Lost

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Lost

    Originally posted by Zodraz View Post
    Agreed. The "watercooler effect" is basically what made me keep watching the show even after I stopped liking it.

    One thing I'm genuinely curious about is what people who started watching Lost after the series finale (and thus did not get to participate in any of the "real-time" discussion) think about it...
    I watched the first two episodes of Lost, I've. the pilot, for the first time (not that long ago). I found it boring and couldn't be bothered watching any further. Might give it another whirl sometime if I run out of stuff to watch.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Lost

      Why do I love LOST and think it's incredible? A guy admits he hate watched seasons 2-6 is still talking about the show 5 years after it ended. So on some level it hit him in a place that he stills wished it was something else.

      I will say, there's no arguing it. I had friends get mad at the show as soon as "time travel" was introduced... a debate that I can't even remember all the details now. Some were just made at how it ended, thus going back and being angry. Plenty of lose ends...

      But there's plenty of other great shows that I think aren't very good overall that others would go crazy for.

      I watched it from season 1... I recall DVR the pilot... I don't know if I watched from the 2nd week on after catching up or let a few pile up... but as soon as I watched the pilot I was so in. Then the Locke episode, Walkabout which memory tells me is episode 4, and I was hooked.

      And yes I forgot facts since it's been 5 years (yes CC showed up a few episodes into season 1, but that's still 95% of the run....) but don't forget that like X-Files and other Sci-Fi shows they just threw **** at the wall because they assumed they would get cancelled and wouldn't have to answer them. That's why a lot of the stuff doesn't add up.

      And about the helicopter, I think in real life the actress that played Claire was such a pain in the ass that the writers wrote that as a joke about getting her off the ****ing show. but in story terms, Desmond saw many possible futures and even in the last episode he thought that was what would happen, but it turns out he was really seeming the life they created after they died... so it works still.

      I wanted more of Charles Widmore and the stupid rules him and Ben had... or the island had... Of course I wanted more... seemed like they rushed through him a little bit at the end...

      I could nit pick so many things, but I don't give a crap who fired at them while they were on the paddle boat. Never crossed my mind. I'm still wondering about Ben Linus offering to help Juliet's sister who had cancer I believe -- was Jacob going to fix her. And the pregnancy thing...

      I haven't thought about this stuff for years. And it's like a Nolan film. Some **** you can't figure out because they don't want you to or the artists don't know themselves.

      The music alone is amazing. I hear it now and I can cry.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Lost

        Originally posted by UnequalProductions View Post
        A leader like the Locke of Season 1? Who was first so fully duped by Ethan and then lead Boone to his death in his egocentric crusade?
        Absolutely-- convincing someone to risk their life for your "egocentric crusade" is a clear indication that you're really good at getting people to follow you.

        As for Boone dying in the process: I think a leader like Locke would consider that an acceptable loss, as long as his primary goal-- opening the hatch-- was ultimately achieved. Which it was.

        Originally posted by UnequalProductions View Post
        You didn't think a woman would go back to find the man she loved and father of her child?
        No I did not, not if they had any sort of maternal instinct and cared at all about the well-being of their child. Because she had to know that the chances of her dying were way higher than the likelihood of them both coming back to their daughter alive.

        Originally posted by UnequalProductions View Post
        Jin who had basically made his whole life about Sun just leave her behind to die alone?
        Wow, you've really drunk the LOST Kool-Aid, haven't you?

        In my mind, there's no way a man as honorable as Jin would shirk his responsibility to his daughter by making such a meaningless sacrifice.

        Originally posted by UnequalProductions View Post
        True, he's orphaning his child who he never met and has no guarantee that he'll ever make it back to.
        After all the events we've seen Jin fight through, the idea that he would not do everything he could to fight to survive for his daughter is ludicrous.

        Originally posted by UnequalProductions View Post
        It didn't bother me because that's the whole point of the series. These characters wanted to put religious/spiritual importance on things they didn't understand. The island isn't God. It doesn't have any motivations. All that stuff was created by people.
        Umm, no it wasn't. The island was supernatural, and it did have mystical powers. That to me is undeniable.

