"Stranger in a Strange Land," last week's newest Jack-centric episode, made me seriously question the value of Lost's hero. The episode was not terrible, but was easily the least entertaining of Jack's flashbacks. I am beginning to think that there may be nothing left of interest in Jack's past. That leaves the present and future. Currently Jack is a prisoner of the Others, and through him some facts about the Others have been revealed. This may come to end, however, if Jack gets rescued.
How many more Jack episodes are necessary? What does his character contribute to the mythology and development of the story? Could there be a Lost without Jack Shephard?
Why Jack Would Not Be Missed
After the debacle of Jack's very-special-tattoo episode, it would appear that the writers have run out of compelling back stories for their leading man. In case you were lucky enough to miss "Stranger in a Strange Land," here is the gist: Jack met a woman who kept her job a secret, discovered her secret, and got beaten up. Fans are still reeling from the shock. With the development of characters like Desmond and Juliet, who have a closer connection to the island mysteries, it is hard to justify Jack-centric episodes that lead further away from central plot lines.
True, Jack's relationship with the Others affords a better understanding of that group, but any character could have filled that role. If Jack were rescued, he would lose his unique position as the viewer's eye into the Others' world. The show's writers will need to solidify Jack's role with either the Others or the crash survivors, or risk making the character obsolete. There have been enough island deaths to make the expendable nature of Lost's characters quite clear. Don't forget; Jack was originally intended to die in the pilot episode.
Why Lost Needs Jack
While the "Stranger in a Strange Land" episode was fairly pointless, it did reaffirm Jack's destiny as a leader within the story. At this stage, Jack could end up leading either the Others or the crash survivors. This increased connection with the Others is precisely what makes his role so crucial. No other main character has interacted so closely with the Others and their leadership structure. The Others' secrets and intentions are fast becoming a major part of the show's mythology. Without Jack, the Others would still be an unseen and nameless threat.
Viewers must have faith that the writers would not invest so much time and back story with a character that was only peripherally important. Jack's place within the big picture of the island may still be revealed. Many characters have come and gone in the last three seasons, but none have seen as much development as the Jack character. Boone and Shannon only had one flashback episode apiece before they were killed off, for example. Jack's placement within the show's only love triangle also makes him an important source of romantic tension, of which Lost has little.
What's your stance on Jack Shephard? Feedback is always welcome.















Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
2-27-2007 @ 11:47AM
sean tubbs said...
I would not miss Jack at all if he suddenly died. The only way to make him interesting is if he becomes one of the Others, or somehow screws it all up for them.
Reply
2-27-2007 @ 11:53AM
Tim in Augusta said...
at 11:47AM on Feb 27th 2007 sean tubbs wrote: "... way to make him interesting is if he ... somehow screws it all up for them. "
I will give the writers their props here because they've consistently kept Jack as the know-it-all jerk with his nose in everyone's business but his own. Last week's episode really, really left me thinking he really needs to be vaporized.
Reply
2-27-2007 @ 11:54AM
Vince said...
Wasn't Jack supposed to last only a few episodes originally? Then he was popular with the fans enough so they decided to keep him.
I would like the show to continue to evolve and if they killed a few key characters that would move the story a bit.
How about Jack sacrificing himself to save the losties in some spectacular fashion?
Reply
2-27-2007 @ 12:20PM
InL.A. said...
Isn't this the guy that is a self-admitted liar and schmuck in real life?!
Reply
2-27-2007 @ 12:22PM
Gene Cowan said...
Well, they've laid the groundwork for losing Jack with Ben's promise to let him leave the island -- perhaps with Juliet?
If only he knew about Penny Widmore... he could leave with Juliet, then at the (merciful) end of the series, he could come back to the island to rescue everyone...
Reply
2-27-2007 @ 12:40PM
Alan said...
From a writing stand point, unless the island is going to take over healing everyone, which it's done in the past, they really need a doctor on the island.
Reply
2-27-2007 @ 12:51PM
Ryan Sullivan said...
According to last week's episode, Jack is supposed to be some sort of great leader, based on his new tatoo. So he will probably stay with the others since they are short one doctor, and, since he's a great leader, he might take a leading roll over the others.
