Is Ana-Lucia going to kill Sawyer

[D-Roc]

Originally Posted by Mantis Zero,September 22, 2006 05:59 pm

Originally Posted by KoRevo,September 22, 2006 04:52 pm

Well i wouldnt put it past Ana-Lu to enter Sawyers dreams..and if my thoery about the island acting as a 'portal' for dead people to guide/hinder islanders via messages through dreams etc is right, then i suspect that Ana may return that way [She already did for Mr Eko]. Though she wont harm him [Sawyer]..she learned before she died that revenge aint the answer..she redeemed herself before Mike executed her so i doubt that she'll spoil it now.

Originally Posted by Mantis Zero

I dont think she did learn that, she was further condoning revenge killings by giving Mike access to Henry's cell with a loaded gun.

LOL..are we still trying to bring Ana down over handing over a mere gun to a grown man who was tricking her into giving it to him so that he could shoot her with it??

We saw how genuine she was when she said " I can do it..i cant do this anymore" - now obviously she had reached redemption point..she had lost the lust for revenge. If she was gonna kill him then she wouldve done so.

Originally Posted by Mantis Zero

I think the threat may have just been Ana being Ana but then Ana being Ana is the kind of person who probably would kill Sawyer in revenge for telling Jack she slept with him. Thats a poor enough justification for Ana to murder somebody I guess.

LOL..and this coming from the man who is defending Michael for slaying Ana for no reason!? ..i dont know whether to laugh or cry, Mantis!

Originally Posted by Mantis Zero

Will she carry it out though? I doubt it, for the simple reason the producers wont go through all the trouble of working around her schedule to bring her back for a guest spot, along with the whole DIU thing and the ammount of money she would want to do it I dont think it's going to be on the cards.

It would be good to see her again. He absense is already being felt imo.

[Murgatroyd]

'Mere' gun? How many people have been shot to death or near death on Lost now?

You know where I stand on the non-existent merits of actively allowing grown men to commit murder when you have an opportunity to prevent it and you know that I don't think words can be considered anything approaching genuine when they're almost immediately backed up by completely contradictary actions.

But I don't think Ana would want to extract any sort of vengence on Sawyer for breaking his word as long as she knew the context. He wasn't bragging, and if there's one thing Ana Lucia could understand, it was the pain of total isolation and a heavy conscience: Sawyer's admittance that Jack was the closest thing he had to a friend (however bizarre - surely Kate's closer) would, I think, have touched her. I don't think she would have minded.

[The_other_other]

whos sawyer?

[Kiowa Warrior]

Personally I can't see Ana appearing on the island again in dream/vivsion form...I just don't really see what purpose it would serve. Sawyer's already had a strange island encounter with the boar and heard the whispers, so I don't think that he will get another weird island experience in the form of a warning/threat from Ana. Perhaps she might appear in a flashback, but I have a feeling we saw the last of her in Eko's dream.

[D-Roc]

Originally Posted by Murgatroyd,September 22, 2006 08:25 pm

'Mere' gun? How many people have been shot to death or near death on Lost now?

You know where I stand on the non-existent merits of actively allowing grown men to commit murder when you have an opportunity to prevent it and you know that I don't think words can be considered anything approaching genuine when they're almost immediately backed up by completely contradictary actions.

Ok, what I actually meant was: "are we still trying to bring Ana down over merely handing over a gun to a grown man.." :P ..there..thast better

Yes, I accept that Ana had an opportunity to prevent Mike from killing Henry..but dont we have to remember that Henry just tried to take her life! Would you be as forgiving Murg? Also..and this is surely the main point here - Mike didnt murder HG and he had no intentions of doing so! Whilst i appreciate that Ana didnt know this, it still kinda makes this anti-Ana device somewhat redundant because it's like accusing someone of adultary just for thinking of it!

[Murgatroyd]

Originally Posted by KoRevo,September 23, 2006 08:32 am

Ok, what I actually meant was: "are we still trying to bring Ana down over merely handing over a gun to a grown man.."  :P ..there..thast better

Yes, I accept that Ana had an opportunity to prevent Mike from killing Henry..but dont we have to remember that Henry just tried to take her life! Would you be as forgiving Murg?   Also..and this is surely the main point here - Mike didnt murder HG and he had no intentions of doing so! Whilst i appreciate that Ana didnt know this, it still kinda makes this anti-Ana device somewhat redundant because it's like accusing someone of adultary just for thinking of it! 

Yes, yes, we're still trying to argue that being an accessory to murder is wrong. Sorry about that...

