Quote:
Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud
Then why was it that on Kimmel Sunday night (which we watched last night), the FIRST thing that Matt Fox mentioned was the same thing that I mentioned yesterday: That for a "nanosecond", this whole thing happened to Jack.
Again, the ending is ambiguous enough for people to draw their own conclusions and no one would be wrong.
If you want to take it literally, that they were on an "island" with polar bears and smoke monsters, you can.
If want to believe that for a "nanosecond", all of this occurred so that Jack could find his way to "heaven", you can.
I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything.
|
I THIS WOULD CLAIRFY I WAS RIGHT
http://scifiwire.com/2010/05/abc-cla...medium=twitter
Related Sections: News TV
ABC clarifies that everyone on LOST was NOT dead the whole show
Remember how confusing it was when Jack (Matthew Fox) closed his eye Sunday night at the end of Lost and the series' logo appeared on our TV screens, only to be followed by crash images of Oceanic 815? What the heck was that about?
Were we being told that no one had survived Oceanic 815's original crash landing—and that we'd invested our hearts in a show in which nothing we'd seen over the last six years had ever really happened?
ABC wants us to know—those final images had nothing at all to do with the Lost storyline, the Los Angeles Times reported. The network ran them only to soften the transition from the ending of the series to the news show that followed, and had never considered that any of us would think it related to the actual ending of the show. (Which some of us around here did!)
An ABC spokesperson wrote in an email Tuesday: "The images shown during the end credits of the Lost finale, which included shots of Oceanic 815 on a deserted beach, were not part of the final story but were a visual aid to allow the viewer to decompress before heading into the news."
Does that change how you felt about Lost's series finale?