PDA

View Full Version : Movies and TV The Official "Lost" the series discussion


Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 [24] 25 26

PhillyChiefFan
05-25-2010, 06:58 AM
Also, some of the problems people are upset about (i.e. Walt and Mr. Eko) are about more than just the plotline.

The actor who portrayed Eko wanted a sh*tton of money for this one episode, and the producers didn't want to give it to him. Walt grew up too much to be plausible for the short timeline involved on the island, and grew less germaine to the plotline because of it.

Chiefnj2
05-25-2010, 07:22 AM
I disagree about the show's focus. I think it was always focused on the characters. It's the fans that focused on the numbers, hatches, etc. Sure the characters were trying to figure this stuff out, but IMO it was more about their struggle. That may sound like revisionist history but there it is.

I agree that the show was at least a season or two too long. I enjoyed it along the way, but they could have seriously trimmed the fat and made an even more amazing 4 season show.

That's a crock of crap. It's the fans that focused on the numbers? Really, why would that be? Maybe, just maybe, because the writers made it a focal point at times - mental guy repeating numbers, winning lottery numbers, radio tower transmission and at other times hid the numbers everywhere -license plates, vaccine numbers, hotel floor numbers, room numbers, etc. Fans focused on what the writers wanted them to focus on at the time. Fans didn't invent crap for the sake of it.

Deberg_1990
05-25-2010, 07:55 AM
119 things Lost did (and didn't) answer


http://scifiwire.com/2010/05/all-the-answers-and-quest.php

22. Where is Walt and why is he important? Apparently he's not all that important. He didn't show up in the finale. ("The End")

ROFL

tymania
05-25-2010, 08:24 AM
119 things Lost did (and didn't) answer


http://scifiwire.com/2010/05/all-the-answers-and-quest.php

22. Where is Walt and why is he important? Apparently he's not all that important. He didn't show up in the finale. ("The End")

ROFL

117. Who is David's mother? Juliet, but who's David? ("The End")

WHO IS DAVID? ANYONE?

Huffmeister
05-25-2010, 08:36 AM
117. Who is David's mother? Juliet, but who's David? ("The End")

WHO IS DAVID? ANYONE?

David is the manifestation of Jack's desire to be a better father than Christian. During his life, Jack always struggled with "daddy issues". In purgatory, he conjured up David to help him overcome those issues so that he could let go. David never existed in the "real world".

Huffmeister
05-25-2010, 08:38 AM
Here are my McLost theories:

1) Dane jumped to a conclusion without really thinking about the piles of evidence, and his ego now forces him to commit to the "everyone's dead" theory rather than admit that he was initially wrong.

2) Dane is yanking everyone's chain.

I'm leaning towards #2. :D

tymania
05-25-2010, 08:43 AM
David is the manifestation of Jack's desire to be a better father than Christian. During his life, Jack always struggled with "daddy issues". In purgatory, he conjured up David to help him overcome those issues so that he could let go. David never existed in the "real world".

okay that is what i kind of figured but wasnt sure.. too much has unfolded in the last few episodes, still trying to get my head around it

patteeu
05-25-2010, 08:45 AM
I thought the finale was adequately satisfying, particularly since I'd already realized that there wasn't enough time left to resolve all the mysteries that had been created in the first few seasons. But imagine how much better it could have been if those mysteries had actually had payoffs in addition to the satisfying character arcs contained in the series. Lost was great television, but it could have been even better. Someone should take inspiration from Lost's success and build on it with an even tighter epic mystery series with major character development.

Deberg_1990
05-25-2010, 08:54 AM
Lost was great television, but it could have been even better. Someone should take inspiration from Lost's success and build on it with an even tighter epic mystery series with major character development.

agreed

Chiefnj2
05-25-2010, 08:57 AM
What happened to Nadia? You know, the woman who meant everything in the world to Sayid. The woman he was willing to sell his soul for. He spends eternity with Shannon but not her?

patteeu
05-25-2010, 09:05 AM
What happened to Nadia? You know, the woman who meant everything in the world to Sayid. The woman he was willing to sell his soul for. He spends eternity with Shannon but not her?

In the moment before the bomb went off in the submarine, Sayid realized that what he really wanted was a young, hot, spoiled, blond, white girl.

tymania
05-25-2010, 09:08 AM
What happened to Nadia? You know, the woman who meant everything in the world to Sayid. The woman he was willing to sell his soul for. He spends eternity with Shannon but not her?

wasnt she already taken by his brother!?

Chiefnj2
05-25-2010, 09:36 AM
wasnt she already taken by his brother!?

The alt didn't exist, so no.

tymania
05-25-2010, 09:43 AM
The alt didn't exist, so no.

It did exist though, it just wasn’t them alive. It was a place where they were in between the “real world” and their afterlife.. so in sayids case, in this in between world or as you called it the alt timeline.. he did search out Nadia, but he realized that she was not his true love or whatever, and that they were never meant to be together.. and then once he meant Shannon, he remembered and realized that she was actually his true love or whatever you want to call it, and once he found that he was ready to move on along with the others.. That is my take on it..

Huffmeister
05-25-2010, 09:52 AM
What happened to Nadia? You know, the woman who meant everything in the world to Sayid. The woman he was willing to sell his soul for. He spends eternity with Shannon but not her?
LOST world explanation: He's not going to spend eternity with Shannon, just the very last part of purgatory. Shannon was more important to him during the time they were on the island (the most important time in his life) than Nadia. So he needed Shannon in order to help him "let go", and Shannon needed him. It has nothing to do with spending eternity with anyone.

REAL world explanation: They needed an excuse to bring back Shannon's character.

DaneMcCloud
05-25-2010, 10:01 AM
Here are my McLost theories:

1) Dane jumped to a conclusion without really thinking about the piles of evidence, and his ego now forces him to commit to the "everyone's dead" theory rather than admit that he was initially wrong.

2) Dane is yanking everyone's chain.

I'm leaning towards #2. :D

Then why was it that on Kimmel Sunday night (which we watched last night), the FIRST thing that Matt Fox mentioned was the same thing that I mentioned yesterday: That for a "nanosecond", this whole thing happened to Jack.

Again, the ending is ambiguous enough for people to draw their own conclusions and no one would be wrong.

If you want to take it literally, that they were on an "island" with polar bears and smoke monsters, you can.

If want to believe that for a "nanosecond", all of this occurred so that Jack could find his way to "heaven", you can.

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything.

arrowheadnation
05-25-2010, 10:13 AM
This is supposedly from someone at Bad Robot (JJ Abrams' Production Company...AKA...LOST production company). It's a long read, but it's also from the camel's mouth (supposedly).

L O S T: An Explanation...
Hundreds of questions go unanswered, but hey…that’s what the extras on the Season 6 DVD are for. So here’s my overview wrap-up of the major themes and characters. See if you agree.

THE BOMB
At the end of Season 5, Juliet sets off the atomic bomb. But when Season 6 starts, we eventually learn that the Losties apparently managed to survive that explosion on the island. I remember watching that and thinking, “Hmm…so we’re supposed to believe they all survived that blast? We’re supposed to believe that rather than killing them all, this explosion merely transported them to 2007 (island present)? Seems like quite a leap of faith, but whatever…” I entertained the idea that they all actually died in that blast, but if that were true, then I don’t know what we’re to make of the Island Timeline in the final season. So I’m abandoning that idea, and just rolling with what we know: Juliet’s bomb blast accomplished 2 things: 1) transported the real-life, still-very-much physically alive Losties to Island Present 2007, and 2) created the Purgatorical Construct known as the Flash Sideways.

THE FLASH SIDEWAYS
We now definitely know that the Flash Sideways Universe wasn’t “real” at all, but rather, it was some sort of Purgatorical Construct “created” by (some of) the Losties so that they could all find each other before “moving on.” So everything that happened in the Flash Sideways scenes this season was not actually happening.

We also know, thanks to Christian’s explanation, that “there really is no now, here.” So ‘time’ doesn’t really apply. This explains why everyone was in the church despite us never being shown that they had died (Sawyer, Kate, Penny, Desmond, Hurley, etc.). Everyone dies sometime. In other words, Jack wasn’t the last one to ‘die,’ he was merely the last one to ‘let go.’ Once he let go, they could all move on.

THE ISLAND
Before Jack could let go, he had to fulfill his purpose. That’s basically the answer to “why” all this stuff on the island happened. (Well, and also that the Island simply needed to be protected.) Jack was the key character in the whole show. And he couldn’t move on (meaning none of them could move on) until he completed his ‘destiny.’ And that destiny was to keep the Light of the Island going strong.

So here’s basically the ‘how’ and the ‘why’ of it all. And again, remember that LOST is partly a show of mythology. It’s fiction, people. So some of these things aren’t supposed to ‘make sense’ outside of the context of the show.

The Light on the Island simply exists. You can ask why it exists, or who put it there…but ultimately those questions have no answers, just like the question “Why does God exist?” or “Who created God?” There are no satisfying answers to those questions. Eventually, to avoid an infinite regress, you just have to draw the line and say “look, this just exists. You can’t go back any farther, and you can’t explain why. It just is.” If you’re unsatisfied by that, join the club. But again, just as with God, you just have to be willing to accept that some things just are. The Light on the Island is the same way.

The Light, then, is what makes the Island special. While the Holy Cork is in place, the Underground Fire is kept at bay and the magical qualities of the Island can thrive. People are healed (Locke, Rose), people are immortal (MIB, Richard), people can travel through time, etc. It seems there is no limit to the possibilities when the Light is powering the Island and can combine itself with the powers provided by the massive electromagnetic energy naturally found on the Island.

Without the Light, however, the island is just any other island (in fact, it even crumbles apart). And everyone on the island is just any other person. No special abilities, no powers, no healing, no immortality. Jack and MIB both figured this out, and they both knew that to achieve their purpose, they had to turn the Light off.

But how? Enter Desmond.

As Faraday told Desmond in Season 5: “The rules don’t apply to you, Desmond. You’re special. You’re uniquely and miraculously special.” Desmond is special, of course, because he’s the only person who can survive a massive exposure to electromagnetic energy…which means he’s the only one who can go down into the Source without being eviscerated by its power. He is the anomaly.

As such, both MIB and Jack knew that Desmond was the key to their purposes. As far as MIB was concerned, since Desmond could pull the Holy Cork out, he was the only one who could effectively destroy the island. And if there is no island, then MIB isn’t trapped on it. He can leave. But as far as Jack was concerned, Desmond’s de-corking of the island was the only way to turn MIB back into a normal, mortal man. Remember, without the Light in place, there’s nothing special about anyone. The only way to kill MIB was to make him mortal. And the only way to make him mortal was to remove the cork. And the only one who could remove the cork was Desmond.

Jack likely figured out the Island couldn’t survive without the Cork in place, which meant he would only have a small window of time to kill MIB before needing to replace the Cork. He took advantage of it. Well, Kate did.

With MIB dead, the mission was on for everyone else to fulfill their own ultimate character destiny. Kate’s ultimate purpose was to save Claire (accomplished); Claire’s ultimate purpose was to raise Aaron (accomplished, we are to believe); Sawyer’s ultimate purpose (I guess) was to get as many people as possible off the island (accomplished); Hurley’s ultimate purpose was to Guard the Island (accomplished); Ben’s ultimate purpose was to be Hurley’s #2 (accomplished); and Desmond’s ultimate purpose has already been discussed.

That brings us back to Jack. His ultimate purpose was to save the Island. It had to be him, Sayid said. Why? Because saving the Island was the only way Jack would allow himself to let go. So he crawls down into the Source, replaces the Holy Cork, turns the Light back on, and makes the Island special again.

Having fulfilled his ultimate purpose, Jack could now die. Hurley and Ben stay behind to Shepherd the Island. Desmond presumably heals and leaves the island to be with Penny and young Charlie. Sawyer, Kate, Claire, Frank, Miles, and Richard all leave the island on the plane and presumably go on to live happy lives back on the mainland.

THE TIMING OF IT ALL
I think this is the most difficult part to figure out, but I’ll give it a shot. First off, remember that the Purgatorical Construct (PC) of the Flash Sideways has no time restrictions. So try to ignore questions about which people are there, “when” they got there, and in what order. I think the show was trying to tell us that those questions aren’t relevant, and they’ll only confuse our understanding of everything if we’re thinking of people’s appearance in the PC as making linear sense. (Well, let me clarify that. The question about ‘which’ people are there is probably worth considering, but the questions about ‘when’ they got there and ‘in what order’ aren’t applicable.)

So here’s my explanation: you’re only in the PC if you’re actually in the process of dying back on Earth. But even though everyone on Earth dies at different points, as far as the PC goes they’re all there at the same ‘time.’ A good example of this is Juliet. In the Season 6 premiere, as Sawyer is down in the rubble with her while she’s dying, she makes a few dying comments like “Let’s go dutch,” and “Let’s get a cup of coffee.” At the time, Sawyer (and us) just think her brain synapses are misfiring and she’s saying weird things as she’s about to die. But in the Series Finale, we learn that Juliet’s coffee lines were the same thing she said to Sawyer at the vending machine in the PC. So dying real-life Juliet was somehow ‘progressing’ through her entire PC ‘life’ in the span of a few seconds (the time between the bomb going off until the time she mumbled that to Sawyer as she was dying in his arms). Having fulfilled her Earthly purpose (setting off the bomb to create the PC where they would all meet), Juliet’s dying mumblings to Sawyer were actually the point where she ‘let go’ and had her ‘awakening’ in the PC. Upon her physical death (which happened just a few seconds after her mumblings to Sawyer), she was ready to move on.

Make sense?

Again, to clarify it a little better, we know that Sawyer didn’t physically die at the same Earth-time that Juliet did. In fact, for all we know, Sawyer lived to be 100 years old after escaping on the plane at the end of the Series Finale. So then why were Juliet and Sawyer in the PC at the “same time”? Well, it’s because there is no “time” in the PC.

Let me say it this way: Juliet’s final dying breaths occurred in 2007 on the island. During this time (let’s say it’s 3 minutes), she was in the PC. Sawyer’s final dying breaths occurred, for example, in 2057 in Manhattan. During this time (let’s say it’s 45 minutes in a hospital bed), he was in the PC. So as far as Earth-time is concerned, they both ‘arrive’ in the PC at different times, but as far as the PC is concerned, this is happening simultaneously. It’s hard to wrap your brain around, given the linear nature we’re used to thinking about, but I think this is what the show is trying to tell us. There is no “now” or “then” in the PC. It just exists. And it’s a place where the Losties meet up with each other before moving on. But none of them can move on until they’re ALL ready to move on.

So, I think it’s right to say that the PC was a place they all went while they were physically dying. To be clear, I'm not saying this is where they went AFTER they died, I'm saying it's where they went WHILE they were DYING. In other words, with their dying breaths, they were able to find each other. And by the time they actually died, they were ready to let go.

This isn’t entirely out of left field. Many religions believe that important spiritual things happen as you’re dying. During your final few breaths, people sometimes report seeing bright lights or having their life flash before their eyes, etc. I think that’s what the PC was: a construct (not bound by time) that the Losties souls were transported to during the final few minutes of their Earthly lives. It allowed them to find each other, and the point where they were ready to move on corresponded with the exact moment where they took their last breath on Earth.

But Jack, even though not the last to physically die, was the last one to let go. Again, remember that Earthly time doesn’t matter in the PC. So even though Sawyer and Kate and several others physically outlived Jack (meaning they ‘let go’ when they died, which was long after Jack died), Jack hadn’t yet ‘let go.’

I suppose the only way to explain this would be to say it this way: the final blink of Jack’s eye could have lasted 50 years in PC ‘time.’ It’s wrong to say it that way since there is no ‘time’ in the PC, but it might help to understand how physical death is the point of ‘letting go’ (my theory), yet Sawyer let go “before” Jack even though physical Jack died before physical Sawyer.

Let that sink in for a minute.

I think it works because Jack had to be the last one to let go, since the entire show was really about him.


THE BOTTOM LINE
The writers went out of their way to focus on 1) broad themes and 2) character wrap-ups in the Series Finale. Overall, I think the main theme they wanted to get across was, “No one can do it alone.” The whole show was based around this central idea. From Jack’s “we’ve gotta live together, or we’re gonna die alone” speech in the first season, up to Jack needing to ‘let go’ before they ALL could move on in the Series Finale. So ‘not doing it alone’ was the primary theme, and the secondary theme was something like “if you can’t do it alone, then who are you going to do it with?” And that’s where all the character relationships come into play. They all have a special bond, but within the group, some bonds are stronger than others.

And that’s the point of the show: we’re all searching for a destiny, a purpose. We may not know what it is and there may be unanswered questions along the way, but that’s why we can’t do it alone. We need each other to get through it all because the weight of the pressure and the questions would consume us if we tried it alone. MIB’s ultimate failure is a great example of what happens when you try to do it by yourself. If you find a group of people to do life with, cherish them…and maybe you’ll even form some stronger bonds with someone inside that group.

tymania
05-25-2010, 10:33 AM
real good read ^

patteeu
05-25-2010, 10:47 AM
Then why was it that on Kimmel Sunday night (which we watched last night), the FIRST thing that Matt Fox mentioned was the same thing that I mentioned yesterday: That for a "nanosecond", this whole thing happened to Jack.

Again, the ending is ambiguous enough for people to draw their own conclusions and no one would be wrong.

If you want to take it literally, that they were on an "island" with polar bears and smoke monsters, you can.

If want to believe that for a "nanosecond", all of this occurred so that Jack could find his way to "heaven", you can.

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything.

I think you're cherry-picking what you want to hear from the Kimmel/Fox exchange. At the very beginning of the interview, Fox agreed that his character's life on the island was his real life, or something to that effect. The "nanosecond" comment was specifically about the "flash sideways" world. In other words, everything that happened in the "flash sideways" world of season 6 happened in a nanosecond as Jack's life left him in the bamboo grove.

I think your interpretation is fine, but I don't think it's supported by Fox's interpretation.

Bearcat
05-25-2010, 10:51 AM
Watched it last night... lots of good stuff in this thread. I think Dane's theory is interesting, mostly due to the shots during the credits. I might have not ever thought about it if it weren't for that.... but, not only did Jack die in the same spot he woke up, he had an injury in the same spot (I think) that Kate stitched up in the first episode.

One of the articles says "never has a breakup hurt so much," but I disagree... I'm just glad it's over. I wouldn't mind the ambiguous ending if it weren't for all the dead ends and what are now meaningless plot lines. I wanted to watch it through to the end, and I think the final episode was really good, but I'm more relieved to see the ending than sad to see it go.

Chiefnj2
05-25-2010, 10:52 AM
LOST is like the run and shoot offense. Interesting on paper and at the beginning, but ultimately coming up way short.

