I don't think Ethan hanged Charlie.

[Murgatroyd]

That's not actually as sensationalist a turnaround as it appears to be, because it's not strictly true. I think the original conception was that Ethan did hang Charlie, and did kill Scott. Steve. Whichever. I also think that's the only option that makes any sort of logical sense. I think that to introduce a character with the same motivation to kill Charlie that Ethan had (and Ethan had stated very explicitly to Jack that he would 'kill one of them', meaning the dispensable Charlie) would be seriously bad writing. And I think the only reason that we didn't directly see either crime was because no editor worth his or her salt would've allowed the episode's writers to include such a suspense-dashing scene as Ethan's hauling Charlie hand over hand into a tree and tying complicated knots and the like when clearly the dramatically correct route was to allow us the shock of sharing Jack and Kate's discovering Charlie's swinging body (and ditto the discovery of Scott, or possibly Steve).

But I also think that the creators of Lost pay a tad too much attention to what the viewers think, sometimes at the expense of their own creative instincts - cf the execution of the misconceived characters of Paolo and Nikki, purely in response to viewer feedback. And I think they'll be aware that there's an absurdly sensational storyline to be had out of the SHOCK, HORROR revelation that, gasp, Ethan didn't hang Charlie. And though I enjoy the series, I can't pretend to have masses of faith in everyone behind it. So I think it'll be absurd ... but I've a terrible feeling they're going to go with that Harold Bishop-esque option, and write in some entirely implausible alternative explanation. The Black Smoke stole Charlie out of Ethan's hands and hung him from a tree to make the Others look like the bad guys. Because, yeah, they need a lot of help with that.

I'll be very happy to be proved wrong though ....

[Him]

Originally Posted by Murgatroyd

That's not actually as sensationalist a turnaround as it appears to be, because it's not strictly true. I think the original conception was that Ethan did hang Charlie, and did kill Scott. Steve. Whichever. I also think that's the only option that makes any sort of logical sense. I think that to introduce a character with the same motivation to kill Charlie that Ethan had (and Ethan had stated very explicitly to Jack that he would 'kill one of them', meaning the dispensable Charlie) would be seriously bad writing. And I think the only reason that we didn't directly see either crime was because no editor worth his or her salt would've allowed the episode's writers to include such a suspense-dashing scene as Ethan's hauling Charlie hand over hand into a tree and tying complicated knots and the like when clearly the dramatically correct route was to allow us the shock of sharing Jack and Kate's discovering Charlie's swinging body (and ditto the discovery of Scott, or possibly Steve).

I agree with all of this.

...And I think they'll be aware that there's an absurdly sensational storyline to be had out of the SHOCK, HORROR revelation that, gasp, Ethan didn't hang Charlie....

I can't really agree with this though. I'd be surprised if they chose to take the writing in a direction that would require your average viewer to remember events, which, in the grand scheme of things, are (at the moment) rather insignificant, from 3/4 years ago, just so they can make sense of the show. It just seems implausible to me that the writers would require that from their viewers, and be willing to make the storyline a lot more stuffier for the sake of a few shocks.

[Murgatroyd]

Originally Posted by Him

I agree with all of this.


I can't really agree with this though. I'd be surprised if they chose to take the writing in a direction that would require your average viewer to remember events, which, in the grand scheme of things, are (at the moment) rather insignificant, from 3/4 years ago, just so they can make sense of the show. It just seems implausible to me that the writers would require that from their viewers, and be willing to make the storyline a lot more stuffier for the sake of a few shocks.

Ah - that's an excellent point, yes, and one I very much cling to. It is easy to forget that your average viewer isn't necessarily represented by your average forummer, who does remember the petty details, and I do agree that a lot of people would simply be confused by any return to the Ethan/Charlie storyline ... especially now that Charlie's out of the picture. I do kind of fear this temptation of having left the storyline a tiny bit open, and I'm a bit concerned by William Mapother's raising the issue in interviews (pointing out that we never actually saw the event take place, even though there are clear reasons why without bringing up the - imo - rather silly idea that Ethan wasn't responsible), but I suppose it's just as possible that it'll never be returned to again. Then those who want to believe that Ethan didn't hang Charlie can, if they choose, cling to the idea that there was no absolute proof. I think that'd be a better option than making it into a fully fledged story all over again.