Reply
2-27-2007 @ 12:53PM
PlusDrew said...
I'd love to see Jack off the radar for awhile (perhaps the remainder of season 3) to show the other Losties trying to rescue him. Then, in the finale of S3, they find the Others Village only to realize that Jack is the new leader of the Others.
I think we need to see Sayid and Jin step forward as the leaders, with Locke sort of acting as their foil.
Reply
2-27-2007 @ 1:06PM
H said...
Yes, Jack's back stories are getting old, but then again so is everyone else's who has been on the island all 3 years now. I used to think killing Jack would be the gutsy move TPTB have been touting, but now I think they are setting him up to be an Other and maybe even the new leader of the Others, heir apparent to Ben, perhaps. This might be interesting, but also a sort of betrayal not only of the Losties, but of the viewers, because Jack always does what is "right," and the Others are just plain wrong. I hope they at least use Jack to give us some answers about the Others. If we're supposed to change our minds about them, they need to get cracking on it.
Reply
2-27-2007 @ 1:27PM
heinlein said...
I don't mind Jack per se, but I would say that it is not just the last Jack-flashback that has been boring, it is ALL of them (except maybe the first or something). Mostly because they all focus on emotional stuff, while the rest of the characters flashbacks have real stories that makes us know more of them.
Reply
2-27-2007 @ 2:12PM
Jennifer said...
The only rational reason I can think of for keeping Jack around are that he's a doctor (with actual practical skills, which I guess Juliet isn't?). If you get rid of him, more actual decent characters die. Plus, as has been pointed out here, he's 1/3 of The Lamest Love Triangle I Don't Care About Ever. Just hook him up with Juliet and make him an Other- then I'd be interested in him.
Alas, he's "the star" and won't die, dammit. I'd be happy if they'd just stop giving him flashback episodes. Hasn't he had something like nine and most other people have had 2-3? That's just wrong.
Reply
2-27-2007 @ 3:11PM
Andrew said...
The same can be said of Kate and Sawyer. Both their flashbacks from earlier in the season were worn territory. That is why people have been crying out to see other characters. Juliet and Desmond were needed relief, but ultimately I just want to see what's going on other folks. Hell even Claire would be interesting at this point. Is she the blond woman's daughter Jack's father wanted to meet???
Reply
2-27-2007 @ 3:16PM
Marggy said...
Killing Jack would be idiotic. Who cares if he was originally supposed to die in the pilot. Forrest Whitaker was originally supposed to play Sawyer. That doesn't mean it was the best idea.
Along the development of the show, they realized that they needed Jack. And they still do. Whether you like him or hate him, he's the most developed character on the show.
His flashbacks aren't the only one's sucking. The show is not all that exciting. There are plenty of things the writers could delve into for all these characters, but it seems like the show is more about the plot nowadays instead of furthering the character development. This problem is not Jack-exclusive.
Reply
2-27-2007 @ 3:24PM
innamorata said...
Matthew Fox is terrible actor and his character is an asshole.
Kill jackass and focus on other characters. And enough with the flashbacks, they drag and add nothing useful at all.
But then I want that trip off the air altogether so I'm biaised. But yeah, Fox/Jackass is my number 2 reason for loathing the show. Number one spot is held by the showrunners.
Reply
2-27-2007 @ 3:33PM
Jamus said...
I am hoping they take Jack and make him eviiiiil. The good doctor gone bad. Being around all those Others has "tainted" him would make for some snazzy new storyline.
Reply
2-27-2007 @ 3:52PM
MosquitoControl said...
For those that want Jack dead - why do you watch the show?
I'd say the only entertaining characters (non-others) are Locke, Jack, Jin, Hurley, Sawyer and Kate. Pretty much everyone else sucks. The Hobbit? Annoying. His Aussie? Annoying. Sayid? Always wrong. Sun? meh. And thank god Michael left.
I agree the flashbacks are old. Time to change the formula. Maybe island flashbacks. Maybe start intertwining more. The mystery is gone from them, and for that reason I just don't care.