DaneMcCloud
05-25-2010, 11:00 AM
I think you're cherry-picking what you want to hear from the Kimmel/Fox exchange. At the very beginning of the interview, Fox agreed that his character's life on the island was his real life, or something to that effect. The "nanosecond" comment was specifically about the "flash sideways" world. In other words, everything that happened in the "flash sideways" world of season 6 happened in a nanosecond as Jack's life left him in the bamboo grove.

I think your interpretation is fine, but I don't think it's supported by Fox's interpretation.

Quite honestly, I don't really care.

I took the show for what it was: About redemption.

The rest (polar bears, dharma, etc.) were just part of a sci-fi construct that some people (well actually, quite a few people) got wrapped up in and lost sight of what the show was truly about (if they even ever realized it).

I'll say it once again, and then I am officially out of this thread:

You can believe that Dharma, polar bears, Jacob, MIB, Egyptians, etc. ALL existed and the island was "real", or you can believe that the entire show happened in "the blink of an eye" as a way for Jack to become redeemed.

I'm not telling anyone what to believe but Cinema tells one story and dialogue directly (and the producers, supposedly) tells another.

Which is the final beauty of Lost.

OUT.

Brock
05-25-2010, 11:54 AM
not only did Jack die in the same spot he woke up, he had an injury in the same spot (I think) that Kate stitched up in the first episode.

Yes, good eye. I didn't even think of that.

Chiefnj2
05-25-2010, 12:04 PM
I still fail to see what the big deal was about the light going out on the island. It was all pointless. When Desmond pulled the "cork" Smokey became mortal again and didn't pose a threat.

tymania
05-25-2010, 12:07 PM
I still fail to see what the big deal was about the light going out on the island. It was all pointless. When Desmond pulled the "cork" Smokey became mortal again and didn't pose a threat.

Remember when Jacob said a little bit of that light resides in every person on earth?? So my guess would be that if the light went out then everyone would lose that little bit of light that they have in themselves!?
I agree with you.. I am somewhat confused about the whole light thing too.. why didn’t they just leave it out, kill LOCKE and get the F off the island!?

Mr. Plow
05-25-2010, 12:30 PM
http://www.lamebook.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/lostfinal1.png

Red Brooklyn
05-25-2010, 02:03 PM
After all these years how is it that Aaron wasn't important?
I still don't fully understand why people thought Aaron was so important to begin with.
Why was the island at the bottom of the ocean to start this past season?
Because the "alternate" timeline the Lostaways subconsciously created took place in a world without the island. It was a skewed and slightly more "idealized" version of what they had lived through.
What about 3 years of not being able to have a baby on the island and the "others" being interested in the baby and Walt and his special powers?
What about it? Seems to me the incident from the end of Season 5 is directly responsible for the fertility issues. No mystery there. Richard even dismissed The Others' focus on this non-issue. The Other also let Walt go. He was special. He had powers. And they didn't want him on that island anymore. Though we don't have anything concrete, there's a lot in what we have to speculate about. Especially since many of Walt's "powers" were the same as Smokey's powers. I think they feared what Walt would do should his scale tip toward the darkness.

They were interested in Aaron because he was born on the island, and Claire didn't die in childbirth.

And the numbers?

And whats the point of the light? Is there some other point than to power the island in some way?

What about smokey getting off the island? How would that have killed all the losties?
The numbers were answered. Jacob kept things in order by assigning numbers to candidates.

The only way Smokey can leave the island is by putting out the light. If the light goes out, the world ends.
When did the lostees decide on creating the alt-timeline to meet each other and go into the afterlife together?
It wasn't this grand conscious decision. It was a spiritual or subconscious decision.

No, I'm not.

And the person that said I was wrong because he was wearing different clothes, I'll ask you this:

When you dream at night, do you always wear the same clothes as you wore that day?

He imagined it all.

You can chose to believe whatever you chose about the ending, which is why the producers left it ambiguous.

Considering the entire philosophical journey that we were taken on for 6 years, I hardly think the ending was meant to be literal.

But believe whatever you must.
Everyone's entitled to their own opinon. But I disagree with your interpretation completely. To each their own.
If it wasn't a "dream" then why did Jack have to die in the exact same spot as the beginning of the story?
Symbolism. Again, it's a motif. It's a visual bookend to the show. He didn't have to die there. The artists involved wanted him to die there because it was poetic.
I still fail to see what the big deal was about the light going out on the island. It was all pointless. When Desmond pulled the "cork" Smokey became mortal again and didn't pose a threat.
The light has a "scientific" explanation or purpose and a "spritual" explanation or purpose. As a spiritual entity it is representative of the life force within us all. It is a light, but it signifies balance. After all this light also produced the ultimate darkness (Smokey). If the light goes out on the island, balance no longer exsists and the light goes out everywhere. Without balance the world can not sustain itself.

On the "scientific" side of things, the light is this massive pocket of EM engery. If the energy is released the affect of the planet is catestrophic. Essentially the world ends, islands sink, the earth shakes, things crumble. The world can't handle that much EM energy being released. That's basically it. I'm not a scientist. I can't explain if this is based in actual scientific theory or just something we have to accept as fact in the world of LOST. I don't know how it's possible, but it is. I can't help you with "why." I can only talk about "what."

So, it's bad spiritually and practically if the light goes out. We die.

Now Smokey is born of the light, of the exposure to the EM energy. He is immortal because of it, but he is NOT the light. The light goes out and he becomes mortal again. He can now leave the island. The light no longer binds him to this place. He is no longer of the light in that sense, he is free again to leave.

His departure doesn't equal destruction. In theory he could just go home and leave everyone alone and live a normal life. He's a mortal now. He won't destroy the world. BUT the world is still in danger. Not because Smokey is off the island, but because the light is out.

It's sort of a catch 22. Smokey can't leave if the light is on, but he also can't hurt anyone OFF the island. If the light goes out, Smokey can leave but it doesn't matter because the world ends. Smokey included. Everyone dies. I don't think he understand that part of it. He doesn't get that the light really does need protecting. He thinks it's a lie. He doesn't have any faith. The irony is, if he really had succeeded he would have died anyway because the world and everything on it would have been destroyed.

That's how I understand the light and it's consequences. Now, like Dane, I have to admit this is my interpretation. I'm not saying it's a "fact." But it all adds up. There's evidence to support this idea. I like it, and that's good enough for me.

I hope that helps.

Moobs
05-25-2010, 03:34 PM
This is supposedly from someone at Bad Robot (JJ Abrams' Production Company...AKA...LOST production company). It's a long read, but it's also from the camel's mouth (supposedly).

L O S T: An Explanation...
H

Do you have a link for this? It's a really good read.

Red Brooklyn
05-25-2010, 03:56 PM
I think it's a great read. Not sure how "authentic" it really is... but either way I think the dude nailed it. I really hope the it's real, or true. I love thinking that the ending is the same as the one planned from the beginning. Kinda cool.

Silock
05-25-2010, 03:57 PM
I think it's a great read. Not sure how "authentic" it really is... but either way I think the dude nailed it. I really hope the it's real, or true. I love thinking that the ending is the same as the one planned from the beginning. Kinda cool.

That's very cool. I just wish the stuff in between had been explained in more detail.

Red Brooklyn
05-25-2010, 04:07 PM
That's very cool. I just wish the stuff in between had been explained in more detail.
That's totally valid.

I'm one of those people that really doesn't care about answers or whatever all that much. I like the mysteries, but I feel like any "answer" they give can't be as satisfying as my imagination. I don't know.

But yeah, the show's far from perfect. But it was still probably the greatest thing I've ever seen on network television.

KingPriest2
05-25-2010, 05:26 PM
Quite honestly, I don't really care.

I took the show for what it was: About redemption.

The rest (polar bears, dharma, etc.) were just part of a sci-fi construct that some people (well actually, quite a few people) got wrapped up in and lost sight of what the show was truly about (if they even ever realized it).

I'll say it once again, and then I am officially out of this thread:

You can believe that Dharma, polar bears, Jacob, MIB, Egyptians, etc. ALL existed and the island was "real", or you can believe that the entire show happened in "the blink of an eye" as a way for Jack to become redeemed.

I'm not telling anyone what to believe but Cinema tells one story and dialogue directly (and the producers, supposedly) tells another.

Which is the final beauty of Lost.

OUT.


oh brother

Dane I asked this to you earlier Why the experts Kristen from E! and Doc Jensen from EW WHO TALK TO DARLTON! esp Jensen who helped at times say everything was real? The producers even said it was real Matt Fox even said it was real Also why would Jac imagine things in his head THAT WERENT REAL OR EVEN HAPPENED EXCEPT IN HIS MIND to redeem him? So what you are saying is something that is imagined will redeem someone? Ok Im going to coomit a serious crime wave. So I get shot and die Well right before I die I have a flash that was a nanosecond with people I have NEVER MET BEFORE and have experiences that redeems me? That doesnt make any sense For a person to be redeemed something REAL has to happen not a flash,dream or whatever you want to call it.

The last 10 minutes of the show puts everything in perspective Hurley and bn talking, Locke and Ben talking asking for forgivemess and getting it, Jack and his Dada talking. His Dad telling him everything was Real it happened.

So based om ALL THIS please explain to me how you think the plane crashed and they all died?


I know you will be back on here again

Red Brooklyn
05-25-2010, 05:38 PM
For a person to be redeemed something REAL has to happen not a flash,dream or whatever you want to call it.
:clap:

Exactly.

KingPriest2
05-25-2010, 09:22 PM
Then why was it that on Kimmel Sunday night (which we watched last night), the FIRST thing that Matt Fox mentioned was the same thing that I mentioned yesterday: That for a "nanosecond", this whole thing happened to Jack.

Again, the ending is ambiguous enough for people to draw their own conclusions and no one would be wrong.

If you want to take it literally, that they were on an "island" with polar bears and smoke monsters, you can.

If want to believe that for a "nanosecond", all of this occurred so that Jack could find his way to "heaven", you can.

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything.


I THIS WOULD CLAIRFY I WAS RIGHT

http://scifiwire.com/2010/05/abc-clarifies-that-everyone-on-lost-was-not-dead-the-whole-show.php?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Related Sections: News TV
ABC clarifies that everyone on LOST was NOT dead the whole show

Remember how confusing it was when Jack (Matthew Fox) closed his eye Sunday night at the end of Lost and the series' logo appeared on our TV screens, only to be followed by crash images of Oceanic 815? What the heck was that about?

Were we being told that no one had survived Oceanic 815's original crash landing—and that we'd invested our hearts in a show in which nothing we'd seen over the last six years had ever really happened?

ABC wants us to know—those final images had nothing at all to do with the Lost storyline, the Los Angeles Times reported. The network ran them only to soften the transition from the ending of the series to the news show that followed, and had never considered that any of us would think it related to the actual ending of the show. (Which some of us around here did!)

An ABC spokesperson wrote in an email Tuesday: "The images shown during the end credits of the Lost finale, which included shots of Oceanic 815 on a deserted beach, were not part of the final story but were a visual aid to allow the viewer to decompress before heading into the news."

Does that change how you felt about Lost's series finale?

BigRedChief
05-26-2010, 06:25 AM
I THIS WOULD CLAIRFY I WAS RIGHT

http://scifiwire.com/2010/05/abc-clarifies-that-everyone-on-lost-was-not-dead-the-whole-show.php?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Related Sections: News TV
ABC clarifies that everyone on LOST was NOT dead the whole show

Remember how confusing it was when Jack (Matthew Fox) closed his eye Sunday night at the end of Lost and the series' logo appeared on our TV screens, only to be followed by crash images of Oceanic 815? What the heck was that about?

Were we being told that no one had survived Oceanic 815's original crash landing—and that we'd invested our hearts in a show in which nothing we'd seen over the last six years had ever really happened?

ABC wants us to know—those final images had nothing at all to do with the Lost storyline, the Los Angeles Times reported. The network ran them only to soften the transition from the ending of the series to the news show that followed, and had never considered that any of us would think it related to the actual ending of the show. (Which some of us around here did!)

An ABC spokesperson wrote in an email Tuesday: "The images shown during the end credits of the Lost finale, which included shots of Oceanic 815 on a deserted beach, were not part of the final story but were a visual aid to allow the viewer to decompress before heading into the news."

Does that change how you felt about Lost's series finale?The last images that you see of a series are important. Soften a transition? BS. I don't think that the Lost creators would have allowed some pinhead ABC VP to make a decision like that without some prior approval.

Chiefnj2
05-26-2010, 06:29 AM
The last images that you see of a series are important. Soften a transition? BS. I don't think that the Lost creators would have allowed some pinhead ABC VP to make a decision like that without some prior approval.

That's like the screen going blank on the Sopranos and then HBO showing Tony and Carmella driving around as the credits roll; to soften the transition.

Buck
05-26-2010, 06:32 AM
The last images that you see of a series are important. Soften a transition? BS. I don't think that the Lost creators would have allowed some pinhead ABC VP to make a decision like that without some prior approval.

Nope, that was ABC decision solely. Nobody from LOST had that set up.

Mile High Mania
05-26-2010, 06:42 AM
Enh, that doesn't make sense... 'soften' it from what? It was a very slow, calm and dramatic ending... if they wanted to 'soften' anything, pull a card from the Cannonball Run movies and roll bloopers. That would have been good.

Hey ... there's an idea. They should play an hour long series of the best LOST bloopers.

Buck
05-26-2010, 06:44 AM
This is supposedly from someone at Bad Robot (JJ Abrams' Production Company...AKA...LOST production company). It's a long read, but it's also from the camel's mouth (supposedly).

L O S T: An Explanation...
Hundreds of questions go unanswered, but hey…that’s what the extras on the Season 6 DVD are for. So here’s my overview wrap-up of the major themes and characters. See if you agree.

Hey this is real cool. I'm sort of tired of this thread because I just keep arguing, but I can agree with this.

I wonder if there are going to be any Writer/Producer/Actor interpretations on the Complete Series Blu Ray?

Buck
05-26-2010, 06:51 AM
Then why was it that on Kimmel Sunday night (which we watched last night), the FIRST thing that Matt Fox mentioned was the same thing that I mentioned yesterday: That for a "nanosecond", this whole thing happened to Jack.

Again, the ending is ambiguous enough for people to draw their own conclusions and no one would be wrong.

If you want to take it literally, that they were on an "island" with polar bears and smoke monsters, you can.

If want to believe that for a "nanosecond", all of this occurred so that Jack could find his way to "heaven", you can.

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything.

Tell me what you think of this?

Note the differences.

Jimmy Kimmel and Matthew Fox briefly talked about the nanosecond meaning that the two timelines split right at the turbulence (which isn't what you are saying), but I think this video disproves even that theory.

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/GoaRzEMpya0&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/GoaRzEMpya0&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

Note the differences even before the turbulence. The longer hair, only one bottle of Vodka, etc.

So if anything, your "nanosecond" happened before the plane scene from LA X.

Baby Lee
05-26-2010, 07:50 AM
<object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="http://www.collegehumor.com/moogaloop/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=1936291&fullscreen=1" width="480" height="360" ><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true"/><param name="wmode" value="transparent"/><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"/><param name="movie" quality="best" value="http://www.collegehumor.com/moogaloop/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=1936291&fullscreen=1"/><embed src="http://www.collegehumor.com/moogaloop/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=1936291&fullscreen=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="480" height="360" allowScriptAccess="always"></embed></object><div style="padding:5px 0; text-align:center; width:480px;">See more <a href="http://www.collegehumor.com/videos">funny videos</a> and <a href="http://www.collegehumor.com/pictures">funny pictures</a> at <a href="http://www.collegehumor.com/">CollegeHumor</a>.</div>

Buck
05-26-2010, 07:54 AM
75% of the shit in the college humor video was either already explained or not important at all.
Posted via Mobile Device

Reaper16
05-26-2010, 09:43 AM
75% of the shit in the college humor video was either already explained or not important at all.
Posted via Mobile Device
Leaving 25% of that shit in the category of "unexplained & important." Which is way, way too high. To quote prominent TV critic Alan Sepinwall:
Jack tells Desmond at one point, "Trust me, I know: All of this matters," and that's a very similar sentiment to one espoused by Lester Freamon on "The Wire" - a show where all the pieces did, in fact, matter, and everything that was introduced paid off down the road. It's not a fair comparison, both because "The Wire" is the greatest drama ever, and because it was telling different kinds of stories in a different way from "Lost." But when I hear Jack say something like that, at the end of a series at which a whole lotta things wound up not mattering at all, it's hard to ignore the thematic dissonance.

Red Brooklyn
05-26-2010, 09:45 AM
I'm honestly a little surpised how many people latched onto those wreckage images during the credits. Never once did it cross my mind while watching the finale that we were supposed to think they all died in the crash. Yet, so many people (I'm finding out now) in the online community thought just that very thing. Weird.

Seems pretty clear to me it was meant more as a reflective thing. A "remember where we started" thing. I thought the images were very evocotive. Unnecessary, perhaps. But certainly not an indication that "they all died in the crash."

patteeu
05-26-2010, 09:49 AM
I'm honestly a little surpised how many people latched onto those wreckage images during the credits. Never once did it cross my mind while watching the finale that we were supposed to think they all died in the crash. Yet, so many people (I'm finding out now) in the online community thought just that very thing. Weird.

Seems pretty clear to me it was meant more as a reflective thing. A "remember where we started" thing. I thought the images were very evocotive. Unnecessary, perhaps. But certainly not an indication that "they all died in the crash."

That's how I took it too, although I can see why some took it to mean that everyone died in the original crash.

Red Brooklyn
05-26-2010, 09:50 AM
Leaving 25% of that shit in the category of "unexplained & important." Which is way, way too high. To quote prominent TV critic Alan Sepinwall:
Okay. So what do you think was left unresolved that really mattered?

I've spent way too much time rewatching each episode over the years, and thinking about the finale the last couple of days... and honestly... I can't think of one really "important" question that was answered. Many of the answers are not obvious. But there's enough info throughtout to draw logical conclusions.

The only think I'm still unsatisfied with is Walt's resolution. I was really hoping there would be something in the finale that resolved that character. I'm not talking about answers like "why was he special." I mean what happened to Walt in his life. How was the rest of his life, how was his adult life affected by what happened on that island, and never seeing his father again.

There's some of this that's hinted at, but I still feel unresolved regarding Walt. Other than that... the whole series was fantastic. The best thing I've ever seen on network TV. Hands down.

Red Brooklyn
05-26-2010, 09:52 AM
That's how I took it too, although I can see why some took it to mean that everyone died in the original crash.
Sure. That's fair. After reading that so many people saw it that way, I can see it. Just surprised me how many people saw it that way initially. Because it never crossed my mind.

Reaper16
05-26-2010, 09:54 AM
Okay. So what do you think was left unresolved that really mattered?

I've spent way too much time rewatching each episode over the years, and thinking about the finale the last couple of days... and honestly... I can't think of one really "important" question that was answered. Many of the answers are not obvious. But there's enough info throughtout to draw logical conclusions.

