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

Red Brooklyn
06-17-2010, 01:01 PM
The ****?

What about Battlestar Galactica (the new one)?
I'm afraid to answer this....

Buck
06-17-2010, 01:09 PM
I'm afraid to answer this....

Now you must.

Red Brooklyn
06-17-2010, 01:12 PM
Alright! Alright... no I haven't seen BSG. Not the original or the new one. Okay?! I'm sorry! :)

But, yeah, seriously, it's already on my list. Though I hear the finale was fairly upsetting. Not sure what that really means, obviously, but it's prevented me from getting started.

Buck
06-17-2010, 01:13 PM
Alright! Alright... no I haven't seen BSG. Not the original or the new one. Okay?! I'm sorry! :)

But, yeah, seriously, it's already on my list. Though I hear the finale was fairly upsetting. Not sure what that really means, obviously, but it's prevented me from getting started.

You've heard the same about Lost right?

Red Brooklyn
06-17-2010, 01:16 PM
You've heard the same about Lost right?
Touche.

How did you feel about the BSG ending? Did it work for you? Were you satisfied?

Buck
06-17-2010, 01:18 PM
Touche.

How did you feel about the BSG ending? Did it work for you? Were you satisfied?

Yes. I felt nearly identical after the ending of both shows.

Red Brooklyn
06-17-2010, 01:22 PM
Yes. I felt nearly identical after the ending of both shows.
Really?!

That's great to hear. I'm glad you enjoyed the BSG ending. It's nice to know there are people that found it satisfying.

It's weird because I'm a pretty big sci-fi/fantasy geek most of the time. I love Star Trek TNG and Quantum Leap an The X-Files (despite their various flaws) but I never found BSG. I think it started at a point in my life when I really was too busy for TV and I just never caught up.

So far my list of must-see TV to netflix looks a little something like:

1. Deadwood
2. The Wire
3. BSG
4. Fringe
5. Mad Men
6. Sopranos
7. Firefly
8. Breaking Bad
9. Rome
10. Alias

Good? Anything else I should add to the list before I run it by the Mrs and see which we should start with?

Huffmeister
06-17-2010, 01:31 PM
Wow, that's a lot of catching up to do! I would also recommend The Shield, but that can probably wait.

Red Brooklyn
06-17-2010, 01:39 PM
Any other HBO/Showtime shows worth checking out? Rome? Carnivale? Californication? The Tudors?

Brock
06-17-2010, 02:06 PM
Rome yes, Carnivale meh, Californication yes, The Tudors meh.

Jenson71
06-17-2010, 02:11 PM
Any other HBO/Showtime shows worth checking out? Rome? Carnivale? Californication? The Tudors?

I will second Brock's yes on Rome. It is very authentic in its production. And there is some great historical events and people to witness, as well. Some of the historical accuracy is stretched (for instance, Octavian's mother being such a bitch has no real historical accuracy, and Octavian sleeping with his sister was invented as well), but all in all, it is very authentic. A lot of drama in that show. A show about history, brotherhood, war, politics. I really loved it. And they are coming out with a movie, I've heard, so that is very exciting.

Huffmeister
06-17-2010, 02:52 PM
I really liked Rome, too. One of those TV shows that makes me want to actually go out and read some historical non-fiction regarding that time to learn more.

And for those of you who liked Rome, be sure to check out I, Claudius. It was a BBC miniseries from the late 70s. The sets are pretty cheesy, but holy hell there's some good acting and good story in there.

Red Brooklyn
06-17-2010, 03:01 PM
Thanks for the feedback, all.

Red Brooklyn
06-17-2010, 04:17 PM
A'ite. One more.... on another board someone posted a link to an EW article talking about a possible Alias reboot. I've never see an episode of Alias, but a reboot at this stage seems immature and a little silly. Regardless...

Would anyone recommend this other JJ Abrams brain child? How do we feel about Alias?

Baby Lee
06-17-2010, 05:38 PM
A'ite. One more.... on another board someone posted a link to an EW article talking about a possible Alias reboot. I've never see an episode of Alias, but a reboot at this stage seems immature and a little silly. Regardless...

Would anyone recommend this other JJ Abrams brain child? How do we feel about Alias?

Loved, loved loved it when it started. Think Little Nickita meets Burn Notice with Jennifer Garner at her hottest. Quickly started eating it's own tail with plot twists upon plot twists that made little sense. Think a less boring Heroes. Dropped it soon after Rimbaldi device came into play. Seems like I heard that they resolved it on stronger footing than the bloaty middle. Give it a breezy go if you like Spy Intrigue and Action A LOT. But with Burn Notice, and the new Piper Peribu spy show upcoming, there's better fare out there.

Red Brooklyn
06-17-2010, 05:47 PM
You're a rockstar, Baby Lee. Thankee, sai.

irishjayhawk
06-17-2010, 09:00 PM
Well, gonna catch up on Mad Men so I can join the party on July 25th.

Up next in the queue is Sons of Anarchy and Community because they're airing. Otherwise it'd be Sopranos or BSG.

irishjayhawk
06-17-2010, 09:01 PM
Also, Buck, I can distinguish between "fun" shows and "art" shows, per se. LOST was more of the latter. Chuck and 24 are more of the former, though 24 has a lot of commentary angles that could be construed as "art".

Buck
06-17-2010, 10:58 PM
Also, Buck, I can distinguish between "fun" shows and "art" shows, per se. LOST was more of the latter. Chuck and 24 are more of the former, though 24 has a lot of commentary angles that could be construed as "art".

I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with that, but I was personally more interested in the story than the art of the show.

Third Eye
06-17-2010, 11:51 PM
Also, Buck, I can distinguish between "fun" shows and "art" shows, per se. LOST was more of the latter. Chuck and 24 are more of the former, though 24 has a lot of commentary angles that could be construed as "art".

Really? I've always put LOST in the former category. I guess maybe I just feel that there is really very little television that actually aspires to that aesthetic. I can see the craft in a show like Breaking Bad, but I've always thought of LOST strictly as fluff. It was loveable fluff with some great storytelling at times and some characters that I enjoyed, but fluff nonetheless.

irishjayhawk
06-18-2010, 07:35 AM
Really? I've always put LOST in the former category. I guess maybe I just feel that there is really very little television that actually aspires to that aesthetic. I can see the craft in a show like Breaking Bad, but I've always thought of LOST strictly as fluff. It was loveable fluff with some great storytelling at times and some characters that I enjoyed, but fluff nonetheless.

It can't be fluff when dealing with the content it was dealing with (or attempting to). I just don't think "fluff" could balance time travel, Castaway, good v evil, physics, science v faith, etc etc. I guess you could argue LOST didn't balance it well which made it fluff, but I wouldn't.

Red Brooklyn
06-18-2010, 08:39 AM
Yeah, LOST was way to cerebral and philosophical to be classified as (what I would call) "fluff."

Reaper16
06-18-2010, 10:13 PM
So, I'm halfway through episode six of Season 5 ("316"). I've been mostly digging season 5 for the most part; a lot of B+ episodes, imo, if one were using the AV Club scale. I have qualms with the particulars of the time travel (like why is Charlotte dying from the time travel; she recognized Faraday from her childhood, so wouldn't he be her Constant?) and I have issues with the infamous "sickness" that overtook Rousseau's crew (and the same sickness that Dharma Initiative employees were constantly vaccinated against) being retcon'd into Smoke Monster possession (though it confirms, I think anyway, that Smoke Monster takes possession of bodies and is able to present itself in different forms to different people).

BUT, I paused to write this in the middle of "316" because I just laughed out loud at two lines in a row. This marks the first and second times I have laughed out loud at this show.

lawlz moment #1: Frank Lapidus deadpanning "We're not going to Guam, are we?"

lawlz moment #2: Jack, to Ben - "How can you read?" Ben, to Jack: "My mother taught me."

LMAO

DaneMcCloud
06-18-2010, 10:25 PM
So, I'm halfway through episode six of Season 5 ("316"). I've been mostly digging season 5 for the most part; a lot of B+ episodes, imo, if one were using the AV Club scale. I have qualms with the particulars of the time travel (like why is Charlotte dying from the time travel; she recognized Faraday from her childhood, so wouldn't he be her Constant?) and I have issues with the infamous "sickness" that overtook Rousseau's crew (and the same sickness that Dharma Initiative employees were constantly vaccinated against) being retcon'd into Smoke Monster possession (though it confirms, I think anyway, that Smoke Monster takes possession of bodies and is able to present itself in different forms to different people).

BUT, I paused to write this in the middle of "316" because I just laughed out loud at two lines in a row. This marks the first and second times I have laughed out loud at this show.

lawlz moment #1: Frank Lapidus deadpanning "We're not going to Guam, are we?"

lawlz moment #2: Jack, to Ben - "How can you read?" Ben, to Jack: "My mother taught me."

LMAO

I'd be shocked that if after you've completed the entire series, you don't come to the same conclusion that I have about the show.

Enjoy!

PS - If you haven't read my post about the series finale, don't. It'll ruin your experience.

Reaper16
06-18-2010, 10:33 PM
I'd be shocked that if after you've completed the entire series, you don't come to the same conclusion that I have about the show.

Enjoy!

PS - If you haven't read my post about the series finale, don't. It'll ruin your experience.
I have read your thoughts about the finale. I know how the series ends, and so far anyway, I'm having trouble agreeing with your view that the show happened in a lucid instant, Jack's mind constructing a redemption narrative to allow him to pass peacefully into death in the immediate aftermath of the crash of Oceanic 815. But I suppose season 6 will have the most to do with whether or not I see things your way.

Speaking of knowing how the finale is: I raged when, during the season 5 episode "This Place Is Death," Ben told Jack that "of course" Doubting Thomas was eventually convinced of Jesus' resurrection. I've known all along that the show is setting up a big faith-based resolution and I'm already balking at the signs. But there is a dichotomy concerning faith that I think lies at the very heart of the show's artistic pursuits and I will explain this in detail once I've seen the entire series.

DaneMcCloud
06-18-2010, 10:52 PM
I have read your thoughts about the finale. I know how the series ends, and so far anyway, I'm having trouble agreeing with your view that the show happened in a lucid instant, Jack's mind constructing a redemption narrative to allow him to pass peacefully into death in the immediate aftermath of the crash of Oceanic 815. But I suppose season 6 will have the most to do with whether or not I see things your way.

Speaking of knowing how the finale is: I raged when, during the season 5 episode "This Place Is Death," Ben told Jack that "of course" Doubting Thomas was eventually convinced of Jesus' resurrection. I've known all along that the show is setting up a big faith-based resolution and I'm already balking at the signs. But there is a dichotomy concerning faith that I think lies at the very heart of the show's artistic pursuits and I will explain this in detail once I've seen the entire series.

You probably will have difficulty until you watch and digest the every episode up and until the end.

After that, we'll discuss. But I don't want to influence your viewing one way or another by discussing further at this point.

Oh and FTR, I haven't spoken to one person here in LA, in and out of the Ent business, that hasn't seen it the same as I have. The only people in which I've encountered any resistance to my "theory" are here in this forum.

For whatever that's worth (probably nothing :D).

Guru
06-18-2010, 11:09 PM
You probably will have difficulty until you watch and digest the every episode up and until the end.

After that, we'll discuss. But I don't want to influence your viewing one way or another by discussing further at this point.

Oh and FTR, I haven't spoken to one person here in LA, in and out of the Ent business, that hasn't seen it the same as I have. The only people in which I've encountered any resistance to my "theory" are here in this forum.

For whatever that's worth (probably nothing :D).Nope. I still disagree with ya.:D

irishjayhawk
06-18-2010, 11:12 PM
You probably will have difficulty until you watch and digest the every episode up and until the end.

After that, we'll discuss. But I don't want to influence your viewing one way or another by discussing further at this point.

Oh and FTR, I haven't spoken to one person here in LA, in and out of the Ent business, that hasn't seen it the same as I have. The only people in which I've encountered any resistance to my "theory" are here in this forum.

For whatever that's worth (probably nothing :D).

Still don't buy it's all in Jack's head.

DaneMcCloud
06-18-2010, 11:23 PM
Still don't buy it's all in Jack's head.

I didn't say that it was "all in Jack's head". I said that it was his life flashing before his eyes as he died (Eyes open/Eyes closed) and in that instant and in order to move on, he knew that he had to do something to go from a man of science to a man of faith to save his soul.

But of course, you're free to believe in magical islands where the sick are healed, the Egyptians had a massive presence, as a did a top a secret scientific corporation that studied the strange EMT on the island, the same EMT that turned a boy into a smoke monster, against the will of his mother.

Oh, also, Jacob (Jack) was the ruler of this island that could come and go as he pleased, although his twin brother could never leave, all the while, Jacob (Jack) "touched" people using mystical numbers (seat assignments) that could take over the island and continue to trap his brother.

That and polar bears, dead people alive and walking around, people trapped forever and but no escape for anyone other than the "Oceanic Six" (again, seat numbers).

Ah, and pregnancy in place where pregnancy couldn't exist and in the end, didn't have a damn thing to do with story because the pregnancy didn't actually exist.

Did I miss anything?

irishjayhawk
06-18-2010, 11:39 PM
I didn't say that it was "all in Jack's head". I said that it was his life flashing before his eyes as he died (Eyes open/Eyes closed) and in that instant and in order to move on, he knew that he had to do something to go from a man of science to a man of faith to save his soul.

But of course, you're free to believe in magical islands where the sick are healed, the Egyptians had a massive presence, as a did a top a secret scientific corporation that studied the strange EMT on the island, the same EMT that turned a boy into a smoke monster, against the will of his mother.

Oh, also, Jacob (Jack) was the ruler of this island that could come and go as he pleased, although his twin brother could never leave, all the while, Jacob (Jack) "touched" people using mystical numbers (seat assignments) that could take over the island and continue to trap his brother.

That and polar bears, dead people alive and walking around, people trapped forever and but no escape for anyone other than the "Oceanic Six" (again, seat numbers).

Ah, and pregnancy in place where pregnancy couldn't exist and in the end, didn't have a damn thing to do with story because the pregnancy didn't actually exist.

Did I miss anything?

So they opened up too many loose ends and couldn't tie them together so they just said screw it, let's do a "dream" ending?

Guru
06-19-2010, 12:00 AM
This thread reminds me of this quote.

Once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

funny thing is, it applies to all of our theories in its own way.

DaneMcCloud
06-19-2010, 12:03 AM
So they opened up too many loose ends and couldn't tie them together so they just said screw it, let's do a "dream" ending?

No.

LMAO

That was the plan all along.

I'm really shocked that you, of all people, can't see this.

It's Screenwriting 101. Decide your beginning and ending.

Everything in between is fair game.

Guru
06-19-2010, 12:08 AM
No.

LMAO

That was the plan all along.

I'm really shocked that you, of all people, can't see this.

It's Screenwriting 101. Decide your beginning and ending.

Everything in between is fair game.See, if Jack had died (closed eyes) in his white shirt and tie, I would easily buy this theory. The fact that he was still in the grey t-shirt and bleeding makes it not work for me though.

Third Eye
06-19-2010, 12:09 AM
Yeah, LOST was way to cerebral and philosophical to be classified as (what I would call) "fluff."


It can't be fluff when dealing with the content it was dealing with (or attempting to). I just don't think "fluff" could balance time travel, Castaway, good v evil, physics, science v faith, etc etc. I guess you could argue LOST didn't balance it well which made it fluff, but I wouldn't.

I guess I don't see the show being that cerebral and certainly not philosophical. I'll give you the good v evil, but that isn't very deep. They played with the science v faith thing, but in the end I don't really think they broke any new ground there either. They loved to hint at big ideas with book references and character names but to me those themes existed only on the periphery. As an example, sure there are characters named Locke, Rousseau, and Hume (all philosophers who wrote about the "state of nature"), but I don't feel that they ever really developed that other than superficially.

Again, just for clarity, I LOVED the show, just didn't think it was deep.

DaneMcCloud
06-19-2010, 12:10 AM
See, if Jack had died (closed eyes) in his white shirt and tie, I would easily buy this theory. The fact that he was still in the grey t-shirt and bleeding makes it not work for me though.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, do you wear the same exact clothes when you dream?

And is there a dog licking you when you fall asleep and wake up?

:D

Guru
06-19-2010, 12:14 AM
As I mentioned earlier in this thread, do you wear the same exact clothes when you dream?

And is there a dog licking you when you fall asleep and wake up?

:DThat is my point though. If they truly wanted the average watcher to see it the way you did they should have kept everything the way they shot it until after the dog lays down, then cut back to the overhead view and the dog is gone, he is in his white shirt and tie, then his eyes close. There would be no mistaking it then. It ends where it begins.

DaneMcCloud
06-19-2010, 12:18 AM
That is my point though. If they truly wanted the average watcher to see it the way you did they should have kept everything the way they shot it until after the dog lays down, then cut back to the overhead view and the dog is gone, he is in his white shirt and tie, then his eyes close. There would be no mistaking it then. It ends where it begins.

Well, Cuse & Lindelof said repeatedly that they wanted a somewhat "ambiguous" ending and personally, I think it was achieved.

Guru
06-19-2010, 12:23 AM
Well, Cuse & Lindelof said repeatedly that they wanted a somewhat "ambiguous" ending and personally, I think it was achieved.They achieved ambiguous alright. Nothing like confusing the crap out of everyone as well as creating this little disagreements.:(:)

DaneMcCloud
06-19-2010, 12:26 AM
They achieved ambiguous alright. Nothing like confusing the crap out of everyone as well as creating this little disagreements.:(:)

I'm not confused.

LMAO

:D

Guru
06-19-2010, 12:28 AM
How about this proposed ending.

In homage to Bob Newhart and the Newhart Show (1982-1990), Lost ends when we find out everyone other than John Locke is a Virtual Reality Character in a Virtual Reality World from the great underated prematurely cancelled TV Show “Harsh Realm” and John Locke is in fact, General Omar Santiago, who rules this virtual reality world.

LMAO

Guru
06-19-2010, 12:28 AM
I'm not confused.

LMAO

:DNeither am I.:D

DaneMcCloud
06-19-2010, 12:29 AM
Neither am I.:D

ROFL

Guru
06-19-2010, 12:30 AM
ROFLCan't get more ambiguous than that. We are both right.:clap:

Reaper16
06-19-2010, 06:34 AM
They loved to hint at big ideas with book references and character names but to me those themes existed only on the periphery.
That is definitely true.

Brainiac
06-19-2010, 08:26 AM
I'm not confused either. All along some people thought the writers were just making up shit as they went along, and other people were convinced that the writers had a master plan in which they would explain the mysteries of the island.

Well, we sure found out it which theory was correct. The writers WERE making up shit as they went along. They wound up providing half-assed explanations for a few of the mysteries and no explanations at all for a majority of them. They nodded and winked and smugly said "Well, Lost is really all about redemption. It's all about the characters."

They did a fantastic job of creating characters that we all cared about. They get an A+ for that. But in the end they didn't bother to try to tie the loose ends together. They didn't explain anything about so many mysteries that I'm not even going to bother to list them here, other than to ask how the hell Louise Faraday knew so much about the island, who built the wheel that Ben turned to move the island, and why was Jacob so all-knowing and all-powerful when he was actually just a normal man who drank some water from a river?

The whole flash sideways reality was fascinating until the last 10 minutes of the finale when Jack's dead father revealed that it was nothing more than some kind of unique version of Limbo created by the people themselves.

It was a total copout. Let me say that again: it was a total copout. If I had known that the writers would end the series simply by saying "They all died happily ever after", I would have stopped watching years ago.

Lost was one of the best shows ever. It had one of the WORST finales ever, and it made me and thousands of other fans feel as if we had been cheated.