        Which is why unlike you I don't fault Locke for thinking that a magical island that miraculously cured his paralysis and gave him visions that came true is capable of more miracles.

        Originally posted by UnequalProductions View Post
        By our characters. All of them are unreliable, building off their own personal beliefs and histories. That's why you couldn't trust anyone who was "explaining" how the island worked. They don't know. Even Jacob and the Man in Black. They were just living out what they'd been taught by a crazy woman.
        Is there any evidence that Jacob or the Man in Black didn't understand how the island worked? They may have lied to other characters about the island's secrets, but they themselves seemed to have a pretty complete understanding of the island.

        Anyway, that's really a minor point.

        To sum up, If I understand your argument, then all the seemingly capricious and arbitrary flaws in how the characters and mythology worked that I'm ascribing to poor writing, you actually think is the POINT of the series: that the universe itself is unknowable, as evidence by this island that manifests its strange powers so capriciously.

        Obviously I think you're giving the writers far too much credit, but even if you're completely right and this was the writers' intent, the overall theme/moral of the show that you're espousing ("don't trust fanaticism?") seems so slight and banal that it would actually makes me even less impressed by the writing, which quite frankly I didn't think was possible.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Lost

          Originally posted by Zodraz View Post
          Absolutely-- convincing someone to risk their life for your "egocentric crusade" is a clear indication that you're really good at getting people to follow you.

          As for Boone dying in the process: I think a leader like Locke would consider that an acceptable loss, as long as his primary goal-- opening the hatch-- was ultimately achieved. Which it was.
          So getting people to follow you is the sign you're a good leader, not actually leading those people anywhere?

          Hmmm... watching Locke reach to Boone's death didn't really give me the "acceptable loss" feel. Seems like he took it extremely hard.

          Originally posted by Zodraz View Post
          Wow, you've really drunk the LOST Kool-Aid, haven't you?

          In my mind, there's no way a man as honorable as Jin would shirk his responsibility to his daughter by making such a meaningless sacrifice.
          So my opinion is me drinking the Kool-Aid, but things that are "in your mind" are compelling arguments?

          Originally posted by Zodraz View Post
          Umm, no it wasn't. The island was supernatural, and it did have mystical powers. That to me is undeniable.

          Which is why unlike you I don't fault Locke for thinking that a magical island that miraculously cured his paralysis and gave him visions that came true is capable of more miracles.
          I didn't say the island wasn't supernatural. I said the island wasn't God. It didn't have any motivations. It wasn't making any decisions. It was just sitting there, being a supernatural island, and the people who kept landing on it kept using their interpretations of what it was.

          Originally posted by Zodraz View Post
          Is there any evidence that Jacob or the Man in Black didn't understand how the island worked? They may have lied to other characters about the island's secrets, but they themselves seemed to have a pretty complete understanding of the island.
          One seemed to think he could leave without problem. The other one thought that if he left, it would be the end of the world. No evidence to back up either of them.


          Originally posted by Zodraz View Post
          To sum up, If I understand your argument, then all the seemingly capricious and arbitrary flaws in how the characters and mythology worked that I'm ascribing to poor writing, you actually think is the POINT of the series: that the universe itself is unknowable, as evidence by this island that manifests its strange powers so capriciously.

          Obviously I think you're giving the writers far too much credit, but even if you're completely right and this was the writers' intent, the overall theme/moral of the show that you're espousing ("don't trust fanaticism?") seems so slight and banal that it would actually makes me even less impressed by the writing, which quite frankly I didn't think was possible.
          It's not that the universe itself is unknowable, it's just that human beings have a compulsion to try to find patterns and explanations when they don't have the full information. They'll listen to someone who speaks with authority even though what they're saying doesn't always make sense.

          That's a universal part of the human experience that hasn't been dealt with in much entertainment, and I salute the writers for going there.

          But in the end, YOU DIDN'T LIKE THE SHOW. And that is perfectly fine. But millions of people did, so you can't just write it off as "these writers are dumb, the whole show was stupid."

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Lost

            People don't talk about shows they don't like years later. Z doesn't even realize he likes the show he claims to not like. It's okay. It's the way you hear a song on the radio, say you hate it, but never change it when it's on.