[Kiowa Warrior]

If the Others are being set up to be not really such bad guys when compared to the people coming on Not Penny's Boat, then doing a little Island flashback scene which shows that Ethan didn't actually leave Charlie for dead could possibly go some way to supporting that. Maybe if there's ever a Jacob Island flashback - or even a Danielle one which follows her witnessing Charlie's hanging by someone/something other than Ethan - then Charlie's hanging could be re-visited that way...sort of like in Expose, where an island event is shown from the eyes of someone else.

I don't know, it probably won't ever happen but there's still always a possibility. I mean if we can have the horror that was Stranger In A Strange Land then we have to be prepared for anything!

I still think that Ethan was involved in at least some way with Charlie's hanging - if not doing it outright himself at least giving a helping hand to it, or standing aside to allow someone else to do it - but I would like to be proved wrong and see that Ethan is innocent!

[Murgatroyd]

Originally Posted by Kiowa Warrior

If the Others are being set up to be not really such bad guys when compared to the people coming on Not Penny's Boat, then doing a little Island flashback scene which shows that Ethan didn't actually leave Charlie for dead could possibly go some way to supporting that. Maybe if there's ever a Jacob Island flashback - or even a Danielle one which follows her witnessing Charlie's hanging by someone/something other than Ethan - then Charlie's hanging could be re-visited that way...sort of like in Expose, where an island event is shown from the eyes of someone else.

Maybe, and it's essentially what I'm concerned will happen, but I still say that'd be a pretty dreadful bit of writing. Ethan said he was going to kill Charlie if Jack continued to follow him (unless that turns out to be a hallucination of Jack's, but that'd be as bad as saying 'he woke up and it was all a dream'); Jack continued to follow him; Charlie was found hanging and left for dead. That makes narrative sense. So where's the sense in bringing in another party? Who else had the motivation to attack Charlie? Why would they? To make Ethan look bad? Sorry, but he really didn't need any help in that direction even before Charlie was hanged!

It'd also be a bit grim if the writers felt the only way they could make the Others seem better than the new folk was to retcon past events - doesn't show a great deal of imagination. I do feel that any idea that the Others as a group and as an ideological force have behaved well (rather than fascistically and, at times, sadistically) without comparison to flesh-eating zombies or what have you is kind of hard to swallow, but listening to the various season three commentaries has reassured me that they're not really trying to push that view: I reckon the angle's going to be that the Others are trying to do something they genuinely consider essential and that might be so, but that the way they've gone about it is abhorrent and unjustified (at least, I hope that's the line they're going to take). That does mean that there's room for a considerably worse set of people.

Basically, creating a group of people who behave worse than the Others have and are less sympathetic than the Others (who do at least appear to have some sort of massively ethics-twisting motivation/unfortunate belief in a malignant higher power/etc behind them ... except Ben who's mostly driven by powerlust ) shouldn't be particularly difficult even if Ethan hanged Charlie. There are sadists among the Others, for example, but at least the sadism inherent in the ideology is ingrained and has an air of the hypnotic about it (still grim, but it means they've maybe convinced themselves that they need to be much cruelly than it actually the case rather than that they're cruel for cruelty's sake). Naomi's people could simply enjoy being sadistic for the sake of it, like a thousand Picketts or Mr Friendlys would. Or they could all be in it for money, power or kicks rather than any sort of a greater goal. That's how I'd do it: with the Others, the main message ought to be that the ends doesn't justify their unnecessary (eg. related to side-issues such as fertility and personal medical care or simply not the least destructive path to their goal) chosen means, but at least they do seem to have an ends that isn't purely about their own gratification (on the whole), and that makes a difference.

I still think that Ethan was involved in at least some way with Charlie's hanging - if not doing it outright himself at least giving a helping hand to it, or standing aside to allow someone else to do it - but I would like to be proved wrong and see that Ethan is innocent!

No chance of that, I'm afraid - having kidnapped Charlie and rendered him incapable of defending himself, Ethan had, at the very least, put Charlie's safety in his hands. Even if some other party wrestled Charlie out of Ethan's hands - best case scenario for Ethan's conscience - it's still his fault that Charlie was in his hands (and unconscious, we assume) in the first place. But that's okay - Ethan's one of my favourite characters, largely because he's a creepy manical android. I don't think it'd be the same if he was in any real sense 'innocent' ....

[-x-madegurl-x-]

as good as all that sounds... i'm just not drawn in to believe ethan didn't do it... i do however believe that ethan didn't do it alone.

the others may not always follow their orders but if ethan didn't hang charlie, then who did?