Baby Lee
06-19-2010, 08:44 AM
I'm not confused either. All along some people thought the writers were just making up shit as they went along, and other people were convinced that the writers had a master plan in which they would explain the mysteries of the island.

Well, we sure found out it which theory was correct. The writers WERE making up shit as they went along. They wound up providing half-assed explanations for a few of the mysteries and no explanations at all for a majority of them. They nodded and winked and smugly said "Well, Lost is really all about redemption. It's all about the characters."

They did a fantastic job of creating characters that we all cared about. They get an A+ for that. But in the end they didn't bother to try to tie the loose ends together. They didn't explain anything about so many mysteries that I'm not even going to bother to list them here, other than to ask how the hell Louise Faraday knew so much about the island, who built the wheel that Ben turned to move the island, and why was Jacob so all-knowing and all-powerful when he was actually just a normal man who drank some water from a river?

The whole flash sideways reality was fascinating until the last 10 minutes of the finale when Jack's dead father revealed that it was nothing more than some kind of unique version of Limbo created by the people themselves.

It was a total copout. Let me say that again: it was a total copout. If I had known that the writers would end the series simply by saying "They all died happily ever after", I would have stopped watching years ago.

Lost was one of the best shows ever. It had one of the WORST finales ever, and it made me and thousands of other fans feel as if we had been cheated.

They explained it fine, it was all real and it all really happened. Who cares about niggling details like how or why?

Reaper16
06-19-2010, 08:47 AM
I'm not confused either. All along some people thought the writers were just making up shit as they went along, and other people were convinced that the writers had a master plan in which they would explain the mysteries of the island.

Well, we sure found out it which theory was correct. The writers WERE making up shit as they went along. They wound up providing half-assed explanations for a few of the mysteries and no explanations at all for a majority of them. They nodded and winked and smugly said "Well, Lost is really all about redemption. It's all about the characters."

They did a fantastic job of creating characters that we all cared about. They get an A+ for that. But in the end they didn't bother to try to tie the loose ends together. They didn't explain anything about so many mysteries that I'm not even going to bother to list them here, other than to ask how the hell Louise Faraday knew so much about the island, who built the wheel that Ben turned to move the island, and why was Jacob so all-knowing and all-powerful when he was actually just a normal man who drank some water from a river?

The whole flash sideways reality was fascinating until the last 10 minutes of the finale when Jack's dead father revealed that it was nothing more than some kind of unique version of Limbo created by the people themselves.

It was a total copout. Let me say that again: it was a total copout. If I had known that the writers would end the series simply by saying "They all died happily ever after", I would have stopped watching years ago.

Lost was one of the best shows ever. It had one of the WORST finales ever, and it made me and thousands of other fans feel as if we had been cheated.
I have a take on this but it will have to wait until late next week when I'll have finished watching the series (I am into season 5 right now).

irishjayhawk
06-19-2010, 09:43 AM
No.

LMAO

That was the plan all along.

I'm really shocked that you, of all people, can't see this.

It's Screenwriting 101. Decide your beginning and ending.

Everything in between is fair game.

Planning a character arc (or the last shot book ending the first shot) is not the same as what you're suggesting.

irishjayhawk
06-19-2010, 09:45 AM
I guess I don't see the show being that cerebral and certainly not philosophical. I'll give you the good v evil, but that isn't very deep. They played with the science v faith thing, but in the end I don't really think they broke any new ground there either. They loved to hint at big ideas with book references and character names but to me those themes existed only on the periphery. As an example, sure there are characters named Locke, Rousseau, and Hume (all philosophers who wrote about the "state of nature"), but I don't feel that they ever really developed that other than superficially.

Again, just for clarity, I LOVED the show, just didn't think it was deep.

No doubt.

But I guess I distinguish between 24 or Chuck and LOST in terms of what is and isn't "fluff". Or for that matter, sit coms.

irishjayhawk
06-19-2010, 09:46 AM
I'm not confused either. All along some people thought the writers were just making up shit as they went along, and other people were convinced that the writers had a master plan in which they would explain the mysteries of the island.

Well, we sure found out it which theory was correct. The writers WERE making up shit as they went along. They wound up providing half-assed explanations for a few of the mysteries and no explanations at all for a majority of them. They nodded and winked and smugly said "Well, Lost is really all about redemption. It's all about the characters."

They did a fantastic job of creating characters that we all cared about. They get an A+ for that. But in the end they didn't bother to try to tie the loose ends together. They didn't explain anything about so many mysteries that I'm not even going to bother to list them here, other than to ask how the hell Louise Faraday knew so much about the island, who built the wheel that Ben turned to move the island, and why was Jacob so all-knowing and all-powerful when he was actually just a normal man who drank some water from a river?

The whole flash sideways reality was fascinating until the last 10 minutes of the finale when Jack's dead father revealed that it was nothing more than some kind of unique version of Limbo created by the people themselves.

It was a total copout. Let me say that again: it was a total copout. If I had known that the writers would end the series simply by saying "They all died happily ever after", I would have stopped watching years ago.

Lost was one of the best shows ever. It had one of the WORST finales ever, and it made me and thousands of other fans feel as if we had been cheated.

The only thing I felt like it cheated was the supremely awesome Desmond storyline, which I felt could have an entire season based upon.

As for not tying up ALL the loose ends, while they should have started that earlier (knowing their ending date) I don't think they could have satisfactorily explained EVERYTHING.

DaneMcCloud
06-19-2010, 10:05 AM
Planning a character arc (or the last shot book ending the first shot) is not the same as what you're suggesting.

Yes, it is and I explained it earlier in this thread.

The entire series was Jack's story. It was Jack's journey from a "Man of Science" to a "Man of Faith".

The flashbacks don't matter. The "Sideways" flashes don't matter. All that matters is Jack's journey in "real time" from the moment his eyes were opened to the moment his eyes closed.

If the show had ended after two seasons, it would have ended the same exact way and been about the same exact thing. But, it went six seasons, which allowed the producers to flesh out other characters that helped Jack reach enlightenment, characters that existed only because Jack needed them to exist in order to "move on".

Red Brooklyn
06-19-2010, 10:41 AM
So, I have qualms with the particulars of the time travel (like why is Charlotte dying from the time travel; she recognized Faraday from her childhood, so wouldn't he be her Constant?) and I have issues with the infamous "sickness" that overtook Rousseau's crew (and the same sickness that Dharma Initiative employees were constantly vaccinated against) being retcon'd into Smoke Monster possession (though it confirms, I think anyway, that Smoke Monster takes possession of bodies and is able to present itself in different forms to different people).
I'm just going to give my take on these two points.

Charlotte's sickness has nothing to do with constants. The whole constant thing has to do with a psychic or mental time travel - or displacement, like grounding a wire. The effects of physical time travel are what is killing Charlotte and the other travelers.

The sickness that took Rousseau's crew is definately connected to the Smokey possessions. And I think it always has been. The sickness that the DI were vaccinating against was a different thing all together. They are two seperate causes, though both were referred to as "sickness." Which is confusing.

Buck
06-19-2010, 10:45 AM
Dane, you are so incredibly wrong it's not even funny. Also I don't care how many "industry" people agree with you. I don't care if the boom mic operator from Two and a Half Men shares your theory.

Buck
06-19-2010, 10:47 AM
I'm just going to give my take on these two points.

Charlotte's sickness has nothing to do with constants. The whole constant thing has to do with a psychic or mental time travel - or displacement, like grounding a wire. The effects of physical time travel are what is killing Charlotte and the other travelers.

The sickness that took Rousseau's crew is definately connected to the Smokey possessions. And I think it always has been. The sickness that the DI were vaccinating against was a different thing all together. They are two seperate causes, though both were referred to as "sickness." Which is confusing.

Also, you have to know that a person is your constant in order fir them to be your constant, but that's not relavent in Charlotte's case.

Red Brooklyn
06-19-2010, 11:07 AM
I guess I don't see the show being that cerebral and certainly not philosophical. I'll give you the good v evil, but that isn't very deep. They played with the science v faith thing, but in the end I don't really think they broke any new ground there either. They loved to hint at big ideas with book references and character names but to me those themes existed only on the periphery. As an example, sure there are characters named Locke, Rousseau, and Hume (all philosophers who wrote about the "state of nature"), but I don't feel that they ever really developed that other than superficially.

Again, just for clarity, I LOVED the show, just didn't think it was deep.
Yeah, that's fair.

I can see that. LOST definately is an "entertainment-first" kinda show. But I think they tackled some pretty heavy issues. Beyond just naming characters or the good vs evil dicussion. There's the fate vs free will debate. As well as science vs faith. The "playing God" debate. They even debate the necessity of torture. There's a lot going on. There are moral and ethical power plays in almost every episode.

I do agree that some of it was on the periphery. But I think it's still there. One of the things I loved about the show was it's balance of heavier issues with exciting entertainment.

When I think "fluff" I think more of shows like Grey's Anatomy. Which is another show that pretends to tackle issues. There are many "morality" issues at play on that show, but it's certainly not opporating on the same level as a show like LOST. To me, Grey's is fluff. LOST is more cerebral.

Brainiac
06-19-2010, 11:09 AM
Yes, it is and I explained it earlier in this thread.

The entire series was Jack's story. It was Jack's journey from a "Man of Science" to a "Man of Faith".

The flashbacks don't matter. The "Sideways" flashes don't matter. All that matters is Jack's journey in "real time" from the moment his eyes were opened to the moment his eyes closed.

If the show had ended after two seasons, it would have ended the same exact way and been about the same exact thing. But, it went six seasons, which allowed the producers to flesh out other characters that helped Jack reach enlightenment, characters that existed only because Jack needed them to exist in order to "move on".
Simply saying "It was all about Jack" doesn't mean the writers get a free pass regarding their lazy storytelling and their inability to have meaningful conclusions to multiple major portions of the plot.

You loved it. We get it. Some of us just have higher standards than others.

Red Brooklyn
06-19-2010, 11:10 AM
Dane, you are so incredibly wrong it's not even funny. Also I don't care how many "industry" people agree with you. I don't care if the boom mic operator from Two and a Half Men shares your theory.
ROFL

Also, you have to know that a person is your constant in order fir them to be your constant, but that's not relavent in Charlotte's case.
Good point. It's good to keep that in mind, but, as you say, it's irrelevant in Charlotte's case.

DaneMcCloud
06-19-2010, 12:15 PM
Simply saying "It was all about Jack" doesn't mean the writers get a free pass regarding their lazy storytelling and their inability to have meaningful conclusions to multiple major portions of the plot.

You loved it. We get it. Some of us just have higher standards than others.

I never said "I loved it". I said "I understand it".

If you were to look at the story any other way, it's a gigantic clusterfuck of loose ends, plot holes and mini story arcs that were never, ever explained.

Quite honestly, I thought it was an enormous copout, especially the source of the island, the island itself, the fact that Michael is there "stuck", no explanation of the Egyptian artifacts and on and on and on and on and on.

I expected the ending to be absolutely EPIC but IMO, it was far from epic. It was more like "Ah, okay. Well, whatever".

Red Brooklyn
06-19-2010, 12:40 PM
If you were to look at the story any other way, it's a gigantic cluster**** of loose ends, plot holes and mini story arcs that were never, ever explained.
To each their own. But I respectfully disagree. In fact, if you really, honestly, truly believe that... then I think one could make an argument that you did not, in fact, "understand it."

I'm not that person, however. Ultimately, I don't care what other people thought about the finale, or the show in general. I felt like the whole thing was a fairly personal experience. I'm probably being too precious about it, but that's how I prefer to remember and enjoy LOST.

Sorry you didn't like the ending more.

DaneMcCloud
06-19-2010, 02:14 PM
Sorry you didn't like the ending more.

That's the problem: The ending would have been the same regardless of what happened in between. The show would have come to the same conclusion.

My disappointment lies within the fact that the writers set up this amazing mythology, a mythology that captivated a great many of the show's viewers, only to reveal NOTHING about that mythology and basically shit all over it. It was completely and utterly irrelevant in the end.

It was a plot device and unexplained at that.

But sure, it all happened because Jack's dad said so. You know, Christian Shepard.

LMAO

I need to stop because it's only going to piss me off even more.

DaneMcCloud
06-19-2010, 02:18 PM
Dane, you are so incredibly wrong it's not even funny. Also I don't care how many "industry" people agree with you. I don't care if the boom mic operator from Two and a Half Men shares your theory.

Please tell me how "Flash Backs" are relevant to Jack's journey.

Please explain to me how the "Sideways" are relevant Jack's.

We'll start from there.

Buck
06-19-2010, 02:25 PM
Please tell me how "Flash Backs" are relevant to Jack's journey.

Please explain to me how the "Sideways" are relevant Jack's.

We'll start from there.

Please tell me when you've ever had a dream that didn't include yourself.

Please tell me any dream that you've ever had that was recurring and included a bunch of people that you didn't know, but you got to know over time (a long time). Please tell me why if it was all a "dream" within a split second of time" why Jack dreamed about on island stuff, off island stuff, created characters like Matthew Abaddon, The Economist, Helen, Dave, etc. in his head?

Reaper16
06-19-2010, 02:37 PM
Please tell me when you've ever had a dream that didn't include yourself.

Please tell me any dream that you've ever had that was recurring and included a bunch of people that you didn't know, but you got to know over time (a long time). Please tell me why if it was all a "dream" within a split second of time" why Jack dreamed about on island stuff, off island stuff, created characters like Matthew Abaddon, The Economist, Helen, Dave, etc. in his head?
You can't move on to Heaven without Dave.

Red Brooklyn
06-19-2010, 02:48 PM
That's the problem: The ending would have been the same regardless of what happened in between. The show would have come to the same conclusion.

My disappointment lies within the fact that the writers set up this amazing mythology, a mythology that captivated a great many of the show's viewers, only to reveal NOTHING about that mythology and basically shit all over it. It was completely and utterly irrelevant in the end.

It was a plot device and unexplained at that.

But sure, it all happened because Jack's dad said so. You know, Christian Shepard.

LMAO

I need to stop because it's only going to piss me off even more.
Well... again, I respectfully disagree. But the last thing I want to do is piss you off! :)

So we'll just agree to disagree. You have your take. I've got mine. But, I really am sorry you feel so upset and betrayed. It sucks investing so much time, energy and even money into something that you feel just shit in your hand in return.

Red Brooklyn
06-19-2010, 02:48 PM
You can't move on to Heaven without Dave.

ROFL

DaneMcCloud
06-19-2010, 03:19 PM
Please tell me when you've ever had a dream that didn't include yourself.

Actually, I have but that's beside the point.

Please tell me any dream that you've ever had that was recurring and included a bunch of people that you didn't know, but you got to know over time (a long time).

That happens all the time. I have dreams about people I haven't met and I've had premonitions while sleeping that unfortunately came true as soon as I awoke.

Those included the death of two people, one very famous and one close to our family.

Please tell me why if it was all a "dream" within a split second of time" why Jack dreamed about on island stuff, off island stuff, created characters like Matthew Abaddon, The Economist, Helen, Dave, etc. in his head?

Okay, back on subject.

As I explained earlier, Jack, in a nanosecond, created everything that happened on the island in order to help himself realize that he needed to leave behind the "Man of Science" and become a "Man of Faith" in order for his soul to move on.

He came in contact with everyone on the plane either in the airport or on the plane itself. Those people became his portal in which to create a scenario in which he himself reconciles the fact that he needed to change before he could become spiritually enlightened.

Now, you don't have to agree with my "theory" but it's silly to dismiss it, especially since I've laid everything out in an entirely plausible scenario.

And furthermore, it's much easier to believe my theory than taking the show literally, because there are just too many unexplained phenomena and plot holes to make a convincing argument that "what happened, happened".

Why do you think that there wasn't one person on the planet that had the show figured out beforehand? It's because we needed to see the ending matched with the beginning to truly realize what this show was really about.

With that said, it doesn't take away from the brilliant acting and the relationships that we as individuals had with the show. It's just that now we know why everything had to happen as it did.

irishjayhawk
06-19-2010, 04:34 PM
That's the problem: The ending would have been the same regardless of what happened in between. The show would have come to the same conclusion.

My disappointment lies within the fact that the writers set up this amazing mythology, a mythology that captivated a great many of the show's viewers, only to reveal NOTHING about that mythology and basically shit all over it. It was completely and utterly irrelevant in the end.

It was a plot device and unexplained at that.

But sure, it all happened because Jack's dad said so. You know, Christian Shepard.

LMAO

I need to stop because it's only going to piss me off even more.

I think people know my religious standing but those things in LOST never really bothered me. Sure, I was a bit miffed when, ultimately, it was afterlife and came down to "have faith in something" but it wasn't overt, IMO.

DaneMcCloud
06-19-2010, 04:40 PM
I think people know my religious standing but those things in LOST never really bothered me. Sure, I was a bit miffed when, ultimately, it was afterlife and came down to "have faith in something" but it wasn't overt, IMO.

Did you happen to notice the six paned-glass wall behind Christian when he was explaining everything to Jack?

That was pretty freakin' overt, at least IMO.

irishjayhawk
06-19-2010, 04:42 PM
Did you happen to notice the six paned-glass wall behind Christian when he was explaining everything to Jack?

That was pretty freakin' overt, at least IMO.

Yeah but I lump that into the whole cop out afterlife thing. Seriously, take out that last scene and view the series as a whole. Aside from Christian Shepard - and as people have pointed out, there are lots of names from the other side of the spectrum (Hume, specifically) - there isn't that much which is overt.

DaneMcCloud
06-19-2010, 04:46 PM
Yeah but I lump that into the whole cop out afterlife thing. Seriously, take out that last scene and view the series as a whole. Aside from Christian Shepard - and as people have pointed out, there are lots of names from the other side of the spectrum (Hume, specifically) - there isn't that much which is overt.

I found that whole scene laughable. Anytime you need a character exposition to explain what is and was happening, you're witnessing poor writing and a poor concept.

It seemed tacked on and cheesy.

Red Brooklyn
06-19-2010, 04:50 PM
I didn't hate the final scene by any means. It certainly didn't feel "tacked on" to me. Seemed like a pretty logical conclusion to what had been set up since 'LA X.'

Cheesy? That's in the eye of the beholder. But I'll give you cheesy before I give you tacked on.

DaneMcCloud
06-19-2010, 04:53 PM
I didn't hate the final scene by any means. It certainly didn't feel "tacked on" to me. Seemed like a pretty logical conclusion to what had been set up since 'LA X.'

Cheesy? That's in the eye of the beholder. But I'll give you cheesy before I give you tacked on.

Dude, no offense, but if you need an exposition or voice-over to explain an extremely critical passage in a film or TV show (and in this case, a show that's had over 121 hours to explain itself), it's cheesy and nothing less than poor writing.

And without that "explanation", what are you left with?

THAT'S why it's cheesy and poorly done.

Reaper16
06-19-2010, 04:54 PM
My problem with Dane's interpretation is that there doesn't seem to be much "textual" evidence for it beyond Jack "landing" and "dying" in what appears to be the same spot on the island. Dane's interpretation makes logical sense when abstracted from the show but I don't see the in-show support for it.

Red Brooklyn
06-19-2010, 04:59 PM
No offense taken. I totally see where you're coming from. But I wouldn't call it poor writing. Some people think using adverbs is "poor" writing. It's just one way to get there.

And I think had there been less explanatin in that scene, people would have hated it for that reason. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

I'm not saying there wasn't a better way to handle it. But it could have been much, much worse as well.

DaneMcCloud
06-19-2010, 05:00 PM
My problem with Dane's interpretation is that there doesn't seem to be much "textual" evidence for it beyond Jack "landing" and "dying" in what appears to be the same spot on the island. Dane's interpretation makes logical sense when abstracted from the show but I don't see the in-show support for it.

