Support NeoGAF

[Salmonax]

Is it really more perplexing than what drives the fans?

I agree with much of what you have to say, Erigu (despite still loving the show), but it is extremely unusual for someone to be as passionate about hating something as you are with Lost. I'm not saying there's anything inherently wrong with it, but it is something one rarely sees.

 

[Blader]

Next summer sounds about right. Still too soon for me right now.

September 22, 2014 for me.

 

[Catalix]

September 22, 2014 for me.

Damn, not a bad idea. If I'm not motivated to do a re-watch by next year, I might actually just go ahead and shoot for that date.

Is it really more perplexing than what drives the fans?

It's just that I actually go through the trouble of explaining myself with arguments and examples, instead of simply going "long NeoGAF topics = brilliant storytelling!" or "it's strictly a matter of personal opinion and there's no way, need nor point to discuss those things!", like I've seen right above.

My favorite part, honestly. The links and examples are what make your critiques credible. Or hell, just plain enjoyable to read.

Good Jack post, btw. It's the type of comprehensive character arc analysis I wish I got to see more often, even if it paints my favorite character (and the writers) in a wholly negative light. I just like when it's broken down so thoroughly like that.

 

[Drealmcc0y]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzRjHDAgRmk

Thought some people might be interested in this.

Its like a 2 hour interview with Damon Lindelof.

I havent watched it all, but he talks about lost and the game of thrones comments etc

Just came out today

 

[Erigu]

I agree with much of what you have to say, Erigu (despite still loving the show), but it is extremely unusual for someone to be as passionate about hating something as you are with Lost. I'm not saying there's anything inherently wrong with it, but it is something one rarely sees.

I'm mostly concerned about the growing influence of the "J.J. school" on US genre movies and shows, these past few years, and Lost happens to be both the main culprit and a good example of how bad it can get.

Just as an example...
I liked Tron, as a kid. I don't quite dare watching it again now, but the nostalgia is there. So when they release a sequel, I'm intrigued.
Then, I read stuff like this:

I wrote the plot section twenty four hours after seeing the film and even then I couldn’t tell you what Clu’s end goal was or how it could work, or anything, really. And the film doesn’t care either. As such, you never have any vested interest in the safety of the characters, and it’s hard to root for them to succeed because you never have a sense of the stakes.

... and that:

I am not exaggerating when I say this film genuinely feels like it was filmed from the 50 page kid’s storybook that is inevitably published for every blockbuster property. The rules of the film are inconsistent, the stakes simply invented in-the-moment the way children “playing Tron” in the schoolyard might make things up as they go along. Like a diluted version of The Matrix sequels, the characters just find themselves going from one place to another because they’re told to, or because one of them just knows where the next event will happen. Kevin Flynn’s identity disc is made to be an important object that must be protected at all costs, yet when it’s stolen by the villains, it’s as an after-though as Flynn runs out of a room. Location shifts and overall motivations are treated the same way, with explanations coming only as they’re needed (if at all), and in ways that only makes sense at that moment.

... and I think "Well, fuck. Reminds me of a certain TV show, too. Eh..."
And a few days later, I read another article that points out the screenwriters are Lost alumni. Oh. I didn't know that. Some names did sound kinda familiar, but I hadn't thought twice about it.

Of course, there would also be all those attempts at being "the next Lost", on TV...
And now, Lindelof himself is writing that Alien prequel/spin-off thingy. I don't feel so good about this. Hands off my SF, hack.


So yeah, I don't like what I'm seeing. All that because Lost got (and is still getting) some completely unwarranted praise from a whole lot of viewers who don't know better.
I'm thus trying to explain why/how Lost was complete BS, an utterly hollow shell (or "empty box", in J.J. lingo), and since the show obfuscated matters as much as possible by diluting the BS over long stretches of pointless episodes, it takes some work (that same work Lost fans apparently didn't do before claiming the writing was stellar).
You may call me weird for not stopping at another superficial review of the show (I've also seen some unwarranted negative criticism, like those who think it's BS because "they were dead all along", to give a common example), but I'm merely trying to do this somewhat properly.
(oh, and I'm still not claiming I'm the only one who can do that either, Blader5489... just in case...)

My favorite part, honestly. The links and examples are what make your critiques credible. Or hell, just plain enjoyable to read.

Good Jack post, btw. It's the type of comprehensive character arc analysis I wish I got to see more often, even if it paints my favorite character (and the writers) in a wholly negative light. I just like when it's broken down so thoroughly like that.

Thanks. I'm glad you appreciate it.

Incidentally, it also goes to show things aren't quite as bad as Blader5489 was saying. Fortunately. That idea that people will just cling to their opinion no matter what and that arguments are thus ultimately pointless was pretty bleak stuff.