The only think I'm still unsatisfied with is Walt's resolution. I was really hoping there would be something in the finale that resolved that character. I'm not talking about answers like "why was he special." I mean what happened to Walt in his life. How was the rest of his life, how was his adult life affected by what happened on that island, and never seeing his father again.

There's some of this that's hinted at, but I still feel unresolved regarding Walt. Other than that... the whole series was fantastic. The best thing I've ever seen on network TV. Hands down.
I can't answer your question because I've barely seen any of the show. I am going to watch it all straight through as soon as I finish Super Mario Galaxy 2. I've got seasons 1-5 borrowed from a friend and I'll just torrent season 6.

Red Brooklyn
05-26-2010, 09:57 AM
I can't answer your question because I've barely seen any of the show. I am going to watch it all straight through as soon as I finish Super Mario Galaxy 2. I've got seasons 1-5 borrowed from a friend and I'll just torrent season 6.
I see.

Well keep us posted as you watch. I'm interested to see if you really have that many questions when all is said and done.

Reaper16
05-26-2010, 10:07 AM
I see.

Well keep us posted as you watch. I'm interested to see if you really have that many questions when all is said and done.
I have the hindsight of watching most of the finale and thus knowing that, by the end, the show intended to have a purely character-driven payoff. I will be evaluating the show on two accounts: 1.) How good of a character drama is it (and how does including several potentially-maddening elements of sci-fi and fantasy benefit or detract from the characters) and 2.) Forget the intentions to be a character drama; how does this show really feel?

Buck
05-26-2010, 10:10 AM
Reaper, just so you know my stance on this. There will be 1 or 2 big things that you will want resolved by the end that will be left up in the air and open to your interpretation, but the show is great regardless. I would say they answered 98% of the most important shit. And going back to that college humor vid, you gotta watch the show first man.
Posted via Mobile Device

Baby Lee
05-26-2010, 10:12 AM
Okay. So what do you think was left unresolved that really mattered?
I think 'mattered' isn't the proper standard. What those mysteries were were the elements of intrigue that drew us in and captured our imagination. The promise of getting answers kept us glued to the minutiae of each and every episode.
It's like you see on Amazon a book that promises, SWEARS, to give you definitive answers about Bigfoot, Nessie, the JFK assassination, the origin of the pyramids, and the popularity of Dancing with the Stars. And when it comes in the mail it's a tract for the Jehovah's witnesses. The authors could point out that all that 'matters' is your eternal salvation, but that doesn't make the bait and switch any less a bummer.

BigRedChief
05-26-2010, 10:12 AM
The only think I'm still unsatisfied with is Walt's resolution. I was really hoping there would be something in the finale that resolved that character. I'm not talking about answers like "why was he special." I mean what happened to Walt in his life. How was the rest of his life, how was his adult life affected by what happened on that island, and never seeing his father again.

There's some of this that's hinted at, but I still feel unresolved regarding Walt. Other than that... the whole series was fantastic. The best thing I've ever seen on network TV. Hands down.Walt was certaintly important to them at one time. He should have been in the room. They could have brought him back as a man to the church. That wouldn't have mattered he was no longer a boy.

Buck
05-26-2010, 10:12 AM
I have the hindsight of watching most of the finale and thus knowing that, by the end, the show intended to have a purely character-driven payoff. I will be evaluating the show on two accounts: 1.) How good of a character drama is it (and how does including several potentially-maddening elements of sci-fi and fantasy benefit or detract from the characters) and 2.) Forget the intentions to be a character drama; how does this show really feel?

Dude. This show IS character development. You will see why within the first couple episodes. Its just the way the show is formatted.
Posted via Mobile Device

Bearcat
05-26-2010, 10:16 AM
I'm honestly a little surpised how many people latched onto those wreckage images during the credits. Never once did it cross my mind while watching the finale that we were supposed to think they all died in the crash. Yet, so many people (I'm finding out now) in the online community thought just that very thing. Weird.

Seems pretty clear to me it was meant more as a reflective thing. A "remember where we started" thing. I thought the images were very evocotive. Unnecessary, perhaps. But certainly not an indication that "they all died in the crash."

If it had nothing to do with the episode, I think it was incredibly stupid on ABC's part... the whole show was about uncovering mysteries and all the little things, most of which I didn't catch before reading this thread... and on top of that, the symmetry between the pilot and the end lead me to believe the shots at the end was driving home a point.

I get your point (and I don't really believe in that theory anyway)... the show is over at that point, and hell, I went back to hulu to see the credits because they always put a commercial at the end, so I just skip them. I never would have thought of it as being a transition though... if anything, they should have shown a few shots that were obviously how they left the island.

Red Brooklyn
05-26-2010, 10:22 AM
I have the hindsight of watching most of the finale and thus knowing that, by the end, the show intended to have a purely character-driven payoff. I will be evaluating the show on two accounts: 1.) How good of a character drama is it (and how does including several potentially-maddening elements of sci-fi and fantasy benefit or detract from the characters) and 2.) Forget the intentions to be a character drama; how does this show really feel?
I think that's fine criteria. However, I'd personally value 2 over 1. The emotional impact is always the most important element of "art" to me. Regarless of the emotion.

But, Buck is dead on. The show IS character. I imagine you'll give the show an over A in that catagory.

I think 'mattered' isn't the proper standard. What those mysteries were were the elements of intrigue that drew us in and captured our imagination. The promise of getting answers kept us glued to the minutiae of each and every episode.
It's like you see on Amazon a book that promises, SWEARS, to give you definitive answers about Bigfoot, Nessie, the JFK assassination, the origin of the pyramids, and the popularity of Dancing with the Stars. And when it comes in the mail it's a tract for the Jehovah's witnesses. The authors could point out that all that 'matters' is your eternal salvation, but that doesn't make the bait and switch any less a bummer.
Do you really consider the finale a "bait and switch"?

Walt was certaintly important to them at one time. He should have been in the room. They could have brought him back as a man to the church. That wouldn't have mattered he was no longer a boy.
Agreed.

There must be something more to it in the mind's of the creators. The idea that these people needed each other, that the crash was the most pivotal moment in their lives could be a clue. Maybe they're trying to tell us that there was something that happened later in Walt's life that was as pivotal to him as the crash was to them. But, again, if that's the case... what is that? I'd like to see some of that stuff.

Red Brooklyn
05-26-2010, 10:25 AM
I get your point (and I don't really believe in that theory anyway)... the show is over at that point, and hell, I went back to hulu to see the credits because they always put a commercial at the end, so I just skip them. I never would have thought of it as being a transition though... if anything, they should have shown a few shots that were obviously how they left the island.
That could have ben interesting, actually. Good call.

But I didn't mind the wreckage. To me it was a more sublte (and classy?) way to remind us where we started. Another option (that would have been essencially the same in my book) would have been to show candid photos of the actors, crew and directors on set during filming. But that's almost too cheesy. The wreckage works.

Buck
05-26-2010, 10:26 AM
The only 2 things that I wanted explained that weren't was what was Walts Special power and why did the Others want to use him. And secondly I wanted to know about the fertility issues.
Posted via Mobile Device

teedubya
05-26-2010, 10:28 AM
THE ABC producers fucked up by having the actor who played Walt, start the show at age 12 and be playing an 8 year old. 6 years into the show, you have a 18 year old kid, who should really be about 11, now.

They should have cast an 8 year old. or a 7 year old. Then Walt would have stayed on teh show. They had to get rid of him, resolution or not.

teedubya
05-26-2010, 10:29 AM
The only 2 things that I wanted explained that weren't was what was Walts Special power and why did the Others want to use him. And secondly I wanted to know about the fertility issues.
Posted via Mobile Device

IMO, you can't create a child... in a "purgatory" type place... one can be born there, but not procreated there... and if it is procreated there, it can't be born there... or something.

Buck
05-26-2010, 10:31 AM
IMO, you can't create a child... in a "purgatory" type place... one can be born there, but not procreated there... and if it is procreated there, it can't be born there... or something.

The island wasn't purgatory.
Posted via Mobile Device

Red Brooklyn
05-26-2010, 10:33 AM
The only 2 things that I wanted explained that weren't was what was Walts Special power and why did the Others want to use him. And secondly I wanted to know about the fertility issues.
Posted via Mobile Device
Fair enough.

I think there are clues that can really help us try to understand Walt's story, but ultimately it's unclear. Especially in terms of intentions. My guess, however, is that it had everything to do with protecting the island and eliminating the Smoke Monster.

The fertility issues seem much clearer to me. They showed us that, up until 'The Incident', children could be (and were) concieved and born on island. Everything changed after The Incident. To me it's pretty clear that The Incident caused the fertility issues.

Now, why Ben was so hellbent on fixing the problem, and Richard didn't really seem to care is interesting. We'll, again, never know the motives. But I think that's okay. In real life it's hard to know why people do the things they do.

I'd say Walt is a big hanging '?' with some hints and clues surrounding. But the fertility issues, to me, are a closed case.

Baby Lee
05-26-2010, 10:36 AM
Do you really consider the finale a "bait and switch"?
Let me put it this way, yes it was bait and switch, but somehow I ended up at a Kingdom Hall last Sunday morning.

That is to say, as it stands alone, as an ending to the story of the characters we've come to know, it was quite good. As the conclusion of what the show appeared to be with all these machinations and schemes and plots and counterplots and tidbits and freezeframes etc. ad infinitum, it's disappointing that all of that was for naught.

I don't think I'm alone, as there seems to be a strong inclination out there to grade the finale twice, once as a standalone, and again as a conclusion.

Like I said, 'mattered' isn't the standard, those unexplained mysteries were the seedlings of what promised ['showed' promise, not 'we the creators' promise] to be intriguing storytelling. And it's hard to separate how much of what drew us in as a massive rapt audience was those mysteries and how much was the story of a handful of people in need of spiritual growth.

I know for myself, I cared relatively little about the love stories and the triangles and the temper tantums and the personality quirks in comparison to the mysteries surrounding them, and regarded them as an indulgence for a good bit of the ride.

Buck
05-26-2010, 10:38 AM
Fair enough.

I think there are clues that can really help us try to understand Walt's story, but ultimately it's unclear. Especially in terms of intentions. My guess, however, is that it had everything to do with protecting the island and eliminating the Smoke Monster.

The fertility issues seem much clearer to me. They showed us that, up until 'The Incident', children could be (and were) concieved and born on island. Everything changed after The Incident. To me it's pretty clear that The Incident caused the fertility issues.

Now, why Ben was so hellbent on fixing the problem, and Richard didn't really seem to care is interesting. We'll, again, never know the motives. But I think that's okay. In real life it's hard to know why people do the things they do.

I'd say Walt is a big hanging '?' with some hints and clues surrounding. But the fertility issues, to me, are a closed case.

I don't get how the bomb going off caused fertility issues. Oh yeah actually 1 more thing that I wanted explained, but wasn't was the huge Egyptian presence. I just think the island is really old and goes back to egyptian times, but that doesn't explain the statue (well sorta maybe) or the countdown clock. That was clearly made in the 1970s.
Posted via Mobile Device

Deberg_1990
05-26-2010, 10:42 AM
Let me put it this way, yes it was bait and switch, but somehow I ended up at a Kingdom Hall last Sunday morning.

That is to say, as it stands alone, as an ending to the story of the characters we've come to know, it was quite good. As the conclusion of what the show appeared to be with all these machinations and schemes and plots and counterplots and tidbits and freezeframes etc. ad infinitum, it's disappointing that all of that was for naught.

I don't think I'm alone, as there seems to be a strong inclination out there to grade the finale twice, once as a standalone, and again as a conclusion.

Like I said, 'mattered' isn't the standard, those unexplained mysteries were the seedlings of what promised ['showed' promise, not 'we the creators' promise] to be intriguing storytelling. And it's hard to separate how much of what drew us in as a massive rapt audience was those mysteries and how much was the story of a handful of people in need of spiritual growth.

I know for myself, I cared relatively little about the love stories and the triangles and the temper tantums and the personality quirks in comparison to the mysteries surrounding them, and regarded them as an indulgence for a good bit of the ride.


Agree 100%. Nobody kept tuning in from week to week because of the love stories and the backstorys. I mean, those were well done, but it was the mysterys and puzzles that kept everyone coming back for more.

Frankly i stopped watching on a regular basis after the 3rd season when i realize there was no way they were ever going to be able to wrap up the gargantuan puzzles effectively. Maybe they never intended to all along??

Baby Lee
05-26-2010, 10:47 AM
Agree 100%. Nobody kept tuning in from week to week because of the love stories and the backstorys. I mean, those were well done, but it was the mysterys and puzzles that kept everyone coming back for more.

Frankly i stopped watching on a regular basis after the 3rd season when i realize there was no way they were ever going to be able to wrap up the gargantuan puzzles effectively. Maybe they never intended to all along??

In the interest of overclarity, another way of putting it is, a HUGE draw of this show was the central question 'how are they going to pull all of this off and resolve these myriad mysteries' and the response was 'they aren't, they're going to give us another story they hope you like just as much and tell you that what drew you in didn't 'matter.''

Buck
05-26-2010, 10:50 AM
In the interest of overclarity, another way of putting it is, a HUGE draw of this show was the central question 'how are they going to pull all of this off and resolve these myriad mysteries' and the response was 'they aren't, they're going to give us another story they hope you like just as much and tell you that what drew you in didn't 'matter.''

It's only the few flaws that people like to point out. Think of all the mysteries they did explain. Far more than they didn't.

patteeu
05-26-2010, 11:02 AM
Let me put it this way, yes it was bait and switch, but somehow I ended up at a Kingdom Hall last Sunday morning.

That is to say, as it stands alone, as an ending to the story of the characters we've come to know, it was quite good. As the conclusion of what the show appeared to be with all these machinations and schemes and plots and counterplots and tidbits and freezeframes etc. ad infinitum, it's disappointing that all of that was for naught.

I don't think I'm alone, as there seems to be a strong inclination out there to grade the finale twice, once as a standalone, and again as a conclusion.

Like I said, 'mattered' isn't the standard, those unexplained mysteries were the seedlings of what promised ['showed' promise, not 'we the creators' promise] to be intriguing storytelling. And it's hard to separate how much of what drew us in as a massive rapt audience was those mysteries and how much was the story of a handful of people in need of spiritual growth.

I know for myself, I cared relatively little about the love stories and the triangles and the temper tantums and the personality quirks in comparison to the mysteries surrounding them, and regarded them as an indulgence for a good bit of the ride.

Perfect. I was there for the mysteries, which in the end were largely left unresolved. That said, the conclusion was good/satisfying on it's own terms even if it didn't satisfy the potential that made me a fan of the show in the first place. I never really cared whether Kate was going to end up with Jack or Sawyer. I cared about who built the four toed statue, why people who were crippled could walk on the island, and what secrets Ben, Whitmore, and Eloise knew that the audience didn't.

Huffmeister
05-26-2010, 11:17 AM
Walt was certaintly important to them at one time. He should have been in the room. They could have brought him back as a man to the church. That wouldn't have mattered he was no longer a boy.

But what if Walt didn't need help to move on? What if his being "special" allowed him to live knowing that there was something beyond this life, and therefore was not "lost", like the other characters were? Or, what if he and Michael made their own purgatory, where Walt helps his father to find the way to the light?

When Christian told Jack that they had created "this place" together, to help each other, I took it to mean that it was just one of a possibly infinite amount of "purgatories" that people create together when they die. So maybe Walt & Michael had their own purgatory, and Eko and Yemi had another, and Jacob and MIB had another, and Arntz, Frogurt, Nikki and Paulo had another, and Keamy and Mikhail had another, and on and on and on. Think 'multiverses'.

Chiefnj2
05-26-2010, 11:28 AM
But what if Walt didn't need help to move on? What if his being "special" allowed him to live knowing that there was something beyond this life, and therefore was not "lost", like the other characters were? Or, what if he and Michael made their own purgatory, where Walt helps his father to find the way to the light?

When Christian told Jack that they had created "this place" together, to help each other, I took it to mean that it was just one of a possibly infinite amount of "purgatories" that people create together when they die. So maybe Walt & Michael had their own purgatory, and Eko and Yemi had another, and Jacob and MIB had another, and Arntz, Frogurt, Nikki and Paulo had another, and Keamy and Mikhail had another, and on and on and on. Think 'multiverses'.

Who cares if they had their own purgatory. This whole purgatory crap came about in season 6. Walt was a focal point of the show that got people hooked in the first place. He had special powers. Walt was the cliff hanger of season 1 when the others show up in a boat, grab him, shoot and blow up the rest of the raftees. Season 2 was in large part about rescuing Walt and Ben using Michael to kill off a bunch of "new" characters.

As others have said, who cares about the love triangles. The mysteries were what drove the show. Character development wasn't great. Sorry, but they had to continually introduce new characters to make the old ones interesting. Ben was only supposed to be in a few episodes originally. And lets not forget the lame backstories - John Locke living on some hippie commune, and Jack getting some tattoo and banging some Thai hooker. Wow, that's deep.

Fish
05-26-2010, 11:42 AM
The entire show was actually all in Vincent's mind....

http://i.imgur.com/wtzBE.gif

Red Brooklyn
05-26-2010, 11:52 AM
I guess I'm one of the fortunate fans out there that was much more interested in the characters, their relationship to each other, their relationship to the island, and the question of destiny vs free will.

Since I always thought the mysteries were a fun plot device and not the driving force of the experience, I've been able to walk away very fulfilled.

I don't see it as a "bait and switch" in any way. For me the show was about people who were "lost" in their lives, people without direction. The island helped navagate them. The mysteries were a backdrop. I love that they didn't feel the need to answer a lot of questions that our characters weren't asking.

But to each their own. I understand why people feel let down or frustrated. I'm just not one of those people.

Red Brooklyn
05-26-2010, 11:57 AM
I don't get how the bomb going off caused fertility issues. Oh yeah actually 1 more thing that I wanted explained, but wasn't was the huge Egyptian presence. I just think the island is really old and goes back to egyptian times, but that doesn't explain the statue (well sorta maybe) or the countdown clock. That was clearly made in the 1970s.
Posted via Mobile Device
I would imagine it has something to do with the exposure to radiation and the electro-magnetic energy.

I think it ties into the "infection" or "sickness" that Dharma was immunizing people against, as well as why they wore hazmat suits when the left the Swan Station.

Baby Lee
05-26-2010, 01:07 PM
I guess I'm one of the fortunate fans out there that was much more interested in the characters, their relationship to each other, their relationship to the island, and the question of destiny vs free will.

Since I always thought the mysteries were a fun plot device and not the driving force of the experience, I've been able to walk away very fulfilled.

I don't see it as a "bait and switch" in any way. For me the show was about people who were "lost" in their lives, people without direction. The island helped navagate them. The mysteries were a backdrop. I love that they didn't feel the need to answer a lot of questions that our characters weren't asking.

But to each their own. I understand why people feel let down or frustrated. I'm just not one of those people.