Regarding your second point: I don't blame Ana Lucia for feeling vengeful and I certainly can't promise I wouldn't feel similarly vengeful. But I do feel I can fairly securely say that I wouldn't actually go out of my way to secure a gun and then attempt to kill the now unarmed and defenceless man who wronged me, and then when I failed to do it myself, to enable someone else to commit murder and carry out my revenge by proxy. If I did all that, I'd hope to be utterly condemned for it. That's what laws and moral values are for, isn't it? To prevent people from feeling righteous about vigilante behaviour.

And re. the adultery point: not quite the appropriate analogy, I think, because thinking of adultery and not carrying it out would occur because the thinker's own conscience had got in the way. All that got in the way of Ana was the fact that Michael was lying: her own conscience had nothing to do with it. A more appropriate analogy: someone is seduced by an undercover spy or some such person, and the only reason the pair of them don't get into bed is because the spy never had any intention of allowing that to happen. Not because the conned party didn't want it to.

[Mantis Zero]

Originally Posted by KoRevo,September 23, 2006 08:32 am

Ok, what I actually meant was: "are we still trying to bring Ana down over merely handing over a gun to a grown man.."  :P ..there..thast better

Yes, I accept that Ana had an opportunity to prevent Mike from killing Henry..but dont we have to remember that Henry just tried to take her life! Would you be as forgiving Murg?   Also..and this is surely the main point here - Mike didnt murder HG and he had no intentions of doing so! Whilst i appreciate that Ana didnt know this, it still kinda makes this anti-Ana device somewhat redundant because it's like accusing someone of adultary just for thinking of it! 

The only way its comparable to adultry is buying the condoms, going round, setting the mood but then when it comes down to it you find you cant get an erection so when the postman comes round you give him the condoms and encourage him to sleep with this other guys wife, giving him a key to her bedroom.

Ana didnt consciously decide not to kill Henry, she just physically found she couldnt. She quite clearly still wanted to kill him and was only upset about her lack of brutality ("I couldnt even kill him&quot rather than thinking for one second that it was wrong to want to murder him in revenge.

[Murgatroyd]

Originally Posted by Mantis Zero,September 23, 2006 09:57 am

The only way its comparable to adultry is buying the condoms, going round, setting the mood but then when it comes down to it you find you cant get an erection so when the postman comes round you give him the condoms and encourage him to sleep with this other guys wife, giving him a key to her bedroom.

Okay, scrub my analogy: that one's far more entertaining!

[D-Roc]

Originally Posted by Murgatroyd,September 23, 2006 10:55 am

Yes, yes, we're still trying to argue that being an accessory to murder is wrong. Sorry about that...

Regarding your second point: I don't blame Ana Lucia for feeling vengeful and I certainly can't promise I wouldn't feel similarly vengeful. But I do feel I can fairly securely say that I wouldn't actually go out of my way to secure a gun and then attempt to kill the now unarmed and defenceless man who wronged me, and then when I failed to do it myself, to enable someone else to commit murder and carry out my revenge by proxy. If I did all that, I'd hope to be utterly condemned for it. That's what laws and moral values are for, isn't it? To prevent people from feeling righteous about vigilante behaviour.

And re. the adultery point: not quite the appropriate analogy, I think, because thinking of adultery and not carrying it out would occur because the thinker's own conscience had got in the way. All that got in the way of Ana was the fact that Michael was lying: her own conscience had nothing to do with it. A more appropriate analogy: someone is seduced by an undercover spy or some such person, and the only reason the pair of them don't get into bed is because the spy never had any intention of allowing that to happen. Not because the conned party didn't want it to.

Yes..being an accessory to murder is essentially wrong..but as always 'context' should apply imo.

I agree that Ana shouldnt have gone out of her way to secure the gun with the intention or gaining revenge on the then unarmed man. But what i have to empahsise is that she didnt kill him! She didnt do it Murg! It's almost like youre hanging her out to dry for something she didnt even do. People are allowed to change their minds are they not? I for one have never seen someone sent down for changing their mind about killing someone..even in the 'Minority report' this didnt happen, lol. This is why i cant understand your condemnation of her..she didnt do it so how can she be condemed?

Ok, my adultary analogy was actually meant in regard to Ana herself not killing HG..and so youre right it doesnt apply to the Mike not killing HG situation. However a more appropriate analogy would therefore be - someone giving another person a knife and then blaming that initial person for the knife owners stabbing spree. Responsiblity ultimately stops with the murderer/agressor imo.

[Murgatroyd]

Originally Posted by KoRevo,September 23, 2006 06:27 pm

Yes..being an accessory to murder is essentially wrong..but as always 'context' should apply imo.

