If it is, though, I like your theory!


Yeah this one just kind of popped into my brain. Figured I'd type it out.

Offline Madam P

  • In the Loop
  • ****
  • Posts: 1353
    • View Profile
Re: Numbers...Valenzetti....An....swer?
« Reply #4 on: May 24, 2010, 04:39:15 PM »
Well, just sayin', but:

Quote
OH MY GOD. STOP. DAVID IS NOBODY. HE DIDN'T EXIST. HE WAS CONSTRUCTED BY JACK TO REDEEM HIMSELF BY BEING A GOOD FATHER LIKE HIS NEVER WAS.

Replace the above with:


OH MY GOD. STOP. THE VALENZETTI EQUATION IS NOTHING. IT DIDN'T EXIST WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THIS SHOW. IT WAS CONSTRUCTED BY ABC ONLINE WRITERS AND OTHER THEORISTS TO GIVE FANS SOMETHING TO CHEW OVER.

You're just thinking about your theories; Opgelost's just thinking about hers --like LostFan says, keeping an open mind and finding answers for oneself.  No need to go all capslock on her, is there?  Just something to consider...  I personally think you both have very interesting ideas.

Offline I_Am_Jacob

  • In the Loop
  • ****
  • Posts: 1141
    • View Profile
Re: Numbers...Valenzetti....An....swer?
« Reply #5 on: May 24, 2010, 05:03:05 PM »
HAHA. Touche. Although I am ponderring an open ended that I am fully aware makes no real difference about the show.

Still being on the David = MiB train is fundamentally insane. But I get your point. I have alot of these stupid theories every day. The difference in mine is as soon as I realize they are wrong I abandon them and "Let Go." I'm like Desmond to Opie's Kate. I am just trying to help her let go. She probably still regrets that MiB didn't get off the island and kill all humanity.

Offline opgelost

  • In the Loop
  • ****
  • Posts: 1826
    • View Profile
Re: Numbers...Valenzetti....An....swer?
« Reply #6 on: May 25, 2010, 04:04:45 PM »
Jacob. He got off the island. After 2000 years he was finally able to become human and die.
Maybe you think he will stay there as a whisper, but I believe he was in the sideworld as David, like all
the other people that needed redemption. And his part of the world they created all together was
the island deep under the sea.
Saying that all the people in the sideworld were souls, except for David, who only existed in Jack's head is
much insaner. Dogen saw him, Juliet saw him as her son, Claire talked to him. Were they all in Jack's head?

Offline muggle_born

  • Background Extra
  • *
  • Posts: 40
    • View Profile
Re: Numbers...Valenzetti....An....swer?
« Reply #7 on: May 27, 2010, 08:14:16 AM »
Saying that all the people in the sideworld were souls, except for David, who only existed in Jack's head is
much insaner. Dogen saw him, Juliet saw him as her son, Claire talked to him. Were they all in Jack's head?


They weren't all in Jack's head (by this point there were only worms in Jack's head),  but there can be no doubt that most of these people weren't "real." or even souls of any kind  The sideways universe was created through the collective consciousness of all of the Islanders who formed a bond about their time on the island, not all of dead humanity (don't you think it would be a little crowded, not to mention a little weird for those who hadn't lived in the 2000's?), and clearly not every delivery man in their universe could have possibly been to the island before.  Most of the people there were imaginary, just as the chairs, hamsters, and volleyballs populating that universe were imaginary.  Their not-yet-ready-to-depart-but-needing-a-universe-to-meet-each-other souls needed a believable backdrop through which to meet up again, so they created a universe similar to their own but more awesome.  That wasn't Helen.  That wasn't Anthony Coooper.  There was no David.

Offline I_Am_Jacob

  • In the Loop
  • ****
  • Posts: 1141
    • View Profile
Re: Numbers...Valenzetti....An....swer?
« Reply #8 on: May 27, 2010, 10:59:30 AM »
Saying that all the people in the sideworld were souls, except for David, who only existed in Jack's head is
much insaner. Dogen saw him, Juliet saw him as her son, Claire talked to him. Were they all in Jack's head?


They weren't all in Jack's head (by this point there were only worms in Jack's head),  but there can be no doubt that most of these people weren't "real." or even souls of any kind  The sideways universe was created through the collective consciousness of all of the Islanders who formed a bond about their time on the island, not all of dead humanity (don't you think it would be a little crowded, not to mention a little weird for those who hadn't lived in the 2000's?), and clearly not every delivery man in their universe could have possibly been to the island before.  Most of the people there were imaginary, just as the chairs, hamsters, and volleyballs populating that universe were imaginary.  Their not-yet-ready-to-depart-but-needing-a-universe-to-meet-each-other souls needed a believable backdrop through which to meet up again, so they created a universe similar to their own but more awesome.  That wasn't Helen.  That wasn't Anthony Coooper.  There was no David.

This a thousand times over.

Offline MachThree

  • Survivor
  • ***
  • Posts: 510
    • View Profile
Re: Numbers...Valenzetti....An....swer?
« Reply #9 on: May 27, 2010, 11:57:12 AM »
re: David - if I'm not mistaken, as soon as Locke tells Jack he has no son, we never see David again.  Momma Juliett leaves him at the concert, then remembers with Sawyer.  Aunty Claire goes and gives birth, has her moment with Kate and Charlie.  And Pappa Jack is intrigued enough by Kate and what she's telling him that he leaves the concert without David.  So there's either some pretty bad parenting going on here on the part of Jack and Juliette (and some bad babysitting on the part of Claire) or maybe everyone realized they didn't need to worry about David any more.  And that's just from the fact they abandoned him at the concert.  Never mind that they all headed off to the Church and went off into the great white beyond without him, leaving him to fend for himself in that "life" he was in.     