Ironic statement. I guaran-damn-tee you, go to the archives of any of 1000s of blogs discussing this show in real time [including earlier in this very thread], and there's an overwhelming number of posts asking why these f@cking characters weren't asking any f@cking questions, and why any questions that were raised went f@cking unanswered. This, followed by, "I guess I'll have to hold out hope it'll all make sense one day. They say they have it planned out, so."

Red Brooklyn
05-26-2010, 01:49 PM
Ironic statement. I guaran-damn-tee you, go to the archives of any of 1000s of blogs discussing this show in real time [including earlier in this very thread], and there's an overwhelming number of posts asking why these f@cking characters weren't asking any f@cking questions, and why any questions that were raised went f@cking unanswered. This, followed by, "I guess I'll have to hold out hope it'll all make sense one day. They say they have it planned out, so."
You're absolutely right. I may have even made a post like that a time or two, not gonna like. :D

But people are always going to see things from their own point of view. The viewer wanted an answer, so the viewer wondered why the characters weren't more inquisitive. "Why the hell aren't they asking more questions. If I were him/her I'd want a effing answer to _________! "

Okay. Fine. I'm not saying it's wrong to want answers, or to feel let down by the "lack" there of. But I still think it's cool that most (if not all) of the questions that the characters cared about were answered. I like that they kept up the conceit that we were living/observing through their eyes. Through their experience. Even to the extent that they intentionally changed dialogue during scenes depending on who's POV we were seeing it through.

I think that's cool. Even the mysteries were about the characters. I don't know. Maybe I'm too biased. But I just loved the show, and the conclusion.

KCFalcon59
05-26-2010, 01:53 PM
The entire show was actually all in Vincent's mind....

http://i.imgur.com/wtzBE.gif

That's awesome!

noa
05-27-2010, 01:33 AM
Just ventured into this thread for the first time. I watched the finale but hadn't really read anything on it since. Been too busy.

I think there has to be some significance to the fact that when Jack regains consciousness after being down in the light, he is in the exact same position MIB was after Jacob threw him into the light. Not sure exactly what the meaning is though. I do think that the visual alone of Jack waking up on the rocks in the water militates against it all being Jack's pre-death imagination in 2004 because why would he imagine himself to be an analog to MIB?

Silock
05-27-2010, 01:38 AM
I don't think it's all in Jack's head simply because Jack was originally supposed to die in the first episode, with Kate being the leader of the survivors. That wouldn't make much sense.

Rausch
05-27-2010, 05:59 AM
:facepalm:




Take this kiss upon the brow!
And, in parting from you now,
Thus much let me avow-
You are not wrong, who deem
That my days have been a dream;
Yet if hope has flown away
In a night, or in a day,
In a vision, or in none,
Is it therefore the less gone?
All that we see or seem
Is but a dream within a dream.

I stand amid the roar
Of a surf-tormented shore,
And I hold within my hand
Grains of the golden sand-
How few! yet how they creep
Through my fingers to the deep,
While I weep- while I weep!
O God! can I not grasp
Them with a tighter clasp?
O God! can I not save
One from the pitiless wave?
Is all that we see or seem
But a dream within a dream?

Chiefnj2
05-27-2010, 07:23 AM
I don't think it's all in Jack's head simply because Jack was originally supposed to die in the first episode, with Kate being the leader of the survivors. That wouldn't make much sense.

It's funny you say that when Matthew Fox said he always new the show would end with his eye closing.

patteeu
05-27-2010, 07:49 AM
It's funny you say that when Matthew Fox said he always new the show would end with his eye closing.

The concept for the show existed before Matthew Fox was involved in the project. Giving Silock's statement the benefit of the doubt, you can reconcile it with Fox's statement by assuming that the "Jack dies" plan was reconsidered and scrapped prior to the final script for the first show (and maybe even prior to Fox's involvement).

Baby Lee
05-27-2010, 08:53 AM
The concept for the show existed before Matthew Fox was involved in the project. Giving Silock's statement the benefit of the doubt, you can reconcile it with Fox's statement by assuming that the "Jack dies" plan was reconsidered and scrapped prior to the final script for the first show (and maybe even prior to Fox's involvement).

This may [should] be common knowledge, but in case it isn't, Fox's 'Jack' was originally supposed to die in the pilot, and was supposed to be played by a major star [most closely tied to Michael Keaton]. Then they reworked Jack's character for a longer run, and Keaton didn't want to be tied to a long running show, wanted his 'me time' more than he wanted the role.

patteeu
05-27-2010, 09:08 AM
This may [should] be common knowledge, but in case it isn't, Fox's 'Jack' was originally supposed to die in the pilot, and was supposed to be played by a major star [most closely tied to Michael Keaton]. Then they reworked Jack's character for a longer run, and Keaton didn't want to be tied to a long running show, wanted his 'me time' more than he wanted the role.

Thanks. Obviously it wasn't common enough knowledge for me to know about it, but I'm a few years behind the curve when it comes to pop culture so that's not saying much. :)

Brock
05-27-2010, 12:29 PM
This may [should] be common knowledge, but in case it isn't, Fox's 'Jack' was originally supposed to die in the pilot, and was supposed to be played by a major star [most closely tied to Michael Keaton]. Then they reworked Jack's character for a longer run, and Keaton didn't want to be tied to a long running show, wanted his 'me time' more than he wanted the role.

Thank God.

Deberg_1990
05-27-2010, 02:05 PM
Lost's creators explain they actually IMPROVISED!



http://scifiwire.com/2010/05/dude-it-turns-out-losts-c.php


Former Lost producers Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse are acknowledging that while much of the recently concluded show's mind-bending stories and puzzle-piece arcs were mapped out from day one, other stories and arcs were the result of action-reaction or were simply winged as needed.

"It was a combination of both those things," Cuse said in an exclusive interview. "There was a big, mythic architecture which included a lot of what's in the finale, in terms of where we end the show, that we knew way back in the beginning. And then, before each season, we'd have a writers' mini-camp and spend a month without any pressure of writing other scripts, figuring out the architecture of the upcoming season. That'd sort of take the artists' rendering and turn it into blueprints, and then, during the season, episode by episode, we built the structure. We allowed ourselves a lot of flexibility to change things around as we were doing construction. It was impossible to have everything planned out, and so it was kind of built in stages."

On the phone with Cuse was his writing and producing partner Lindelof. He stressed that while everyone was thinking long-term, they had to do so without being presumptuous. After all, many a show—Lindelof cited Twin Peaks—fizzled out after a wildly successful first season. "We didn't want to be of the mindset in the first season to assume that people would want to watch the show for six years," Lindelof said. "That's a gift that the audience gave us, to be able to do the show as we did. To sit down at episode eight and start to talk about what you're going to do in the second season ... The guys doing FlashForward, for example, were being asked about the second season at the upfront last year. It's good to have a plan, but at the same time the most important plan is making the next episode really good. That's the only job that Carlton and I and everybody else on this show has ever had."

Lindelof added, "Sometimes in order to make the next episode really good you need to have an incredible superstructure and the blueprints that Carlton is referring to, but at the end of day it really wasn't until we negotiated the end date that we could sit down and in a very detailed way say, 'This is exactly what we want to do over the course of the next three years. We know exactly how many episodes we have to do, and we think people will probably watch us for another three years if we're able to execute this.'"

Now that Lost is in the history books, Lindelof is moving on to co-writing the next Star Trek feature. Cuse plans to take a break and then will seek out his next project. Meanwhile, for all the closure and answers the Lost finale provided, it also left many story threads hanging. What the heck was/is the island? Where was Walt, and what powers did he have, anyway? What did the Dharma Initiative actually want? Who built the statue, and why? In other words, there seems to be plenty more story to tell.

Cuse, asked if he'd want to be involved if Lost ever returns in some form, replied, "That's like when they interview boxers at the end of a fight and they say, 'Do you want a rematch?' and the guy is going 'No mas, no mas.' We are so exhausted ... that the only answer we can give you is that we have no plans to do anything else with the Lost franchise after this show. We're not setting it up. We didn't invent a sequel. We have no expectations that we will continue to do anything with the franchise. Right now we are viewing this as the end of our storytelling with Lost."

Red Brooklyn
05-27-2010, 02:56 PM
Thanks for posting that Deberg. It's right on par with what they've been saying for the last few years. Great read.

CosmicPal
05-27-2010, 06:59 PM
For those of you who are (were) Lost fans and like to read, this is a list of the books shown/referenced at times during the show's tenure. These books were included because of the clues they provided as well as the way they interacted with the show’s themes:

Season 1

* Alice in Wonderland – Lewis Carroll *
* Heart of Darkness – Joseph Conrad
* Lord of the Flies – William Golding
* Watership Down – Richard Adams *
* A Wrinkle in Time – Madeleine L’Engle *

Season 2

* Are You There God? It’s Me, Margaret. – Judy Blume *
* Bad Twin – Gary Troup *
* The Brothers Karamazov – Fyodor Dostoevsky *
* The Epic of Gilgamesh – Herbert Mason (tr.)
* Island – Aldous Huxley
* Lancelot – Percy Walker *
* “An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge” – Ambrose Bierce *
* Our Mutual Friend – Charles Dickens *
* The Third Policeman – Flann O’Brien *
* The Turn of the Screw – Henry James *
* The Wizard of Oz – L Frank Baum *

Season 3

* A Brief History of Time – Stephen Hawking *
* Carrie – Stephen King *
* Catch-22 – Joseph Heller *
* Evil Under the Sun – Agatha Christie *
* The Fountainhead – Ayn Rand *
* Laughter in the Dark – Vladimir Nabokov *
* Of Mice and Men – John Steinbeck *
* On Writing – Stephen King
* Stranger in a Strange Land – Robert Heinlein
* A Tale of Two Cities – Charles Dickens
* Through the Looking Glass – Lewis Carroll
* To Kill a Mockingbird – Harper Lee

Season 4

* VALIS – Philip K Dick *
* The Invention of Morel – Adolfo Bioy Casares *
* On the Road – Jack Kerouac
* Slaughterhouse-Five – Kurt Vonnegut
* The Chronicles of Narnia – CS Lewis
* Survivors of the Chancellor – Jules Verne *

Season 5

* The Little Prince – Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
* Ulysses – James Joyce *
* A Separate Reality – Carlos Castaneda *
* Everything that Rises Must Converge – Flannery O’Connor *

Season 6

* Fear and Trembling – Søren Kierkegaard *
* Haroun and the Sea of Stories – Salman Rushdie *
* Deep River – Shusaku Endo *
* The Chosen – Chaim Potok *
* Notes from Underground – Fyodor Dostoevsky *

Buck
05-27-2010, 07:54 PM
Heres a racer I made in the game ModNation Racers

Reaper16
05-27-2010, 07:58 PM
For those of you who are (were) Lost fans and like to read, this is a list of the books shown/referenced at times during the show's tenure. These books were included because of the clues they provided as well as the way they interacted with the show’s themes:

Season 1

* Alice in Wonderland – Lewis Carroll *
* Heart of Darkness – Joseph Conrad
* Lord of the Flies – William Golding
* Watership Down – Richard Adams *
* A Wrinkle in Time – Madeleine L’Engle *

Season 2

* Are You There God? It’s Me, Margaret. – Judy Blume *
* Bad Twin – Gary Troup *
* The Brothers Karamazov – Fyodor Dostoevsky *
* The Epic of Gilgamesh – Herbert Mason (tr.)
* Island – Aldous Huxley
* Lancelot – Percy Walker *
* “An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge” – Ambrose Bierce *
* Our Mutual Friend – Charles Dickens *
* The Third Policeman – Flann O’Brien *
* The Turn of the Screw – Henry James *
* The Wizard of Oz – L Frank Baum *

Season 3

* A Brief History of Time – Stephen Hawking *
* Carrie – Stephen King *
* Catch-22 – Joseph Heller *
* Evil Under the Sun – Agatha Christie *
* The Fountainhead – Ayn Rand *
* Laughter in the Dark – Vladimir Nabokov *
* Of Mice and Men – John Steinbeck *
* On Writing – Stephen King
* Stranger in a Strange Land – Robert Heinlein
* A Tale of Two Cities – Charles Dickens
* Through the Looking Glass – Lewis Carroll
* To Kill a Mockingbird – Harper Lee

Season 4

* VALIS – Philip K Dick *
* The Invention of Morel – Adolfo Bioy Casares *
* On the Road – Jack Kerouac
* Slaughterhouse-Five – Kurt Vonnegut
* The Chronicles of Narnia – CS Lewis
* Survivors of the Chancellor – Jules Verne *

Season 5

* The Little Prince – Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
* Ulysses – James Joyce *
* A Separate Reality – Carlos Castaneda *
* Everything that Rises Must Converge – Flannery O’Connor *

Season 6

* Fear and Trembling – Søren Kierkegaard *
* Haroun and the Sea of Stories – Salman Rushdie *
* Deep River – Shusaku Endo *
* The Chosen – Chaim Potok *
* Notes from Underground – Fyodor Dostoevsky *
I doubt that all of those will reinforce themes. I'm seven episodes into season 1 and some of those make obvious sense, some don't yet. Some, like Heart of Darkness, were referenced in dialogue but don't match up with themes. (Yeah, scary jungle and all; I get why they made the reference. But HoD isn't about the scary jungle. It's about British colonialism and the mindset of the colonizer).

Silock
05-27-2010, 08:06 PM
Ha! I'm on episode 8 now, myself. Interesting how much season 1 and 6 are alike.

CosmicPal
05-27-2010, 10:25 PM
I doubt that all of those will reinforce themes. I'm seven episodes into season 1 and some of those make obvious sense, some don't yet. Some, like Heart of Darkness, were referenced in dialogue but don't match up with themes. (Yeah, scary jungle and all; I get why they made the reference. But HoD isn't about the scary jungle. It's about British colonialism and the mindset of the colonizer).

All of those books were referenced by the show. They were put in there by the writers. It is not a list I came up with, but a list of books referenced in one way or another during the 6 seasons.

Reaper16
05-31-2010, 04:10 PM
I've seen all of season 1 now. That was a solid, entertaining season of TV. It was absolutely propelled by the mysteries of the island. All of the numerous character background flashbacks provided necessary information into character motivation but sometimes bog down the pace at which I wanted on-the-island plot.

I am in the minority on this, probably, but I don't like the score. At all. I mean, independent of the show some of the compositions sound very nice, especially the Locke theme. But in the show the score is waaaaay too on-the-nose for me. The score chokes every scene and forcibly manipulates the audience to feel certain emotions. I hope this heavy-handed score gets toned down in the other seasons.

Too many characters and I know that it is only going to get worse. I was happy to see that Boone died for multiple reasons: 1.) It took a character away from a cluttered ensemble. 2.) I was agitated by the numerous fake-out deaths so it was good to see a death stick for once. 3.) It gave Shannon something to do.

Most of the characters are pretty milquetoast. Jack & Kate are solid but the standout performances come from the characters of Sawyer, Sayid, Micheal, Sun and Locke. Josh Holloway's Sawyer oozes charisma and he is one of the few actors that understands nuance. Also giving a nuanced performance is Harold Perrineau's Micheal. I don't think that the character could ever be a fan-favorite but Micheal is one of the few characters in season 1 that feels like a real person. Also with real-person-ness is Sun, one of the few characters I felt emotional investment in despite her and Jin's background being kind of silly. Naveen Andrews' Sayid is a legit badass performance; everything he does is believable and rounded. Terry O'Quinn is marvelous as John Locke. The character, though, I'm iffy on. Locke knows so much about a lot of things and has a lot of faith and it feels unearned. I imagine that we will get more flashbacks that will alleviate this but all through the first season he came across as wise and knowledgeable in a way that feels artificial and convenient.

Smoke Monster lol

As far as artistic themes go, this season wasn't too much concerned with any. It was mostly Island mystery + look at all the characters coming together to the same place like the movie Crash. The major theme in all of the flashbacks, which is where this show's themes are going to lie - off the island, is exploring the different ways in which we are responsible to/for our loved ones and the personal cost of acting on those responsibilities. I was pleased to see that the finale's whole flash sideways/learn-to-let-go thing was predicted in the Jack's wedding episode by Christian telling Jack that he's never been good at letting go. I anticipate the idea of letting go to appear throughout the series then. Also, I have a feeling (especially based on the finale) that the dichotomy of Man of Science vs Man of Faith brought up by Locke to Jack is going to be very important and probably predicts Lost's central theme.

Buck
05-31-2010, 04:41 PM
I can't believe you already watched the finale. Based on your season 1 review, I think you won't really like the next few seasons.

Buck
05-31-2010, 04:49 PM
I'll just say that at around the end of season 3, this turns from a supernatural show into a sci-fi show.

Reaper16
05-31-2010, 05:36 PM
I can't believe you already watched the finale. Based on your season 1 review, I think you won't really like the next few seasons.
Why's that?

Silock
05-31-2010, 05:45 PM
I agree with this assessment. I'm re-watching the whole thing. Picking up on a few things that they signpost for later, but there's some stuff that's already a bit wonky from where it ended up.

Baby Lee
05-31-2010, 05:47 PM
I can't believe you already watched the finale. Based on your season 1 review, I think you won't really like the next few seasons.

I'd be interested to see the reaction of someone who knows how it ends. Who doesn't waste time with all the dead end easter eggs and grand theorizing that was a big part of the experience for the contemporary viewer. Might even be interesting to see their reaction to then contemporary observations recorded for posterity on blogs, all the 'did you catches' and 'this freeze frame esploded my minds.'

Also someone to give us real time input on 'roads not travelled' in the show that they wished the show had chosen to explore.

Red Brooklyn
06-01-2010, 09:06 AM
Also giving a nuanced performance is Harold Perrineau's Micheal. I don't think that the character could ever be a fan-favorite but Micheal is one of the few characters in season 1 that feels like a real person.
So nice to see someone appreciate Harold's work on the show. I remember so many people being less than thrilled with his peformace as Michael. I completely agree. He's wonderful. Also, completely agree with what you said about Sun, Locke and Sayid.

I will say I still think Foxy and Evie are the two must underrated actors on ths show. I think they're both brilliant. Especially in S1. And I also slightly disagree with you about Holloway. He's good in S1 (to me) not great. But he gets better. By S5 he surpasses many of his co-stars (IMO).

Reaper16
06-01-2010, 10:19 AM
I will say I still think Foxy and Evie are the two must underrated actors on ths show. I think they're both brilliant. Especially in S1. And I also slightly disagree with you about Holloway. He's good in S1 (to me) not great. But he gets better. By S5 he surpasses many of his co-stars (IMO).

I conted that Holloway was way better in season 1 than Fox or Lilly. With acting, way better is often a matter of subtlety and subtlety is exactly what Holloway brings to the table. I can see where people might think Sawyer was portrayed as "brood brood brood one-liner brood nickname brood brood" but that would be the thinking of someone who doesn't evaluate acting very well. His acting brought much more depth to the character than did Sawyer's lines. He was written as a caricature but came across as a real human being.

