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....

[Reaper16]

Originally Posted by Buck

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]

Somehow I missed that. Sorry dude.

[Reaper16]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by irishjayhawk

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]

Originally Posted by irishjayhawk

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]

Originally Posted by Reaper16

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 reeruned, 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]

Originally Posted by irishjayhawk

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]

Originally Posted by irishjayhawk

Good points. I forgot about the temple shit. And Sayid storyline was reeruned, 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]

Originally Posted by Reaper16

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?

[Lex Luthor]

Originally Posted by Reaper16

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]

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.

[Reaper16]

Originally Posted by Red Brooklyn

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.

we can haz discusshunz?

[Reaper16]

Originally Posted by irishjayhawk

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]

Originally Posted by Reaper16

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.