I can imagine Harold flying back to L.A. just in time to see his son crowning... and he will yell, "WALT!!!!!!"

This may seem really stupid, but are they going to count Aaron as the sixth survivor then? I dunno, I just feel a little jilted by that.

Michael (and his story...and Walt) SUCKS!!! I was so glad when they "disposed" of him at the end of Season 2. And now this...yuck! Harold is one of the weakest actors on LOST...granted, it's a stacked lineup...and I think he and Michael's story bring things to a standstill. Here's hoping Michael disappears once again...for good.

I agree that Michael is one of the weaker characters, but it will be interesting to see what happens to him after returning to the world. Will he start to lose it like Jack and Hurley? Everyone makes a big deal about Michael's whining and all the WAAALLLTTT! stuff. As bad as he was with that, my question is what motivates him to leave Walt. Im assuming Walt is not on the boat so is he dead or did something happen to separate them?
Any ideas?

SweetBlackMagic - your a fool, Michael is one of the better characters in the show, theres so many levels to his character. I for one welcome him back and think the show will be stronger for it.

Mick S, you need to learn to communicate with people. Just because you don't agree with someone doesn't make them a fool. Attacking them for disagreeing with you, however, does make you look like one.

I have never understood why everyone hated Michael. I thought his character was so tragic and sad. He made a horrible decision but in that moment he had felt trapped, with no way out. He wasnt going to risk his boy and he hated what he had to do. I loved the Michael character. His whole life has been a tragic mess. My own father cried when Michael's ex-wife convinced him to give up Walt. He knew what that feels like. Imagine wanting to be a father, wanting to be that guy your sun looks up to, and then having that stolen away. Then years later you are forced into a terrible situation with your son. Michael is struggling to be a good father, and he is making mistakes. But he is trying to do what is right. When your a father or a mother nothing else matters except the safety of your child.

I agree for the most part Michael is not a very interesting character. Michael's character is not very deep which is the problem. His only want that the writers gave him was to have custody of his son. He got that wish before he left Australia. Then he was stuck on an island with his son. No problem there, his want was still satisfied. We don't know any of Michael's dreams or likes/dislikes. If the only thing driving Michael is the repeated loss and gain of his son, then the character is poorly fleshed out. If Locke's only want was revenge against his father, we would have lost all interest in him when Sawyer killed the dad. Locke is deep on so many level that they can resolve some of his desires because he has enough others to continue to explore. As I write this, I am thinking that Michael probably should die soon because there is not enough interesting things about him to keep him in the series.

Perhaps Michael agrees to help Ben spy in exchange for Walt being sent back to civilization. Walt lives with his grandmother in Englewood where he is killed by a gang and then starts showing up as a ghost on the island?

If Ben is truly operating in the best interest of the world, as I suspect he may, then Michael is not a bad guy at all for killing Libby and Anna Lucia in order to free Ben. It's the greatest good for the greatest number. I think having Ben be a complete Utilitarian would contrast perfectly to the philosophy of island John Locke.

To back up the utilitarian comment in my above post, turns out John Stuart Mill (early proponent of Utilitarianism) coined the the term "Utilitarian" from a book written by John Galt called "Annals of the Parish." It is apparently about a clergyman who does not want his his people to leave the church and become utilitarians. Well, the freighter captain's last name is Galt and he doesn't want his people to leave the ship for the island where they could possibley link up with the utilitarian Ben? Okay, I'm reaching.

I'd have to agree that the character of Michael is one of the weakest characters, but not because of Harold's acting....it's primarily the writer's problem. Watch Harold in his other work, i.e. "Romeo and Juliet" and "The Edge". He can act, and maybe this return will be his moment to shine.

I think Micheal's character is one the most interesting...judging by the reaction of some people, they either hate him (overly simplistic) or symphatize(realistic) with him. He's the only Lostie who went unabashedly to the "dark side", while every other "bad" character (Kate, Sawyer, hell even Ben),though murderers in their own right, have been drawn in some positve light. They gave Micheal no redeeming value at all,which I think is a mistake by the writer. As a father, hell, I'm down with the man. Attacking Perrineau's acting is just plain stupid, even laughable. I think his story's gonna be really interesting!