'Gary Troup' is a very obvious anagram, at least in the context of Lost when they knew that everyone would be analysing everything for clues. They wouldn't drop the big reveal so obviously. The name of the Troup was 'Bad Twin', and Lostpedia says it was about the Widmores - that is to say, two elements that actually…

Yeah, the Sayid thing really rubs me the wrong way, and nothing good comes out of the sideways stuff besides Locke and Ben as teachers. I agree with your point - it was for the sake of a rug-pull, and for having a moment of most of the cast together.

I agree, and think the writers would've been happier leaving the nature of the monster more ambiguous. There are two episodes of Lost which, in retrospect, set up mysteries that could have simply been left alone, for greater effect.

I think it's more that they collectively went through the most important experience of their lives together. That said, the real reason was so they could have an alternate universe fake-out.

I've always thought this is a weak theory. Why would it be purgatory if the Pilot revolves around a radio distress signal and out-of-place polar bears? The set-piece around the crashed plane sets up the idea that the island is physical reality; the distress signal suggests it is a real place which influences…

Something that infuriates me far more than it should is the way that so many Judd Apatow productions* have titles which suggest they are intended to be *the* definitive statement on a topic: 'This is 40', 'Funny People', 'Love'. I don't know about 'Love', but the first two did not warrant that confidence.

A lot of people took away that they'd been dead all along.

I really hope they don't incorporate a sappy tribute to the character within the film - we don't need a moment where Leia and Luke smile at one another at the end of the film and Luke says something that could refer to the characters or could refer to the actors, or all the characters hold up lightsabers at Leia's…

This seems to be the consensus. Because I knew there was no way Tarkin could be back I was just hunting for any seams. It was almost perfect, and I'm glad they decided to go for it.

I read that, figured he meant it in one of the several ways that it's fine - he means the character, he means the footage filmed, he, like his sister, has a sense of humour and is speaking with his tongue in cheek. He pretty obviously does not mean that Disney owns Carrie Fisher.

"And marry our daughters!"

I think more of the audience than you think realised that Walt was a nasty, contemptible piece of work, but you're right that a worrying amount of people did not. However, I wouldn't let that spoil your enjoyment of his arc - the character was superbly written, and if people are too blinkered to get what the character…

The film-makers cannot be held responsible for people believing the 90 minute feature they were paying to see in the cinema, advertised with posters and trailers, was edited footage from a real life, unsolved disappearance.

People who went in believing it to be real must be pretty damn gullible. I was 10 when I saw it (when it came out to rent on video), and I was worldly enough to understand that cinemas wouldn't show footage of people's presumed deaths for entertainment, or have a scary poster about a real life, unsolved case.

Now I'm imagining a Blair Witch/24 crossover. Jack Bauer-Heather would torture Mike into telling her 'WHERE'S THE MAP!?'

They don't follow what he does and says, they follow his attitude as he does it: hate-filled, proud of his ignorance, disdainful, and full of totally unwarranted confidence.

For my money, they really, really missed a trick by not casting Billy Connolly as Dumbledore from the off. Richard Harris was far too old; Michael Gambon was great 60% of the time, but has weird moments of being totally out of character.

Sliding breaks probably.

For a certain generation fantasy stuff is impenetrable - Sean Connery's probably perfectly capable of following the plot of Lord of the Rings, but the fantasy stuff will present mental barriers to him (not to do with intellect so much as cultural touchstones and willingness to engage with it) that it wouldn't present…

I'm surprised he was asked - not because Ian McKellen couldn't pull it off amazingly, just because Gandalf and Dumbledore, while very different when you get into it in depth, are very similar characters at first glance. You'd similarly not want to cast him as Merlin or Obi-wan Kenobi (if they were casting some weird…