But I wouldn't off Jack. I think his pig-headedness is needed. Plus what would Lost be without Jack crying every scene? (Or, for that matter, Sawyer getting his ass kicked every episode?)
Reply
2-27-2007 @ 6:03PM
Mr. Nelson said...
If you a Lost fan i dont see how you could say any episode is pointless. Even if the episode revolves around Jack's tatoos. I think if you should have learned one thing about lost by now, it is that many things that may seem of trivial nature often become a part of a greater picture. For example, there was also an episode that focused on the letter the Sawyer carried with him. Alothough it may seem that a peice of paper with words has absolutly NOTHING to do with the story... it did help evolce our perception of Sawyer. As this episode evolved our perception of Jack. And the creators of Lost once said. "Lost is like one big picture that's been shattered into thousands of peices, and we're putting them back together as the story goes on." or something to that effect. Nothing in Lost will always make sense immidiatly.
Reply
2-27-2007 @ 6:48PM
Sasha said...
How crucial is he to Lost?
I wouldn't watch without him.
I liked the episode. It wasn't the best and it wasn't the worst. Jack's story with the Others HAS been the best thing this season.
So yes, he's crucial to the show. I think he's the lynchpin that's holding it together.
I'm looking forward to seeing more of his backstory too. It needs to be written better than this episode was, but lest anyone forget, Christian Shephard is more crucial to the story than some of the useless new character they've introduced.
I don't want to spoil anyone for future episodes so I'll stop right here.
Reply
2-27-2007 @ 7:17PM
RedStarRevolution said...
I'm very split on this question.
On the one hand, he IS the the main character, plain and simple, the doctor, the guy that everyone made a de-facto leader of the Losties.
On the other hand, all of Jack's flashbacks...suck. Also plain and simple. I'll take Desmond becoming unstuck in time or anything that contributes to the mythology of the show over a pointless story about some ink on Jack's skin.
'Stranger in a Strange Land' really broke the momentum of 'Not in Portland' and 'Flashes Before Your Eyes', two fantastic episodes, as it really did nothing to advance the story.
This part goes out to Mr. Nelson in particular. The entire point of revealing the meaning of Jack's tattoos was to show the parallel between Jack's flashback and the episode. That he is among the Others, but not one of them, just as he walked among a culture and society in Phuket but was not one of them. And I doubt (or is it hopefully doubt) we'll be going much deeper than that.
But, I don't think the entire story of the Others would be engaging with any other of the crash survivors, except Locke. Anyone else but Jack or Locke, and no one would care. But with Jack now on the other side of the Island, the Losties are left leaderless, which leads to conflict, which should set the table for the rest of Season 3, because it doesn't look like Jack is coming back too soon, maybe not at all.
Wow, that was a ramble, but I guess the bottom line is that I don't like Jack's flashbacks, but I do like his place in the story, and I do think his role in the whole thing is a lot more worthwhile than we think right now...
Reply
2-27-2007 @ 7:17PM
RedStarRevolution said...
Alright, I was just scrolling through here and my idiot radar must have blocked this comment from view on the first pass.
"Matthew Fox is terrible actor and his character is an asshole.
But then I want that trip off the air altogether so I'm biaised. But yeah, Fox/Jackass is my number 2 reason for loathing the show. Number one spot is held by the showrunners."
Unbelievable. To have so much anger for a show is just ridiculous. innamorata, you need help, and drugs. Lots of both. Matthew Fox is more an asshole in real life from what I've read and heard than the character is. And I don't think he's a bad actor, I think he does a great job on-island, but his flashbacks suck so much that even the best actor couldn't pull them out.
"Kill jackass and focus on other characters. And enough with the flashbacks, they drag and add nothing useful at all."
The flashbacks are vital, absolutely vital to see who the people were before the Island, how they've changed, and to see their unknown interactions, which could be a vital clue to the overall mythology of the show.
In closing, innamorta, why do you go to all the trouble of posting, why do you click on a link to a story about a show you supposedly loathe?
I don't know, but Lost seems to bring out a lot of anger in you. Might be best to avoid all things Lindelof and Cuse do in the future, if for nothing else to keep that blood pressure down...
Reply