 

[Drealmcc0y]

LOST is the story that completely captivated me, entertained me, resonated with me in deeply profound and personal ways.

Why are you even trying to take that away from me?

What the FUCK is wrong with you?

People hate on me for being over zealous, but this is surely madness!

 

[Erigu]

LOST is the story that completely captivated me, entertained me, resonated with me in deeply profound and personal ways.
Why are you even trying to take that away from me?

It's not my fault the show was very poorly written. Would you rather not see that?

 

[Catalix]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzRjHDAgRmk

Thought some people might be interested in this.

Its like a 2 hour interview with Damon Lindelof.

I havent watched it all, but he talks about lost and the game of thrones comments etc

Just came out today

2 hours?! Thanks for the heads up.

disgonbgud.gif

Thanks. I'm glad you appreciate it.

Incidentally, it also goes to show things aren't quite as bad as Blader5489 was saying. Fortunately. That idea that people will just cling to their opinion no matter what and that arguments are thus ultimately pointless was pretty bleak stuff.

But I must admit... I'm just kinda weird like that. Oftentimes, I take great pleasure when franchises that I absolutely adore get dissected and ripped to shreds. For some reason, it's especially true with IPs like LOST and Metal Gear.

The type of hardcore fandom I subscribe to is mostly easygoing when it comes to trash talk levied against the IP itself. I love a good roast, as long as the talking points are competent and have elements of truth.

 

[Erigu]

I must admit... I'm just kinda weird like that. Oftentimes, I take great pleasure when franchises that I absolutely adore get dissected and ripped to shreds. For some reason, it's especially true with IPs like LOST and Metal Gear.

Same here.
And yeah, I really like the Metal Gear series, but there's a lot to criticize, writing wise, and articles that go into that often are a very pleasant read.

 

[WillyFive]

Quantum Leap's finale broke my heart, but in a sad way that you cared about the characters, not that it was bad. It solidified it as my favorite TV show of all time.

Lost's ending felt the same way, except instead of breaking your heart, it made me overwhelmingly happy, because I also cared for the characters, and seeing them have a somewhat happy ending despite all they went through really did make the ending feel great.

 

[Deleted member 12837]

It's not my fault the show was very poorly written. Would you rather not see that?

First of all, none of those things he mentioned necessarily has anything to do with how poorly or well written the show is. A show is made up of more than just its writing, and it can captivate, resonate, and entertain even the most stubborn, high-standards critic without being well-written.

Second of all, he clearly doesn't agree with you (that the show was very poorly written, to be clear), so there's nothing for him to "see". I'd also repeat his question: why are you trying to take such a positive experience away from him?

 

[WillyFive]

It's not my fault the show was very poorly written. Would you rather not see that?

It obviously wasn't poorly written to him. Because believe it or not, good writing is not just dictated on whatever it is you are complaining about it this page. It is also (to a MUCH higher degree than other things) on how entertaining and how captivating it is.

 

[Blader]

Thanks. I'm glad you appreciate it.

Incidentally, it also goes to show things aren't quite as bad as Blader5489 was saying. Fortunately. That idea that people will just cling to their opinion no matter what and that arguments are thus ultimately pointless was pretty bleak stuff.

Yeah, what was I thinking? You're clearly changing the world. Keep at it man, soon you'll have saved all of television and fiction itself!

 

[Erigu]

none of those things he mentioned necessarily has anything to do with how poorly or well written the show is.

But the quality of the writing is what I'm talking about, and I believe I made myself very clear about that. So I'm not sure what the issue is, here.

A show is made up of more than just its writing, and it can captivate, resonate, and entertain even the most stubborn, high-standards critic without being well-written.

The director, the cast, the composer, etc, can do a great job in spite of the plot/script, sure.

he clearly doesn't agree with you (that the show was very poorly written, to be clear), so there's nothing for him to "see".

That ties in with the following...

It obviously wasn't poorly written to him.

There are areas where your mileage may vary, naturally, but nonsense is nonsense and inconsistencies are inconsistencies. You can't always fall back on that so convenient "it's all subjective anyway, man" defense.

Yeah, what was I thinking? You're clearly changing the world. Keep at it man, soon you'll have saved all of television and fiction itself!

Yeah, thanks for coming back with more extravagant "Messiah delusions!1!" nonsense... Straw man arguments are the best arguments.

Let's put it this way:
Say some guy likes a game a whole lot, but feels said game is misunderstood, or somewhat under-publicized, and would deserve so much more. He writes quite a bit about it in the NeoGAF topic, does his best to explain what's so great about the game and why people should give it a try, and keeps trying to defend it even quite some time after the release.
Would you say that logically means the guy is actually expecting to single-handedly turn that game into a huge success and ultimately an enduring franchise, propel its creators at the pantheon of video gaming, and change the face of the medium forever?
It looks like you would.

