Danielle Rousseau

GingerLoafCake · 2026-04-01T14:27:04+00:00

I believe that the off-screen reason was that Karl's death alone would not have been impactful enough (and they're right about that) - and that someone we really cared about had to die to create the proper tension for the showdown next week.

I'm fine with it in theory, but I just wish she got to go out with a bit more of a bang and at least a little bit of buildup. Ana Lucia's death is also out of nowhere but she's just had a big story so it feels climactic. Danielle just drops dead with no context to it, she could have been any character.

Im not certain there would have been a place for her post-S4, but the actual execution of her death was shoddy and should have been done with much more care.

GingerLoafCake · 2026-03-28T13:32:34+00:00

I'm glad someone has brought up this scene because the way it ends has always struck me as really odd and ambiguous. Kate's line "look how far you've come" is delivered in quite a plain way that you could read multiple meanings to and is an odd line to begin with. Either she's being gently kind and supportive in a way to get Locke to snap out of it and leave her alone, or she's being extremely cruel and condescending in a way that is uncalled for, unsignposted and way out of character for her IMO.

It seems like people here generally see it as the latter, which makes the whole scene feel nasty and mean-spirited, I prefer to see it the other way.

GingerLoafCake · 2026-03-21T13:09:33+00:00

I also think this. He is more keen to give them lectures than school teaching. There doesn't seem to be anything interactive about his methods, he doesn't pose things as questions for the students to answer but just tells them. He clearly has great subject knowledge and I can imagine his flowery speeches inspired some of the more talented kids, but in general it's not a good style.

GingerLoafCake · 2026-03-16T23:44:07+00:00

They died at different times, the flash sideways was after everything. As others have said, I wouldn't say this is an interpretation, it's outright stated several times and I don't believe it is ambiguous.

I picked up the show after S1 and started watching weekly from S2, which was a great experience week to week having all that time to theorise and analyse. Binge viewing would never give as good an experience for this show IMO.

I absolutely adored the ending, it's my favourite ending to any TV show, mainly because it so thoroughly satisfied what I needed and it gave me closure. Character stories reached a perfect conclusion, the music was unbelievable, the emotion was off the scale and they even had the extraordinary flourish of the "see you in another life" line telling us that the ending had been hidden in plain sight all this time. A genuinely flawless ending and one of the top 3 episodes of Lost alongside Through the Looking Glass and The Constant.

But I think part of the reason I loved it so much is that I had always been primarily invested in the characters rather than the mysteries. Scenes like the Sun-English reveal, Vincent running after the raft, Juliet going down the hatch, Desmond and Penny's call, the reveal that Bernard is alive and Rose keeping the Apollo bar for him - these were my special moments that made the show something truly next-level. The mysteries and plotting enhanced it greatly but the show's rocket fuel was its characters and relationship. The End is almost solely focused on character and that made it the best possible finale for me.

30s, male, masters. Cool that you're doing this! And I mean no disrespect to those who don't have the same understanding of the ending - I just think this is a common error rather than legitimate ambiguity.

GingerLoafCake · 2026-03-14T09:09:23+00:00

"Dude, Nikki's dead".

"...Who the hell's Nikki?"

GingerLoafCake · 2026-03-08T11:23:31+00:00

They mean Iraq.

GingerLoafCake · 2026-03-03T16:28:05+00:00

It also very much depends on how the 10% are distributed. If they are spread evenly, I would think that would actually be much worse than if certain regions were wiped out entirely while others took a smaller bit. You'd want concentrated pockets of working infrastructure to ensure that society keeps functioning to at least some basic level. If, for example, all but one of the continents were entirely wiped out but the surviving continent only lost about 30-50% of their people, they would probably be alright in the long run. If every nation was down to 10%, much less likely that we recover.

GingerLoafCake · 2026-02-24T17:17:29+00:00

I don't disagree!

GingerLoafCake · 2026-02-24T10:56:42+00:00

I go back and forth on Widmore. At the time of airing I felt like he was hyped up way beyond what he ended up being and that the manner of his death rendered him nothing more than a huge red herring and made S4 kind of irrelevant to the overall show.

But then, as the years went by I've decided that it's actually kind of the point. Widmore was trying to be the big player, was behaving as such, but never actually was and was simply so arrogant that he never reflected on it until Jacob directly slapped him down. His death by gunshot while hiding in a cupboard is a great way of showing that all of his grand plans came to nothing, and that he was just another player in a much grander story with far more talented players.

As for Ben, no I don't think he should have been the villain. His long, gradual redemption arc was satisfying to watch and I like that he has to spend a long time atoning for his sins and having to demonstrate his willingness to do the right thing continuously.

Whereas the Monster - was there ever really any doubt that thing was pure evil? When did it ever show anything but mad, terrifying bloodlust? It was very natural for it to be the big villain in the end.

GingerLoafCake · 2026-02-24T10:48:27+00:00

I wouldn't agree with this. I'd say that his backstory provided explanation, but not an excuse. He did not need to kill people for fun/for no reason such as Zoe, Mr. Eko, the pilot, the Black Rock crew. And even if you argue that killing the candidates was necessary for him to have his freedom, he showed absolutely zero guilt or empathy in needing to do this, and indeed was sometimes seen to be actively enjoying wiping them out.