This is why you have to look at it like this:

1. The Flashbacks mean nothing to Jack's journey. It's just "filler" for the viewer to become familiar with the character(s) but in the "Grand Scheme" of things, the flashbacks really mean nothing to his current state because it had already occurred.

2. *Spoiler* (just for you). The Flash Sideways mean absolutely nothing because it never occurred. It wasn't a flashback or a flash "side". It was a plot device and IMO, completely unnecessary to the plot, the season or the story. They should have used that time instead to further detail the mythology that had integrated into the show from day one. Instead, it was just a waste of time.

All that matters is what happened on the Island. That's it. The flashbacks didn't help Jack's journey and the flashsides didn't happen.

If you focus on Jack's present, it all becomes clear.

Red Brooklyn
06-19-2010, 05:01 PM
My problem with Dane's interpretation is that there doesn't seem to be much "textual" evidence for it beyond Jack "landing" and "dying" in what appears to be the same spot on the island. Dane's interpretation makes logical sense when abstracted from the show but I don't see the in-show support for it.
Dane's, obviously, allowed to have whatever take he wants. And if he's comfortable with his own interpretation, so be it. I'm not going to try to change his mind.

But, yes, Reaper. I would agree with your post 100%. Spot on.

Red Brooklyn
06-19-2010, 05:03 PM
2. *Spoiler* (just for you). The Flash Sideways mean absolutely nothing because it never occurred. It wasn't a flashback or a flash "side". It was a plot device and IMO, completely unnecessary to the plot, the season or the story. They should have used that time instead to further detail the mythology that had integrated into the show from day one. Instead, it was just a waste of time.
I don't believe that's accurate.

Baby Lee
06-19-2010, 05:07 PM
When I think "fluff" I think more of shows like Grey's Anatomy. Which is another show that pretends to tackle issues. There are many "morality" issues at play on that show, but it's certainly not opporating on the same level as a show like LOST. To me, Grey's is fluff. LOST is more cerebral.

Not at all time, but at many times, ESPECIALLY early on, GA crushed Lost on character development. I get the angle that GA 'tackles issues' if by that you mean issues like 'what does love mean' or 'what are you willing to give up to be a great surgeon' but they're not a 'here's a guy with AIDS, lets show what a great and loving person he is before he dies' type of 'issues' show.

GA has had it's share of soapy-ness and ridiculous plot developments as it aged, but I'll stand firm that, especially in its early days, and on occasion going forward, it was the gold standard in creating dramatic situations and selling it with winning, real, performances. I've said it before, and I'll admit it again, GA holds the record for episodes in a row that made me tear up somewhere in the episode. It could just be a look, or a pause, or just the perfect facial expression that encapsulated the raw emotions presently playing out, it could range from two strangers become friends implaled on the same pole realizing that extraction and life for one would mean exanguination and death for the other, or Christina realizing in the middle of an emergency surgery that her boyfriend doesn't trust her skills to be his lead assistant, or a brief flash of how much her crumbling marriage is killing Miranda, or a John Doe drug by a bus, mangled beyond recognition and nearing certain death scratching a message into a doctor's hand notifying that he was one of their own, or Meredith blithely mentioning that she has just miscarried to her assistant as she's performing triage on her best friend's boyfriend who was just shot by a grieving widow.
Those may sound telanovela as written on the page, but as I said, it's how they PERFORM these plot beats that sells it. Sells the emotional toll of people in high stress, high skill positions trying to hold together high professional standards and expectations along with their personal life. And it's purchased hard earned tears on many occasions, and that's something Lost, for all it's excellence NEVER did for me.

Maybe that's my failure to connect with Lost, I was so damned interested in the stringing together of all the fantastical mythologies that I never had an ounce to devote to loving what happened to the characters. What happened in their 'personal lives' was an interesting part of the show, but I was never on tenterhooks concerning how their fates would play out, Kate or Jack, Kate or Sawyer, will Locke walk, will Sun and Jin be reunited, Penny and Desmond apart or reunited, . . blah, blah, blah, how the fuck are they travelling through time, and what do all these coincidences and replayed themes and murky undertakings tie together.

Reaper16
06-19-2010, 05:09 PM
This is why you have to look at it like this:

1. The Flashbacks mean nothing to Jack's journey. It's just "filler" for the viewer to become familiar with the character(s) but in the "Grand Scheme" of things, the flashbacks really mean nothing to his current state because it had already occurred.

2. *Spoiler* (just for you). The Flash Sideways mean absolutely nothing because it never occurred. It wasn't a flashback or a flash "side". It was a plot device and IMO, completely unnecessary to the plot, the season or the story. They should have used that time instead to further detail the mythology that had integrated into the show from day one. Instead, it was just a waste of time.

All that matters is what happened on the Island. That's it. The flashbacks didn't help Jack's journey and the flashsides didn't happen.

If you focus on Jack's present, it all becomes clear.
So... if the show was about Jack's journey then why spend half or more of each episode on flashbacks/forwards/sides that are irrelevant to the show? It feels as if your interpretation ignores the bulk of show's screentime because it clashes with the neat, tidy logic you've come up with.

Reaper16
06-19-2010, 05:10 PM
Not at all time, but at many times, ESPECIALLY early on, GA crushed Lost on character development. I get the angle that GA 'tackles issues' if by that you mean issues like 'what does love mean' or 'what are you willing to give up to be a great surgeon' but they're not a 'here's a guy with AIDS, lets show what a great and loving person he is before he dies' type of 'issues' show.

GA has had it's share of soapy-ness and ridiculous plot developments as it aged, but I'll stand firm that, especially in its early days, and on occasion going forward, it was the gold standard in creating dramatic situations and selling it with winning, real, performances. I've said it before, and I'll admit it again, GA holds the record for episodes in a row that made me tear up somewhere in the episode. It could just be a look, or a pause, or just the perfect facial expression that encapsulated the raw emotions presently playing out, it could range from two strangers become friends implaled on the same pole realizing that extraction and life for one would mean exanguination and death for the other, or Christina realizing in the middle of an emergency surgery that her boyfriend doesn't trust her skills to be his lead assistant, or a brief flash of how much her crumbling marriage is killing Miranda, or a John Doe drug by a bus, mangled beyond recognition and nearing certain death scratching a message into a doctor's hand notifying that he was one of their own, or Meredith blithely mentioning that she has just miscarried to her assistant as she's performing triage on her best friend's boyfriend who was just shot by a grieving widow.
Those may sound telanovela as written on the page, but as I said, it's how they PERFORM these plot beats that sells it. Sells the emotional toll of people in high stress, high skill positions trying to hold together high professional standards and expectations along with their personal life. And it's purchased hard earned tears on many occasions, and that's something Lost, for all it's excellence NEVER did for me.

Maybe that's my failure to connect with Lost, I was so damned interested in the stringing together of all the fantastical mythologies that I never had an ounce to devote to loving what happened to the characters. What happened in their 'personal lives' was an interesting part of the show, but I was never on tenterhooks concerning how their fates would play out, Kate or Jack, Kate or Sawyer, will Locke walk, will Sun and Jin be reunited, Penny and Desmond apart or reunited, . . blah, blah, blah, how the fuck are they travelling through time, and what do all these coincidences and replayed themes and murky undertakings tie together.
BL is telling the truth about Grey's Anatomy. Season 2 of that show is legitimately very good.

DaneMcCloud
06-19-2010, 05:11 PM
I don't believe that's accurate.

How so?

Nothing that happened there really happened.

Jack and Juliet were never married and divorced. Jack didn't have a son. John didn't receive surgery that enabled him to walk, Ben wasn't Alex's teacher and so on.

So, none of if was relevant to Jack's journey (or anyone else's journey).

Baby Lee
06-19-2010, 05:17 PM
I think I'm starting to sense where Dane's coming from. It doesn't help me with understanding his stance, but I think he's provided some insight into his rationale.

Like me, he's frustrated that the creators built up this vast mythology, only to end the show saying none of what intrigued us matter and would never be explained. In response he has created a hypothesis that it was all in Jack's head in a nano-second, and sought out beats and glimpses that back up said hypothesis.

Sharing the same frustration, I have chosen to take the writers [in the voice of Christian Shepard] at his word, particularly in light of the aforementioned stories that did not even peripherally reference Jack as involved or observing or relevant, that 'everything happened' and take it to mean 'sorry for the bait and switch, but we felt we needed a fantastical and gripping setting to draw you into our ecumenical message.' Basically the most polished and gripping, if utterly irrelevant, Jehovah's Witness preamble ever, in a sense an inversion of the 'fantastical tale of Zenu' the SuperAdventureClub gives you at the END of their ecumenical message.

DaneMcCloud
06-19-2010, 05:19 PM
So... if the show was about Jack's journey then why spend half or more of each episode on flashbacks/forwards/sides that are irrelevant to the show? It feels as if your interpretation ignores the bulk of show's screentime because it clashes with the neat, tidy logic you've come up with.

Right, exactly.

The outcome would have been the same (Jack's enlightenment) regardless of whether it had been on air for two seasons, six seasons or ten seasons.

The producers and writers had mentioned on several occasions that they had lost their way (the Bai Ling episode being as a perfect example) and that they needed an "End Date" to wrap it up. Otherwise, they could have just gone on forever, building up backstories, which weren't relevant to Jack's journey.

The backstories only tell us what happened before the plane crash. They don't tell us what happened the second the plane crashed and they all died. The Flash Sides never existed. Nothing that happened there ever happened.

So once again, all we're left with is the present - what happened since the plane crash and Jack's journey. In the grand scheme, Jack's past and Jack's side didn't help him find enlightenment. It was his time on the "Island" that he found it.

Without this "neat and tidy" explanation that I've come up, the entire show is a mess of plot holes and unexplained phenomena that clearly borders on the nonsensical.

Reaper16
06-19-2010, 05:22 PM
Without this "neat and tidy" explanation that I've come up, the entire show is a mess of plot holes and unexplained phenomena.
I'm pretty sure that once it is over I will be arguing that, yes, the show is a mess of plot holes an unexplained phenomena.

Red Brooklyn
06-19-2010, 05:23 PM
BL is telling the truth about Grey's Anatomy. Season 2 of that show is legitimately very good.
S1 and S2 (and even the first half of S3) of Grey's were outstanding TV. Especially S2. But I it lost me after Grey "died." And even at it's dramatic best I would call it fluffier than LOST. But "fluff" still probably the wrong word. I was just trying to compare LOST to another hit ABC show in terms of how it tackled moral and ethical issues. I wasn't trying to insult or put down Grey's in any way.

How so?

Nothing that happened there really happened.

Jack and Juliet were never married and divorced. Jack didn't have a son. John didn't receive surgery that enabled him to walk, Ben wasn't Alex's teacher and so on.

So, none of if was relevant to Jack's journey (or anyone else's journey).
It was very relevant to Jack's journey, because he couldn't complete his journey without it.

All the events of the FSW happened, they just happened in "after life" time and space. The world was a lie, but the events still took place. Or rather, the lessons learned and the relevance to the journey was real.

irishjayhawk
06-19-2010, 05:24 PM
I found that whole scene laughable. Anytime you need a character exposition to explain what is and was happening, you're witnessing poor writing and a poor concept.

It seemed tacked on and cheesy.

We whole heartedly agree on it. Now, we disagree on how much it impacts the seasons when taken as a series.

Baby Lee
06-19-2010, 05:26 PM
Without this "neat and tidy" explanation that I've come up, the entire show is a mess of plot holes and unexplained phenomena that clearly borders on the nonsensical.
It is exactly that, but the creators have gambled that, in light of the entertaining ride, and the ecumenical benediction, we will forgive that with the panaceacal reassurance that, however improbable, it all really happened, and in the end our beloved characters are reunited.


Basically, your rationale is 'they can't have left all these tantalizing plots unresolved,' and our response is 'they damn well have, and they hope given the overall experience we'll forgive them.'

irishjayhawk
06-19-2010, 05:28 PM
I think I'm starting to sense where Dane's coming from. It doesn't help me with understanding his stance, but I think he's provided some insight into his rationale.

Like me, he's frustrated that the creators built up this vast mythology, only to end the show saying none of what intrigued us matter and would never be explained. In response he has created a hypothesis that it was all in Jack's head in a nano-second, and sought out beats and glimpses that back up said hypothesis.

Sharing the same frustration, I have chosen to take the writers at his word, particularly in light of the aforementioned stories that did not even peripherally reference Jack as involved or observing or relevant, that 'everything happened' and take it to mean 'sorry for the bait and switch, but we felt we needed a fantastical and gripping setting to draw you into our ecumenical message.' Basically the most polished and gripping, if utterly irrelevant, Jehovah's Witness preamble ever, in a sense an inversion of the 'fantastical tale of Zenu' the SuperAdventureClub gives you at the END of their ecumenical message.

That's a much better worded theory than what Dane has put forth thus far. In that light, I agree with it. Or, at the very least, understand.

S1 and S2 (and even the first half of S3) of Grey's were[I] outstanding TV. Especially S2. But I it lost me after Grey "died." And even at it's dramatic best I would call it fluffier than LOST. But "fluff" still probably the wrong word. I was just trying to compare LOST to another hit ABC show in terms of how it tackled moral and ethical issues. I wasn't trying to insult or put down Grey's in any way.


Exactly correct. After season 3 (mid way, actually), it Greyified itself. I have coined the term Greyified which basically means sacrificing everything for the sake of romance and side stories rather than a main tenent. House has been Greyified for a good seasons or two. It was about House but it became about the supporting characters and, specifically, their love lives. Just like Grey's.

Reaper16
06-19-2010, 05:28 PM
My biggest beef with Dane's interpretation is that, if so, it would render all of Lost's artistic weight meaningless. Utterly meaningless. The audience walks away from Dane's Lost no better, no more learned, no more informed than when they started watching. Nearly all of the themes played out over the course of six seasons are rendered moot.

DaneMcCloud
06-19-2010, 05:29 PM
It was very relevant to Jack's journey, because he couldn't complete his journey without it.

I'm sorry, I fully disagree.

We're shown Jack as a divorced father who's still a doctor but was previously married to Juliet. That means nothing to his journey of spiritual enlightenment.

[quote=Red Brooklyn;6832164]All the events of the FSW happened, they just happened in "after life" time and space./quote]

Occam's Razor.

Reaper16
06-19-2010, 05:30 PM
Man, I wish this discussion were happening a week from now.

Reaper16
06-19-2010, 05:31 PM
Occam's Razor.
Your entire interpretation eschews Occam's Razor because it throws away the majority of the show's screentime.

Red Brooklyn
06-19-2010, 05:31 PM
I Sharing the same frustration, I have chosen to take the writers [in the voice of Christian Shepard] at his word, particularly in light of the aforementioned stories that did not even peripherally reference Jack as involved or observing or relevant, that 'everything happened' and take it to mean 'sorry for the bait and switch, but we felt we needed a fantastical and gripping setting to draw you into our ecumenical message.' Basically the most polished and gripping, if utterly irrelevant, Jehovah's Witness preamble ever, in a sense an inversion of the 'fantastical tale of Zenu' the SuperAdventureClub gives you at the END of their ecumenical message.
I still don't understand the "bait and switch" analogy.

I'm pretty sure that once it is over I will be arguing that, yes, the show is a mess of plot holes an unexplained phenomena.
There is definately "unexplained phenomena." But I don't see how that hurts the show. There's unexplained phenomena in life. Are there plot holes? Sure. It's a tv show. But I'd argue there are no more or less plot holes than any other genre show.

Most of the show is explained, albeit implicitly. And most of it drive the characters as well as the plot.

Reaper16
06-19-2010, 05:33 PM
The switch happened very early. It isn't like there wasn't precedent starting in season one for faith playing a huge role in the show. Granted, few would have thought it would go to the degree that it did.

DaneMcCloud
06-19-2010, 05:37 PM
My biggest beef with Dane's interpretation is that, if so, it would render all of Lost's artistic weight meaningless. Utterly meaningless. The audience walks away from Dane's Lost no better, no more learned, no more informed than when they started watching. Nearly all of the themes played out over the course of six seasons are rendered moot.

I don't agree with that.

Millions of people were introduced to scientific theories, philosophers and philosophies, as well as a "fun" mythology based on pseudo science.

The relationship between the characters was unparalleled on a network TV show, especially given the diversity of the cast.

My interpretation shouldn't hamper what happened on the show in terms of interpersonal relationships. It should go to explain the biggest question surrounding the TV show: What was the "Island"?

Reaper16
06-19-2010, 05:40 PM
I don't agree with that.

Millions of people were introduced to scientific theories, philosophers and philosophies, as well as a "fun" mythology based on pseudo science.

The relationship between the characters was unparalleled on a network TV show, especially given the diversity of the cast.

My interpretation shouldn't hamper what happened on the show in terms of interpersonal relationships. It should go to explain the biggest question surrounding the TV show: What was the "Island"?
I think I'm going to table my posts about the show's ending until after I finish. Because I don't want to spoil my thoughts about the show's single biggest artistic statement (it is directly related to the man of science vs man of faith dichotomy) until after I've seen it all. I think discussions about the show like the one we're having is actually a result of that artistic statement.

irishjayhawk
06-19-2010, 05:41 PM
I think I'm going to table my posts about the show's ending until after I finish. Because I don't want to spoil my thoughts about the show's single biggest artistic statement (it is directly related to the man of science vs man of faith dichotomy) until after I've seen it all. I think discussions about the show like the one we're having is actually a result of that artistic statement.

Well, hurry up, dammit.

DaneMcCloud
06-19-2010, 05:42 PM
Your entire interpretation eschews Occam's Razor because it throws away the majority of the show's screentime.

No, actually it doesn't. What makes more sense?

1. A plane is split into two pieces over the Indian Ocean and more than 60 people survive that crash, then end up on a beautiful tropical island in which no one escapes. An island with polar bears, a secret scientific organization, Egyptian relics, three immortals and an unknown power that has the ability to wipe out mankind.

Or:

2. The plane splits into two pieces, everyone dies instantly but in the nanosecond between life and death, a single man has to travel on a hero's journey with his very soul hanging in the balance.

irishjayhawk
06-19-2010, 05:45 PM
No, actually it doesn't. What makes more sense?

1. A plane is split into two pieces over the Indian Ocean and more than 60 people survive that crash, then end up on a beautiful tropical island in which no one escapes. An island with polar bears, a secret scientific organization, Egyptian relics, three immortals and an unknown power that has the ability to wipe out mankind.

Or:

2. The plane splits into two pieces, everyone dies instantly but in the nanosecond between life and death, a single man has to travel on a hero's journey with his very soul hanging in the balance.

But then that just begs the question. Why?

irishjayhawk
06-19-2010, 05:46 PM
No, actually it doesn't. What makes more sense?

1. A plane is split into two pieces over the Indian Ocean and more than 60 people survive that crash, then end up on a beautiful tropical island in which no one escapes. An island with polar bears, a secret scientific organization, Egyptian relics, three immortals and an unknown power that has the ability to wipe out mankind.

Or:

2. The plane splits into two pieces, everyone dies instantly but in the nanosecond between life and death, a single man has to travel on a hero's journey with his very soul hanging in the balance.

See, when you put it like this instead of how BL put it (which I'm beginning to think you don't even subscribe to what he offered) we disagree again.

You seem to be stuck on the "well, the whole journey was absurd. Ergo, it was all a dream"

DaneMcCloud
06-19-2010, 05:46 PM
But then that just begs the question. Why?

We're shown why in the Flashbacks and on the island in his conversations with John Locke.