Red Brooklyn
06-01-2010, 12:02 PM
Holloway does a really nice job in S1. Absolutely. But I think Foxy and Lilly are outstanding. Exacly what you're describing about Holloway is what I see in those two consistantly through out the entire series. And If you like Holloway now... boy-howdy... just you wait. Because he's about to take it to a whole other level.

Reaper16
06-04-2010, 09:03 AM
I'm halfway done with Season 2. I just dropped in to say that the episode "Fire + Water" is really terrible.

irishjayhawk
06-04-2010, 09:10 AM
When you take the show as a whole (and the finale pretty much seals the deal), the first 3 seasons are completely different than the last 3. It's like MIB vs Jacob. It's two sides of the same coin. And they tell totally different aspects of the central tenant.

I'm more curious of how scathing Reaper will be during Season 3 when it was trying to find itself. Up until the last 5 episodes of S3, it's atrocious.

(Also, the score is fantastic, IMO. However, I can definitely see how you feel manipulated by it. I know I was but I was fine with it. Locke's score is by far and away the best.)

I agree about Holloway. I was just sad that he took a back seat in S4-6. Well, comparatively, anyway.

I have to disagree with Red Brooklyn on Lilly. She was okay in the first two seasons but then she was nothing but waste. I was rooting for her death since the end of Season 3.

Reaper16
06-04-2010, 09:43 AM
(Also, the score is fantastic, IMO. However, I can definitely see how you feel manipulated by it. I know I was but I was fine with it. Locke's score is by far and away the best.)

It is so heavy-handed to me within the episodes. Early on in Season 2 when Rose & Bernard, Sun & Jin and Micheal & Vincent are reunited was a great emotional moment. Then the loud, swelling strings start playing, acting like an obnoxious toddler who is trying to get attention from the grown-ups. The score treats me as if I am a retard.

Baby Lee
06-05-2010, 01:53 PM
How the fuck did I miss out on this. Go Jeffie!!

http://www.imnotobsessed.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/main_pic/files/images/090612ptr_jeffgoldblum_004.jpg

FTR, at the time of the pic, he was 56, she 21.

And Earth Girls are Easy was on the Silver Screen the day she was born!!

And to think, it was just last year he died in the mountains of New Zealand.

Guru
06-05-2010, 02:42 PM
What does that have to do with LOST?

noa
06-05-2010, 02:52 PM
What does that have to do with LOST?

That's the actress who played Alex in Lost.

Guru
06-05-2010, 02:58 PM
That's the actress who played Alex in Lost.
OK, didn't recognize her.

Reaper16
06-06-2010, 08:52 PM
Season 2, more than anything, felt like a show that aired during the height of the Iraqi invasion. A War on Terror mindset permeates through the season; so much of the drama revolves around the mystery of who has the power, where are the enemies and what are the costs and implications of one's actions. This parallel w/ real life is best exemplified by the most dramatic story arc of the season - the detainment of "Henry Gale," whom I already knew to be Ben Linus, a member of The Others. Michael Emerson nails the shit out of his character in this season.

For the most part the flashback scenes in this feel too much like filler. In fact a good chunk of each episode's B and C stories feels like filler. Lost is a show with a gigantic ensemble cast. They have to provide material for the whole ensemble, even when it means devoting a terrible episode of TV to Charlie ('Fire + Water'). The only flashbacks that were not an irrelevant waste of time were: 1.) Any flashbacks of characters that didn't already have some (Eko, Ana-Lucia, Rose & Bernard), 2.) The connections between Ana-Lucia & Christian Shepard and between Eko & Claire's psychic reinforce the idea that the survivors were brought to the island for a reason, 3.) Kate's (useful new info) 4.) Sawyer's ('cuz "The Long Con" was such an entertaining episode. The rest were filler. I mean, Jesus, Hurley's flashback was ludicrous because it was boring, obviously irrelevant to the story and introduced the plot point of Libby being in the asylum w/ Hurley (only to have Libby die like one or two episodes later). WTF?

Speaking of which, the plot twist of Micheal shooting Ana-Lucia and Libby was well-done because of its total unexpectedness.

Actually, now that I think about it, the Charlie shit in "Fire + Water" does serve some purpose - it reinforces, along with Mr. Eko's story, the thematic importance of brothers. I suspect this theme will continue to play a big part leading up to the Jacob/M.I.B. brothers situation. I hope so anyway.

Also, Claire's psychic revealed himself to be a fraud? Why? Was it so that people would stop wondering why it was so imperative that Claire protect Aaron? If so then it doesn't make sense because he acted so strongly - harassing Claire multiple times - on behalf of his premonition. Either he's not a hack psychic and has real clairvoyance or he is afraid of the spiritual nature surrounding his daughter's "miracle."

Also, why do The Others want Aaron so badly? Or any children for that matter? Will this sickness that people need to be vaccinated come up as an important plot point? I've heard that it doesn't but they have certainly spent a lot of time on this plot point.

Back to the hack psychic's possible fear of the spiritual - that episode (titled "?") strikes me as very important. For one, Locke and Eko discover the Pearl station, which reveals the Swan station as nothing more than a psychological experiment. But the Pearl station seems like an experiment too, since those notebooks likely only travel up the tubes to an abandoned dumping ground. Just what the Hell is Dharma actually studying on this island, anyway? Also, the miracle girl tells Eko that she saw Eko's brother "between places." Was she in her own Flash-Sideways? This is the first mention in the series that there is a "between places" that one can be in; the seeds of spirituality seem to be more well-sown than some critics have thought. Too bad Eko doesn't stick around long as a character (I know it was because Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje wanted off the show). This episode introduced this idea that Locke and Eko (Men of Faith) were somehow linked in dream or thought or psychic state or something; them being able to dream things only the other would know and all. It is a shame that the plot point won't be able to go anywhere.

Anyone else think that Jack is a dickbag?

Pretty epic finale. It provided resolution while opening up the rabbit hole to large new expanses. I can't wait to find out just what happened when Desmond turned the key on the failsafe. Also, why and how Penelope knows to connect electromagnetic anomalies with Desmond. Curious stuff.

Ultimately the season had some big storytelling flaws. It introduced a lot of shit that feels like red herrings, which is the mark of poor storytelling. The strong moments were really strong and the season was good more often than it was not-good.

Reaper16
06-07-2010, 07:36 AM
Also, I can't wait for more characters to die. This show has too large an ensemble and, moreover, has characters that I care nothing about taking screentime from the characters I do. I'm sick of Charlie - he's given nothing to do but be unfunny and be totally unrealistically impervious to relapse. I'm sick of Claire - everytime I see her on screen I first groan and then lament that I could be watching a Sayid or Sawyer or Eko scene instead but noooooooooo, I've got to watch a poor actress play an annoying woman instead.

Buck
06-07-2010, 11:21 AM
Just quit man. It's painfully obvious you don't like it.

Reaper16
06-07-2010, 11:28 AM
Just quit man. It's painfully obvious you don't like it.
I was hoping to generate some discussion. What I wasn't hoping to do was get stupid posts like that one. I'm finding more to like than I thought I was going to and at no point so far has watching Lost felt like a chore. I've been enjoying myself.

JASONSAUTO
06-07-2010, 11:29 AM
I was hoping to generate some discussion. What I wasn't hoping to do was get stupid posts like that one. I'm finding more to like than I thought I was going to and at no point so far has watching Lost felt like a chore. I've been enjoying myself.

i didnt agree with buck at all. thats not what i got from reading your posts

patteeu
06-07-2010, 11:50 AM
i didnt agree with buck at all. thats not what i got from reading your posts

This is Reaper's way of setting it up though. Before it's over he'll be upset that he wasted his self-overvalued time on watching it and he'll look down his nose at any of the tasteless bastards who even remotely liked the overall series. In fact, he might even end up telling us that it doesn't technically qualify as a TV series because of some obscure criteria and he'll insist that it be called a longform mini-series or something like that. :Poke:

j/k Reaper

Buck
06-07-2010, 11:51 AM
I was hoping to generate some discussion. What I wasn't hoping to do was get stupid posts like that one. I'm finding more to like than I thought I was going to and at no point so far has watching Lost felt like a chore. I've been enjoying myself.

You sure nitpick a lot about the show. It's going to be hard to generate discussion about shit we all saw 4 or 5 years ago.

Buck
06-07-2010, 11:55 AM
Also I loved the show the way it was. Charlie is my favorite character. Most of the flashbacks will be referenced to later on so they aren't useless.

Reaper16
06-07-2010, 11:55 AM
You sure nitpick a lot about the show. It's going to be hard to generate discussion about shit we all saw 4 or 5 years ago.
Am I nitpicking? I'm not sure that I am. I'd like you to tell me where I am merely nitpicking but apparently the show is so unmemorable that you can't remember back 4 or 5 years ago.

Reaper16
06-07-2010, 12:01 PM
This is Reaper's way of setting it up though. Before it's over he'll be upset that he wasted his self-overvalued time on watching it and he'll look down his nose at any of the tasteless bastards who even remotely liked the overall series. In fact, he might even end up telling us that it doesn't technically qualify as a TV series because of some obscure criteria and he'll insist that it be called a longform mini-series or something like that. :Poke:

LMAO I hope not.

Also I loved the show the way it was. Charlie is my favorite character. Most of the flashbacks will be referenced to later on so they aren't useless.
Oh, I get it. I dogged on your favorite character so now you're all mad and stuff.

I hope that is the case that all the flashbacks will indeed really matter. Many of them in season 2 felt like filler to me; many didn't actually deepen the character or provide better explanation of character motivation, they just gave the character other stuff to do. A concern going forward is that flashbacks will be used simply to provide justification for the writers wanting a character to suddenly act in a certain, new way on the island.

Buck
06-07-2010, 12:02 PM
Am I nitpicking? I'm not sure that I am. I'd like you to tell me where I am merely nitpicking but apparently the show is so unmemorable that you can't remember back 4 or 5 years ago.

I'm not you average lost fan. I'm what you would call a fanboy. I remember everything that happened (well 99%) anyways.

Here's my advice. Just take the show for what it is. It's the writers story, not yours, and they do a brilliant job stimulating your mind. Everything is there for a reason and if you don't like something now, when you find something out down the line you might change your mind.

P.S. Jack is also in my top 5. I'm sure he'll get off your shit list soon.

Brock
06-07-2010, 12:03 PM
If you're not finding it entertaining, you shouldn't bother watching it.

Reaper16
06-07-2010, 12:42 PM
I'm not you average lost fan. I'm what you would call a fanboy. I remember everything that happened (well 99%) anyways.

Here's my advice. Just take the show for what it is. It's the writers story, not yours, and they do a brilliant job stimulating your mind. Everything is there for a reason and if you don't like something now, when you find something out down the line you might change your mind.

P.S. Jack is also in my top 5. I'm sure he'll get off your shit list soon.
You're clearly a fanboy because you can barely read my comments without seemingly assuming that I am attacking everything that you stand for.

I don't think that I am doing anything but "taking the show for what it is." I am also assessing its strength as a television show, episode-by-episode and season-by-season. You don't think I have an open mind about the possibility of ambiguous things being resolved later? C'mon, man, that's essentially the entire dramatic premise of the show!

As for Jack being on my shit list - he's not. I don't dislike the character at all. I was just remarking that, for a protagonist, he's pretty much a dick. I'm obviously fine with semi-unlikeable characters based on the TV shows you know that I like.

You're one of the Lost fans, along with Irishjayhawk, I wanted to interact with most as I watch the whole series. But I can't do that if you assume that everything I say about Lost is an attack on the show.

Reaper16
06-07-2010, 12:42 PM
If you're not finding it entertaining, you shouldn't bother watching it.
I agree. *begins Episode 3, Season 3*

Buck
06-07-2010, 12:47 PM
Ok, here's the thing. I really didn't think you would like the show, but I wanted you to watch it, so I thought me saying you won't like it would get you to watch it and like it. Sort of like when someone hypes up a movie and you are dissapointed, but just the opposite.

Reaper16
06-07-2010, 12:59 PM
Ok, here's the thing. I really didn't think you would like the show, but I wanted you to watch it, so I thought me saying you won't like it would get you to watch it and like it. Sort of like when someone hypes up a movie and you are dissapointed, but just the opposite.
I understand the thought process but it isn't working as intended. I mean, at first yeah, I started watching it because people I like liked it and because I didn't think that I'd like it. But keeping up the schtick is just annoying to me now because it isn't constructive to my experience.

Reaper16
06-07-2010, 01:26 PM
Wait, lol, who are Paulo and Nikki? That was an awkward introduction of new characters - they were just inserted into a scene as if they'd been there all along.

Buck
06-07-2010, 01:27 PM
Wait, lol, who are Paulo and Nikki? That was an awkward introduction of new characters - they were just inserted into a scene as if they'd been there all along.

Yeah it is weird. When I first saw that episode I was confused.

Shag
06-07-2010, 01:58 PM
Wait, lol, who are Paulo and Nikki? That was an awkward introduction of new characters - they were just inserted into a scene as if they'd been there all along.

Paulo and Nikki are kind of a running Lost gag, ever since that episode...

patteeu
06-07-2010, 03:14 PM
LMAO I hope not.

To be honest, so far I think your assessment of what you've watched is pretty reasonable.

patteeu
06-07-2010, 03:17 PM
Wait, lol, who are Paulo and Nikki? That was an awkward introduction of new characters - they were just inserted into a scene as if they'd been there all along.

:LOL: You didn't notice them wandering around on the beach in the first two seasons? Neither did I.

Mr. Plow
06-07-2010, 06:00 PM
Reaper takes a much deeper interest in things than I do. Honestly, a lot of you do. It's not a bad thing. I consider my very simplistic - I just watch the show (or whatever show) and decide if I'm enjoying my time. If I am, I continue to watch. If I'm not, I don't.

Reaper - and lots of others - look more deeply into whatever show/song/artist and brings up things that I wouldn't or don't pay attention to.....like the music, etc. While I don't always agree with his views, he's got some good ones from time to time.

But, I also agree with Buck....Charlie was one of my favorites.

irishjayhawk
06-07-2010, 08:26 PM
I have to disagree with Buck on Charlie. I liked what the ended up doing with him but during the seasons with a focus on him it was meh. He wasn't one of my favorites but he's far from my least favorite.

I'm actually surprised you're enjoying it as much as you are. What I'm more curious about is whether you would have thought many of these "nitpicks" (what have you) are red herrings when it actually aired. That is, would you have called them as being red herrings without having seen the finale/random episodes here and there.

How far are you in Season 3?

Third Eye
06-07-2010, 10:13 PM
Season 2 was probably my least favorite of the series, with season 3 probably being my favorite. Lots of great "LOST" moments in season 3.

irishjayhawk
06-07-2010, 10:22 PM
Season 2 was probably my least favorite of the series, with season 3 probably being my favorite. Lots of great "LOST" moments in season 3.

:eek:

You're in a super minority of that.


Aside from last 5 episodes (all of which came after they decided on the end point), especially Through a Looking Glass, the season sucked. It went all over the map, explored love triangles the fans didn't care about, etc etc.

Third Eye
06-07-2010, 11:13 PM
:eek:

You're in a super minority of that.


Aside from last 5 episodes (all of which came after they decided on the end point), especially Through a Looking Glass, the season sucked. It went all over the map, explored love triangles the fans didn't care about, etc etc.

While I agree that it definitely was lacking in clear direction, most of my favorite moments came from season 3. (spoilered for Reaper)

Hurley in the van, the emergence of Ben, the flashforward reveal, "not Penny's boat"...

Granted, my favorite ep., like most everybody's, is The Constant, but season 3 is what made me really fall in love with the show.

Reaper16
06-07-2010, 11:59 PM
I have to disagree with Buck on Charlie. I liked what the ended up doing with him but during the seasons with a focus on him it was meh. He wasn't one of my favorites but he's far from my least favorite.

I'm actually surprised you're enjoying it as much as you are. What I'm more curious about is whether you would have thought many of these "nitpicks" (what have you) are red herrings when it actually aired. That is, would you have called them as being red herrings without having seen the finale/random episodes here and there.

How far are you in Season 3?
I am five episodes into Season 3 - none of them besides the first one are strong episodes of television.

Good point - I have been conditioned from some spoilers about plot points that are said to have gone nowhere. So the obsession over Aaron and "the sickness" might only feel like red herrings to me because it has been spoiled for me that they are.

I'm very intrigued by Claire's psychic calling himself a fake to Eko. Does he show up again? Because there are interesting implications either way if he is or isn't a hack.

Reaper16
06-09-2010, 01:30 PM
*dives headlong into ARG/side story mythology*

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_PPCCcXarkc&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_PPCCcXarkc&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Ooooooooooooooooohhhh.

Guru
06-12-2010, 04:49 AM
It is so apparent that none of you guys really "get" this show.;)

Reaper16
06-14-2010, 06:20 PM
Season 3. Well, it actually isn't as bad as I thought it was going to be. I have been warned, for years really, that it was baaaaaaad. These were dedicated Lost fans telling me this. I feared the very worst.

Now don't get me wrong - season 3 is a shitty season of TV. More than half the season's episodes are straight-up fucking garbage. Poorly paced, B and C plots that go nowhere, main arc developments that drag the show out, and the ever-present problem of too many characters to know what to do with. Jesus, this shit was oftentimes horrendous.

It certainly helps that I can watch multiple episodes in a row, that way I get multiple satisfying moments each night instead of watching one crappy epi then having to wait a week (or more) until the next one airs. Because there are a lot of satisfying moments in season 3, even during the dry stretches of episodes without consistent themes and episodes with utterly pointless flashbacks and episodes where the motives and actions of The Others don't make a lick of sense because the show seemed to be laboring to make them all mysterious and maybe-sorta-evil-hey-you-like-mystery-don't-you-why-doesn't-anyone-outside-of-Locke-and-Sayid-ask-people-questions-that-doesn't-even-make-sense-on-a-human-level-but-that's-what-you've-got-to-deal-with-audience-hahahaha.

The most satisfying moments were in the trail end of the season, where there were four strong episodes in consecutive order (Man Behind the Curtain, Greatest Hits, and the two-part finale). Hell, I liked "Greatest Hits" and I tend to hate Charlie. The finale was pretty genius for its use of the first flashforward. I knew that the show used them at some point but I didn't know when. I had a feeling that the finale opened on the first flashforward not because of Jack's beard but because of his drinking and nervousness on the plane. Still, it was very satisfying to see that it was, in fact, a flashforward. It means that I have sufficient investment in (at least some of) the characters to care what happens to them after the get off the island and why they will act the way off the island that they do. Flashforward = great idea. But my favorite character moment of this whole season, even above the numerous Desmond moments, was Sawyer straight killing Tom. Sawyer had no problems killing Tom after spending time torn up over killing Locke's father. That is scary as Hell going forward.

All in all a strong finish to what began as an atrocious season. People tend to really like the show from here on out, even with all of the time travel and assorted craziness. I came out of season 3 not feeling that I wasted my time, so I'll probably end up liking the show from here on out too. (Well, until the finale. For reasons I could detail right now because I'm reasonably sure I'm right but I'll wait.)