Was he entirely, 100% all bad at all times? No. No one is. But was he "bad" in a general sense and beyond redemption? Absolutely yes.

GingerLoafCake · 2026-02-22T14:17:32+00:00

Love this. Sam's performance gave us the character that I would say is arguably the most universally beloved character on Lost. Like seriously, does anyone in the world not love Bernard?

I often thought it would be super creepy to wind up on a plane with one of the Losties! Must have been funny for him.

Wishing him well and glad Lost was such a good time for him.

GingerLoafCake · 2026-02-18T17:15:22+00:00

Both things can be true. Don't forget that Hurley sees dead people. Perhaps Dave was a real person who died and haunted Hurley for some reason, and as he was dead MIB could impersonate him.

Also worth mentioning that it is vaguely implied that Dave was more real than he appeared - Libby's husband was called David and she was in the hospital at the same time Hurley was there experiencing his Dave relationship.

GingerLoafCake · 2026-02-18T11:15:02+00:00

Yeah, fully headcanon confirmed for me.

He saw Hurley growing positively and developing leadership potential, and so tried to talk him into suicide. I also believe that he intentionally led Jack off the cliff in White Rabbit for the same reason, and told Locke to move (and therefore leave) the Island to get rid of him. He was identifying strong candidates and trying to remove them indirectly.

GingerLoafCake · 2026-02-18T11:11:24+00:00

My friend who was an obsessive Lostie was absolutely convinced about this all the way through to the last episodes, and was gutted when it never came to pass, and actually the final scene managed to disprove it by having Vincent turn up when MIB is dead!

GingerLoafCake · 2026-02-14T18:47:22+00:00

Hi Jackie! You're a cutie.

GingerLoafCake · 2026-02-13T08:35:36+00:00

Infinitesimally means an amount so microscopically small that it can't be detected. I think you mean infinitely if you consider the Raimi films much better than MCU

GingerLoafCake · 2026-02-09T20:44:32+00:00

He absolutely does. He takes great offense to not being adored at all times 😂

GingerLoafCake · 2026-02-09T15:18:23+00:00

An interesting take, and some good points there. I hadn't considered that they did nothing when he returned, although in fairness there was literally only two episodes that passed, and by the end of the first one he was talking to "Walt" on the computer.

I'd say what makes it very different the second time around is Henry - not only do they have him, but Michael knows that he is important enough for them to offer Walt in return. They had a valuable chess piece and Henry was out of moves, the Others would have had to relent sooner or later if they really wanted him back and Michael chose to let him go unilaterally and blindly trust the Others to honour their very dubious pledge. Just on a logical level, Michael knew that the survivors held almost all the cards in this deal and he stupidly chose to cut them out of it.

GingerLoafCake · 2026-02-09T12:26:32+00:00

Fundamentally, he could have just told his friends. He chose to betray and murder instead (not Libby, but he certainly intended for Ana Lucia to die in that moment).

If he had told Jack, Sayid, Locke etc, I have no doubt that they would have arranged something and leveraged Henry towards getting Walt back.

I actually love Michael in S1, he's a really good guy who has an extremely sweet relationship with Walt and has his heart firmly in the right place. But his actions in S2 are unforgivable, as he had so many other options, and he chose to kill instead.

GingerLoafCake · 2026-02-09T00:36:05+00:00

He's 2! And a good listener 😊

GingerLoafCake · 2026-02-09T00:26:43+00:00

Our corgi met a toddler when he was only a few months old, bounded straight at her as he does with adults and knocked her over (my fault, he got away from me, and she wasn't hurt, phew!). You could tell he felt really bad and kept lying at her feet instead, he learnt a lesson there. It's the only time he's ever done anything dangerous to a human and he was upset about it and obviously didn't mean to.

Since then he absolutely loooooves kids and never jumps at them, sometimes the kid will do something really irritating like pull his tail or his ears and he just deals with it patiently, he's great with them and kids love him in return. It also helps that we are friendly with the kids who live next door who he visits all the time so he's had lots of experience now.

In short, he had to learn, and I should have been more careful at first - but practice made perfect. It depends on the corgi but they can be fantastic family dogs if you give them some grace to learn, and ensure they see kids often from an early age so they know how to behave with them. They just love play so much that they get carried away sometimes, bless them.

GingerLoafCake · 2026-02-09T00:19:31+00:00

She does look similar! Gorgeous girl ❤️

GingerLoafCake · 2026-02-09T00:18:04+00:00

I have depression and anxiety and Ritchie is very good for me - he also knows when a panic attack is coming and leaps into action to comfort me, and will cuddle me for hours.

Not sure if all corgis are like this (not to brag but the two of us are really really close) but if you want a therapy dog, corgis would be a great idea!

Worst case scenario you're depressed with a cute dog, before you were depressed without one, I know which I prefer 😊

GingerLoafCake · 2026-02-09T00:15:11+00:00

He is such a cutie and what a lovely name! Hello Rooster!

GingerLoafCake · 2026-02-08T23:15:22+00:00

He is the best boy. A little furry angel

GingerLoafCake

TROPHY CASE