He was a man of science who had no faith. The show tells us clearly that faith is required to attain enlightenment and move on after death.

Reaper16
06-19-2010, 05:46 PM
No, actually it doesn't. What makes more sense?

1. A plane is split into two pieces over the Indian Ocean and more than 60 people survive that crash and end up on a beautiful tropical island in which no one escapes. An island with polar bears, a secret scientific organization, Egyptian relics, three immortals and an unknown power that has the ability to wipe out mankind.

Or:

2. The plane splits into two pieces, everyone dies instantly but in the nanosecond between life and death, a single man has to travel on a hero's journey with his very soul hanging in the balance?

Which is simpler:

1.) The events of the show actually happened; there is a reason we saw them.
or

2.) The majority of the stuff written for and broadcast on the show is stuff that didn't happen but everyone had to see anyway, even if it had nothing to do with Jack's hero's journey.

DaneMcCloud
06-19-2010, 05:48 PM
See, when you put it like this instead of how BL put it (which I'm beginning to think you don't even subscribe to what he offered) we disagree again.

You seem to be stuck on the "well, the whole journey was absurd. Ergo, it was all a dream"

Huh?

When did I say it was absurd?

It doesn't matter how it happened. What matters is that it had to happen in order for Jack to move on.

And who said anything about a dream? Who here knows what happens the instant you die?

irishjayhawk
06-19-2010, 05:49 PM
We're shown why in the Flashbacks and on the island in his conversations with John Locke.

He was a man of science who had no faith. The show tells us clearly that faith is required to attain enlightenment and move on after death.

So he invents everyone on the plane as it's going down to be in his journey and helps explain to himself he needs faith?

You don't see how that's equally as absurd as what you're discarding?

irishjayhawk
06-19-2010, 05:50 PM
Huh?

When did I say it was absurd?

It doesn't matter how it happened. What matters is that it had to happen in order for Jack to move on.

And who said anything about a dream? Who here knows what happens the instant you die?

Dream meaning the classic "dream sequence" which this would fit under. It didn't REALLY happen.

And by absurd I mean "fantastical". You seem hung up on Egyptians, pregnancies that can't happen, polar bears, smoke monsters etc. "It's soooo fantastical it's not REAL! ERGO DREAM!"

DaneMcCloud
06-19-2010, 05:51 PM
Which is simpler:

1.) The events of the show actually happened; there is a reason we saw them.

Thanks for answering my question with a question.

As I stated earlier, if you want to believe in a magical island with polar bears, ancient artifacts and immortals (et al) be my guest.

2.) The majority of the stuff written for and broadcast on the show is stuff that didn't happen but everyone had to see anyway, even if it had nothing to do with Jack's hero's journey.

Everyone "had to see it" because the show was a ratings grabber that earned an enormous amount of money for ABC. If the show had flopped, what we had seen would have been great abbreviated.

irishjayhawk
06-19-2010, 05:52 PM
And this totally obviates the whole "Who you link yourself to in this world is who you have to find in the next to move on". If he just constructed it in a nano second before death, it completely dismantles that whole sentiment - one I find intriguing.

Buck
06-19-2010, 07:25 PM
My problem with Dane's interpretation is that there doesn't seem to be much "textual" evidence for it beyond Jack "landing" and "dying" in what appears to be the same spot on the island. Dane's interpretation makes logical sense when abstracted from the show but I don't see the in-show support for it.

Agreed. Dane I don't know how many times you've seen each episode, but I've watched each episode 3 to 8 times, and not once during any viewing, ever did I think that it was some kind of dream. There was never any evidence for it, ever. If you could provide any other evidence showing it was a dream, I might not argue with you, but nothing else supports the dream theory.

Not once ever did someone change to another person or change clothes before our eyes. Never did anybody stray away from what they were doing on a completely unrelated tangent. All the minute detail we got in the show just doesn't happen in dreams.

P.S. The comment that got me upset was the one about you (Dane) saying that you've talked to many people in the show business and not one of them has a different theory than you. You make it out to seem like we are lesser people when it comes to our opinion about Lost. Show me one person you talked to that was as into the show as me that you talked to. I bet you can't.

Red Brooklyn
06-19-2010, 07:57 PM
Exactly correct. After season 3 (mid way, actually), it Greyified itself. I have coined the term Greyified which basically means sacrificing everything for the sake of romance and side stories rather than a main tenent. House has been Greyified for a good seasons or two. It was about House but it became about the supporting characters and, specifically, their love lives. Just like Grey's.
Love that expression! Imma steal it.

Occam's Razor.
Not sure Occam's Razor applies to fiction. This isn't science, it's a tv show. Written by people with an intention in mind. It doesn't matter if you or anyone else thinks that intention is absurd.

2. The plane splits into two pieces, everyone dies instantly but in the nanosecond between life and death, a single man has to travel on a hero's journey with his very soul hanging in the balance.
If none of it's real, or if it's all in one person's mind, how can there be a hero's journey? This seems to not only lower, but eleviate the stakes entirely.

And who said anything about a dream? Who here knows what happens the instant you die?
Wow. I thought you did. No? This changes this whole argument considerably if you're now clarifying that you don't think it was a dream or imagined.

I still don't think I agree with your interpreation, if this is the case, but at least it makes more sense to me.

Red Brooklyn
06-19-2010, 07:58 PM
And this totally obviates the whole "Who you link yourself to in this world is who you have to find in the next to move on". If he just constructed it in a nano second before death, it completely dismantles that whole sentiment - one I find intriguing.

And this too.

DaneMcCloud
06-19-2010, 08:00 PM
Agreed. Dane I don't know how many times you've seen each episode, but I've watched each episode 3 to 8 times, and not once during any viewing, ever did I think that it was some kind of dream. There was never any evidence for it, ever. If you could provide any other evidence showing it was a dream, I might not argue with you, but nothing else supports the dream theory.

Not once ever did someone change to another person or change clothes before our eyes. Never did anybody stray away from what they were doing on a completely unrelated tangent. All the minute detail we got in the show just doesn't happen in dreams.

P.S. The comment that got me upset was the one about you (Dane) saying that you've talked to many people in the show business and not one of them has a different theory than you. You make it out to seem like we are lesser people when it comes to our opinion about Lost. Show me one person you talked to that was as into the show as me that you talked to. I bet you can't.

Seriously, you and I should stop discussing this with each other because for one, you don't understand what I'm saying (I've NEVER said it was a "dream" and you clearly don't understand the concept I'm describing) and two, you are taking this WAY too personally.

Red Brooklyn
06-19-2010, 08:01 PM
P.S. The comment that got me upset was the one about you (Dane) saying that you've talked to many people in the show business and not one of them has a different theory than you. You make it out to seem like we are lesser people when it comes to our opinion about Lost. Show me one person you talked to that was as into the show as me that you talked to. I bet you can't.
It did come across that way. But I'm going to give Dane the benefit of the doubt and guess that he didn't mean it that way.

But, for the record, I don't think that being an "industry" person makes you any more or less qualified to interpret and/or appreciate the show than a "civilian." The obvious exception being, an "industry" person who wrote and/or created the show.

Reaper16
06-19-2010, 08:03 PM
There's really no functional difference between a dream and whatever the mind constructs in the instant between life and death. Dane - you yourself seemed to understand this when you invoked the word dream many posts ago in the immediate aftermath of the finale with your defense line - Do people always wear the same clothes when they dream?

Buck
06-19-2010, 08:03 PM
Seriously, you and I should stop discussing this with each other because for one, you don't understand what I'm saying (I've NEVER said it was a "dream" and you clearly don't understand the concept I'm describing) and two, you are taking this WAY too personally.

Ok how is what you are describing not a dream? It's not real and it's in Jacks head, I don't see how what you are describing isn't a dream. Whatever.

Also if you don't want me to take it personally dint try and back up your claims with the support of Hollywood unless you are going to name names ad those names are people associated with the show Lost.

DaneMcCloud
06-19-2010, 08:04 PM
Love that expression! Imma steal it.


Not sure Occam's Razor applies to fiction. This isn't science, it's a tv show. Written by people with an intention in mind. It doesn't matter if you or anyone else thinks that intention is absurd.


If none of it's real, or if it's all in one person's mind, how can there be a hero's journey? This seems to not only lower, but eleviate the stakes entirely.


Wow. I thought you did. No? This changes this whole argument considerably if you're now clarifying that you don't think it was a dream or imagined.

I still don't think I agree with your interpreation, if this is the case, but at least it makes more sense to me.

Dude, I think that once again, I am finished with this conversation.

It seems that too many people are misinterpreting everything that I am stating and that people are becoming "angry" because they think I'm talking down to them.

The bottom line is this: LOST was a show that existed on several levels. I see the show entirely through the eyes of ONE man: Jack.

Other people see it differently and it appears that there is no common ground between the two, nor is there any reason for me to continue to reiterate myself repeatedly.

Buck
06-19-2010, 08:04 PM
There's really no functional difference between a dream and whatever the mind constructs in the instant between life and death. Dane - you yourself seemed to understand this when you invoked the word dream many posts ago in the immediate aftermath of the finale with your defense line - Do people always wear the same clothes when they dream?

Also that.

Reaper16
06-19-2010, 08:06 PM
FYI - for those of you who aren't in the practice of studying literature or whatever - you support yourself based on the "text." What inside people think is fallacious reasoning. Basing an argument on what the author[s] even intended is fallacious reasoning (the intentional fallacy). What is the book/film/show actually saying?

DaneMcCloud
06-19-2010, 08:09 PM
It did come across that way. But I'm going to give Dane the benefit of the doubt and guess that he didn't mean it that way.

But, for the record, I don't think that being an "industry" person makes you any more or less qualified to interpret and/or appreciate the show than a "civilian." The obvious exception being, an "industry" person who wrote and/or created the show.

What it means that people who work in the "industry" understand screenwriting.

I've read forever throughout this thread that the producers had absolutely no idea where this show was going, and I repeatedly said that they did.

It's not an insult. I wouldn't begin to try to tell an expert in auto mechanics or physics or nuclear engineering or any number of professions that they don't know what they're talking about.

But I DO work in film & TV and I DO understand screenwriting and its process and I DO understand just about everything about this business.

Again, I didn't mean to insult anyone but I'm kinda fucking sick of being railed at for my understanding.

Red Brooklyn
06-19-2010, 08:09 PM
Dude, I think that once again, I am finished with this conversation.

It seems that too many people are misinterpreting everything that I am stating and that people are becoming "angry" because they think I'm talking down to them.

The bottom line is this: LOST was a show that existed on several levels. I see the show entirely through the eyes of ONE man: Jack.

Other people see it differently and it appears that there is no common ground between the two, nor is there any reason for me to continue to reiterate myself repeatedly.

That's cool, man. Like I said before, I don't want to piss you off. I'm certainly not taking this personally. It's just healthy debate. But if you feel you've been misrepresented or misunderstood, I'd like to better understand your intentions. That's all.

It's just tv. And I'm fine with other having different interpretations than I do. I guess I'm just not following the logic of your POV.

Red Brooklyn
06-19-2010, 08:13 PM
There's really no functional difference between a dream and whatever the mind constructs in the instant between life and death. Dane - you yourself seemed to understand this when you invoked the word dream many posts ago in the immediate aftermath of the finale with your defense line - Do people always wear the same clothes when they dream?
And...

FYI - for those of you who aren't in the practice of studying literature or whatever - you support yourself based on the "text." What inside people think is fallacious reasoning. Basing an argument on what the author[s] even intended is fallacious reasoning (the intentional fallacy). What is the book/film/show actually saying?
Are solid posts, Reaper.

What it means that people who work in the "industry" understand screenwriting.

I've read forever throughout this thread that the producers had absolutely no idea where this show was going, and I repeatedly said that they did.

It's not an insult. I wouldn't begin to try to tell an expert in auto mechanics or physics or nuclear engineering or any number of professions that they don't know what they're talking about.

But I DO work in film & TV and I DO understand screenwriting and it's process and I DO understand just about everything about this business.

Again, I didn't mean to insult anyone but I'm kinda ****ing sick of being railed at for my understanding.
I apologize if I've offended. As I said, I'm sure you didn't mean it exactly the way it was interpreted.

Believe me, sir, I also understand screenwriting. Very well. Since we both understand screenwriting and it's process so well, and we can't see eye to eye on this... what does that mean?

Reaper16
06-19-2010, 08:14 PM
What it means that people who work in the "industry" understand screenwriting.

I've read forever throughout this thread that the producers had absolutely no idea where this show was going, and I repeatedly said that they did.

It's not an insult. I wouldn't begin to try to tell an expert in auto mechanics or physics or nuclear engineering or any number of professions that they don't know what they're talking about.

But I DO work in film & TV and I DO understand screenwriting and it's process and I DO understand just about everything about this business.

I understand writing. And you know what? I pretty much agree with you on this. I think that once the show was given a set end date that the show did nothing but forward progress to the general endgame that was always known. The messy bits of seasons 2 & 3 seem to me to be directly related to the problem of writing with no idea how long they have to delay the endgame, how long ABC might want the show to run.

Red Brooklyn
06-19-2010, 08:17 PM
I understand writing. And you know what? I pretty much agree with you on this. I think that once the show was given a set end date that the show did nothing but forward progress to the general endgame that was always known. The messy bits of seasons 2 & 3 seem to me to be directly related to the problem of writing with no idea how long they have to delay the endgame, how long ABC might want the show to run.
I would absolutely second this. Though, I loved those messy bits of Season 2.:D

DaneMcCloud
06-19-2010, 08:17 PM
And...


Are solid posts, Reaper.


I apologize if I've offended. As I said, I'm sure you didn't mean it exactly the way it was interpreted.

Believe me, sir, I also understand screenwriting. Very well. Since we both understand screenwriting and it's process so well, and we can't see eye to eye on this... what does that mean?

With all due respect, you've yet to finish the series.

As I've said repeatedly, you can either believe in an island, in a purgatory constructed by the main characters of the show, etc.

Or you can believe that none of it really happened.

It's your choice.

irishjayhawk
06-19-2010, 08:18 PM
What it means that people who work in the "industry" understand screenwriting.

I've read forever throughout this thread that the producers had absolutely no idea where this show was going, and I repeatedly said that they did.

It's not an insult. I wouldn't begin to try to tell an expert in auto mechanics or physics or nuclear engineering or any number of professions that they don't know what they're talking about.

But I DO work in film & TV and I DO understand screenwriting and its process and I DO understand just about everything about this business.

Again, I didn't mean to insult anyone but I'm kinda ****ing sick of being railed at for my understanding.

For the most part, you're getting railed on for two reasons:

1) Lack of evidence
2) Lack of consistency (ie. dream v flash before eyes, show is about Jack v Jack constructs it in nanosecond before death)

You've never really addressed point 1 other than saying things are to fantastical (Egyptians, monsters, polar bears, etc) to be "real".

As for 2, you've constantly seemed to move the goal posts. Flashing before death would be filed under "dream sequence" in any logical method of ending categorizations. Not to mention that a show can be about a character and yet not have the entire show hinge on that character's death. That is, LOST can be about Jack (which I agree with) but that fact doesn't mean that he constructed it while dying. Those are two different ideas that CAN be related but also can be SEPARATE.

DaneMcCloud
06-19-2010, 08:23 PM
For the most part, you're getting railed on for two reasons:

1) Lack of evidence
2) Lack of consistency (ie. dream v flash before eyes, show is about Jack v Jack constructs it in nanosecond before death)

You've never really addressed point 1 other than saying things are to fantastical (Egyptians, monsters, polar bears, etc) to be "real".

As for 2, you've constantly seemed to move the goal posts. Flashing before death would be filed under "dream sequence" in any logical method of ending categorizations. Not to mention that a show can be about a character and yet not have the entire show hinge on that character's death. That is, LOST can be about Jack (which I agree with) but that fact doesn't mean that he constructed it while dying. Those are two different ideas that CAN be related but also can be SEPARATE.

Lack of evidence?

It's right before your eyes.

If you can't see it, there's nothing I can say or do to change your mind.

You have your perception of what happened, I have mine.

DaneMcCloud
06-19-2010, 08:26 PM
Oh, and one more thing: The producer made a massive error in judgment by having the coffin empty when Jack arrived at the church.

It should have been Jack in that coffin because it was his "funeral".

The final ten minutes was a Mongolian clusterfuck.

Red Brooklyn
06-19-2010, 08:30 PM
With all due respect, you've yet to finish the series.

As I've said repeatedly, you can either believe in an island, in a purgatory constructed by the main characters of the show, etc.

Or you can believe that none of it really happened.

It's your choice.
Well, just to clarify, with all due respect, I have have finished the series. In fact, I've seen every episode of the series (except The End, which I've still only seen once as it aired) at least 3 times. In many cases, many more than that. Not that I'm claiming to be more informed or more of an "expert" than others. Just that I've had ample time to form my opinions and I do, to that end, know what I'm talking about, and try to support my own ideas thusly.

And I chose to believe in the former. Because if none of it really happened, I don't see the point. That idea worked fine in 1939, with technicolor to distruct the audience. But in the modern decade, not only is it cheap and unimaginative, it's irresponsible and cowardly to tell the audience "none of it really happened." There's just no way that's what Damon, Carlton, JJ et al were trying to communicate. I really can't see it that way.

So, again, I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Red Brooklyn
06-19-2010, 08:33 PM
Oh, and one more thing: The producer made a massive error in judgment by having the coffin empty when Jack arrived at the church.

It should have been Jack in that coffin because it was his "funeral".

The final ten minutes was a Mongolian cluster****.
I didn't get (or rather take it) that it was Jack's funeral. Also, it was Christian's coffin. Des had it delivered to the church. I think showing Jack in Christian's coffin would have gummed up the works and made little sense to me.

Though, I do enjoy the phrase "Mongolian clusterfuck." That's nice. :)

DaneMcCloud
06-19-2010, 08:36 PM
So, again, I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree.

When I say "none of it really happened", I mean that none of it happened outside of Jack's final flash.

If I'm to believe that they were actually taken to this magical place and were able to construct a parallel universe for theirselves to come to some sort of "realization", independently of each other, I'd need a lot more of an explanation than just a few minutes of exposition by Christian Shepard.

But again, that's just me.

DaneMcCloud
06-19-2010, 08:39 PM
I didn't get (or rather take it) that it was Jack's funeral. Also, it was Christian's coffin. Des had it delivered to the church. I think showing Jack in Christian's coffin would have gummed up the works and made little sense to me.

Though, I do enjoy the phrase "Mongolian clusterfuck." That's nice. :)

That's the thing: It WASN'T Christian's funeral because Christian was long dead.

Jack "died". Everyone else was dead already. They were all waiting for him before moving on. IMO, that says that it was all about Jack and all in Jack's flash.

Otherwise, why in the hell would all of those people hang around waiting for Jack? It just doesn't make sense and quite honestly, there's way too much that doesn't make sense (at least to me) on a literal level.

Red Brooklyn
06-19-2010, 08:55 PM
That's the thing: It WASN'T Christian's funeral because Christian was long dead.

Jack "died". Everyone else was dead already. They were all waiting for him before moving on. IMO, that says that it was all about Jack and all in Jack's flash.

Otherwise, why in the hell would all of those people hang around waiting for Jack? It just doesn't make sense and quite honestly, there's way too much that doesn't make sense (at least to me) on a literal level.

Sure. I can understand that.

But, I don't think it was anyone's funeral. Not Christian's. Not Jack's. Not anyone's. The church (which happened to be the same church that housed The Lamp Post Station) was just a meating place.