General questions, some story-based wonderings, some flummoxed critiques:

When the smoke monster came after Kate and Juliet, why did it appear as flashes of bright light? It appeared as light once before - to Locke. I think Kate had her eyes closed at the time, so only Juliette saw it as light instead of smoke.

Did Ben gas all the Dharma Initiative? He's a stone-cold-badass. Anyway, I was left for two episodes all wondering why Ben wanted Locke to kill Locke's dad; Ben's explanation of "making a showing of Free Will" didn't make sense. Well, Ben killed his dad to get in with the Others/Hostiles. Maybe he thought John needed to do the same. Maybe Ben is self-centered.

So Jacob is only visible to certain people? Or can make himself visible to only certain people? Knowing that there is a brother connection or something between the smoke monster/Man In Black and Jacob, can the smoke monster make himself visible in certain forms to certain people? What I am getting at in my head is: is the smoke monster responsible for all the visions people have been seeing since the start of the show? Jack's vision of his father, visions of Walt, Kate seeing that horse, Hurley seeing his imaginary friend Dave, tiny Ben seeing his dead mother, etc?

Richard doesn't look like he has aged a day since tiny Ben found him in the forest. In present-time, Ben asks him if he's forgotten about the concept of birthdays. How old is this guy? If he's old-yet-youthful like he seems to be then why is HE not Jacob's go-to guy?

What the fuck is up with "the sickness" and all that vaccine business? That was a major plot point of season 2 and it has... not come into play. I know there are still three seasons for it to matter but it still feels weird.

The death of Charlie, and the episodes before it, redeemed the character for me. I'm still really glad he's dead. Now if only Claire would die next then I'd buy a Lost shirt.

It is a shame to me that Yunjin Kim is stuck with a character, Sun, that has gone pretty much nowhere. She acts circles pretty much everyone one the whole show and she does it with seemingly nothing to work with (while the other standout performances - Locke, Saywer, Ben - have tons of juice to work with).

More thoughts on the finale: Locke coming in with gun and knife to sabotage the "rescue" plans after having spent half the season destroying all means of escape from the island kind of mirrors the reveal of Billy Dee Williams as the bad-guy-all-along on the Nikki's show, Expose. Heh.

Who is in the casket in the flashforward? Mysterious! I'm thinking Locke, based on Kate's reaction to the news clipping.

Also, this whole business could have been avoided if the Others and the 815'ers would have simply fucking talked with each other! All throughout the season this happened. Jack never asked Cindy, the 815 stewardess, about how the Others really were. Sawyer and Sayid at least attempted to get answers out of Juliet before Jack's defense of her/convenient plot device got in the way. All the labored secrecy feels unnatural and inhuman. Artificial.

Buck
06-14-2010, 06:23 PM
Season 3 is one of my favorites actually. I have seen irishjayhawk (i think) say that it is generally considered the worst season, but he is wrong. Season 2 is widely accepted as the worst season.

Reaper16
06-14-2010, 06:28 PM
I should also mention that Elizabeth Mitchell was very good as Juliette. One of the her-centric epis, "Not in Portland," was a season highlight.

Too bad a season lowlight came shortly afterwards, the episode "Stranger in a Strange Land." I really hope that the episode becomes important down the line or something because that whole, long flashback about Jack's tattoos on Phuket was the worst part of the show, ever. I'd rather be tortured by Sayid than watch that episode again. All it seemingly did was to parallel Juliette getting marked as an outkast, too, by the Others - a plot point that didn't end up mattering because Julliette was following Ben's orders for the longest time. That episode was so bad that if I knew it existed before I started season 1 than I wouldn't have ever started season 1.

Reaper16
06-14-2010, 06:29 PM
Season 3 is one of my favorites actually. I have seen irishjayhawk (i think) say that it is generally considered the worst season, but he is wrong. Season 2 is widely accepted as the worst season.
Really? All I heard from the internet for years was that season 3 sucked and that the first two seasons were good.

Well, if it is indeed widely accepted that season 2 is the show's worst then I will strongly disagree with that wide acceptance. Season 2 had a few poor episodes and one atrocious episode. Half of season 3 was poor, at best.

Shag
06-14-2010, 06:33 PM
Season 3 is one of my favorites actually. I have seen irishjayhawk (i think) say that it is generally considered the worst season, but he is wrong. Season 2 is widely accepted as the worst season.

I think you're wrong on this one - everyone I know, including myself, thinks season 3 is the worst. The first half is generally not good...

Buck
06-14-2010, 06:42 PM
I think you're wrong on this one - everyone I know, including myself, thinks season 3 is the worst. The first half is generally not good...

I go on the Lostpedia forums every day. Its pretty much consensus there that season 2 is the worst.

IMO, I think Season 3 was lacking in the first half, but the last 6 or so episodes were some of the best ever.

I love season 2 also. I'm just calling it like I see it.

Reaper16
06-14-2010, 06:57 PM
O SHIT LANCE REDDICK

Buck
06-14-2010, 07:06 PM
O SHIT LANCE REDDICK

For me it was the opposite.

When I started watching "The Wire," I was all like HOLY SHIT THAT CREEPY BLACK DUDE FROM LOST!

Reaper16
06-14-2010, 07:10 PM
For me it was the opposite.

When I started watching "The Wire," I was all like HOLY SHIT THAT CREEPY BLACK DUDE FROM LOST!
That's not the opposite. The opposite would be if I would have been like O SHIT CEDRIC DANIELS.

Reaper16
06-14-2010, 08:55 PM
First two episodes of season 4 are really strong. This is the kind of pacing that the show needs.

Thought: Mike can really talk to dead people that haven't moved on yet? Does that mean he is communicating with people in their own "flash-sideways" purgatories? Hmmm.

Reaper16
06-14-2010, 09:04 PM
Wait... I just saw Harold Perrineau in the main cast credits! Michael's coming back? Sweet.

irishjayhawk
06-14-2010, 09:05 PM
I go on the Lostpedia forums every day. Its pretty much consensus there that season 2 is the worst.

IMO, I think Season 3 was lacking in the first half, but the last 6 or so episodes were some of the best ever.

I love season 2 also. I'm just calling it like I see it.

I'm amazed that they think Season 2 because like Reaper said, I've heard EVERYONE say Season 3 is the worst.

I'm always pretty careful. I admit the last 5 of S3 are really good with the last one being very high on the list of all time. But polar bear cages, love triangle, Jack's tattoo etc etc. Pure bullshit.

Huffmeister
06-14-2010, 10:03 PM
Wait... I just saw Harold Perrineau in the main cast credits! Michael's coming back? Sweet.

Dude, spoilers!!! WTF, man?!?



Oh yeah, the series is over. Carry on. :)

Reaper16
06-14-2010, 10:15 PM
WTF. The last four episodes of season 3 + the first 3 episodes of season 4 are like some Goddamned miracle run. This show is firing on all cylinders right now (and of course by right now I mean exactly where I am at on my viewing schedule of the show).

irishjayhawk
06-14-2010, 10:22 PM
WTF. The last four episodes of season 3 + the first 3 episodes of season 4 are like some Goddamned miracle run. This show is firing on all cylinders right now (and of course by right now I mean exactly where I am at on my viewing schedule of the show).

And IIRC, you haven't even hit The Constant.

Reaper16
06-14-2010, 10:33 PM
And IIRC, you haven't even hit The Constant.
Two epis away. I hear it is one of the series highlights.

Reaper16
06-15-2010, 12:26 AM
"Eggtown" was pretty meh, even with the juicy set-up of Kate's trial. Thus ends the miracle run.

Then comes apparent fan-favorite "The Constant," which was really fun. Great directing; the epi captured in a visceral way the feeling of being lost in time, shifting back and forth. Plus this episode is proof positive that Lost at its best can be an emotional character drama AND a perplexing sci-fi/supernatural mystery at the same time.

Thought: Charles Widmore is seen in this episode bidding on and winning a journal from a crewman on the Black Rock. This journal was previously owned by Tovard Hanso. As in the Hanso Foundation that funded the Dharma Initiative. What does Widmore want with that whole mess?

Reaper16
06-15-2010, 12:38 AM
Additional thought: is "the sickness" that hasn't been discussed since season 2 related to the timeshifting "side-effects?" George died, like Faraday's lab rat, of an aneurysm because he couldn't find a Constant. Did that happen to Rousseau's crewmates? Was the vaccine Desmond taking in the Swan hatch station preventing his timeshifting? Or is the sickness still not in play and Desmond's timeshifting only brought upon by the Swan's destruction/sky turning purple?

Buck
06-15-2010, 03:50 AM
Season 4 is one of the best seasons. I wish that all the seasons were that short. I know that is sort of ludicrous, but I like shows that have 13 episode seasons. They could do with much less (like the Kate and Claire back-stories).

Buck
06-15-2010, 03:51 AM
First two episodes of season 4 are really strong. This is the kind of pacing that the show needs.

Thought: Mike can really talk to dead people that haven't moved on yet? Does that mean he is communicating with people in their own "flash-sideways" purgatories? Hmmm.

Do you mean Miles? The asian guy?

Buck
06-15-2010, 03:53 AM
"Eggtown" was pretty meh, even with the juicy set-up of Kate's trial. Thus ends the miracle run.

Then comes apparent fan-favorite "The Constant," which was really fun. Great directing; the epi captured in a visceral way the feeling of being lost in time, shifting back and forth. Plus this episode is proof positive that Lost at its best can be an emotional character drama AND a perplexing sci-fi/supernatural mystery at the same time.

Thought: Charles Widmore is seen in this episode bidding on and winning a journal from a crewman on the Black Rock. This journal was previously owned by Tovard Hanso. As in the Hanso Foundation that funded the Dharma Initiative. What does Widmore want with that whole mess?

The Desmond episodes are far and away THE BEST episodes of the series, IMO. He is an interesting character, and has an interesting plot line.

As far as Charles Widmore, can't really say anything, I know that was a rhetorical question anyways.

Additional thought: is "the sickness" that hasn't been discussed since season 2 related to the timeshifting "side-effects?" George died, like Faraday's lab rat, of an aneurysm because he couldn't find a Constant. Did that happen to Rousseau's crewmates? Was the vaccine Desmond taking in the Swan hatch station preventing his timeshifting? Or is the sickness still not in play and Desmond's timeshifting only brought upon by the Swan's destruction/sky turning purple?

That is what I got out of it at the point you are. Won't say anything else.

Reaper16
06-15-2010, 09:16 AM
Do you mean Miles? The asian guy?
Yeah, I meant Miles. My bad.

Baby Lee
06-15-2010, 09:22 AM
Thought: Charles Widmore is seen in this episode bidding on and winning a journal from a crewman on the Black Rock. This journal was previously owned by Tovard Hanso. As in the Hanso Foundation that funded the Dharma Initiative. What does Widmore want with that whole mess?
He just does.
Oh, and everything that happened happened, and it happened because it was going to happen and did.
Hope that clears everything up.

Reaper16
06-15-2010, 09:24 AM
He just does.
Oh, and everything that happened happened, and it happened because it was going to happen and did.
Hope that clears everything up.
Determinism. Gee.

Buck
06-15-2010, 09:28 AM
Yeah, I meant Miles. My bad.

That's an interesting theory about him, but I don't think that's it.

Baby Lee
06-15-2010, 09:34 AM
Determinism. Gee.

Just warning you, hopefully saving you a ton of navel gaving. Any time you feel the urge to ask 'why?' or 'is this connected?' just reply 'because' and 'yes, but not in any way that makes any difference.'

Oh, and if you ever mount the temerity to ask 'how?' just shake your head and say 'forget it Reaper, it's Chinatown.'

Reaper16
06-15-2010, 08:03 PM
I imagine that no episode would look good following up "The Constant," but even if "The Other Woman" didn't come right afterwards it'd still be a meh episode. The episode happened to feature one of the worst exchanges of dialogue all series:

Julliette: It's pretty stressful being an Other, Jack

Jack: She seemed pretty Hostile, even for a therapist.

UGH.

Buck
06-15-2010, 08:09 PM
I have a theory on why on the Lostpedia forums, they find that the worst season.

Maybe a lot of people who thought season 2 was the best started not liking the show after season 2 so those people don't post on there.

Reaper16
06-15-2010, 09:09 PM
The doctor on the frigate looks just like Scott Pioli:

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090106054227/lostpedia/images/thumb/9/93/077_b14.jpg/250px-077_b14.jpg

http://www.chiefsgab.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/scott-pioli.jpg

Reaper16
06-15-2010, 09:39 PM
I liked "Ji Yeon." The narrative trickery of having a Sun flashforward and a Jin flashback was cool to me. When Jin showed up to the Ambassador's daughter's room it was apparent that he either didn't make it off the island, that he isn't a member of the Oceanic Six (which I guess we knew because of Aaron but then Ben was also off the island and oh whatever).

Anyway, Yunjin Kim is the best actor on this show and Daniel Dae Kim isn't far behind her.

Buck
06-15-2010, 10:23 PM
I liked "Ji Yeon." The narrative trickery of having a Sun flashforward and a Jin flashback was cool to me. When Jin showed up to the Ambassador's daughter's room it was apparent that he either didn't make it off the island, that he isn't a member of the Oceanic Six (which I guess we knew because of Aaron but then Ben was also off the island and oh whatever).

Anyway, Yunjin Kim is the best actor on this show and Daniel Dae Kim isn't far behind her.

No.

Reaper16
06-15-2010, 10:40 PM
No.
She's certainly as good as Terry O'Quinn and Michael Emerson. Only she gets jack shit to work with and Locke and Ben are roles with dozens of layers for actors to work with.

Reaper16
06-15-2010, 10:44 PM
Oh shit, Scott Pioli just washed up on shore during the opening of "The Shape of Things to Come." Which Planeteer was the culprit?!?

Reaper16
06-15-2010, 10:58 PM
Damn. If Claire had died from that rocket launcher attack on her house in the Others village then Lost would have instantly become the best show ever. Missed opportunity.

Reaper16
06-15-2010, 11:27 PM
"The Shape of Things to Come" is aptly titled. What a gamechanger! That episode was more fun to watch than "The Constant." All kinds of shit going on, new questions to ponder, an abrupt shift in show direction, and a teenager straight getting murdered on-camera. Fuck and yes. If only Claire's annoying ass would have been incinerated this episode would have been my favorite of the whole show so far.

Season 4 has been, so far, the best of the seasons that I have seen. I wonder if not focusing on Jack and Kate has anything to do with it.

Buck
06-16-2010, 12:03 AM
Glad you like it. I think you'll like Season 5 a lot too. 4 and 5 are similar.

irishjayhawk
06-16-2010, 05:30 AM
"The Shape of Things to Come" is aptly titled. What a gamechanger! That episode was more fun to watch than "The Constant." All kinds of shit going on, new questions to ponder, an abrupt shift in show direction, and a teenager straight getting murdered on-camera. **** and yes. If only Claire's annoying ass would have been incinerated this episode would have been my favorite of the whole show so far.

Season 4 has been, so far, the best of the seasons that I have seen. I wonder if not focusing on Jack and Kate has anything to do with it.

I thought the same thing. I wanted Kate to die as early as Season 3.


Glad you like it. I think you'll like Season 5 a lot too. 4 and 5 are similar.

Indeed. 4 and 5 are very similar.

Reaper16
06-16-2010, 12:56 PM
Hah, soon as I start musing about a correlation between season 4's strength and a relative lack of Jack and Kate then here comes a Jack-centric episode. It was useful for, well, pretty much nothing. The flashforward just reiterates that the Oceanic Six are off the island but unhappy and the B-story of Jack's appendectomy was stupid, mostly because there's no drama involved seeing as we know Jack doesn't die from it or anything. Boring episode, the only poor one of the season so far.

Red Brooklyn
06-16-2010, 01:54 PM
I recall reading once upon a time that Jack's appendectomy was going to be a much bigger deal before S4 was forced to be shortened by the writer's strike.

Reaper16
06-16-2010, 04:42 PM
So... Season 4 was easily, easily, the strongest season of TV that the series has yet produced. 1 poor episodes, one or two meh-to-solid episodes, and many episodes that rank among the best that a major network drama could possibly produce. The finale doesn't necessarily work as a self-contained episode (nor do its three parts work individually as episodes) but its good in the context of the whole series. Season 4 was good, even though it essentially serves as broad set-up for season 5, which looks to be insane. I don't feel like writing up a huge list of questions/concerns because I'm going to jump straight into 5 like after I click on "Post Quick Reply."

Buck
06-16-2010, 04:46 PM
For me, Jack change in Season Five, but for a lot of people he stayed the same.

Red Brooklyn
06-16-2010, 05:20 PM
FWIW, I would rank the seasons thusly:

1. Season One (10/10)
2. Season Six (9/10)
3. Season Two (8.5/10)
4. Season Four (8/10)
5. Season Five (8/10)
6. Season Three (7/10)

Reaper16
06-16-2010, 05:51 PM
FWIW, I would rank the seasons thusly:

1. Season One (10/10)
2. Season Six (9/10)
3. Season Two (8.5/10)
4. Season Four (8/10)
5. Season Five (8/10)
6. Season Three (7/10)
You don't watch much TV, do you? Well, maybe I'm being unfair. Are you ranking the seasons based on fanboy satisfaction or on being serial episodic drama on television?

Red Brooklyn
06-17-2010, 09:18 AM
I don't watch much tv. And I pride myself on that fact, actually.

I'm not sure what you mean by "fanboy satisfaction." I'm ranking them based on which I found most interesting; which gave me the most satisfactory viewing experience in terms of character, writing, directing and over-all story telling.

Reaper16
06-17-2010, 09:36 AM
I don't watch much tv. And I pride myself on that fact, actually.

I'm not sure what you mean by "fanboy satisfaction." I'm ranking them based on which I found most interesting; which gave me the most satisfactory viewing experience in terms of character, writing, directing and over-all story telling.
Respecfully, of course, I must disagree with you then. I can't see how season one can be on top when it has bad episodes of TV like "Hearts and Minds," "Special" and "Homecoming;" a brutal three-episode stretch. Of the first four seasons, season 4 was easily the strongest group of episodes while being prototypically Lost in that it strengthens and reinforces all of the major series themes - science vs faith, free will vs determinism, the consequences of choice, doing the right thing in the face of ambiguity of what the right thing is, the cost of keeping secrets - while also explaining a lot of mythology while introducing plenty of new quirks AND never sacrificing character moments to be overly-explanatory. Lost has finally found a major groove here, imo.

irishjayhawk
06-17-2010, 09:42 AM
FWIW, I would rank the seasons thusly:

1. Season One (10/10)
2. Season Six (9/10)
3. Season Two (8.5/10)
4. Season Four (8/10)
5. Season Five (8/10)
6. Season Three (7/10)

I'd have to disagree.