            You STARTED THIS THREAD. As John Locke would say to Jack, "You love this TV show, you just don't know it yet."

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Lost

              Didn't read the whole thread, but had to get in on some LOST nostalgia.

              I also have some of the same mixed feelings as the OP and not sure why that's a problem. To me, LOST was about the ride. It was about checking the message boards the second the episode was over, and emailing your friends to talk about it the next day. I can't think of another show that had me engrossed so much for such a long period time. Obviously they did something right!

              I do think the show had its problems. It's written by people who clearly think they are a lot smarter than they actually are, with all the pseudo-intellectual and faux philosophy BS. Same thing for the guy who wrote True Detective and then bailed on the show's substance for some fortune cookie BS ending. Any interview I've seen with Lindeloff made it clear the guy basically hadn't progressed beyond 13 year old stoner.

              That's OK, they wrote a hell of a show for quite some time and entertained us. I pop on an episode every now and again and it brings me back.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Lost

                Originally posted by UnequalProductions View Post
                So getting people to follow you is the sign you're a good leader, not actually leading those people anywhere?
                There's a difference between being a "good leader" and being good at leading. I think early Locke was both, but agree that the former is debatable.

                But I don't think the latter is, which is why I didn't think he was the type of character who would give up and let others take up his fight.

                Originally posted by UnequalProductions View Post
                Hmmm... watching Locke reach to Boone's death didn't really give me the "acceptable loss" feel. Seems like he took it extremely hard.
                Sure, that was his initial reaction-- until the hatch light comes on, after which Locke seemed like he was already starting to get over it.

                Originally posted by UnequalProductions View Post
                So my opinion is me drinking the Kool-Aid, but things that are "in your mind" are compelling arguments?
                For this particular argument, yes. But don't take my word for it-- ask your friends who are fathers if there's any chance they might ever do what Jin did.

                And if one of them says yes, I suggest you call Child Protective Services. Because that would make them a terrible father.

                Originally posted by UnequalProductions View Post
                One seemed to think he could leave without problem. The other one thought that if he left, it would be the end of the world. No evidence to back up either of them.
                Not quite sure if "he" refers to Jacob or the Man in Black in the first sentence-- I'll assume the latter, and you're referring to a scene in which the Man in Black was trying to convince Jacob to leave the island, which I vaguely remember. If that happened, I don't think we can take the Man in Black's arguments at face value (i.e., as representative of his true beliefs), since he obviously had an ulterior motive in getting Jacob to leave.

                Originally posted by Bono View Post
                You STARTED THIS THREAD.
                Originally posted by UnequalProductions View Post
                But in the end, YOU DIDN'T LIKE THE SHOW.
                Why is EVERYONE YELLING?

                Originally posted by UnequalProductions View Post
                And that is perfectly fine. But millions of people did, so you can't just write it off
                Why not? When did good art become a popularity contest?

                Do you think that Empire must be better written than The Americans just because it has a vastly larger audience?

                Originally posted by UnequalProductions View Post
                as "these writers are dumb, the whole show was stupid."
                Why are you making up strawman quotes? Is it too much to ask that you address what I actually said?

                I never called the writers "dumb"-- for all I know, they deliberately chose to ignore long-term character consistency in Seasons 2-6 in order to maximize the short-term impact of individual scenes.

                I actually thought they had the same philosophy in Season 1-- since there were obviously plenty of big moments in the first season-- and assumed that the reason Season 1 still worked for me was that the characterization was still being built up so there wasn't as much backstory for the big moments to potentially contradict.

                Until I read the blog post that I linked to above, and learned that almost all of the Season 1 writers were no longer writing for the show by the end of Season 2. Which considering how well-written most of Season 1 was, I just find kind of mind-boggling.

                Anyway, that's why I've been making such a big deal about the differences between Season 1 and Seasons 2-6, because I think they're reflective of the behind-the-scenes changes in the writing staff.
                Last edited by Zodraz; 04-17-2015, 12:44 AM.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Lost

                  Originally posted by Zodraz View Post
                  There's a difference between being a "good leader" and being good at leading. I think early Locke was both, but agree that the former is debatable.