 

[WillyFive]

There are areas where your mileage may vary, naturally, but nonsense is nonsense and inconsistencies are inconsistencies. You can't always fall back on that so convenient "it's all subjective anyway, man" defense.

Nonsense can be nonsense and inconsistencies can be inconsistencies, but their importance on an experience can definitely vary greatly.

Sometimes the nonsense can be part of the show, like for great comedy in a sitcom or for awesome scenes in a superhero story. In Lost's case, lack of explanation was part of the whole point of the show: it's mystery.

 

[Erigu]

Nonsense can be nonsense and inconsistencies can be inconsistencies, but their importance on an experience can definitely vary greatly.

Sure. If you don't think the plot and the characterization mattered all that much, good for you.

Sometimes the nonsense can be part of the show, like for great comedy in a sitcom or for awesome scenes in a superhero story. In Lost's case, lack of explanation was part of the whole point of the show: it's mystery.

"It was all on purpose!"
Yeah, no. That's just a cop-out. Or by that logic, all BS, no matter how wildly inconsistent and nonsensical, could be labelled "mystery", and mystery would become the easiest thing to write in the whole known universe (time to jump on that bandwagon, I guess!).

 

[Deleted member 12837]

But the quality of the writing is what I'm talking about, and I believe I made myself very clear about that. So I'm not sure what the issue is, here.

But he wasn't talking about the writing, you brought that up. He was talking about his experience as a whole with the show. The issue is the question you keep dodging: why are you trying to take such a positive experience away from him?

The director, the cast, the composer, etc, can do a great job in spite of the plot/script, sure.

Agreed.

There are areas where your mileage may vary, naturally, but nonsense is nonsense and inconsistencies are inconsistencies. You can't always fall back on that so convenient "it's all subjective anyway, man" defense.

Again, that's all well and good. Lost has its inconsistencies, and its nonsense. Fine. But he still really enjoyed the show. It does look like you finally accept that here:

Sure. If you don't think the plot and the characterization mattered all that much, good for you.

So, why make this jab in the first place? (oh god, now I'm starting to format my posts like you)

 

[WillyFive]

Sure. If you don't think the plot and the characterization mattered all that much, good for you.

The plot and characterization mattered greatly on Lost, it's just that nonsense and inconsistencies did not have a lot of weight on it.

Same for stuff like Lord of the Rings. There are stuff that would seem weird for other types of stories, but fit fine in that universe because it's meant to be an epic fantasy. In case you haven't noticed, Lost is not a documentary.

 

[Erigu]

But he wasn't talking about the writing, you brought that up.

Yeah, that's even what I brought up in the first place. That's what he was reacting to. My take on the quality of the writing.
And why he reacted to that by mentioning other things altogether, now, that's something you should actually see with him.

The issue is the question you keep dodging: why are you trying to take such a positive experience away from him?

He's just claiming that's what I'm trying to do. I didn't think it was worth saying, but I am not, in fact, a villain escaped from a children's movie, out to destroy the Dream Land and all its talking animal inhabitants.

So, why make this jab in the first place?

See above: the guy apparently got annoyed by my take on the quality of the writing, and I reply that it's not my fault if the writing sucks.
If he actually doesn't care all that much about the quality of the writing, he has no reason to get annoyed about all this in the first place, right? So either he got annoyed for no good reason, or he was talking about that, and there's nothing wrong with my reply.

(oh god, now I'm starting to format my posts like you)

It's not dirty.

The plot and characterization mattered greatly on Lost, it's just that nonsense and inconsistencies did not have a lot of weight on it.

Sure they did.
The rules, for example. A lot depended on those. The leader of the Others can't simply see Jacob, Widmore can't have a family off-island, Ben and Widmore can't kill each other (until it's the end of the show and they suddenly can because who gives a shit now), Michael can't kill himself, the protagonists have to come back to the island together, the Smoke Monster can't simply kill the candidates...

Same for stuff like Lord of the Rings.

Oh, please, don't ever compare those two, really...

In case you haven't noticed, Lost is not a documentary.

In case you didn't know, that doesn't constitute a valid excuse for poor storytelling at all. That's just absurd.

 

[Blader]

Yeah, thanks for coming back with more extravagant "Messiah delusions!1!" nonsense... Straw man arguments are the best arguments.

Hey, I was only following up on your "I'm a holding a scalpel here, let me dissect and kill this show for the betterment of mankind!" grandstanding.