Season Four
Season Five (close behind)
Season Six
Season Two (I'd almost call it a tie between 1 & 2)
Season One
Season Three (well below)


If I separated out all but the last 5-6 episodes of Season Three, it'd easily move up past Season 6. But then it'd be a 5-6 episode season. :)


EDIT: Just talking with someone who said Seasons One and Two had a more consistent episode to episode level whereas 4-6 had more ups and high highs but not as consistent. I'd probably agree with that. I'm also looking at my ranking and I think the issue most will comment on is Season One close to the bottom.

Red Brooklyn
06-17-2010, 09:58 AM
Fair enough, my friend. I'm glad you're enjoying the series. Again, I don't watch a lot of TV so perhaps I'm inexperienced or naive, but I'm never seen anything as gripping, satisfying and (pound for pound) rewarding as the first season of LOST. There are low spots. But the low spots of S1 still exceed the low points of other seasons. Honestly, I think the low spots of S1 exceed some bright spots in other seasons.

I think for me it's about the overall flow, but also just the intrege of beginings. I view each season as a visual novel with each episode being a chapter. Some chapters aren't as fulfilling as others, but the first "book" is still the best overall book. For me.

Season four, is wonderful. I give it a solid B. And your points are all valid. I can see why you're so attracted to that season. I think I felt the same way following S3 as well. However, going back and rewatching several times, it's lost a bit of sheen for me. There are a lot of characters that really begin taking a backseat to the overall thrust of the plot beginning in S4. That's my only real issue. That, and the fact that the season feels truncated by the writer's strike. I feel like there was a lot more that wanted to happen in S4. Of course, the flip side is that the show benefitted from less "filler." And the final stretch of episodes in S4 (The Shape Of Things To Come to There's No Place Like Home) is arguable the best run of episodes in series history.

On a personal level, I think the big "reveal" is the show's weakest. The island moving is a little wonky to me. After three stellar finale's with heart-stopping final events, I felt like the island moving was the closest the show ever came to jumping the shark. Most of the things that people don't like about the way LOST ended are a direct result of that event, and that story telling device. I see why some think it was the beginning of the end. However, part of the brilliance of S5 is how TPTB respond. What happens next made moving the island worth it, ultimately. But it still feels a little odd. Even now.

Red Brooklyn
06-17-2010, 10:05 AM
EDIT: Just talking with someone who said Seasons One and Two had a more consistent episode to episode level whereas 4-6 had more ups and high highs but not as consistent. I'd probably agree with that. I'm also looking at my ranking and I think the issue most will comment on is Season One close to the bottom.
I would agree with that as well. Especially in regards to S5. I think S6 is pretty outstanding. I don't recall a lot of "lows". Maybe "What Kate Does," and "Recon." But other than that...

"LA X", "Sundown," "Lighthouse," "Everybody Loves Hugo," "Happily Ever After," "The Substitute," "The Candidate," "The End," "Ab Aerterno," these are all some of my favorite episodes of LOST.

And I'd say "What Kate Does" is better than "Eggtown." And Sawyer didn't even get a centric in S4 - that's another strike against it. :)

Reaper16
06-17-2010, 10:11 AM
Fair enough, my friend. I'm glad you're enjoying the series. Again, I don't watch a lot of TV so perhaps I'm inexperienced or naive, but I'm never seen anything as gripping, satisfying and (pound for pound) rewarding as the first season of LOST. There are low spots. But the low spots of S1 still exceed the low points of other seasons. Honestly, I think the low spots of S1 exceed some bright spots in other seasons.

I think for me it's about the overall flow, but also just the intrege of beginings. I view each season as a visual novel with each episode being a chapter. Some chapters aren't as fulfilling as others, but the first "book" is still the best overall book. For me.

Season four, is wonderful. I give it a solid B. And your points are all valid. I can see why you're so attracted to that season. I think I felt the same way following S3 as well. However, going back and rewatching several times, it's lost a bit of sheen for me. There are a lot of characters that really begin taking a backseat to the overall thrust of the plot beginning in S4. That's my only real issue. That, and the fact that the season feels truncated by the writer's strike. I feel like there was a lot more that wanted to happen in S4. Of course, the flip side is that the show benefitted from less "filler." And the final stretch of episodes in S4 (The Shape Of Things To Come to There's No Place Like Home) is arguable the best run of episodes in series history.

On a personal level, I think the big "reveal" is the show's weakest. The island moving is a little wonky to me. After three stellar finale's with heart-stopping final events, I felt like the island moving was the closest the show ever came to jumping the shark. Most of the things that people don't like about the way LOST ended are a direct result of that event, and that story telling device. I see why some think it was the beginning of the end. However, part of the brilliance of S5 is how TPTB respond. What happens next made moving the island worth it, ultimately. But it still feels a little odd. Even now.

A qualm: none of Lost's first four seasons feel novelistic in scope in and of themselves. There are too many unresolved issues for the seasons to feel like complete books. My hope is that the series, once all viewed, will feel novelistic like the best dramas (The Wire, Mad Men, Breaking Bad, The Sopranos) are.

Also, if you've never "seen anything as gripping, satisfying and (pound for pound) rewarding as the first season of LOST" then please, please, watch the four dramas I just mentioned in parentheses).

SithCeNtZ
06-17-2010, 10:19 AM
I'd have to disagree.

Season Four
Season Five (close behind)
Season Six
Season Two (I'd almost call it a tie between 1 & 2)
Season One
Season Three (well below)


If I separated out all but the last 5-6 episodes of Season Three, it'd easily move up past Season 6. But then it'd be a 5-6 episode season. :)


EDIT: Just talking with someone who said Seasons One and Two had a more consistent episode to episode level whereas 4-6 had more ups and high highs but not as consistent. I'd probably agree with that. I'm also looking at my ranking and I think the issue most will comment on is Season One close to the bottom.

I would say it's not really fair to compare the seasons because they had such vastly different objectives. Seasons 1 and 2(and sort of 3) were all about building characters and making you care about them, so of course there had to be more filler episodes and less action. It also laid down the framework with tons of questions and a very unique story line. Seasons 4,5,6 were more entertaining from a plot movement perspective and you got to see some of the character build up pay off, so I think most would favor those seasons. The problem was that seasons 4,5,6 completely abandoned the plot lines of 1,2,3 and thus 1,2,3 looks worse in retrospect because you know how little the plot mattered. However, if seasons 1 and 2 were not as overall as good as they were, I think you would have had many more people quit on the show before it finished.

Red Brooklyn
06-17-2010, 10:20 AM
A qualm: none of Lost's first four seasons feel novelistic in scope in and of themselves. There are too many unresolved issues for the seasons to feel like complete books. My hope is that the series, once all viewed, will feel novelistic like the best dramas (The Wire, Mad Men, Breaking Bad, The Sopranos) are.

Also, if you've never "seen anything as gripping, satisfying and (pound for pound) rewarding as the first season of LOST" then please, please, watch the four dramas I just mentioned in parentheses).
Will do. I've never actually seen any of them. Obviously, I've heard great things about all of them. I'm especially looking forward to The Wire.

Red Brooklyn
06-17-2010, 10:24 AM
A qualm: none of Lost's first four seasons feel novelistic in scope in and of themselves. There are too many unresolved issues for the seasons to feel like complete books. My hope is that the series, once all viewed, will feel novelistic like the best dramas (The Wire, Mad Men, Breaking Bad, The Sopranos) are.
I'm not sure I understand this qualm. I find a lot of book series' to have unanswered questions and unresolved issues from book to book. Especially, when looking at something like The Dark Tower which I know was a huge inspiration to Damon and Carlton while writing LOST.

Reaper16
06-17-2010, 10:25 AM
Will do. I've never actually seen any of them. Obviously, I've heard great things about all of them. I'm especially looking forward to The Wire.
Yay! And I didn't say that to slam Lost by any means. I said that because when I finish the series and don't proclaim Lost to be in the upper echelon of TV dramas (which, so far, it isn't - though certainly among the best dramas to appear on major network TV) I want you to know why.

Reaper16
06-17-2010, 10:27 AM
I'm not sure I understand this qualm. I find a lot of book series' to have unanswered questions and unresolved issues from book to book. Especially, when looking at something like The Dark Tower which I know was a huge inspiration to Damon and Carlton while writing LOST.
And, subsequently, literary critics rarely regard those kinds of books/series positively, fwiw.

Red Brooklyn
06-17-2010, 10:30 AM
Yay! And I didn't say that to slam Lost by any means. I said that because when I finish the series and don't proclaim Lost to be in the upper echelon of TV dramas (which, so far, it isn't - though certainly among the best dramas to appear on major network TV) I want you to know why.
I'm with you, man. I have a lot of friends that echo your sentiments here. Most of them are big TV watchers and cringe a little bit when I tell them I think LOST is the best TV show of all time. :)

Of course, I always try to clarify that comment by saying, "well... at least the best show that I've ever seen, and I haven't seen a lot."

My wife and I both have a short list of shows we want to check out ASAP. Of course the one's you listed and Deadwood. Maybe once I've seen those I'll have a different oppinion of LOST.

Buck
06-17-2010, 10:31 AM
I'm not gonna lie. Guys like Reaper and irishjayhawk are definitely smarter than me, and they focus on shit I wouldn't even think about. Sometimes when I read your posts I think you are being uppity or whatever, but you just are in a different frame of mind.

I take it as pure entertainment level, as opposed to looking at the bigger meanings of things.

Red Brooklyn
06-17-2010, 10:34 AM
And, subsequently, literary critics rarely regard those kinds of books/series positively, fwiw.
Fair enough.

So since you're helping me expand my TV viewing, perhaps you can help expand my literary knowledge as well. Is there a series you have in mind that you (and literary critics) would regard highly and that you think has a more successful structure than LOST? I mean, one that does what you're saying and is self contained and a part of a larger whole?

Buck
06-17-2010, 10:36 AM
And also Red Brooklyn.

You son of a gun.

This guy right here would get on here right after the episode and point out at least 10 things I missed every time.

Reaper16
06-17-2010, 10:36 AM
I'm not gonna lie. Guys like Reaper and irishjayhawk are definitely smarter than me, and they focus on shit I wouldn't even think about. Sometimes when I read your posts I think you are being uppity or whatever, but you just are in a different frame of mind.

I take it as pure entertainment level, as opposed to looking at the bigger meanings of things.

"uppity or whatever" LMAO I like that description.

Yeah, I am assessing Lost as I assess all fictionalized TV shows - as art and as art in the specific medium of television. Entertainment is a part of that but by no means the only part.

Buck
06-17-2010, 10:38 AM
"uppity or whatever" LMAO I like that description.

Yeah, I am assessing Lost as I assess all fictionalized TV shows - as art and as art in the specific medium of television. Entertainment is a part of that but by no means the only part.

Im on a 24 hour coffee bender right now. Sorry if I don't make sense...

Chiefless
06-17-2010, 10:39 AM
I'm with you, man. I have a lot of friends that echo your sentiments here. Most of them are big TV watchers and cringe a little bit when I tell them I think LOST is the best TV show of all time. :)

Of course, I always try to clarify that comment by saying, "well... at least the best show that I've ever seen, and I haven't seen a lot."

My wife and I both have a short list of shows we want to check out ASAP. Of course the one's you listed and Deadwood. Maybe once I've seen those I'll have a different oppinion of LOST.

The Wire was amazing TV. Well worth the time-investment.

Red Brooklyn
06-17-2010, 10:39 AM
And also Red Brooklyn.

You son of a gun.

This guy right here would get on here right after the episode and point out at least 10 things I missed every time.
Me?! :redface:

Aw, shucks, Buck... you're swell.

I've seriously enjoyed your contributions to the discussion. Having a more straight-forward, entertainment view of LOST is not a bad thing at all. In fact, I think it helped keep me grounded.

Buck
06-17-2010, 10:40 AM
Yeah, either way, I know its a great show, otherwise it wouldn't have had over 9 Million viewers for every episode.

Reaper16
06-17-2010, 10:41 AM
Fair enough.

So since you're helping me expand my TV viewing, perhaps you can help expand my literary knowledge as well. Is there a series you have in mind that you (and literary critics) would regard highly and that you think has a more successful structure than LOST? I mean, one that does what you're saying and is self contained and a part of a larger whole?
A series of books that fits that description? I can't think of any that I've read because I tend to stay away from the fantasy genre (or any segment of fiction that tends to, you know, even have a series construction). Nothing wrong with reading for escapism but that isn't me. I play video games for escapism; I read novels to engage in serious ways with the world and with the subject of humanity.

Red Brooklyn
06-17-2010, 10:41 AM
The Wire was amazing TV. Well worth the time-investment.
Most of my LOST friends tell me I would love The Wire. Many tell me it's the best show ever on television.

Buck
06-17-2010, 10:42 AM
A series of books that fits that description? I can't think of any that I've read because I tend to stay away from the fantasy genre (or any segment of fiction that tends to, you know, even have a series construction). Nothing wrong with reading for escapism but that isn't me. I play video games for escapism; I read novels to engage in serious ways with the world and with the subject of humanity.

Have you ever read House of Leaves?

Reaper16
06-17-2010, 10:43 AM
Yeah, either way, I know its a great show, otherwise it wouldn't have had over 9 Million viewers for every episode.
Fallacious reasoning. I guess that Desperate Housewives is a way-better show than Lost, then, huh? Oh, man, Transformers 2 was a great movie; look at the box-office returns it made!

Chiefless
06-17-2010, 10:44 AM
Most of my LOST friends tell me I would love The Wire. Many tell me it's the best show ever on television.

It's the best I've seen. BUT, I could not quite get into the Sopranos (I know, I know) nor have I seen breaking bad.

Red Brooklyn
06-17-2010, 10:45 AM
Yeah, either way, I know its a great show, otherwise it wouldn't have had over 9 Million viewers for every episode.
Exactly. Good post, sir.

A series of books that fits that description? I can't think of any that I've read because I tend to stay away from the fantasy genre (or any segment of fiction that tends to, you know, even have a series construction). Nothing wrong with reading for escapism but that isn't me. I play video games for escapism; I read novels to engage in serious ways with the world and with the subject of humanity.
Where does TV fit in (for you) on this spectrum? More toward escape? Or more toward serious discussion of humanity? I'm sure it depends on the show, but I just mean as a medium, as an art form.

Sub question: What are a couple of your favorite books that engage the world and the subject of humanity?

Reaper16
06-17-2010, 10:46 AM
Most of my LOST friends tell me I would love The Wire. Many tell me it's the best show ever on television.
It is. Uneqivocally. The Wire is in an utterly different league. Baby Lee told me once that he thought Deadwood was better and I still haven't looked at him the same way (which isn't to say that Deadwood isn't a top 5-7 drama of all time, because it is).

Have you ever read House of Leaves?
Yes. Of Danielewski's work I have read that and Only Revolutions.

Buck
06-17-2010, 10:47 AM
Fallacious reasoning. I guess that Desperate Housewives is a way-better show than Lost, then, huh? Oh, man, Transformers 2 was a great movie; look at the box-office returns it made!

I guess you are right about that. Although I have a feeling that if Lost didn't go up against American Idol for 5 out of its 6 seasons (or maybe it was all 6?) that it would have beat Desperate Housewives.

Red Brooklyn
06-17-2010, 10:48 AM
It's the best I've seen. BUT, I could not quite get into the Sopranos (I know, I know) nor have I seen breaking bad.
I've seen one full episode of The Sopranos (and the last two minutes of the series) and it was fine. Nothing really blew me away about it, but it's too small a sample to form a strong, valid opinion.

Breaking Bad, looks very interesting to me. I'm really looking forward to that one. I must say that Mad Men doesn't interest me much. Except for the fact that people who know me really well tell me I would love it, I just don't have much interest. Yet.

I'd like to knock out Deadwood, The Wire and Breaking Bad before I tackle the other shows people have recommended. Those three have the most draw for me right now.

Buck
06-17-2010, 10:50 AM
Yes. Of Danielewski's work I have read that and Only Revolutions.

Is it worth a read? I actually started it, but got bored with the narrator side of the story.

Red Brooklyn
06-17-2010, 10:50 AM
Have you ever read House of Leaves?
One of my favorites. Love this book!

Haven't tackled Only Revolutions yet. It scares me a bit.

Buck
06-17-2010, 10:51 AM
Also, the story side of the book (I know the whole thing is the story, but hopefully you know what i mean), started freaking me out.

Red Brooklyn
06-17-2010, 10:54 AM
Also, the story side of the book (I know the whole thing is the story, but hopefully you know what i mean), started freaking me out.
Oh yes. It's one of the scariest books I've ever read. Something about it just... crept under my skin. I had to put it down for a few weeks to try and shake it off. It was giving me nightmares. But I loved it all the more for that.
:D

Great read.

Reaper16
06-17-2010, 10:55 AM
Where does TV fit in (for you) on this spectrum? More toward escape? Or more toward serious discussion of humanity? I'm sure it depends on the show, but I just mean as a medium, as an art form.

Sub question: What are a couple of your favorite books that engage the world and the subject of humanity?
It absolutely depends on the show. I watch a lot of TV but only the nonfiction programs are for pure entertainment. I treat both comedies and dramas with the same seriousness that I treat film. I have a relentless energy for seriously engaging with art; it constitutes nearly all of my time, whether I am watching/viewing/reading something or creating things myself (I'm a writer and I do some acting, too).

Favorite books? That is so open-ended that it is tough to answer. There's so much I could put down here, from Shakespeare to Dickens to Beckett to Naipaul to Whitney Terrell to etc etc etc. The books that are considered to be classics - part of the canon - are always great places to start.

Reaper16
06-17-2010, 10:57 AM
Is it worth a read? I actually started it, but got bored with the narrator side of the story.
Yeah, its worth a read. I think I was committed to reading it out of respect for the text layout.

Buck
06-17-2010, 10:58 AM
I have a hard time jumping back and forth from the Narrator side to the story side.

When I first read the part about him being in the tattoo parlor and him knowing something was right behind him, that scared the shit out of me and I checked behind my back.

When the dude in the story side gets lost in the caverns in his house, that scared the shit out of me too.

Also I had to re-read a lot of sentences in this book. It took me 4 hours to read the first 100 pages, while I read the entire book Cat's Cradle in less than 4 hours the next day.

Chiefless
06-17-2010, 10:59 AM
I've seen one full episode of The Sopranos (and the last two minutes of the series) and it was fine. Nothing really blew me away about it, but it's too small a sample to form a strong, valid opinion.

Breaking Bad, looks very interesting to me. I'm really looking forward to that one. I must say that Mad Men doesn't interest me much. Except for the fact that people who know me really well tell me I would love it, I just don't have much interest. Yet.

I'd like to knock out Deadwood, The Wire and Breaking Bad before I tackle the other shows people have recommended. Those three have the most draw for me right now.

Mad Men is worth the effort as well. I really like that show kinda despite itself. I really did not think I would like it. But, I couldn't stop watching. To tie it back into Lost: If Lost was sincerely attempting to be a character driven show, it pales miserably to Mad Men.