[Murgatroyd]

Originally Posted by madegurl

as good as all that sounds... i'm just not drawn in to believe ethan didn't do it... i do however believe that ethan didn't do it alone.

the others may not always follow their orders but if ethan didn't hang charlie, then who did?

This is why I think it'll be problematic for the writers if they do decide to 'stun' us all with the revelation that Ethan didn't kill Charlie - people just won't buy it as anything other than a last minute turnaround. Much as I'm worried they won't, I do hope those in power realise that.

I do think it's quite plausible that Ethan had help, possibly from Tom, and I'm quite willing to accept the idea that one of the other Others did the actual hanging - though it was Ethan himself who said 'I will kill one of them'. I suppose he could said 'Tom, I promised Jack I'd kill one of 'em ... can you sort that for me?' But also, I do think Ethan could've managed it on his own if he had to. Both Charlie and Claire were apparently unconscious or helpless, so the latter wouldn't have caused him any problem, and all he needed to be able to do to hang Charlie was to throw a rope over a branch and haul him up hand over hand, and we know that he's capable of lifting Charlie one-handed.

[Hordriss]

Bearing in mind that "Exposé" only existed in order to kill off the ill-conceived characters Poochie and Poochie #2 (AKA Paolo and Nikki) one can but hope that it will not form the pattern for any future episodes.

However, this has to be balanced against the trend of Ethan's character since Season 2. In Season 1, lest anyone forget (unlikely, but still...), he was portrayed as a scarcely human juggernaut of death. His later appearances have all involved him in cloying acts of kindness, whether patronising Claire, handing tissues to Juliet, or offering the hand of friendship to the Poochie twins.

This volte-face must surely rank as one of the clumsiest gestures within the show's canon, making Ethan not so much a rounded character as an absurdly schizoid one. But there was no sign of this trend abating in Season 3, and it would not surprise me at all if the flashbacks of Season 4 show Bea Klugh playing happily with Walt and Mikhail tending sick puppies... neither of which would annoy me as much as nail-in-the-coffin revelation that Ethan actually did just let Charlie go (and some highly ironic and convenient third party tried to kill him).

[Murgatroyd]

Originally Posted by Hordriss

Bearing in mind that "Exposé" only existed in order to kill off the ill-conceived characters Poochie and Poochie #2 (AKA Paolo and Nikki) one can but hope that it will not form the pattern for any future episodes.

Yes, let's hope, though on the flip side it did show that they didn't mind returning to details that the casual viewer's not likely to even recall (Boone's taking charge of the water, for example). But another potential ray of hope is the fact that they didn't use 'Expose' itself to return to the issue of who hanged Charlie: maybe they think it obvious enough that they don't actually need to return to it.

However, this has to be balanced against the trend of Ethan's character since Season 2. In Season 1, lest anyone forget (unlikely, but still...), he was portrayed as a scarcely human juggernaut of death. His later appearances have all involved him in cloying acts of kindness, whether patronising Claire, handing tissues to Juliet, or offering the hand of friendship to the Poochie twins.

While I wouldn't call kidnapping, drugging, inserting an implant into and attempting to steal the baby of Claire any sort of an act of kindness, I do take your point: the presentation of his behaviour (ignoring the whole injecting-with-rohipnol element of the thing, there were arms around shoulders, apparent concern and gentle voices) was, in itself, a massive turnaround from the emotionless android-being of season 1. Personally I found it extremely sinister and I'd be disturbed if the writers intended it to be taken in any other way, but the parallel turnaround in the presentation of 'Mr Friendly' does suggest that perhaps they meant it, in some twisted way, to win the viewers around. In which case ... egad.

This volte-face must surely rank as one of the clumsiest gestures within the show's canon, making Ethan not so much a rounded character as an absurdly schizoid one. But there was no sign of this trend abating in Season 3, and it would not surprise me at all if the flashbacks of Season 4 show Bea Klugh playing happily with Walt and Mikhail tending sick puppies... neither of which would annoy me as much as nail-in-the-coffin revelation that Ethan actually did just let Charlie go (and some highly ironic and convenient third party tried to kill him).

In some ways I've regained a lot of hope in the future direction of this series after seeing the peripheral production material for season three - only William Mapother has pointed out in interview that we didn't actually see Ethan's hanging Charlie, and all the actors seem to defend their characters to the hilt. But yes. The trend of character reversals is indeed a worrying one. It's never exactly a restful watch, this series.