And they were all already dead. Jack included. He died long ago. The others were just waiting for Jack to "wake up" to the reality of the situation. That's why they were all hanging around waiting for him. They weren't waiting for him to "die" or arrive or anything like that. They were waiting for him to realize the truth. To let go. They were waiting because they couldn't move on without him. He was the last piece.

In a large way the show was about Jack. It was his quest. He was Luke Skywalker. He was Oddessyus. He was The Hero With A Thousand Faces. Absolutley, yes. I agree with that. But he needed the rest of them too. And they needed him. I, personally, don't like to trivialize the rest of the group. They were all there for a reason.

Reaper16
06-19-2010, 08:58 PM
Sure. I can understand that.

But, I don't think it was anyone's funeral. Not Christian's. Not Jack's. Not anyone's. The church (which happened to be the same church that housed The Lamp Post Station) was just a meating place.

And they were all already dead. Jack included. He died long ago. The others were just waiting for Jack to "wake up" to the reality of the situation. That's why they were all hanging around waiting for him. They weren't waiting for him to "die" or arrive or anything like that. They were waiting for him to realize the truth. To let go. They were waiting because they couldn't move on without him. He was the last piece.

In a large way the show was about Jack. It was his quest. He was Luke Skywalker. He was Oddessyus. He was The Hero With A Thousand Faces. Absolutley, yes. I agree with that. But he needed the rest of them too. And they needed him. I, personally, don't like to trivialize the rest of the group. They were all there for a reason.
And Dane is saying that, yes, they were there for a reason. Jack did need them. Only they were imagined personas of Jack's planemates, constructed by Jack's mind.

Red Brooklyn
06-19-2010, 09:03 PM
If I'm to believe that they were actually taken to this magical place and were able to construct a parallel universe for theirselves to come to some sort of "realization", independently of each other, I'd need a lot more of an explanation than just a few minutes of exposition by Christian Shepard.
That's fair. I, personally, don't. But I totally understand why you would want/need more of an explanation.

I don't completely agree with your characterization above, however. For example, I do believe they crashed on a "magical" island. However, I think, like The X-Files, they tried to provide a scientific (albiet psuedo-scientific at times) explanation for the magic. I do believe they constructed a place, but I don't think it was parallel to anything. I think it was an after life. And they didn't need to come to some sort of realization indepedently of each other. The island - life - was about reaching the realizations, finding the redemptions, etc. The after-life was about reuniting and letting go. And they certainly didn't do that independently of each other. The whole point was that they needed each other to do it.

Again, just my take. But I think it's an informed and supported (by the episode) opinion.

Red Brooklyn
06-19-2010, 09:04 PM
And Dane is saying that, yes, they were there for a reason. Jack did need them. Only they were imagined personas of Jack's planemates, constructed by Jack's mind.
Right. Though, I wonder what he needed them for if they were imagined... maybe it was just to help him have his anagnorisis?

Which doesn't ring true to me. Or make a lot of creative sense. But I can understand why someone coming from that point of view would be frustrated by the show.

DaneMcCloud
06-19-2010, 09:23 PM
Right. Though, I wonder what he needed them for if they were imagined... maybe it was just to help him have his anagnorisis?

It's called "rationalization"

:D

Jack needed for everything that occurred on the island to happen so that he could move on.

Science versus Faith.

Since he was dead, there was no time limit. Thematically, Jack's eyes opened and Jack's eyes closed, signifying the beginning and end of his journey.

Once again, I'm not stating unequivocally that everyone should see or believe what I believe about the "true meaning" of the series.

But I just don't appreciate being told that I'm "wrong" without anyone giving me specific reasons, based on 122 hours of television.

Red Brooklyn
06-19-2010, 09:36 PM
It's called "rationalization"

:D

Jack needed for everything that occurred on the island to happen so that he could move on.

Science versus Faith.

Since he was dead, there was no time limit. Thematically, Jack's eyes opened and Jack's eyes closed, signifying the beginning and end of his journey.

Once again, I'm not stating unequivocally that everyone should see or believe what I believe about the "true meaning" of the series.

But I just don't appreciate being told that I'm "wrong" without anyone giving me specific reasons, based on 122 hours of television.
:D

I'm certainly not saying you're wrong. But you're not right. ROFL (Sorry... that was lame, but I couldn't resist.)

No, seriously, you're not wrong. That's your interpretation, and now that I understand it a little better, I can see how you arrived there.

I don't know what kind of evidence I'd really be able to provide in rebuttal.... so I guess I'll just quote what you said earlier in the thread...

"Lack of evidence?
It's right before your eyes.
If you can't see it, there's nothing I can say or do to change your mind."

But that's art. Two people see the same thing, and each gets a vastly different impression. That's not a bad thing at all, in my book.

DaneMcCloud
06-19-2010, 09:48 PM
But that's art. Two people see the same thing, and each gets a vastly different impression. That's not a bad thing at all, in my book.

I absolutely agree.

I think that's the reason why the producers felt that the ending would be controversial, due to it's ambiguity. Two people can watch the same exact show and come away with two completely different conclusions.

And once more, I wasn't trying to imply that anyone that I've spoken to out here is "superior" or that their opinion counts for something more. It's just that I've found a common ground with people that work as screenwriters and producers that I haven't found in this forum.

Ultimately, that's neither here nor there. Just a report.

Red Brooklyn
06-19-2010, 09:54 PM
I absolutely agree.

I think that's the reason why the producers felt that the ending would be controversial, due to it's ambiguity. Two people can watch the same exact show and come away with two completely different conclusions.

And once more, I wasn't trying to imply that anyone that I've spoken to out here is "superior" or that their opinion counts for something more. It's just that I've found a common ground with people that work as screenwriters and producers that I haven't found in this forum.

Ultimately, that's neither here nor there. Just a report.
:thumb:

Absolutely, man. I'm pickin' up what you're throwin' down. Just took me a minute to get on the same page.

Good chat, Dane. I really enjoyed it. And now I understand you're POV much better. Obviously, we don't completely see eye to eye, but at least now I can respect where you're coming from. Which is all I was after in the first place.

I'm off to bed.

Reaper16
06-19-2010, 09:55 PM
But I just don't appreciate being told that I'm "wrong" without anyone giving me specific reasons, based on 122 hours of television.
That is Saccopoo-level wrong. Wow. Sorry for the insult but it needs to be said.

At bare minimum, the fact that the events you waive away as part of Jack's mind are events that aired on the TV show act as specific reasons your interpretation might be wrong. Beyond that, we've been told repeadtedly in dialogue that "whatever happened, happened" and not just from Christian Shepard in the finale. It was said multiple times and was even an episode title. There is a veritable mountain of specific reasons to support that the on-island events actually physically happened to these characters.

DaneMcCloud
06-19-2010, 10:00 PM
That is Saccopoo-level wrong. Wow. Sorry for the insult but it needs to be said.

At bare minimum, the fact that the events you waive away as part of Jack's mind are events that aired on the TV show act as specific reasons your interpretation might be wrong. Beyond that, we've been told repeadtedly in dialogue that "whatever happened, happened" and not just from Christian Shepard in the finale. It was said multiple times and was even an episode title. There is a veritable mountain of specific reasons to support that the on-island events actually physically happened to these characters.

And I disagree.

I don't think there's ANY proof that they happened, just as I don't think they "created a purgatory" for themselves in Season Six.

The only "proof" is that it was shown on network television.

But that in itself isn't enough to convince me that 60 people miraculously landed on a lush tropical island alive after dropping more than 35,000 feet in the air, only to find Egyptian ruins, the Dharma Initiative and a pair of Machiavellian immortals.

Reaper16
06-19-2010, 10:10 PM
And I disagree.

I don't think there's ANY proof that they happened, just as I don't think they "created a purgatory" for themselves in Season Six.

The only "proof" is that it was shown on network television.

But that in itself isn't enough to convince me that 60 people miraculously landed on a lush tropical island alive after dropping more than 35,000 feet in the air, only to find Egyptian ruins, the Dharma Initiative and a pair of Machiavellian immortals.
So why is it that you and your cabal of like-minded industry acquaintances want to treat the show like a piece of psychological realism?

DaneMcCloud
06-19-2010, 10:18 PM
So why is it that you and your cabal of like-minded industry acquaintances want to treat the show like a piece of psychological realism?

As I stated earlier in this thread, Cinema tells one story, dialogue tells another.

It's up to you to decide which you believe.

Aside from that, *I* personally believe the answer is clear. Again, I'm not "bashing" anyone and I'm not trying to insult anyone or trying to make anyone feel inferior for not seeing the same thing.

I'd just like a little respect for my point of view and for the most part, that's been ignored.

I'll be looking forward to your final thoughts once you've completely the series.

Reaper16
06-19-2010, 10:41 PM
As I stated earlier in this thread, Cinema tells one story, dialogue tells another.

It's up to you to decide which you believe.

Aside from that, *I* personally believe the answer is clear. Again, I'm not "bashing" anyone and I'm not trying to insult anyone or trying to make anyone feel inferior for not seeing the same thing.

I'd just like a little respect for my point of view and for the most part, that's been ignored.

I'll be looking forward to your final thoughts once you've completely the series.
I certainly don't think that either you or I are bashing anyone, etc. I think that many posters wish to understand your point of view better is a sign of respect for it. Well, respect for you anyway. I (and apparently irish and Buck and Red_Brooklyn) can't grasp your thinking.

I don't know what you mean by "cinema tells one story, dialogue tells another," especially as an answer to my query about how/why you treat the show as, ultimately, psychological realism.

Reaper16
06-19-2010, 11:15 PM
O SHIT HANK FROM BREAKING BAD IS TALKING TO MILES IN A FLASHBACK ABOUT HIS SON

HIS SON. SPOILERS HANK WILL HAVE A SON.

irishjayhawk
06-19-2010, 11:20 PM
Dane,

Riddle me this:

The show is about Jack's transformation from man of science to man of faith. We agree inasmuch. So, why is it that you're expecting us to take the man of science approach to view the ending?

That is, the man of science is a skeptic, like Jack was in the beginning. He was skeptical of anything and everything. He'd call bullshit. In the latter seasons, as he progressed, we see the man of science be replaced with the man of faith. In this, we're supposed to take away that we should have faith in something. "Destiny." "We're all here for a reason". "We have to go back!" Why would you want us to reject the faith that "the things on the island actually happened" and instead accept the man of science approach which is "bullshit, this is a man's comprehension as he dies".

It seems like the opposite of Jack's journey.

irishjayhawk
06-19-2010, 11:21 PM
O SHIT HANK FROM BREAKING BAD IS TALKING TO MILES IN A FLASHBACK ABOUT HIS SON

HIS SON. SPOILERS HANK WILL HAVE A SON.

I remember having the same reaction. :)

Buck
06-19-2010, 11:22 PM
O SHIT HANK FROM BREAKING BAD IS TALKING TO MILES IN A FLASHBACK ABOUT HIS SON

HIS SON. SPOILERS HANK WILL HAVE A SON.

HANKS SON ON BB WILL BE....WAIT FOR IT....WAAAAALT

Reaper16
06-19-2010, 11:26 PM
HANKS SON ON BB WILL BE....WAIT FOR IT....WAAAAALT
ALL OF LOST OCCURED IN AN INSTANT BETWEEN JESSE'S SOBER MIND & JESSE'S HIGH MIND.

OCEANIC 815 = WAYFARER 515

Buck
06-19-2010, 11:36 PM
ALL OF LOST OCCURED IN AN INSTANT BETWEEN JESSE'S SOBER MIND & JESSE'S HIGH MIND.

OCEANIC 815 = WAYFARER 515

JANE IS THE ISLAND

Reaper16
06-19-2010, 11:38 PM
JANE IS THE ISLAND
SHE CHOKED TO DEATH ON HER OWN LOOSELY CONNECTED ORAL DISCHARGE


...



JUST LIKE LOST

Buck
06-19-2010, 11:41 PM
SHE CHOKED TO DEATH ON HER OWN LOOSELY CONNECTED ORAL DISCHARGE


...



JUST LIKE LOST

AND WALT DID NOTHING TO STOP IT

Reaper16
06-19-2010, 11:51 PM
AND WALT DID NOTHING TO STOP IT
HE TRIED TO STOP IT BECAUSE HE IS SPECIAL AFTER ALL BUT THEN VINCENT RAN AWAY AND HE WENT AFTER VINCENT AND MICHAEL GOT MAD AND

OH

THE OTHER WALT

DaneMcCloud
06-20-2010, 12:26 AM
Actually, Dane, no one is insulting you for not liking a movie. They are insulting you for your reasoning, demeanor, providing no answers, and overall condescending tone, as evidenced by this part of the LOST thread.

And that's the final thing I'll say in this thread that isn't LOST related.

You know, it occurred to me tonight that you've pulled this same exact shit before, and I found the quote.

You're a whiny little bitch who likes to ask more questions than answer them. I could pull up a bevy of posts you've created over the years slamming the producers and writers of Lost, but all it would do is serve to embarrass you and pull your pants down in front of all to see.

This thread runs deep, and 99% of the people posting here didn't have a fucking clue. As a matter of fact, most people posting here didn't get the time travel aspect, the non-purgatory aspect, etc.

I find it fucking laughable that now, those same people, the same people that didn't have a goddamned clue are questioning what I saw for the past six seasons.

LMAO

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

I hope you enjoy the little bubble you've created for yourself.

Reaper16
06-20-2010, 12:55 AM
You know, it occurred to me tonight that you've pulled this same exact shit before, and I found the quote.

You're a whiny little bitch who likes to ask more questions than answer them. I could pull up a bevy of posts you've created over the years slamming the producers and writers of Lost, but all it would do is serve to embarrass you and pull your pants down in front of all to see.

This thread runs deep, and 99% of the people posting here didn't have a fucking clue. As a matter of fact, most people posting here didn't get the time travel aspect, the non-purgatory aspect, etc.

I find it fucking laughable that now, those same people, the same people that didn't have a goddamned clue are questioning what I saw for the past six seasons.

LMAO

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

I hope you enjoy the little bubble you've created for yourself.
Well. There goes...
Again, I'm not "bashing" anyone and I'm not trying to insult anyone or trying to make anyone feel inferior for not seeing the same thing.

... that.

Brainiac
06-20-2010, 05:24 AM
And I disagree.

I don't think there's ANY proof that they happened, just as I don't think they "created a purgatory" for themselves in Season Six.

The only "proof" is that it was shown on network television.

But that in itself isn't enough to convince me that 60 people miraculously landed on a lush tropical island alive after dropping more than 35,000 feet in the air, only to find Egyptian ruins, the Dharma Initiative and a pair of Machiavellian immortals.
Um, you do realize that it's FICTION either way, don't you?

At the end of the day it doesn't really matter how strongly you feel that this fictional story all took place in a split second in Jack's mind, it doesn't really matter how many logical fallacies you use to support your position, and it doesn't really matter if you think that anyone who doesn't agree with your interpretation just doesn't get it.

The only thing that really matters is that most people DO feel let down by a shitty end to a great TV show. The writers worked extremely hard over the years to create a very complex mythology, and they flushed it all down the toilet in Season 6. I would have been a lot happier with the show if they had ended it after Season 5 by telling us that Jacob and the MIB were timeless near-deities conducting an experiment about the nature of mankind. When the writers decided to tell the back stories of Jacob and the MIB they made them too ordinary.

Baby Lee
06-20-2010, 06:48 AM
You know, it occurred to me tonight that you've pulled this same exact shit before, and I found the quote.

You're a whiny little bitch who likes to ask more questions than answer them. I could pull up a bevy of posts you've created over the years slamming the producers and writers of Lost, but all it would do is serve to embarrass you and pull your pants down in front of all to see.

This thread runs deep, and 99% of the people posting here didn't have a fucking clue. As a matter of fact, most people posting here didn't get the time travel aspect, the non-purgatory aspect, etc.

I find it fucking laughable that now, those same people, the same people that didn't have a goddamned clue are questioning what I saw for the past six seasons.

LMAO

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

I hope you enjoy the little bubble you've created for yourself.

Speaking of pants down.

http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc5/darenrpark/baboon.jpg

How does it feel, after being here so long, to LIE to everyone about not bashing, and not wanting to express superiority or to insult others? Even a little bit of shame? To feel the urge to LIE about your intentions to try to garner just a little sympathy in your campaign to promote your interpretation of a FUCKING TV SHOW?

To forfeit the presumption of straight dealing in all of your interactions on the board over the interpretation of a FUCKING TV SHOW?

irishjayhawk
06-20-2010, 07:26 AM
You know, it occurred to me tonight that you've pulled this same exact shit before, and I found the quote.

You're a whiny little bitch who likes to ask more questions than answer them. I could pull up a bevy of posts you've created over the years slamming the producers and writers of Lost, but all it would do is serve to embarrass you and pull your pants down in front of all to see.

This thread runs deep, and 99% of the people posting here didn't have a ****ing clue. As a matter of fact, most people posting here didn't get the time travel aspect, the non-purgatory aspect, etc.

I find it ****ing laughable that now, those same people, the same people that didn't have a goddamned clue are questioning what I saw for the past six seasons.

LMAO

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

I hope you enjoy the little bubble you've created for yourself.

So there cannot be any separate instances? One in which everyone was on you for demeanor and one where only one person was?

ROFL


I was expecting an interesting answer to my riddle but alas I'm to be disappointed.

And the whole "not having a clue about purgatory" comes from the producers specifically stating over and over that it wasn't "purgatory".

Baby Lee
06-20-2010, 07:31 AM
Interesting read on the evolving culture of tv reviewing, for those interested.

http://www.avclub.com/articles/how-has-the-culture-of-tv-and-tvwatching-changed,42274/

patteeu
06-20-2010, 07:40 AM
You can't move on to Heaven without Dave.

LMAO

Red Brooklyn
06-20-2010, 08:01 AM
The only thing that really matters is that most people DO feel let down by a shitty end to a great TV show. The writers worked extremely hard over the years to create a very complex mythology, and they flushed it all down the toilet in Season 6. I would have been a lot happier with the show if they had ended it after Season 5 by telling us that Jacob and the MIB were timeless near-deities conducting an experiment about the nature of mankind. When the writers decided to tell the back stories of Jacob and the MIB they made them too ordinary.
I don't know that "most" people feel let down. Certainly, I've not conducted a survey, but everyone I know in real life was profoundly moved by the end. I'd wager, at worst, the ratio is 50/50. Which Darlton predicted.

Personally, I was terrified that the show was going to tell us that Jacob and MIB were deities. That was the last thing I wanted to see happen. I was thrilled that they ended up just being dudes. Ordinary men in an extraordinary situation. Fallable. It really anchored their story for me, and made the ending much more powerful. Plus if it all been just some experiment about the nature of mankind, it would have really negated the seasons that preceeded it. It would have removed the focus from our losties and their journey. Which, to me, was the thrust of the show. That was the whole point. To remove that from the equation would have left the story impotent, IMO.

patteeu
06-20-2010, 08:28 AM
You know, it occurred to me tonight that you've pulled this same exact shit before, and I found the quote.

You're a whiny little bitch who likes to ask more questions than answer them. I could pull up a bevy of posts you've created over the years slamming the producers and writers of Lost, but all it would do is serve to embarrass you and pull your pants down in front of all to see.

This thread runs deep, and 99% of the people posting here didn't have a ****ing clue. As a matter of fact, most people posting here didn't get the time travel aspect, the non-purgatory aspect, etc.

I find it ****ing laughable that now, those same people, the same people that didn't have a goddamned clue are questioning what I saw for the past six seasons.

LMAO

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

I hope you enjoy the little bubble you've created for yourself.

I can't imagine why people keep getting the misconception that you're talking down to them.