Baby Lee
06-17-2010, 11:26 AM
It is. Uneqivocally. The Wire is in an utterly different league. Baby Lee told me once that he thought Deadwood was better and I still haven't looked at him the same way (which isn't to say that Deadwood isn't a top 5-7 drama of all time, because it is).


Yes. Of Danielewski's work I have read that and Only Revolutions.

To be fair, we're comparing a Veyron and a Koenigsegg here.

But the things that push Deadwood over the top for me, and FTR it stands as #1 all time [even though it kind of petered out at the end, and the abruptness of it's ending for John From Cincinnati makes it difficult to assess without bias].

1) Its loving detailed use of language, not the 'bad' language but the forced mal-eloquence of frontiersmen who needed to establish their intelligence and strength in short order as a matter of survival.

2) The continued exploration of what it means to civilize, started with Scorsese through Mean Streets, Taxi Driver, Goodfellas, and culminating in Gangs of New York, and echoed in Milch's earlier work in HSB and NYPD Blue.

In that sense, The Wire is the other end of the continuum, how civilization unwinds and decays. I just find the exploration of how humans, injected into a world where there are no rules and no structures for ordered conduct, set about erecting those structures to be more interesting overall than the decay side.

3) While I appreciate all the work that went into the drama in The Wire, the immediacy of the storylines in Deadwood was more gripping for me. Whether it was the physical, visceral pain of Al passing gleets, or the drunken sadness of Calamity Jane mourning her only friend, or the vainglorious anger of Seth when the honor of his love was besmirched, or the dead-eyed scheming of Tolliver, and don't get me started on Trixie's tale . . . I invested heavier in those storylines than those of The Wire. Maybe it's latent racism, maybe it's that Deadwood tried to show glimpses of people trying to summon their better angels, while The Wire focused more on how shitty everyone is at their base.

4) Finally, Deadwood was as accomplished at humor as it was at drama. No way on earth Bunk losing his tie matches up with Swegin Cocksucker!!!

In short, if I had to summarize as succinctly as possible, as The Wire is to a Scorsese masterpiece, Deadwood is to Shakespeare.

EDIT to add: How the FUCK did it take me until to today to realize that Martha Bullock is Skyler White?

Shag
06-17-2010, 11:29 AM
It is. Uneqivocally. The Wire is in an utterly different league. Baby Lee told me once that he thought Deadwood was better and I still haven't looked at him the same way (which isn't to say that Deadwood isn't a top 5-7 drama of all time, because it is).


I started watching the first episode of The Wire a few months ago, and was so distracted by the standard def, 4x3 format, that I didn't keep watching. How sad is that, lol? I'll have to suck it up one of these days...

Buck
06-17-2010, 11:32 AM
I started watching the first episode of The Wire a few months ago, and was so distracted by the standard def, 4x3 format, that I didn't keep watching. How sad is that, lol? I'll have to suck it up one of these days...

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f138/mattdayjr/1276549546335.gif

Red Brooklyn
06-17-2010, 11:32 AM
It absolutely depends on the show. I watch a lot of TV but only the nonfiction programs are for pure entertainment. I treat both comedies and dramas with the same seriousness that I treat film. I have a relentless energy for seriously engaging with art; it constitutes nearly all of my time, whether I am watching/viewing/reading something or creating things myself (I'm a writer and I do some acting, too).

Favorite books? That is so open-ended that it is tough to answer. There's so much I could put down here, from Shakespeare to Dickens to Beckett to Naipaul to Whitney Terrell to etc etc etc. The books that are considered to be classics - part of the canon - are always great places to start.
Cool. I was just trying to get a grasp on your tastes. Thanks for the response.

I tend to have the same sort of outlook and interaction with my art. I went through a phase where I treated film with much more class and weight as I did TV. I have adjusted that a little bit... on both ends.

I still think theatre is the highest/most pure art form. Especially in striving to achieve the sort of connection you're describing. Followed by literature, then visual arts (painting/drawing/sculture/etc). Film and I have a very on again/off again relationship. And LOST is the first time TV ever transcended entertainment for me.

EDIT: That's not entirely fair... my "elevated" TV experience began with Six Feet Under.
When I first read the part about him being in the tattoo parlor and him knowing something was right behind him, that scared the shit out of me and I checked behind my back.

When the dude in the story side gets lost in the caverns in his house, that scared the shit out of me too.
Absolutley. Two of my favorite parts. I totally check behind my back too! I also threw the book down and told it to go **** itself.
Mad Men is worth the effort as well. I really like that show kinda despite itself. I really did not think I would like it. But, I couldn't stop watching. To tie it back into Lost: If Lost was sincerely attempting to be a character driven show, it pales miserably to Mad Men.
Wow. Quite an endorsement. Maybe I'll have to check it out...

Baby Lee
06-17-2010, 11:33 AM
Mad Men is worth the effort as well. I really like that show kinda despite itself. I really did not think I would like it. But, I couldn't stop watching. To tie it back into Lost: If Lost was sincerely attempting to be a character driven show, it pales miserably to Mad Men.

There is no shorter way to gauge interest in Mad Men than to take a couple minutes to view 'The Carousel.' If it spurs interest, you'll love the show, if it somehow leaves you cold, you probably won't get the show overall.

Perhaps the only thing that could add to the viewing experience would be some background on how tenuous the 'pitch guy's' home life being projected actually is, but it hold up on its own.

Embedding disabled

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2bLNkCqpuY

Baby Lee
06-17-2010, 11:37 AM
Absolutley. Two of my favorite parts. I totally check behind my back too! I also threw the book down and told it to go **** itself.

Did you put it in the Freezer?

http://www.e4.com/media/C99C448D-BD23-46AE-9A31-EFF71D3E5041_extra.jpg

Red Brooklyn
06-17-2010, 11:37 AM
There is no shorter way to gauge interest in Mad Men than to take a couple minutes to view 'The Carousel.' If it spurs interest, you'll love the show, if it somehow leaves you cold, you probably won't get the show overall.

Embedding disabled

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2bLNkCqpuY
Won't get it or won't like it?

Red Brooklyn
06-17-2010, 11:38 AM
Did you put it in the Freezer?

http://www.e4.com/media/C99C448D-BD23-46AE-9A31-EFF71D3E5041_extra.jpg
How harshly will you judge me if the answer is yes? :D

Reaper16
06-17-2010, 11:39 AM
To be fair, we're comparing a Veyron and a Koenigsegg here.

But the things that push Deadwood over the top for me, and FTR it stands as #1 all time [even though it kind of petered out at the end, and the abruptness of it's ending for John From Cincinnati makes it difficult to assess without bias].

1) Its loving detailed use of language, not the 'bad' language but the forced mal-eloquence of frontiersmen who needed to establish their intelligence and strength in short order as a matter of survival.

2) The continued exploration of what it means to civilize, started with Scorsese through Mean Streets, Taxi Driver, Goodfellas, and culminating in Gangs of New York, and echoed in Milch's earlier work in HSB and NYPD Blue.

In that sense, The Wire is the other end of the continuum, how civilization unwinds and decays. I just find the exploration of how humans, injected into a world where there are no rules and no structures for ordered conduct, set about erecting those structures to be more interesting overall than the decay side.

3) While I appreciate all the work that went into the drama in The Wire, the immediacy of the storylines in Deadwood was more gripping for me. Whether it was the physical, visceral pain of Al passing gleets, or the drunken sadness of Calamity Jane mourning her only friend, or the vainglorious anger of Seth when the honor of his love was besmirched, or the dead-eyed scheming of Tolliver, and don't get me started on Trixie's tale . . . I invested heavier in those storylines than those of The Wire. Maybe it's latent racism, maybe it's that Deadwood tried to show glimpses of people trying to summon their better angels, while The Wire focused more on how shitty everyone is at their base.

4) Finally, Deadwood was as accomplished at humor as it was at drama. No way on earth Bunk losing his tie matched up with Swegin Cocksucker!!!

In short, if I had to summarize as succinctly as possible, as The Wire is to a Scorsese masterpiece, Deadwood is to Shakespeare.

EDIT to add: How the FUCK did it take me until to today to realize that Martha Bullock is Skyler White?

Those all sound like reasons why you like Deadwood more then The Wire. Wire isn't my very favorite show, either. But I can't see how it isn't "the best" when coming from an attempted standpoint of objectivity.

On the point about humor: the tie-cutting thing was more of a bit of authenticity than it was an example of excellent humor. The Wire is no slouch when it comes to handling drama and humor with equal aplomb, sometimes at the very same time. The scene with McNulty and Bunk dissecting a crime scene while only communicating with each other in variations of "fuck" comes to mind.

I think you're dead on about the two shows occupying end spots on a sort of continuum (and The Sopranos could be said to be somewhere in the middle, leaning towards The Wire-side).

I do balk at the comparison of Wire & Scorcese, Deadwood & Shakespeare, mostly because one show is compared with a director and the other an author. If Deadwood is Shakespeare (which I am unsure of but I'll go with it) then The Wire is Brecht.

Red Brooklyn
06-17-2010, 11:43 AM
I do balk at the comparison of Wire & Scorcese, Deadwood & Shakespeare, mostly because one show is compared with a director and the other an author. If Deadwood is Shakespeare (which I am unsure of but I'll go with it) then The Wire is Brecht.
Yikes. And See. I hate Brecht. So.....

I do, however, adore The Bard. Maybe I should start my modern TV education with Deadwood....

Baby Lee
06-17-2010, 11:45 AM
Those all sound like reasons why you like Deadwood more then The Wire.

Not sure how else I would respond to a critique of my previous stance that I liked Deadwood better than The Wire.

I do balk at the comparison of Wire & Scorcese, Deadwood & Shakespeare, mostly because one show is compared with a director and the other an author. If Deadwood is Shakespeare (which I am unsure of but I'll go with it) then The Wire is Brecht.
I was going for relatability using two confirmed and well known masters [one a master of our time and another a master for all time], over ontological purity.

Reaper16
06-17-2010, 11:46 AM
Yikes. And See. I hate Brecht. So.....

I do, however, adore The Bard. Maybe I should start my modern TV education with Deadwood....

There is a certain agit-prop element to The Wire. That's what I was getting at with the Brecht comparison. Don't take either comparison as firm or even very useful at all, really.

Doesn't matter what you start with, only that you start.

Reaper16
06-17-2010, 11:47 AM
Not sure how else I would respond to a critique of my previous stance that I liked Deadwood better than The Wire.

I distinguish between "like better" and "is better." Those two can be very different for me.

Red Brooklyn
06-17-2010, 11:48 AM
There is a certain agit-prop element to The Wire. That's what I was getting at with the Brecht comparison. Don't take either comparison as firm or even very useful at all, really.

Doesn't matter what you start with, only that you start.
:thumb:

Buck
06-17-2010, 11:51 AM
I would start with Breaking Bad to be honest with you, you can get through it quicker than The Wire.

Also I only got about 6 to 8 episodes into Deadwood before I just stopped watching it.

I believe the last episode I saw was the one after "Reconnoitering the Rims."

Baby Lee
06-17-2010, 11:57 AM
How harshly will you judge me if the answer is yes? :D

The two times I recall a similar reaction;

When Winston and Julia are discovered.

The degloving in Gerald's Game.

Vastly different realms, same result.

Shag
06-17-2010, 12:05 PM
Also I only got about 6 to 8 episodes into Deadwood before I just stopped watching it.

I believe the last episode I saw was the one after "Reconnoitering the Rims."

And so, I return the favor...

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f138/mattdayjr/1276549546335.gif

ROFL

Red Brooklyn
06-17-2010, 12:06 PM
I would start with Breaking Bad to be honest with you, you can get through it quicker than The Wire.

Also I only got about 6 to 8 episodes into Deadwood before I just stopped watching it.

I believe the last episode I saw was the one after "Reconnoitering the Rims."
Without ruining anything (obviously) what did you dislike about Deadwood? And why is Breaking Bad more interesting to you?

Buck
06-17-2010, 12:12 PM
Without ruining anything (obviously) what did you dislike about Deadwood? And why is Breaking Bad more interesting to you?

I liked it. Not The Wire, Lost, or Breaking Bad liked it, but around that time I was watching so much that I just quit watching it. I haven't made the effort to pick it back up, and I know that the action is going to pick up soon where I am at.

Maybe I should watch it now that I am going through a phase of watching Westerns and playing Red Dead Redemption.

Red Brooklyn
06-17-2010, 12:16 PM
I liked it. Not The Wire, Lost, or Breaking Bad liked it, but around that time I was watching so much that I just quit watching it. I haven't made the effort to pick it back up, and I know that the action is going to pick up soon where I am at.

Maybe I should watch it now that I am going through a phase of watching Westerns and playing Red Dead Redemption.
Cool.

Thanks, man.

Are you a big fan of Westerns in general, or just going through a phase?

Buck
06-17-2010, 12:18 PM
Cool.

Thanks, man.

Are you a big fan of Westerns in general, or just going through a phase?

Well, I used to hate them. The first time I finally decided to actually watch one was about 2 years ago. Since then I've enjoyed most that I've watched. That one movie was Tombstone by the way.

Red Brooklyn
06-17-2010, 12:25 PM
Well, I used to hate them. The first time I finally decided to actually watch one was about 2 years ago. Since then I've enjoyed most that I've watched. That one movie was Tombstone by the way.
Tombstone is very cool. As a rule, I tend not to like Westerns much. There are exceptions: Tombstone, High Noon, Butch Cassidy. But I think that's the main reason I've avoided Deadwood for so long.

However, LOST got me reading Stephen King's Dark Tower series and now I find I'm very drawn to the Western genre. That along with mulitple recommendations has me very interested to give Deadwood a spin. Especially since all my Deadwood friends are also LOST fans.

Buck
06-17-2010, 12:27 PM
Thats cool. I really need to start reading more. I usually defer to TV and Video Games, but I love reading. I can never get myself to do it though.

Huffmeister
06-17-2010, 12:31 PM
I would start with Breaking Bad to be honest with you, you can get through it quicker than The Wire.

Also I only got about 6 to 8 episodes into Deadwood before I just stopped watching it.

I believe the last episode I saw was the one after "Reconnoitering the Rims."
Reconnoitering the Rim was the third episode. I'm with BL on this one. Deadwood is all kinds of awesome. Awesome characters, awesome acting, awesome 'gritty-ness' , awesome sets. About the only thing that isn't awesome is the writing. The writing is absolutely phenomenal. Not just the plot, but rather the dialog is pure, profanity laden poetry.

McShane as Al is by far my favorite character of any TV show. But there are other great characters, and even the minor characters are memorable. Dave (the racist), Leon, Richardson ("You're pretty"), Tom Nuttall, Silas, Ellsworth. Hell, I even like the "Soap with a prize inside!" guy.

Red Brooklyn
06-17-2010, 12:32 PM
I never used to read. Hated it, in fact. Something clicked right around 2003/2004 and my appetite for literature increased exponentially. Can't get enough anymore. Fiction, Non Fiction, Essays, Plays, I'll read anything.

It's a little sad how much LOST directed me in my reading tastes though. Many of the books I've read over the last few years were because of LOST.

Buck
06-17-2010, 12:35 PM
Reconnoitering the Rim was the third episode. I'm with BL on this one. Deadwood is all kinds of awesome. Awesome characters, awesome acting, awesome 'gritty-ness' , awesome sets. About the only thing that isn't awesome is the writing. The writing is absolutely phenomenal. Not just the plot, but rather the dialog is pure, profanity laden poetry.

McShane as Al is by far my favorite character of any TV show. But there are other great characters, and even the minor characters are memorable. Dave (the racist), Leon, Richardson ("You're pretty"), Tom Nuttall, Silas, Ellsworth. Hell, I even like the "Soap with a prize inside!" guy.

Ahh then I am mistaken. I am at least 6 episodes in.

I never used to read. Hated it, in fact. Something clicked right around 2003/2004 and my appetite for literature increased exponentially. Can't get enough anymore. Fiction, Non Fiction, Essays, Plays, I'll read anything.

It's a little sad how much LOST directed me in my reading tastes though. Many of the books I've read over the last few years were because of LOST.

Thats pretty funny. I have probably read 5 novels over the last 5 months, each one taking me less than 2 days, yet I can't get myself to read more. Worse is I have about 15 books that I haven't read that I really want to read.

Huffmeister
06-17-2010, 12:36 PM
Tombstone is very cool. As a rule, I tend not to like Westerns much. There are exceptions: Tombstone, High Noon, Butch Cassidy. But I think that's the main reason I've avoided Deadwood for so long.

However, LOST got me reading Stephen King's Dark Tower series and now I find I'm very drawn to the Western genre. That along with mulitple recommendations has me very interested to give Deadwood a spin. Especially since all my Deadwood friends are also LOST fans.
DO IT!!!

Seriously, dude, it seems like you and I have some very similar tastes in entertainment. In just the last week I've recommended Porcupine Tree, A Game Of Thrones, and now Deadwood. So that's music, literature, and TV. I feel like I should make a movie recommendation. Have you seen Memento? :D

Seriously though, I'm always interested in expanding my entertainment horizons. Hopefully you'll get the same enjoyment from these recommendations that I have.

Baby Lee
06-17-2010, 12:41 PM
Richardson ("You're pretty")

Thank you very much. And probably that’s all either of us needs to say on that subject ever again.

Red Brooklyn
06-17-2010, 12:44 PM
DO IT!!!

Seriously, dude, it seems like you and I have some very similar tastes in entertainment. In just the last week I've recommended Porcupine Tree, A Game Of Thrones, and now Deadwood. So that's music, literature, and TV. I feel like I should make a movie recommendation. Have you seen Memento? :D

Seriously though, I'm always interested in expanding my entertainment horizons. Hopefully you'll get the same enjoyment from these recommendations that I have.
:D

I have seen Memento. Classic.

This thread today has gotten me pumped up. I'm really stoked to give some of these shows a go. Thanks for the recommendations.

Shag
06-17-2010, 12:48 PM
:D

I have seen Memento. Classic.

This thread today has gotten me pumped up. I'm really stoked to give some of these shows a go. Thanks for the recommendations.

Have you seen Firefly? :D

Red Brooklyn
06-17-2010, 12:51 PM
Have you seen Firefly? :D
No, I actually never have. But I hear good things about that one as well.

Buck
06-17-2010, 12:54 PM
No, I actually never have. But I hear good things about that one as well.

The fuck?

What about Battlestar Galactica (the new one)?

Shag
06-17-2010, 12:54 PM
No, I actually never have. But I hear good things about that one as well.

Add it to the list! It's short, too - I think there are 14 episodes total, which is an incredible shame.

I'm sure I'll get blasted for it, but it's my personal favorite tv show of all time...

Huffmeister
06-17-2010, 12:54 PM
Have you seen Firefly? :D

Good call. Another must watch series with some excellent writing and dialog.