I agree that Ana shouldnt have gone out of her way to secure the gun with the intention or gaining revenge on the then unarmed man. But what i have to empahsise is that she didnt kill him! She didnt do it Murg! It's almost like youre hanging her out to dry for something she didnt even do. People are allowed to change their minds are they not? I for one have never seen someone sent down for changing their mind about killing someone..even in the 'Minority report' this didnt happen, lol. This is why i cant understand your condemnation of her..she didnt do it so how can she be condemed?

Ok, my adultary analogy was actually meant in regard to Ana herself not killing HG..and so youre right it doesnt apply to the Mike not killing HG situation. However a more appropriate analogy would therefore be - someone giving another person a knife and then blaming that initial person for the knife owners stabbing spree. Responsiblity ultimately stops with the murderer/agressor imo.

My point hangs on my belief that Ana Lucia did not ultimately change her mind: she found that she lacked the will to kill Henry herself, but had she lost the desire for revenge and had she decided that Henry ought not in fact to be killed, she would never have allowed Michael to, in essence, act as her hit man. The only difference is that she declined to pull the trigger herself.

And I was relating the adultery analogy to Ana, by the way, not to Michael. You were suggesting that Ana did nothing more severe or condemnable than considering murder and then changing her mind. I submit that she did significantly more than that - she contemplated murder, attempted to carry it out, changed her mind momentarily then acted in a way designed to bring that murder about. She didn't give Michael the gun because she felt she had no right to refuse him or because she was testing him as Locke tested Charlie: she did it because she wanted to see Henry dead. Responsibility may end with the person who carries out the act, but it picks up a lot of people on the way, and Ana knew that her actions in handing over the gun and the combination to the cell were far from harmless.

[hundredand8]

Watched "Everybody hates Hugo" yesterday on E4. The parallels are actually quite striking. Ana-Lucia has taken a gun off Sawyer twice. And in EHH he says "if you hit me again, I will kill you" to her.

[Cavegirl]

I don't think being dead would stop Ana Lucia from killing Sawyer. This is Lost after all! However, she won't do it because that's just not the person she is anymore. When she made the threat, it was just to save face. I'm sure she didn't actually mean it. After all, I threaten to kill people routinely :evilgrin: , but I would follow through on any of those threats. After all, she couldn't even kill Henry.

Besides, I'm sure being dead gives you a more balanced perspective.
Not to mention, if she killed him she'd probably be stuck with him forever.

[D-Roc]

Originally Posted by Murgatroyd,September 23, 2006 07:52 pm

My point hangs on my belief that Ana Lucia did not ultimately change her mind: she found that she lacked the will to kill Henry herself, but had she lost the desire for revenge and had she decided that Henry ought not in fact to be killed, she would never have allowed Michael to, in essence, act as her hit man. The only difference is that she declined to pull the trigger herself.

And I was relating the adultery analogy to Ana, by the way, not to Michael. You were suggesting that Ana did nothing more severe or condemnable than considering murder and then changing her mind. I submit that she did significantly more than that - she contemplated murder, attempted to carry it out, changed her mind momentarily then acted in a way designed to bring that murder about. She didn't give Michael the gun because she felt she had no right to refuse him or because she was testing him as Locke tested Charlie: she did it because she wanted to see Henry dead. Responsibility may end with the person who carries out the act, but it picks up a lot of people on the way, and Ana knew that her actions in handing over the gun and the combination to the cell were far from harmless.

I think were arguing over semantics here Murg - whether Ana couldnt bring herself to do it or whether she conciously changed her mind it's still the same thing really..because the important thing is that she didnt kill Henry. Also it's very much your interpretation - "I cant do this anymore"..you interpret this has her being angry with herself for not being able to kill Henry, whilst i interpret this as being Ana's shock at finally extinguishing the flames of revenge. However, eitherway she made the right choice..because that is what she did at the end of the day. It's not like she hasnt fired a gun before is it!?..it's not like she wasnt capable of firing that gun if she really really wanted too. Therefore i feel that she DID make a moral choice..she DID redeem herself and she DID do the right thing. Well done Ana!

The fact that Ana is even being slammed over handing the gun over amazes me somewhat..afterall weve seen..after all thats happened on this island, somehow Ana gets the blame for what was completely Michaels fault. This is like blaming the witness/victim and letting the murderer go free.

I guess Ana is now a martyr

Murg, you seem to have an issue with the fact that murder even crossed Ana's mind. But dont you think murder has crossed everyones mind at some point on this island?? The important thing is that she changed her mind - no-one gets sent to jail for a brief moment of contemplation.. Give the girl credit..she didnt kill the man..youre blaming the wrong person!