Brainiac
06-20-2010, 08:50 AM
I don't know that "most" people feel let down. Certainly, I've not conducted a survey, but everyone I know in real life was profoundly moved by the end. I'd wager, at worst, the ratio is 50/50. Which Darlton predicted.

Personally, I was terrified that the show was going to tell us that Jacob and MIB were deities. That was the last thing I wanted to see happen. I was thrilled that they ended up just being dudes. Ordinary men in an extraordinary situation. Fallable. It really anchored their story for me, and made the ending much more powerful. Plus if it all been just some experiment about the nature of mankind, it would have really negated the seasons that preceeded it. It would have removed the focus from our losties and their journey. Which, to me, was the thrust of the show. That was the whole point. To remove that from the equation would have left the story impotent, IMO.
The nice thing is that we can disagree without resorting to calling each other "whiny little bitches" who "just don't fucking get it".

Guru
06-20-2010, 09:06 AM
You know, it occurred to me tonight that you've pulled this same exact shit before, and I found the quote.

You're a whiny little bitch who likes to ask more questions than answer them. I could pull up a bevy of posts you've created over the years slamming the producers and writers of Lost, but all it would do is serve to embarrass you and pull your pants down in front of all to see.

This thread runs deep, and 99% of the people posting here didn't have a ****ing clue. As a matter of fact, most people posting here didn't get the time travel aspect, the non-purgatory aspect, etc.

I find it ****ing laughable that now, those same people, the same people that didn't have a goddamned clue are questioning what I saw for the past six seasons.

LMAO

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

I hope you enjoy the little bubble you've created for yourself.Dude.:shake:

It was one thing to go after irish but you just bashed pretty much everyone in this thread with that post.

We have all caught things in the show that others have not and vice versa.

Mr. Plow
06-20-2010, 09:54 AM
I suck.

patteeu
06-20-2010, 11:16 AM
I suck.

Dane agrees.

irishjayhawk
06-20-2010, 03:53 PM
Dane,

Riddle me this:

The show is about Jack's transformation from man of science to man of faith. We agree inasmuch. So, why is it that you're expecting us to take the man of science approach to view the ending?

That is, the man of science is a skeptic, like Jack was in the beginning. He was skeptical of anything and everything. He'd call bullshit. In the latter seasons, as he progressed, we see the man of science be replaced with the man of faith. In this, we're supposed to take away that we should have faith in something. "Destiny." "We're all here for a reason". "We have to go back!" Why would you want us to reject the faith that "the things on the island actually happened" and instead accept the man of science approach which is "bullshit, this is a man's comprehension as he dies".

It seems like the opposite of Jack's journey.

Dane?

Red Brooklyn
06-20-2010, 04:41 PM
The nice thing is that we can disagree without resorting to calling each other "whiny little bitches" who "just don't ****ing get it".
Exactly. :clap:

I love the healthy debate, but I really don't get the disrespect and name-calling. There's just no reason for it.

Reaper16
06-20-2010, 10:12 PM
WTF, Lost? Why are you trying to retcon shit again? I just watched the pretty damn fantastic season 6 episode "The Substitute," in which Jacob's list of candidates is revealed. Jack is number 23 on that list despite a line of dialogue from an Other at the Hydra station, from one of the first few episodes of season 3 - the very first piece of dialogue to mention Jacob's name - that went "[Jack's] not even on Jacob's list!"

THAT DOESN'T ADD UP, LOST.

Third Eye
06-20-2010, 10:51 PM
WTF, Lost? Why are you trying to retcon shit again? I just watched the pretty damn fantastic season 6 episode "The Substitute," in which Jacob's list of candidates is revealed. Jack is number 23 on that list despite a line of dialogue from an Other at the Hydra station, from one of the first few episodes of season 3 - the very first piece of dialogue to mention Jacob's name - that went "[Jack's] not even on Jacob's list!"

THAT DOESN'T ADD UP, LOST.

Different list I think. It's been awhile since I've seen the first several seasons, but didn't the others abduct those that were on the list and they became part of the others? I remember thinking early on that maybe those that had been deemed "good" or something along those lines were being abducted and brought into the others. Whatever the purpose, it would seem that none of the candidates were on that particular list.

Buck
06-20-2010, 11:13 PM
WTF, Lost? Why are you trying to retcon shit again? I just watched the pretty damn fantastic season 6 episode "The Substitute," in which Jacob's list of candidates is revealed. Jack is number 23 on that list despite a line of dialogue from an Other at the Hydra station, from one of the first few episodes of season 3 - the very first piece of dialogue to mention Jacob's name - that went "[Jack's] not even on Jacob's list!"

THAT DOESN'T ADD UP, LOST.

IMO Ben "made up" Jacob's list. Note he had never met Jacob before he killed him. They never mentioned who got the list from Jacob so it could have been a real list brought by Richard or a fake one Ben made up.

Brainiac
06-21-2010, 07:39 AM
Speaking of Ben: I can almost understand why he felt the need to kill Jacob. But killing Locke was unforgiveable. I think Locke (the real one, not the impostor) may have been my favorite of all of the Lost characters.

Red Brooklyn
06-21-2010, 08:28 AM
WTF, Lost? Why are you trying to retcon shit again? I just watched the pretty damn fantastic season 6 episode "The Substitute," in which Jacob's list of candidates is revealed. Jack is number 23 on that list despite a line of dialogue from an Other at the Hydra station, from one of the first few episodes of season 3 - the very first piece of dialogue to mention Jacob's name - that went "[Jack's] not even on Jacob's list!"

THAT DOESN'T ADD UP, LOST.
Different list.

Speaking of Ben: I can almost understand why he felt the need to kill Jacob. But killing Locke was unforgiveable. I think Locke (the real one, not the impostor) may have been my favorite of all of the Lost characters.
Me too.

IMO Ben "made up" Jacob's list. Note he had never met Jacob before he killed him. They never mentioned who got the list from Jacob so it could have been a real list brought by Richard or a fake one Ben made up.
Could be. This is a very popular theory on the interwebs. But it's also possible that Jacob made various lists for various purposes. Though, Jack is a candidate from the get-go, he may not have been necessary to complete every task Jacob put the Others up to. When Pickett says, "Shephard wasn't even on Jacob's list" it's possible that he's speaking the truth. The bummer is that we never really found out specifically (though there are hints)what that list means. Whereas we do know what the list on the cave walls meant.

But I like the idea that Ben was making shit up. It plays really well into the "Man Behind The Curtain" theme.

Reaper16
06-21-2010, 09:41 AM
Ben bullshitting a list is way more satisfactory than -

Lost writers: "erm, um, *mumble mumble* Its an, um, different list, erm, yeah. Another list. Yup."

Rausch
06-21-2010, 09:59 AM
Could be. This is a very popular theory on the interwebs. But it's also possible that Jacob made various lists for various purposes. Though, Jack is a candidate from the get-go, he may not have been necessary to complete every task Jacob put the Others up to. When Pickett says, "Shephard wasn't even on Jacob's list" it's possible that he's speaking the truth. The bummer is that we never really found out specifically (though there are hints)what that list means. Whereas we do know what the list on the cave walls meant.

But I like the idea that Ben was making shit up. It plays really well into the "Man Behind The Curtain" theme.

Ben was always making $#it up. He'd never spoken to Jacob and was resentful about it.

Ben's "list" was always HIS list.

The fact that Jacob and the MIB were never really explained (HOW did Jacob become immortal as well as MIB) OR how the importance of Walt and Claire's kid were never explained (while being HUGE plot points and integral to the story/sometimes) OR how DHARMA even fits in to the story at all in the long run...

Very, VERY $#itty wrap up...

Red Brooklyn
06-21-2010, 10:34 AM
Ben was always making $#it up. He'd never spoken to Jacob and was resentful about it.

Ben's "list" was always HIS list.

The fact that Jacob and the MIB were never really explained (HOW did Jacob become immortal as well as MIB) OR how the importance of Walt and Claire's kid were never explained (while being HUGE plot points and integral to the story/sometimes) OR how DHARMA even fits in to the story at all in the long run...

Very, VERY $#itty wrap up...
I agree with your comments about Ben, him motives, and his lists. I've always favored the theory that Ben was making shit up.

I think Jacob and MIB were explained. And neither of them were immortal. They both died. :)

Walt is a bit of dangling thread, which is upsetting to me. I never understood why everyone thought Aaron (Claire's baby) was so special. He wasn't. He's just Claire's son.

Actually, Reaper, can you address this? As someone who is just getting caught up and has it pretty fresh in their minds... what are you impression of Aaron and his "specialness" or importance thus far? What are you expecting or wanting in terms of resolution?

I'm very satisfied with the way DHARMA fits into the whole story. But that's just me.

Reaper16
06-21-2010, 11:25 AM
Walt is a bit of dangling thread, which is upsetting to me. I never understood why everyone thought Aaron (Claire's baby) was so special. He wasn't. He's just Claire's son.

Actually, Reaper, can you address this? As someone who is just getting caught up and has it pretty fresh in their minds... what are you impression of Aaron and his "specialness" or importance thus far? What are you expecting or wanting in terms of resolution?

Aaron hasn't been special. BUT we've been told, over and over, that he is. Claire and the need to protect Aaron was one of the primary plot threads from the first three seasons! And I don't think the show will ever go back to that plot thread. I pretty much don't forget anything - that's why I brought up Pickett's line about Jacob's list; what am I supposed to think if the Candidates list is the first list from Jacob that we see on the show? Do the show's writers think I will forget about their dropped plot threads, about their dialogue references to things unexplained? Because I don't forget. Anyway, I'm still frustrated as Hell about that psychic that pleaded with Claire over several desperate phone calls that she raise her baby - only to see in an Eko flashback a season later that he is a "hack psychic," as if showing that he is a hack will let the audience forget about his desperation wrt Claire. But that only makes his desperation all the more realistic! He's a hack but he acts like he had a real, frightening premonition this time!

Walt's whole deal is equally as frustrating. We know that he is "special" and every time someone on this show is called "special" it is pretty darn significant (well, except for when Shannon was referred to as special. More sloppy writing). But he has been ignored too.

As I will talk about when I finish the series, Lost is a show full of unresolved plot points; some of that is sloppiness and some is intentional. Through this, the show (perhaps accidentally) will achieve its greatest artistic statement.

Red Brooklyn
06-21-2010, 11:35 AM
Aaron hasn't been special. BUT we've been told, over and over, that he is. Claire and the need to protect Aaron was one of the primary plot threads from the first three seasons! And I don't think the show will ever go back to that plot thread. I pretty much don't forget anything - that's why I brought up Pickett's line about Jacob's list; what am I supposed to think if the Candidates list is the first list from Jacob that we see on the show? Do the show's writers think I will forget about their dropped plot threads, about their dialogue references to things unexplained? Because I don't forget. Anyway, I'm still frustrated as Hell about that psychic that pleaded with Claire over several desperate phone calls that she raise her baby - only to see in an Eko flashback a season later that he is a "hack psychic," as if showing that he is a hack will let the audience forget about his desperation wrt Claire. But that only makes his desperation all the more realistic! He's a hack but he acts like he had a real, frightening premonition this time!
Cool.

I don't remember anyone besides the Richard Malkin even implying that Aaron was special. Except maybe Ethan... (?) But the others only seemed interested in him for scientific reasons - trying to figure out the pregnancy issues on the island. But, like I said, it's much more fresh in you mind.

There are two answers to the "mystery" (and I use that word loosely) of Aaron and the Richard Malkin. One is, as you stated, he's just a hack. Maybe this isn't the best possible answer, but it's an answer none the less. And if that's the answer the show runners intended to give, I'm satisfied by it. But, again, I never saw the kid as important beyond his affect on the characters around him. For example, how he brings Claire and Charlie together, how he helps alter Kate's path and trigger her biggest change, etc...

The second possible answer is something that you haven't gotten to yet. It's a little out there, but we'll talk about it once you've finished.

Reaper16
06-21-2010, 12:02 PM
One of my favorite moments watching the show just happened, and it has nothing at all to due with the show itself. I'm watching season 6's "Lighthouse" (off of a full season torrent, obv). The episodes so far have been recorded from a Canadian broadcast, but not this one. In the middle of the episode, a flash comes at the bottom of the screen that says "Fan sues Royals over hot dog incident - tonight on KMBC 9 news." This episode was taped from a Kansas City broadcast! w00t!

Red Brooklyn
06-21-2010, 12:08 PM
One of my favorite moments watching the show just happened, and it has nothing at all to due with the show itself. I'm watching season 6's "Lighthouse" (off of a full season torrent, obv). The episodes so far have been recorded from a Canadian broadcast, but not this one. In the middle of the episode, a flash comes at the bottom of the screen that says "Fan sues Royals over hot dog incident - tonight on KMBC 9 news." This episode was taped from a Kansas City broadcast! w00t!

ROFL

Baby Lee
06-21-2010, 12:57 PM
One of my favorite moments watching the show just happened, and it has nothing at all to due with the show itself. I'm watching season 6's "Lighthouse" (off of a full season torrent, obv). The episodes so far have been recorded from a Canadian broadcast, but not this one. In the middle of the episode, a flash comes at the bottom of the screen that says "Fan sues Royals over hot dog incident - tonight on KMBC 9 news." This episode was taped from a Kansas City broadcast! w00t!


Bucking heads with Dane, AND d/ling torrents? You'll never eat lunch in LA AGAIN!!!!

Huffmeister
06-21-2010, 01:48 PM
One of my favorite moments watching the show just happened, and it has nothing at all to due with the show itself. I'm watching season 6's "Lighthouse" (off of a full season torrent, obv). The episodes so far have been recorded from a Canadian broadcast, but not this one. In the middle of the episode, a flash comes at the bottom of the screen that says "Fan sues Royals over hot dog incident - tonight on KMBC 9 news." This episode was taped from a Kansas City broadcast! w00t!
That's how I know you're not a "true" Lost fan. If you were a "true" Lost fan you would be posting screen caps of the scrawl at the bottom of the screen, posting links to articles about the lawsuit, and coming up with theories about how the hot dog incident ties in to the show.

:D

Red Brooklyn
06-21-2010, 01:58 PM
That's how I know you're not a "true" Lost fan. If you were a "true" Lost fan you would be posting screen caps of the scrawl at the bottom of the screen, posting links to articles about the lawsuit, and coming up with theories about how the hot dog incident ties in to the show.

:D

ROFLROFLROFL

He's right, though.

Reaper16
06-21-2010, 02:33 PM
That's how I know you're not a "true" Lost fan. If you were a "true" Lost fan you would be posting screen caps of the scrawl at the bottom of the screen, posting links to articles about the lawsuit, and coming up with theories about how the hot dog incident ties in to the show.

:D
The Incident = Juliette blowing up the Jughead bomb

The Hot Dog Incident = Juliette blowing something else, likely LaFluer-related

Red Brooklyn
06-21-2010, 02:44 PM
The Incident = Juliette blowing up the Jughead bomb

The Hot Dog Incident = Juliette blowing something else, likely LaFluer-related
I just want to know if Chef Reyes brought Dharma Ranch to either of these occations.

Reaper16
06-21-2010, 02:57 PM
I just want to know if Chef Reyes brought Dharma Ranch to either of these occations.
He opted for his special garlic-mayo.

Red Brooklyn
06-21-2010, 03:03 PM
He opted for his special garlic-mayo.

:clap:

Huffmeister
06-21-2010, 03:08 PM
The Hot Dog Incident = Juliette blowing something else, likely LaFluer-related
Now THAT would be must see TV!

Reaper16
06-21-2010, 03:50 PM
Hey, people:

What was the experience of watching season 6 like for you? I mean, the viewer doesn't know what the flash-sideways story is exactly. Were you able to truly care about it as it went on, without knowledge of it actually happening or if it is an alternate timeline or whether these versions of the characters we've been following are the same or anything really? And if you were able to care as much about as the on-island happenings, how?

Red Brooklyn
06-21-2010, 04:00 PM
Hey, people:

What was the experience of watching season 6 like for you? I mean, the viewer doesn't know what the flash-sideways story is exactly. Were you able to truly care about it as it went on, without knowledge of it actually happening or if it is an alternate timeline or whether these versions of the characters we've been following are the same or anything really? And if you were able to care as much about as the on-island happenings, how?
I was completely, 100% invested in the on-island stuff the entire time. There was a theory floating around that the FSW was the result of an event that hadn't happened yet. In other words, Juliet didn't creat the FSW, something else did, but we hadn't seen that yet. I watched the whole season with that kind of idea in the back of my head. But I honestly didn't become super-invested in the FSW until Sundown. From there on out I was hooked though.

Buck
06-21-2010, 05:05 PM
Hey, people:

What was the experience of watching season 6 like for you? I mean, the viewer doesn't know what the flash-sideways story is exactly. Were you able to truly care about it as it went on, without knowledge of it actually happening or if it is an alternate timeline or whether these versions of the characters we've been following are the same or anything really? And if you were able to care as much about as the on-island happenings, how?

At first I didn't like the flash sideways, then some crazy shit started happening with Desmond, so I started liking it and wondered how the two worlds would collide. Obviously they never did, but I was interested in them in the 2nd half of the season.

patteeu
06-21-2010, 06:22 PM
Hey, people:

What was the experience of watching season 6 like for you? I mean, the viewer doesn't know what the flash-sideways story is exactly. Were you able to truly care about it as it went on, without knowledge of it actually happening or if it is an alternate timeline or whether these versions of the characters we've been following are the same or anything really? And if you were able to care as much about as the on-island happenings, how?

I watched the FSW story thinking that it was some kind of stepford wife world that would become reality if MIB succeeded in getting off the island. I thought of it as a place that seemed to be everything people wanted on the surface but that was somehow rotten at it's core.

Buck
06-21-2010, 06:27 PM
Going back to "Jacob's list."

What were Sawyer and Kate taken to the Hydra Island for? Was it to build a runway or to ensure that Jack performed back surgery on Ben?

If it was to help build a runway, then you know the list was a fake one made by Ben because why the fuck would he have anyone build a runway unless it was to increase morale among "the Others?" He didn't want anyone to leave the island, so that wouldn't make sense.

If it was to ensure that Jack would perform the surgery (by threatening to kill them if he didn't), then the list was also bullshit here. Ben just made a list of a surgeon and two people who he would kill if Jack didn't perform the surgery.

Either way, made up list. If there are any other scenarios of why Sawyer and Kate were there, let me know. Those 6 episodes are pretty widely considered the shittiest 6 episode run of the show.

irishjayhawk
06-21-2010, 08:12 PM
I didn't care for the off-island stuff until Desmond came into the picture. It didn't help that some of the characters pre-Desmond were ones I didn't care about. Namely, Kate.

irishjayhawk
06-21-2010, 08:13 PM
Going back to "Jacob's list."

What were Sawyer and Kate taken to the Hydra Island for? Was it to build a runway or to ensure that Jack performed back surgery on Ben?

If it was to help build a runway, then you know the list was a fake one made by Ben because why the **** would he have anyone build a runway unless it was to increase morale among "the Others?" He didn't want anyone to leave the island, so that wouldn't make sense.

If it was to ensure that Jack would perform the surgery (by threatening to kill them if he didn't), then the list was also bullshit here. Ben just made a list of a surgeon and two people who he would kill if Jack didn't perform the surgery.

Either way, made up list. If there are any other scenarios of why Sawyer and Kate were there, let me know. Those 6 episodes are pretty widely considered the shittiest 6 episode run of the show.

Widely considered?

I thought you said Season 2 was widely considered the worst. Those people must have thought the last 5 episodes of season 3 saved the other 16.

Buck
06-21-2010, 08:15 PM
Widely considered?

I thought you said Season 2 was widely considered the worst. Those people must have thought the last 5 episodes of season 3 saved the other 16.

