I finally just finished watching the last season of
Lost. And felt like commenting.
I think the two of you hit on the most important part of the finale, and the show in general, but failed to realize it:
What's the motivation/reasoning behind some of the lives of the characters being completely upside down in this place compared to their reality, while others are very similar?
Question: what did detonating the bomb do?
Things related to the existence of the island's inhabitants after the point when the bomb was either detonated or not affected the lives of the (future/would-be) Survivors. The most obvious of these is the crash of Oceanic 815.
We're shown a good number of other direct ones in the (further in the past than usual) flashbacks in the same episodes where the bomb is detonated, when Jacob appears to Sawyer at his parents' funeral, to Kate as she tries to steal a lunchbox, etc.
Then there are other, indirect changes, like the fact that Ben didn't stay on the island very long, Juliet never went, etc. Then there are even more obtuse effects, like Daniel never had a chance to go to the island, enter the past there, and encounter his mother, so she never had the impetus to direct his life towards science and away from music.
This all makes the flash sideways a pretty straightforward alternate reality, which is why the finale pissed me off a little. Recasting it as a deathbed hallucination (
a notable example of which Locke was seen reading at one point in the show) smacks of laziness.
That said, if Jack was dead, is the point at which he died the one shown in the island-based segment of the finale? Are you sure? He died in the same place he woke up in the first episode, and with Vincent running to him both times. How can we be sure that the
entire series wasn't Jack's hallucination? Maybe Jack died in the nuclear explosion on the island instead, and the entire last season was false. I think I prefer that explanation.
Of course, these inconsistencies are probably intentional of the writers, and kind of remind me of
a noted short story in which there are two possible sequences of events, both of which were impossible. Perhaps it is intended as an allusion to that theme. More overarchingly, I think that the writers intend for the
audience, and not just the characters, to be caught in a "Man of Science; Man of Faith" dichotomy.
So while the finale pissed me off a little, I think it's compelling, and was probably
intended to piss me, as a man of science, off.