                  But I don't think the latter is, which is why I didn't think he was the type of character who would give up and let others take up his fight.
                  Okay, so you're going to have to explain what the difference is between being a "good leader" and being "good at leading."

                  Originally posted by Zodraz View Post
                  Sure, that was his initial reaction-- until the hatch light comes on, after which Locke seemed like he was already starting to get over it.
                  I would say this is actually a point for my argument. Locke wants so badly to think his actions have purpose. He's on the Hatch, screaming for a sign, and a light comes on. He automatically thinks it's the Island telling him something, when really it's Desmond flipping on the switch. Humans doing things yet attributing those actions to a greater power that isn't there.

                  Originally posted by Zodraz View Post
                  For this particular argument, yes. But don't take my word for it-- ask your friends who are fathers if there's any chance they might ever do what Jin did.

                  And if one of them says yes, I suggest you call Child Protective Services. Because that would make them a terrible father.
                  "Hey, Steve, if you were trapped on a tropical island with your wife who you found out was secretly learning English to run away from you, then found out she was pregnant, then she got off the island and you were sent back in time to the 1960s for three years, then you were brought back to the present, reunited with your wife, see pictures of your child for the first time, and then get caught in a situation where she is trapped and going to die, what would you do?"

                  A reasonable question anyone can answer.


                  Originally posted by Zodraz View Post
                  Not quite sure if "he" refers to Jacob or the Man in Black in the first sentence-- I'll assume the latter, and you're referring to a scene in which the Man in Black was trying to convince Jacob to leave the island, which I vaguely remember. If that happened, I don't think we can take the Man in Black's arguments at face value (i.e., as representative of his true beliefs), since he obviously had an ulterior motive in getting Jacob to leave.
                  The Man in Black thinks he (himself) can leave the island if he takes out all of Jacob's replacements. Jacob thinks if the Man in Black leaves the island, the world will end. We have no reason to believe either of them know the truth. The only things they know about the island, they either learned from the woman who raised them (who murdered their real mother) or from their own experiments on the island.

                  Originally posted by Zodraz View Post
                  Why is EVERYONE YELLING?
                  Sorry. I write scripts more than I write on the internet. To me, all caps is emphasis, not yelling.

                  Originally posted by Zodraz View Post
                  Why not? When did good art become a popularity contest?

                  Do you think that Empire must be better written than The Americans just because it has a vastly larger audience?
                  I didn't say it was better written than anything. I just said it can't be ignored. Just like Empire can't be ignored even if you think the Americans is vastly better written.


                  Originally posted by Zodraz View Post
                  Why are you making up strawman quotes? Is it too much to ask that you address what I actually said?

                  I never called the writers "dumb"-- for all I know, they deliberately chose to ignore long-term character consistency in Seasons 2-6 in order to maximize the short-term impact of individual scenes.

                  I actually thought they had the same philosophy in Season 1-- since there were obviously plenty of big moments in the first season-- and assumed that the reason Season 1 still worked for me was that the characterization was still being built up so there wasn't as much backstory for the big moments to potentially contradict.

                  Until I read the blog post that I linked to above, and learned that almost all of the Season 1 writers were no longer writing for the show by the end of Season 2. Which considering how well-written most of Season 1 was, I just find kind of mind-boggling.

                  Anyway, that's why I've been making such a big deal about the differences between Season 1 and Seasons 2-6, because I think they're reflective of the behind-the-scenes changes in the writing staff.
                  I concede that "dumb" was not the right word to use.