Yes I did say that.

I also said that the first 6 episodes of season 3 are widely considered the worst 6 run stretch of the series.

They separated the groups for the first time and those episodes were Jack, Kate, and Sawyer heavy, which many people didn't like. Also the fact that those 6 episodes aired and there was a 3 or 4 month break before the rest of the season put a lot of people off too.

Buck
06-21-2010, 08:16 PM
That being said, what do you think about my theory on "Jacob's list?"

irishjayhawk
06-21-2010, 08:19 PM
Pretty conclusive, but given Ben's character itself, nothing more needs to be said other than Ben is a pathological liar.

Reaper16
06-22-2010, 07:43 PM
Just finished Lost. All done. You know what?

Dane is right.

Buck
06-22-2010, 08:02 PM
Just finished Lost. All done. You know what?

Dane is right.

Nope, thanks for your contribution to the thread.

Reaper16
06-22-2010, 08:30 PM
I was hoping for a few "LMAO" 's at my "Dane was right" post before I posted again. I don't agree with Dane at all; I find virtually no "textual" evidence for his interpretation and I think I can point out some inconsistencies in it anyway.

Alright, before I go on a loosely-structured ramble about the show as a whole I want to say a few words about season 6 itself.

It sucked.

I think that it is the second-worst season of the series. Like season 3 (the worst) it had five or six good-to-great episodes but taken on the whole it was not satisfying. Why? Well, early on in the season all we got out of the on-island action was a bunch of campy, ultimately useless temple action. Things were being stalled for no real reason; it certainly wasn't coming from the characters (which is something I will be bringing up a lot regarding season 6). In fact, there were plenty of characters that didn't have anything to do in this season, or when they did do something it turned out to not make any sense whatsoever (Sayid was a mess of motivation, Ben's actions pretty much made no sense and had no impact, etc).

But the flash-sideways was what really hurt season 6. For the first half of the season it was pretty much impossible to be engaged with it. The audience has no idea what it was or whether it had any connection to the on-island characters. I imagine most people rejected it as "false" and expected everyone to wake up from it and choose the "real" world or something. I knew in advance what it was - a holding cell for the afterlife in which people needed find each other before being able to move on - and with that knowledge the flash-sideways doesn't work, either. There are so many red herrings and shit that doesn't even make sense. Jack's son? Nadia's kids? Those kids don't exist in the timeline proper. Either they are someone else's kids who needed to imagine themselves as being children of other parents for their own moving-on needs or, um, something else that doesn't make sense, I guess. How about people that die in the flash-sideways, like Keamy and Mikael? How do you die twice? I suppose that one way out of this shit would be to say that the people in the church are the "real" dead people in that world and everyone else are "fake" people that they constructed along with the world. But that excludes the characters that weren't in the church like Ben, Alex, etc. Anyway, the flash-sideways was unengaging and nonsensical.

The last part of the season worked as episode-to-episode entertainment. Which, not coincidentally, is how Lost works best.

Mr. Plow
06-22-2010, 08:51 PM
I was half tempted Reaper.....but I wanted to see your next post before I actually commented. ROFL

Buck
06-22-2010, 09:43 PM
Thank goodness...

All I really want to know is whether or not you would recommend it to your friends to watch? (Well thats not all I really want to know, but you know what I am saying.)

Reaper16
06-22-2010, 10:58 PM
Wow. So, Lost, huh? You know what? That was one of the better dramas to ever air on network television. Now, it merits zero comparison to some of the dramas that have aired on cable TV in the last 10-15 years (The Wire, The Sopranos, Mad Men, Breaking Bad, Oz, Deadwood, etc). But as far as dramas on network TV? It is perhaps the most bold, thought-provoking drama in network history. I think that Friday Night Lights, Homicide: Life on the Street, and Twin Peaks are better. But Lost is up there with them. As episode-to-episode entertainment it has few network peers. It can be thrilling, suspensful, handle action at break-neck paces and even pack a heavy emotional punch. When Lost was on (like it was for the last four episodes of season 3 and the first four or so episodes of season 4) it was impossible to dislike. Was Lost "on" enough to make it a great show? Nah, but it is a darn good one, all things considered. I am quite glad to have seen it, which is something I was really unsure about going into it.

Let's get one thing out of the way first: this show is a mess of unresolved plot points and, at times, utterly pointless writing and character motivation. Remember that College Humor video about all the unresolved plot points?:
<object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="about:blank" height="360" width="480">



<embed src="http://www.collegehumor.com/moogaloop/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=1936291&fullscreen=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" allowscriptaccess="always" height="360" width="480"></object>See more funny videos (http://www.collegehumor.com/videos) and funny pictures (http://www.collegehumor.com/pictures) at CollegeHumor (http://www.collegehumor.com/).


Well, I can answer maybe six of those questions. No, Lester Freamon, all the pieces don't matter, not on The Island. The rest of those questions are completely forgotten about, abandoned. Boo. This is either: 1.) very bad, sloppy writing, 2.) done intentionally for reasons I will get to later, or 3.) a mix of both.

Another thing, this is probably the most pretentious show ever. It puts on this facade of deep intellectualism, what with all of the character names relating to famous thinkers and all the crazy-ass time travel and incorporation of classical myth and dozens upon dozens of references to literary works. 99% of these references have no meaning wrt the show itself; everything is surface-value intellectualism. In many ways, Lost is like that hipster douchebag at Starbucks with a beret and an un-read Kierkegaard compilation sitting next to him while he Instant Messages with people on his i Pad. Literary references go nowhere. Names mostly serve as basic connectors (Faraday, hmm? He's probably good at math!). Some names don't even make sense (like Rousseau - Danielle was a woman who lived in fear of what she perceived as the savage, wild Others. She's named after a thinker who thought that humans didn't necessarily have to turn to war and savagery, that combat wasn't hardwired into the human species). Sometimes the show felt like certain works of literature that weren't even referenced on the show. Like, season 6 reminded me a lot of Paradise Lost. Man In Black was made to be sympathetic in a lot of ways like Satan famously was in Milton's masterpiece. But on the whole, for all of the allusions and references, the show wasn't made any deeper because of them.

Reaper16
06-22-2010, 10:59 PM
Now, let's discuss the things that Lost does talk about, because this is not by any means an intellectually bankrupt show (and I apologize in advance for being very general. I can get specific in discussion later but I don't feel enthused enough to elaborately detail things):

Free will vs Fate/Determinism is one of the hallmark themes of the show. So many, many times is "free will" invoked on this show. Characters are constantly having to make choices... but oftentimes the result ends up being the same no matter what. Or the choices are so lopsided in favor of one that there isn't really a choice at all. A great example is how Man in Black is always telling people that he isn't going to make them do anything they don't want to do. Of course, those that don't "willingly choose" to do as he says are murdered. So the question is - is there really choice involved in that? The manipulations set up under the guise of providing choices is often cruel; the very idea of a choice in the matter often illusory. Moreover, it is the nature of the island as a mystical controlling body that props up a system of determinism. People can't die until the island is finished with them; people are only brought to the island for a purpose. They can't leave (for very long anyway) without having to go back and fulfill that purpose. Faraday proposes that only big events are enough to shake up time, that free will is still mathematically possible. He was wrong; detonating the nuke only sent our heroes forward in time so that they could fulfill their purpose. I sort of dig the brazenness of the show landing so in favor of determinism. Part of me balks, of course, because it is so un-American. This show is about individuals making their own choices that don't matter because they'll end up in the place they are supposed to, one way or another. It is sad and despairing stuff, really, to be trapped into a fated series of events, only being able to let go of it all in death.

Re-creation is a minor theme related to determinism. It seemed awfully important in this show that certain moments be re-created as best as possible. The Ajira flight could only get to the island if it re-created the Oceanic flight (needed as many of the same passengers as possible, needed artifacts like a guitar case and a coffin) serves as a big example. In the flash-sideways/purgatory, characters would only remember their lived lives after important moments from them were re-created (Charlie's palm while drowning, Ben getting punched by Desmond, Hurley and Libbey kissing, Kate acting as midwife to Claire, etc). All this re-creation makes for a cyclical feel, which ties in to the Fate/Determinism side of things.

Togetherness was important since the first use of the catchphrase "Save the Cheerlead," er, wrong show, I mean "Live together [or] die alone." When the individual making choices for him or her self doesn't matter, then all you have is the group to consider, how each person's fated path works within the group unit. The characters seemed only to make headway on their problems when they came together; almost all of the bad things that happened to these characters came as a result of the factioning going on, all the separate groups with different means to different ends. Everyone needed each other in the end. Hell, they couldn't even move on after death until they all came together one last time. Man, this show gets really un-American at times, doesn't it?

Power & Leadership are always desired on this show. But they are also shown, time and time again, to be folly. The leaders are constantly making bad decisions and no one really has the power. We think Ben has a lot of power as leader of the Others? Nope. He's lying his ass off all the time because he has no power; he leads with smoke and mirrors and lies because that is all that he has. It is a conventional treatment of the ills of power - hungry, self-centered men desire it but the one person who has it (Jacob) is selfless - but not an ineffective one.

Information drives much of the show - chiefly who is lying about things or who is refusing to talk about things. Lying is huge in this show. Ben does it. Sawyer does it. People lie to protect others. People lie to distance themselves from others. People lie to work angles. The nature of the "con man" lives in the fiber of the series. Ultimately, lying doesn't even get people anywhere positive. It merely delays and frustrates and makes things worse. Almost every bad occurrence in the whole series comes as a result of either a lie or of keeping information from someone. There are countless instances where bad events could have been avoided had people simply talked with each other and told them what they know. This problem reaches as far back as the thing that drove Man in Black away from Jacob and fake-mommy/Protector. If there is a single applicable life lesson from Lost it is that you should just be open and tell the truth for Chrissake. In an ironic twist, the show itself was very adept at keeping information from its viewers and by lying to them with all of the red herrings and unresolved plot points. And the show's flaws mostly stem from those. See, kids? Tell the truth.

Parents - mommy & daddy issues - are the core of most character motivations on this show. We've got parents that aren't their for their kids (the parents of Locke, Sawyer, Shannon), parents who are really bad at parenting (the parents of Jack, Kate, Daniel, Miles, Sun), parents-in-law who are antagonistic towards their sons-in-law (Desmond, Jin), etc. Michael was trying and failing at being a father. Jacob was sort of an absentee father for Ben and the other leaders of the Others. Of course, Claire raises a kid on the island and Sun & Kate take care of kids off the island. It is a strong motif but I am unsure of what the show wants to say beyond "raise your kids better, folks." I suppose that the bad/lack of parenting contributes to the cyclical nature of behavior represented on the show.

Reaper16
06-22-2010, 11:00 PM
Man of Science vs Man of Faith: Ah, the most important theme of the whole series. Jack started out as a man of science and ended as a man of faith. Much of the show was centered around this conflict. Locke always trusted in the mystical nature of the Island. He was a deep believer in fate, in purpose. And even though his purpose was not as grand as he may have hoped, the dude was right. Faith is the side of things that the show props up as the correct one. The examples are numerous and you all know all of them so I won't bother to recap; it is the most obvious theme in the show. But it also leads, perhaps unintentionally, to Lost's greatest artistic achievement. I think that the show, more or less, can act as a barometer of one's own side of the debate between science and faith. My personal reactions to the show pretty conclusively tell me that I am a thoroughgoing Man of Science. For one, I majorly balk at the show's Heaven-y, faith-y conclusion. Frankly, I felt as if the show was playing the Long Con on me; Surprise! 'Twas all for God! It feels empty to me and makes me think that the show doesn't have much to say about the world we live in (mostly because I don't think that there is a Heaven or any religious body to put one's Faith into). Moreover, I would be willing to bet that the vast, vast majority of people who are pissed off about the dozens and dozens of unresolved plot points and unanswered questions are Men of Science, too. The fans that went crazy into theorizing and analyzing screen shots and trying to figure out the answers are totally engaging their Science sides. But the show goes out of its way at dozens of times in dialogue to belittle fan theories or to slap the wrists of those fans by saying that certain answers aren't important at all. The Faithful fans can accept that explanation, and they are rewarded for their faith when, at the end of the series, those questions are indeed shown to be completely unimportant to the story that was told. I am curious to see how many people here on CP that this doesn't apply to, i.e. how many faithful or religious Lost watchers are/were upset at all of the loose ends or didn't like the ending. Even if there are some of you, the show provides you then with a chance to reassess either your capacity for Faith or your allegiance to Science, to making sense of things and finding answers. This is an incredible thing for a network television series to achieve.

So, with that out of the way comes an important question: Given that the creators clearly state their intent for the show to be foremost about its characters, does Lost succeed as a character drama? My answer: No. It really doesn't, not on the whole. The show ended like it wanted to be one all the way. The big payoff in the finale is watching our character remember each other and share emotional moments with each other. It so very, very much wants to be a character drama. And it tries. And it works at times. But it ultimately fails on a few levels, the most important being that the characters just aren't that good. Yeah, I said it. Don't get me wrong, there are some very good characters on this show. And even some poorer ones are fun to watch. But do the characters work as people? Do they exhibit growth throughout the whole series? Does the story move forward as a result of the characters' actions?

Let's address those one a time, starting with the latter. So much of the show is propelled by cliffhangers and island mysteries and the promise of future answers. I'd bet that 90% of episodes don't end on a character moment. People keep watching for the plot AND the characters. Now, the ideal show would be both and it is certainly possible to be both exciting/mysterious and character-centered. My qualm is that a large part of the show revolves around the characters doing things that they don't understand, motivated by bits and pieces of information. Why? Because mystery and intrigue make for compelling dramatic TV. For a character-based drama, though, all the story happenings need to be generated from the characters themselves. Lost is full of vague explanations for why people are doing things and it is also full of complex stuff like time travel. The problem is that all the mystery and complexity of plot is mysterious and complex for the sake of being mysterious and complex. It is not coming from the characters themselves. The characters are in service of a plot and story designed to be interesting and compelling from week to week.

Despite this, some characters are strong enough to force the story around them and do manage to feel like real people to boot. Ben and Locke are fully realized characters, and the two best-written ones. We see actual growth from them at a natural pace, with plenty of character-based actions (though Ben has a lot of contrived actions too, especially in season 3 when 75% of the season was the Others being made out to be evil for the sake of mystery). Sun and Jin felt like real people, and Jin especially demonstrated a lot of personal growth. It took Jack a long while to become that Man of Faith but grow into that role he did. I hated the flash-sideways but even I smiled big-time when Sawyer and Juliet reunited in the finale - because their character moments were so nice throughout the show. Desmond's story is one that seemingly everyone gets invested into. Their reunion at the end of season 4 (set up by series highlight "The Constant") was a joyous character moment.

(It occurs to me that the best character moments come from either 1.) the best actors on the show nailing the moment, or 2.) the writers really nailing a storyline, such as how all the Desmond-centric episodes are the most unique, well-executed episodes of the series. Perhaps Lost would have been a better character drama if it more good actors and writers?)

The final nail in the coffin in the idea of the show being principally a character drama is the flash-sideways universe itself. It is supposed to serve as a big character payoff, what with all of the remembrances and recollections and characters like Ben being able to live happier lives and such. But it doesn't pay off the characters at all, not if you're really paying attention. The flash-sideways doesn't give our characters ANY room to show how they've grown from their island experiences. We don't get to see how the island time "fixed" those broken few who got off the island in the finale because the flash-sides take up so much time. The flash-sides characters are largely ignorant pseudo-selves who remember all of their island experiences only in time to "move on" from them. In effect, the show's big character payoff in the finale only serves to cheapen everything we see our beloved characters go through! They have to let go of those experiences without learning from them. The flash-sideways then not only doesn't make any sense but it makes the show less effective at what it wants to be. What a fucked up way to end an important series.

Reaper16
06-22-2010, 11:01 PM
So, no, Lost doesn't work as a character drama. It does work very well as a twisting, turning, wild-ride of a show. Many of its episodes are very strong when viewed as self-contained episodes and it often strikes a enjoyable balance between cool character moments and mind-blowing Island craziness. Each season brings up a number of themes that viewers can wrestle around with in their minds, from season one's exploration into the responsibilities we have with respect to our loved ones, to season 2's War-on-Terror-charged political overtones to season 6's discussions of the power of faith and its ability to help you let go of life's baggage. At its best, the show is paced like pulp entertainment but with a pleasingly hefty intellectual weight. And you know what? I don't have a problem at all with the sci-fi insanity. Things like the polar bears were fucked up at first but eventually explained. Sure the Island's explanation as a cork for all the world's evil and good and whatever is pretty much the Force but I can readily accept this show, Smoke Monster and electromagnetism and fish biscuits and all. Because it is a genre piece and it is fun and it is entertaining. Its genre-ness doesn't diminish what good characterization there is, either.

Would I suggest that someone who was on the fence about the show (or even mildly antagonistic towards it like I was) go ahead and watch Lost? Yes. I think that I would. Thanks, Lost. You are deeply, deeply flawed but you aren't without merit. The world of TV is better off by your presence.

In honor of Jacob, here are some lists:

Favorite Episode - 1.) The Shape of Things to Come
2.) The Constant
3.) Flashes Before Your Eyes
Last) Stranger In A Strange Land

Best Actors -
Elite Tier (the stuff that Emmy nominations are made of):
Michael Emerson, Yunjin Kim, Terry O'Quinn

Great tier (not Emmy-good, but still damn good):
Daniel Dae Kim, Josh Holloway, Elizabeth Mitchell, Nestor Carbonell (once he got something to do), Henry Ian Cusick, Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje, Harold Perrineau

Naveen Andrews (would have been in the Great tier but he turned in a disastrous season 6 in which Sayid's accent completely changed)

Best Seasons, in order from best to worst -
Four
Five
One
Two
Six
Three

Best Pieces of Music -
1.) The S tooges, "Search and Destroy"
2.) There is no number two. Fuck you, Giacchino, for trying to upstage the show at every turn. There's another reason why Lost doesn't work as a character drama - instead of letting the characters do things that make the audience feel certain ways, Giacchino has to drive the audience to feel certain ways with his heavy-handed (though oftentimes beautiful when taken just as pieces of music) score. I might be the only person who feels this way.

Least favorite characters -
1.) Claire
2.) Charlie
3.) Kate
4.) Jack

Reaper16
06-22-2010, 11:02 PM
Sorry if some of that doesn't make sense. I wrote it all in one sitting just now. In the ChiefsPlanet reply box, at that.

Buck
06-22-2010, 11:48 PM
Nice Reaper. U would have liked it if you said something along the lines of "In my opinion, Twin Peaks and Homicide were better..." only because I'm sure plenty of people disagree with you.

Rausch
06-23-2010, 01:01 AM
Going back I look at the Jack/Ben characters differently.

I do like their stories now.

Both show the importance of faith, not in a religion, but in general. Just the the belief itself, the positive attitude that somehow all will work out.

Ben never has faith. Ben never saw Jacob and never really believed. No matter how much power or people he had behind him he couldn't FORCE the world to give him what he wanted. In the end Ben was the story of a character left with resentment, regret, and without power.

Jack finally found faith. He died with purpose. That sense of purpose, due to his faith in his actions, made HIM feel his life had meaning and worth. He didn't feel that way before. He FOUND his meaning.

Jin and Sun always loved each other but let other things get in the way. They died together because they made that decision. They decided nothing would come between them.

Death is not losing. It's not failing. We all die. It's how we die that we have some choice in. Is it for a purpose? Does it have meaning? Did our lives make others and a small part of the world better?

All the characters were lost before they came to the island. On the island they got a mulligan. Given a 2nd chance some made the most of it and some failed.

