The Official "Lost" the series discussion

[Deberg_1990]

I figured I would start a thread for this and see what happens....there seemed to be quite a few viewers on the board for this show the past few weeks.....I like the direction the show is taking so far......episode 3 tonight at 7 central on ABC....

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by Brainiac

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 ****ling details like how or why?

[Reaper16]

Originally Posted by Brainiac

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]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

No.



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]

Originally Posted by Third Eye

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]

Originally Posted by Brainiac

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]

Originally Posted by irishjayhawk

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]

Originally Posted by Reaper16

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Red Brooklyn

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]

Originally Posted by Third Eye

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.

[Lex Luthor]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

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]

Originally Posted by Buck

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.

Originally Posted by Buck

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]

Originally Posted by Brainiac

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 cluster**** 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]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

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]

Originally Posted by Red Brooklyn

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.



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