                  You saw something in those characters in the first season that really resonated with you. That's great. Though as those characters grew or we learned more about their pasts and motivations, they conflicted with what you thought the characters were. I, on the other hand, saw what came in Seasons 2-6 as a more in depth exploration of the characters. Where you see it as taking this great leader of Locke and undermining his character, I saw it as a exploration of a human being who's way to eager with his faith and that makes him way to open to be conned. By his father, by Ben Linus, by anyone who says he's got a destiny.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Lost

                    I've been watching great scenes of LOST all day on YouTube and crying like a baby. Again.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Lost

                      John Locke was a sad man off the island. On the island he became the man he always knew he was inside. He could even walk again! So he was sold. He is named after a great philosopher and that is his job. His job was to teach the others how special The Island was. He was the first believer of our core group. And to ultimately be the father figure Jack always wanted, but never found in his own dad. Locke wasn't a leader, he wasn't a follower. He was his own man. But off island, that man was lost. He even was going to kill himself... the island gave him a short time of feeling great, but I'm still not sure if we know if he was being lead astray from day one by the MIB or he at some points did get to experience the Island that we saw in S6... I like to think both.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Lost

                        In this world, I totally believed Jin would stay with Sun.. think of this way... Jin probably assumed he would die there anyway.. it's not like it was a burning building in the real world and a real person ran into it to die. They are stuck on the island and the MIB is trying to kill them all.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Lost

                          Originally posted by Zodraz View Post

                          Until I read the blog post that I linked to above, and learned that almost all of the Season 1 writers were no longer writing for the show by the end of Season 2. Which considering how well-written most of Season 1 was, I just find kind of mind-boggling.

                          Anyway, that's why I've been making such a big deal about the differences between Season 1 and Seasons 2-6, because I think they're reflective of the behind-the-scenes changes in the writing staff.
                          You mean like all other TV show writing rooms? I think this is your worst point.

                          Not to mention, I disagree 100% that the writing got worse. I think you are latching onto the excitement and unknown and focus on main characters in season 1 as evidence that the writing was better. It was amazing in season 1 of course, but that was the start of the journey. And for many TV shows the start is the best stuff. It's thrilling. As you peel away the onion, the possibilities get less and less. It's why people get so mad at endings. Because they write their own version in their head. People don't write setups in their head... they write season 2-6. And it never lives up to what you want it to.

                          So I don't think it's the writing being the issue. You just didn't like it... except you you do because you keep talking about it.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Lost

                            Originally posted by UnequalProductions View Post
                            Okay, so you're going to have to explain what the difference is between being a "good leader" and being "good at leading."
                            The "good" in "good leader" is results-oriented: "Did the leader produce a good result?"

                            The "good" in "good at leading" is process-oriented: "Did the leader convince others to follow his or her lead?"

                            Originally posted by UnequalProductions View Post
                            I didn't say it was better written than anything. I just said it can't be ignored. Just like Empire can't be ignored even if you think the Americans is vastly better written.
                            Agreed-- and I think my posts here have shown that I'm clearly not ignoring Lost

                            Originally posted by UnequalProductions View Post
                            You saw something in those characters in the first season that really resonated with you. That's great. Though as those characters grew or we learned more about their pasts and motivations, they conflicted with what you thought the characters were. I, on the other hand, saw what came in Seasons 2-6 as a more in depth exploration of the characters. Where you see it as taking this great leader of Locke and undermining his character, I saw it as a exploration of a human being who's way to eager with his faith and that makes him way to open to be conned. By his father, by Ben Linus, by anyone who says he's got a destiny.
                            Thanks, that's actually a nice summation that helps me understand where the Lost loyalists are coming from.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Lost

                              I miss this show so much. There's nothing else like it. Even the big shows now, the ones that people really love and inspire them to theorise - Hannibal, Game of Thrones, The Americans - either have a set end-game in mind that we know (like Breaking Bad; it was a rise and fall-story, and we knew it had to end the way it did) or is based on books and stories we know. So while we don't know everything, we know a lot - too much to go completely crazy.

                              I miss a show that has so many things to latch on to and theorise. Game of Thrones is almost that, but it's different because there are no references to Stephen King or the Bible; it's enclosed in its own world, so you have to read up on Westeros' mythology and religions and the houses of the pasts. But it's all fictional, and we know it's not going to go time-travel in season five.

                              The beautiful, special thing with Lost was that it could go anywhere. It had great characters, it had a great setting, and there was no knowing what would happen even an episode from now. That, and the constant references to literature and religion and science, was what made people go crazy. At least some of it.

                              And the ending was very fitting. I liked it a lot. It wasn't perfect, but it worked. (oh, and season 4 and 5 was the best ones.)

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X