Take that for what you will, but notice that Juliet leaves David at the concert with Claire.  Juliette has her moment with Sawyer.  Claire has her moment with Charlie and Kate.  Jack starts remembering, lets Kate drive him off from the Church.  Meanwhile 12 year old david, if he's even still around, I guess was left to fend for himself at the concert because all the adults left without him.  So I sort of felt like Locke telling this to Jack had something to do with us never seeing David again.

Offline I_Am_Jacob

  • In the Loop
  • ****
  • Posts: 1141
    • View Profile
Re: Numbers...Valenzetti....An....swer?
« Reply #10 on: May 27, 2010, 12:01:02 PM »
re: David - if I'm not mistaken, as soon as Locke tells Jack he has no son, we never see David again.  Momma Juliett leaves him at the concert, then remembers with Sawyer.  Aunty Claire goes and gives birth, has her moment with Kate and Charlie.  And Pappa Jack is intrigued enough by Kate and what she's telling him that he leaves the concert without David.  So there's either some pretty bad parenting going on here on the part of Jack and Juliette (and some bad babysitting on the part of Claire) or maybe everyone realized they didn't need to worry about David any more.  And that's just from the fact they abandoned him at the concert.  Never mind that they all headed off to the Church and went off into the great white beyond without him, leaving him to fend for himself in that "life" he was in.     

Take that for what you will, but notice that Juliet leaves David at the concert with Claire.  Juliette has her moment with Sawyer.  Claire has her moment with Charlie and Kate.  Jack starts remembering, lets Kate drive him off from the Church.  Meanwhile 12 year old david, if he's even still around, I guess was left to fend for himself at the concert because all the adults left without him.  So I sort of felt like Locke telling this to Jack had something to do with us never seeing David again.

Agreed. It's as if he dissippated

Offline opgelost

  • In the Loop
  • ****
  • Posts: 1826
    • View Profile
Re: Numbers...Valenzetti....An....swer?
« Reply #11 on: May 27, 2010, 03:18:17 PM »
So David is Dave?  :D

Offline lostlady

  • In the Loop
  • ****
  • Posts: 1033
    • View Profile
Re: Numbers...Valenzetti....An....swer?
« Reply #12 on: May 27, 2010, 04:57:48 PM »

Offline Adriana

  • Red Shirt
  • **
  • Posts: 149
    • View Profile
Re: Numbers...Valenzetti....An....swer?
« Reply #13 on: May 29, 2010, 09:21:57 PM »
re: David - if I'm not mistaken, as soon as Locke tells Jack he has no son, we never see David again.  Momma Juliett leaves him at the concert, then remembers with Sawyer.  Aunty Claire goes and gives birth, has her moment with Kate and Charlie.  And Pappa Jack is intrigued enough by Kate and what she's telling him that he leaves the concert without David.  So there's either some pretty bad parenting going on here on the part of Jack and Juliette (and some bad babysitting on the part of Claire) or maybe everyone realized they didn't need to worry about David any more.  And that's just from the fact they abandoned him at the concert.  Never mind that they all headed off to the Church and went off into the great white beyond without him, leaving him to fend for himself in that "life" he was in.     

Take that for what you will, but notice that Juliet leaves David at the concert with Claire.  Juliette has her moment with Sawyer.  Claire has her moment with Charlie and Kate.  Jack starts remembering, lets Kate drive him off from the Church.  Meanwhile 12 year old david, if he's even still around, I guess was left to fend for himself at the concert because all the adults left without him.  So I sort of felt like Locke telling this to Jack had something to do with us never seeing David again.

Agreed. It's as if he dissippated

Just like in Coraline.  Coraline thinks that her "other mother" and "other world" are real, but starts to pick up hints that things are a little ... manufactured.  It finally hits her over the head when she's walking through the woods and the woods slowly go from being real and 3-dimensional to pencil sketches of trees and 2D, and then to nothing at all.   An empty canvas, and she's standing there among ... nothing.  That's when she realizes this "other world" is what someone just created for her.  There are limits to how far the illusion can go.

DAVID was part of that illusion for Jack (and for Juliet) in the ALT universe.  When Locke told him that he didn't have a son, something changed in his idea of "what reality is" and we never see David's face again.  The illusion of David fell apart, and David ceased to be in Jack's ALT universe.

Offline LostinLock

  • Island Native
  • *
  • Posts: 31230
    • View Profile
Re: Numbers...Valenzetti....An....swer?
« Reply #14 on: June 05, 2010, 08:19:54 AM »
Jacob. He got off the island. After 2000 years he was finally able to become human and die.
Maybe you think he will stay there as a whisper, but I believe he was in the sideworld as David, like all
the other people that needed redemption. And his part of the world they created all together was
the island deep under the sea.
Saying that all the people in the sideworld were souls, except for David, who only existed in Jack's head is
much insaner. Dogen saw him, Juliet saw him as her son, Claire talked to him. Were they all in Jack's head?

Jacob was always "human" he was just given some extra special abilities through the island.  He was still vulnerable to death just that his brother could not kill him, that is what their "mother" did.   
Also it was made clear that Jacob did not appear or take form of any other person.  So being David or anyone else was not the point.   


David existed for Jack and just because the other characters also interacted with David does not make him real. 

As for redemption well that is not what this was about.  The island didn't care about their past so what did they need to fix.  Basically there were things that might have changed in their lives, but basically they had basic instincts and well, i have said this before Sayid was a person who had no issues to kill and in the end he was someone who could do that wtihout issue.