In the flash sideways they were all given what they really wanted. Sawyer got all the resources he needed to find the killer. Jack got a happy family life and his career. Jin and Sun got their escape together.

The point of the sideways was: given everything you want is what you want for you what makes you truly happy in the end?

In the end they all realize that it's not about ME, it's about US. It's about what's best for everyone. What makes me happy right now might not be the best or most moral decision to make. In fact, the moral decision might demand that I sacrifice something.

So, I'm ok with the flash sideways. THAT was the purgatory, if you will. I'm ok with the island being everyone's second chance.

I just hate the almost endless list of loose ends that went nowhere during the journey...

Reaper16
06-23-2010, 07:51 AM
In the flash sideways they were all given what they really wanted. Sawyer got all the resources he needed to find the killer. Jack got a happy family life and his career. Jin and Sun got their escape together.

The point of the sideways was: given everything you want is what you want for you what makes you truly happy in the end?

That isn't really true. Sayid didn't get what he wanted. Kate gets caught. If your point is that everyone stepped into LA X with what they wanted, then maaaaaybe that's true. But the flash became happier for some characters and not good for others. And there isn't a consistent reasons for why some characters got something approaching happiness and why others didn't.

Reaper16
06-23-2010, 07:53 AM
Nice Reaper. U would have liked it if you said something along the lines of "In my opinion, Twin Peaks and Homicide were better..." only because I'm sure plenty of people disagree with you.
I said "I think ___ shows are better." The words "I think" serve the same purpose as "IMO," yes?

Buck
06-23-2010, 08:56 AM
Somehow I missed that. Sorry dude.

Reaper16
06-23-2010, 01:22 PM
I just watched a great film from 1971 called Walkabout. It is essentially LOST: the movie. A teenage girl and her little brother are taken out to the Australian outback by their father who attempts to kill them. They escape and dad commits suicide. The two are not having a good show of surviving alone on the wilderness when an Aborigine boy, on his rite of passage known as the Walkabout, finds them and helps them survive. This is not a happy movie, though. The lack of communication between them ends up ensuring that, while together, the white kids and the Aborigine kid end up more lost in their lives than ever before. Simple story of desperation and sadness. But the thematic parallels to Lost are many in number: daddy issues, the failure to communicate with the people you're with, surviving in the wilderness together vs dying in it alone, nature as something to protect, hunting as metaphor,fear of the Others, the question of whether or not man is inherently savage, the pitfalls of life in modernity and the possibility of finding yourself out in the wilderness, the desperate need to go "home." Even time; the movie is perhaps not shown in exact chronological order and some scenes might be imagined, even. There are numerous motifs that the film and the show share: a toy airplane, mysterious radio brodcasts, numbers, a team of scientists out in the wild.

I'd recommend this film to everyone, as it is quite good (a part of the Criterion collection and available on Netflix streaming), but especially to fans of Lost.

irishjayhawk
06-23-2010, 03:08 PM
Hmmm, where to start, Reaper.

I agree with about 98% of what you concluded. Hell, our lists are almost identical. I do wonder if Henry Ian Cusick would be in the elite tier if his character was as meaty as, say, Locke. I think so.

I'm curious why you think the determinism is un-American. While I can see your perspective, I find it extremely American, especially when one views America thru the religious light it casts.

I do think a lot of your Season 6 dislike stems from the sideways being ultimately pointless, which is my main complaint. But I thought they hit enough highs in the season to rank it higher than you did.

Having said that, I am certainly a "Man of Science" yet find myself taking the Man of Faith position wrt the end (aka Dane vs all).

Reaper16
06-23-2010, 03:23 PM
Hmmm, where to start, Reaper.

I agree with about 98% of what you concluded. Hell, our lists are almost identical. I do wonder if Henry Ian Cusick would be in the elite tier if his character was as meaty as, say, Locke. I think so.

I'm curious why you think the determinism is un-American. While I can see your perspective, I find it extremely American, especially when one views America thru the religious light it casts.

I do think a lot of your Season 6 dislike stems from the sideways being ultimately pointless, which is my main complaint. But I thought they hit enough highs in the season to rank it higher than you did.

Having said that, I am certainly a "Man of Science" yet find myself taking the Man of Faith position wrt the end (aka Dane vs all).
America is the land of individual liberty and free choice. Determinism doesn't mesh with that. It the least, it doesn't mesh with the conservative view of America. It does fit up with the Calvinists (whose Puritan Work Ethic does have important influence on American culture).

I don't know if Cusick could get better. He was pretty good, and mostly because of his role, imo. A lot of people confuse good acting with intense characters. Few lost fans, I'd wager, will be able to see how great of an acting performance that Yunjin Kim turned in as Sun. Earlier in the thread Buck gave me a curt, dismissive "no" in response to my assertion that she might be the best actor on the show. She was superb. Trust me on this: it is easier for someone to give a good performance if their roles are as meaty as Ben and Locke. There was tons of shit for the actor to work with in those roles, and Emerson & O'Quinn stepped up to the plate marvelously. Junjin Kim has shit to work with and her acting was still as strong as Emerson's & O'Quinn's. Cuskick was good and convincing with all the wild eyes and shifts between confusion and calmness and "You gonna' die, Chaa-lee" and "[INSERT PHRASE HERE IN CAPS LOCK], BRUTHA!" But he wasn't on the level of the three actors I placed in the elite tier.

Reaper16
06-23-2010, 03:26 PM
I do think a lot of your Season 6 dislike stems from the sideways being ultimately pointless, which is my main complaint. But I thought they hit enough highs in the season to rank it higher than you did.

Having said that, I am certainly a "Man of Science" yet find myself taking the Man of Faith position wrt the end (aka Dane vs all).
1.) One could say the same thing about season 3, though, right? There were certainly some highs in that season, both in the middle (Flashes Before Your Eyes, Not In Portland) and in the last four or five episodes. Season 6 had temple shit that went nowhere, Charles Widmore shit that went nowhere, Illana shit that went nowhere, etc.

2.) Could you talk about why you take a Faithful approach to the finale/series? I'm truly interested in discrepancies from my theory.

irishjayhawk
06-23-2010, 03:31 PM
1.) One could say the same thing about season 3, though, right? There were certainly some highs in that season, both in the middle (Flashes Before Your Eyes, Not In Portland) and in the last four or five episodes. Season 6 had temple shit that went nowhere, Charles Widmore shit that went nowhere, Illana shit that went nowhere, etc.

Good points. I forgot about the temple shit. And Sayid storyline was retarded, as you've said.

I think Andrews' accent change tells of his feelings about his character - which was superfluous.


2.) Could you talk about why you take a Faithful approach to the finale/series? I'm truly interested in discrepancies from my theory.

I take a faithful approach mostly because there is no canonical support for the theory everything happened in Jack's mind as he died. Now, you could, I suppose, argue that itself is a Man of Science approach but the conclusion is inherently a Man of Faith approach. That is, you're taking it on faith that polar bears, crashed freighters, flash sideways, nuclear bombs, hatches, smoke monsters, fathers letting daughters die, etc actually happened rather than being a figment of someone's imagination.

Dane's approach, on the other hand, is a Man of Faith claim in that there is virtually no evidence but it's simultaneously a Man of Science claim to conclude it was just flashes before death.

Reaper16
06-23-2010, 03:37 PM
I take a faithful approach mostly because there is no canonical support for the theory everything happened in Jack's mind as he died. Now, you could, I suppose, argue that itself is a Man of Science approach but the conclusion is inherently a Man of Faith approach. That is, you're taking it on faith that polar bears, crashed freighters, flash sideways, nuclear bombs, hatches, smoke monsters, fathers letting daughters die, etc actually happened rather than being a figment of someone's imagination.

Dane's approach, on the other hand, is a Man of Faith claim in that there is virtually no evidence but it's simultaneously a Man of Science claim to conclude it was just flashes before death.
I'm sorry, let me clarify: I wasn't intending to invoke Dane's interpretation at all. I was positing that the very nature of the show as having a bazillion unresolved plot points is a test of the science/faith divide. My contention is that the people who aren't satisfied with all the loose ends (finding them evidence of poor writing) or with the spiritual nature of the finale are Men of Science themselves while the people who liked the spiritual payoff of the show or the people who trusted the show to deliver on their story and were able to accept the show's frequent assertion that some answers aren't important or only lead to more questions are Men of Faith. In their own away-from-show character as humans.

Reaper16
06-23-2010, 03:40 PM
Good points. I forgot about the temple shit. And Sayid storyline was retarded, as you've said.

I think Andrews' accent change tells of his feelings about his character - which was superfluous.


I was hopeful that his accent change was a reflection of the "infection," but I can't say that it was. Andrews had the same change in accent in his flash-sideways version, both before and after "remembering." I think it was just carelessness.

irishjayhawk
06-23-2010, 03:49 PM
I'm sorry, let me clarify: I wasn't intending to invoke Dane's interpretation at all. I was positing that the very nature of the show as having a bazillion unresolved plot points is a test of the science/faith divide. My contention is that the people who aren't satisfied with all the loose ends (finding them evidence of poor writing) or with the spiritual nature of the finale are Men of Science themselves while the people who liked the spiritual payoff of the show or the people who trusted the show to deliver on their story and were able to accept the show's frequent assertion that some answers aren't important or only lead to more questions are Men of Faith. In their own away-from-show character as humans.

I didn't think they'd address the numerous loose ends. I was prepared for that. In fact, I'd argue that was a Man of Science conclusion.

But what seals the deal for my Man of Science overall attitude is that the faithy ending was, indeed, shitty. It was a giant cop out and it rendered moot the most intriguing story line in Season 6 which was Desmond's mission.

That said, would not letting the faithy ending sour my overall liking of the show invoke Man of Faith qualities?

Brainiac
06-23-2010, 03:51 PM
Season 6 had temple shit that went nowhere, Charles Widmore shit that went nowhere, Illana shit that went nowhere, etc.

I'd call that a pretty darn good summary of the failure that was Season 6.

Red Brooklyn
06-23-2010, 04:17 PM
Well, Reaper, I'm glad you finished it. I'm glad you enjoyed it. But I think it's safe to say our tastes run in slightly different directions. But you support your position well. Thanks for the write-up. I really enjoyed reading it. :thumb:

Reaper16
06-23-2010, 04:19 PM
Well, Reaper, I'm glad you finished it. I'm glad you enjoyed it. But I think it's safe to say our tastes run in slightly different directions. But you support your position well. Thanks for the write-up. I really enjoyed reading it. :thumb:
we can haz discusshunz?

Reaper16
06-23-2010, 04:29 PM
I didn't think they'd address the numerous loose ends. I was prepared for that. In fact, I'd argue that was a Man of Science conclusion.

But what seals the deal for my Man of Science overall attitude is that the faithy ending was, indeed, shitty. It was a giant cop out and it rendered moot the most intriguing story line in Season 6 which was Desmond's mission.

That said, would not letting the faithy ending sour my overall liking of the show invoke Man of Faith qualities?
I didn't think that they would tie up the loose ends, either; not even the very significant ones such as infertility, the importance of Aaron & Walt, and The Numbers. The show said numerous times in dialogue during season 6 (and some in season 5) that some answers are not important, or that answering things would lead to more questions. Combine that with season 6's numerous meta-jokes in which the writers actually make fun of fan theories (stupid, insulting lines such as Richard Alpert having to tell Hurley that no, he isn't in fact a cyborg) and you have zero expectation that the show was going to wrap everything up. So, by "Man of Science conclusion" do you mean that it was Science-y to deduce that the show wouldn't attempt to answer those things? I don't know if that if Science-y as much as it is obvious-y.


I totally agree with you about Desmond's flash-sides quest being made less-good once you know he's an agent of new-agey-spiritual-awakening-mission-from-God stuff.

Yes; not letting the faithy ending sour your liking is a faithful attribute. That doesn't clash with how I see the show working wrt science and faith.

Red Brooklyn
06-23-2010, 04:37 PM
we can haz discusshunz?

:)

Indeed. And I look forward to it. But I'm at work right now and we're a little crazy, so it'll have to wait. I just wanted to thank you, now, for the write-up before I forgot.

I'll post more in depth when I can.

irishjayhawk
06-23-2010, 04:44 PM
I didn't think that they would tie up the loose ends, either; not even the very significant ones such as infertility, the importance of Aaron & Walt, and The Numbers. The show said numerous times in dialogue during season 6 (and some in season 5) that some answers are not important, or that answering things would lead to more questions. Combine that with season 6's numerous meta-jokes in which the writers actually make fun of fan theories (stupid, insulting lines such as Richard Alpert having to tell Hurley that no, he isn't in fact a cyborg) and you have zero expectation that the show was going to wrap everything up. So, by "Man of Science conclusion" do you mean that it was Science-y to deduce that the show wouldn't attempt to answer those things? I don't know if that if Science-y as much as it is obvious-y.


I totally agree with you about Desmond's flash-sides quest being made less-good once you know he's an agent of new-agey-spiritual-awakening-mission-from-God stuff.

Yes; not letting the faithy ending sour your liking is a faithful attribute. That doesn't clash with how I see the show working wrt science and faith.

Well, I should have mentioned I agree wholeheartedly with the premise. I honestly don't think you'll find many exceptions.

Reaper16
06-23-2010, 06:19 PM
http://fusedfilm.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/1246237102347.jpg

Reaper16
06-23-2010, 06:32 PM
http://fusedfilm.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/1246236224529.jpg

Buck
06-23-2010, 07:32 PM
These are the best ones.

Buck
06-23-2010, 07:33 PM
http://regretfulmorning.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/1267344828575.jpg

Reaper16
06-23-2010, 08:18 PM
Those are the best ones.

Guru
07-06-2010, 02:44 AM
I can't believe they are still airing the Live Links commercial with Evangeline Lilly.

Fritz88
07-06-2010, 03:51 PM
this show is shit

Reaper16
07-19-2010, 10:45 AM
http://io9.com/5589855/theres-still-12-minutes-of-new-lost-left-to-see-starring-ben-linus-and-hurley
You thought you were at last finished with Lost...but Lost isn't yet done with you. The upcoming sixth season and complete series DVDs will feature an all-new, 12 minute vignette featuring Ben and Hurley. And yes, it will answer questions!

Michael Emerson and Jorge Garcia are both reprising their roles for the DVD extra, which involves their characters taking over as the island's new overseers. The image up top is from the new mini-episode. What we know about the short is almost entirely confined to an interview with Michael Emerson, in which he simply states:
''Ben is going around to Dharma installations and closing some down. 'There are some good surprises.''
It's also been confirmed that the mini-episode will answer some questions, but there's no way to know how major or minor the mysteries solved will be. The extra is called "The New Man in Charge", which almost certainly refers to Hurley. As you can probably tell, we just don't know whether this is the crucial missing puzzle piece or a bit of harmless fluff, but we won't have long to wait: both DVD sets are out August 24. Either way, it's a little last bit of new Lost, and that can't be a bad thing.


http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/8/2010/07/500x_lost-ben-dvd-6_400_01.jpg

Buck
07-19-2010, 04:56 PM
http://io9.com/5589855/theres-still-12-minutes-of-new-lost-left-to-see-starring-ben-linus-and-hurley



http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/8/2010/07/500x_lost-ben-dvd-6_400_01.jpg

I already know what this covers if you are interested.

Reaper16
07-19-2010, 05:39 PM
I already know what this covers if you are interested.
I think I am interested.

Buck
07-19-2010, 05:44 PM
I think I am interested.

I've read at multiple places online that it will cover these things.

Walt, The Hurley Bird, and the DHARMA food drops

Guru
07-19-2010, 10:47 PM
I've read at multiple places online that it will cover these things.

Walt, The Hurley Bird, and the DHARMA food dropsGood, now I don't have to buy it. Of course it will end up on Youtube eventually anyway.

Buck
07-19-2010, 10:49 PM
Good, now I don't have to buy it. Of course it will end up on Youtube eventually anyway.

It'll be on youtube day of.

Red Brooklyn
07-21-2010, 08:43 AM
I've read at multiple places online that it will cover these things.

Walt, The Hurley Bird, and the DHARMA food drops

I'd read also that those are some of the things being covered. I still haven't seen confirmation that those are the only things being covered. Have you?

Red Brooklyn
07-21-2010, 08:45 AM
http://io9.com/5589855/theres-still-12-minutes-of-new-lost-left-to-see-starring-ben-linus-and-hurley



http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/8/2010/07/500x_lost-ben-dvd-6_400_01.jpg

And who, do we suppose, the fuck are those guys?

Buck
07-21-2010, 09:31 AM
I'd read also that those are some of the things being covered. I still haven't seen confirmation that those are the only things being covered. Have you?

No, I haven't, but I cant imagine how much they are going to try and squeeze into 12 minutes.

Red Brooklyn
07-21-2010, 11:58 AM
No, I haven't, but I cant imagine how much they are going to try and squeeze into 12 minutes.
Good call. Just depends on how the answers are presented and how complex they are. I'm also curious how much time this 12 minutes spans.

Red Brooklyn
07-23-2010, 10:59 AM
Guess what JJ Abrams said about LOST at Comic Con...

"What Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse did was an amazing thing. When we first started and Damon and I wrote this bible of what it would be, we were optimistic. A lot of things ended up in the series but most of them did not. Carlton Cuse came onboard and they all started making it what it became. There were ideas we thought were cool but we knew we had to be flexible. You could not anticipate Michael Emerson coming on board, which was supposed to be for a couple of episodes. They had to be entirely flexible and listen to the show. I personally believe that Damon and Carlton kicked ass and wrote an amazingly emotional episode for the finale."

Neat, huh?

Jamie
07-23-2010, 11:07 AM
It would be interesting to get to read that original show bible now.

Red Brooklyn
07-23-2010, 11:22 AM
It would be interesting to get to read that original show bible now.
Yes, sir.

Hell, I'd settle for an interview with Damon and JJ where they sort of compare and contrast and talk about why each thing changed. I'd also be interested to hear from Carlton on what he liked/disliked about the original show bible.

Reaper16
08-06-2010, 11:52 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrGRqDL43AU

It's the LOST epilogue! Quick, watch it before it gets taken down!

The first part is super fucking condescending. The show's writers have always been insulting in the show itself to people who dare ask questions about plot holes and unresolved plot points. This epilogue is no different, making the two bumbling Dharma warehouse workers surrogates for the question-asking audience. That scene explains a couple of minor tidbits and, unfortunately, retcons plenty of stuff to explain some bigger questions. If only this scene weren't dripping with condescension.

The second part of the epilogue is much cooler. I'd watch a Ben, Hurley & Walt on-the-island spinoff. That'd be fun, just like the scene between the three of them here is fun.

Buck
08-06-2010, 11:57 AM
I saw it. It was okay. I liked the orientation video and the scene with Ben, Walt, and Hurley.

Guru
08-06-2010, 03:03 PM
Missed it. Oh well

DaneMcCloud
08-06-2010, 10:05 PM
Missed it. Oh well

You didn't miss anything.

Just more of the same. "The island is gone. The island moves. The Dharma Inititative hasn't existed in 20 years", basically stating that the the supplies went to the "Lost Souls" on the island.

The bit with Hurley was that Ben went to the same mental hospital where Hurley had been to meet with Walt. He told Walt is he was "special". Walt said he wasn't special and besides that, his father was dead.

Ben said "Just because he's dead doesn't mean you can't help him".

He then took Walt to a blue Dharma van where Hurley was waiting. Hurley said "It's time to go home, Dude!".

I just can't believe these dumbfucks tried to hide the true nature nature of the island for more than six years, especially when everyone figured it out after episode one.

I think it would have been much cooler if they just would have said "Yeah, it's purgatory. You got us. But just watch because it's very interesting!".