Let's put it this way:
Say some guy likes a game a whole lot, but feels said game is misunderstood, or somewhat under-publicized, and would deserve so much more. He writes quite a bit about it in the NeoGAF topic, does his best to explain what's so great about the game and why people should give it a try, and keeps trying to defend it even quite some time after the release.
Would you say that logically means the guy is actually expecting to single-handedly turn that game into a huge success and ultimately an enduring franchise, propel its creators at the pantheon of video gaming, and change the face of the medium forever?
It looks like you would.

Talk about strawmen!

Your hypothetical is about raising awareness among people about a little known, under-publicized product. That is not what LOST is or was. LOST was not an obscure, niche show that flew under a lot of people's radar. It was, for better or for worse, a huge pop culture phenomenon, a critical and commercial success, and an incredibly influential milestone in television.

So for your video game analogy, a better example would be, say, Halo. Now if you wrote a lengthy diatribe--scratch that, several lengthy diatribes--about how awful a game Halo is, breaking it down to its basic mechanics and highlighting how flawed each element of the game was, how disappointing the overall product is, and how lamentable its influence on the rest of the industry has been...do you think any of this is going to convince Halo fans that suddenly Halo sucks? Would it reverse the trend Halo has had on other games? You may even convince a handful of people to never play, let alone buy, a Halo game. But the influence there is tantamount to a drop in the ocean--and that's being generous.

I don't care that you don't like Lost, I don't care that you hate what kind of influence it has had and continues to have, and I don't care that you critique the show in such minute detail. Don't fool yourself into thinking that the negative attitude towards your posts here has anything to do with the level of thoroughness and analysis you apply to your critiques. What I find obnoxious is your whole "I'm doing this for the sake of future storytelling!" mentality. You keep writing it off as "lol messiah remarks" but it's exactly what you're doing: all this self-important bravado about wanting to shine a light on what a piece of shit LOST was in order to improve television writing as a whole.

Do you understand that? By all means, keep pouring on the hate, I don't give a shit. But all your "this is for the future of writing" posturing is delusional, pointless, especially obnoxious, and even a little insulting. Don't kid yourself into thinking you're anything more than a random anonymous poster on a message board who some people agree and some don't. And that's where all your influence as a "surgeon" here ends.

 

[Erigu]

Hey, I was only following up on your "I'm a holding a scalpel here, let me dissect and kill this show for the betterment of mankind!" grandstanding.

I didn't think somebody could actually take that entirely seriously. My bad.

Your hypothetical is about raising awareness among people about a little known, under-publicized product. That is not what LOST is or was. LOST was not an obscure, niche show that flew under a lot of people's radar.

No, but it seems the extent of the awfulness of Lost's writing did.

I don't care that you don't like Lost, I don't care that you hate what kind of influence it has had and continues to have, and I don't care that you critique the show in such minute detail.

All right?

What I find obnoxious is your whole "I'm doing this for the sake of future storytelling!" mentality.

Yeah, but I'm not actually that deluded, sorry to disappoint. I know where I'm posting.
Again with that guy and his game: he might really think that the game deserved much more exposure, strongly feel about that, and at the same time be perfectly aware of the extent of his influence when he's posting in that one NeoGAF topic.

By all means, keep pouring on the hate, I don't give a shit.

I see that.

 

[Catalix]

What I find obnoxious is your whole "I'm doing this for the sake of future storytelling!" mentality. You keep writing it off as "lol messiah remarks" but it's exactly what you're doing: all this self-important bravado about wanting to shine a light on what a piece of shit LOST was in order to improve television writing as a whole.

Ah man, that's what gives it flavor ;(

 

[Drealmcc0y]

"Nonsense is nonsense"

Well, its not exactly a done deal on what is nonsense.

Is Across the Sea nonsense to alot of people? Sure! Not to me though.

I love the writing and plot of this episode. Is it perfect? No, but i still greatly enjoy it.

Is Desmond pulling out the cork or jack flying leap nonsense to alot of people? Sure! Not to me. I think they are both incredibly cool.

Inconsistencies is Inconsistencies. Look at your above post with the rules. Its been explained many times on this thread that some are others rules that can be broken, and others are supernatural rules that cannot.

Yet you seem to forget that and bring it all up again.

I remember a few weeks ago, I answered something and then the next day you brought the same thing up again, ignoring everything I ever said. You do this constantly.

 

[SamVimes]

How do you draw the line between rules that cannot be broken and rules that can? The fact that Widmore and Ben couldn't kill each other seemed like a big deal and instead it was bs.

Every rule cannot be broken until anyone breaks it?

 

[Drealmcc0y]

How do you draw the line between rules that cannot be broken and rules that can? The fact that Widmore and Ben couldn't kill each other seemed like a big deal and instead it was bs.

Every rule cannot be broken until anyone breaks it?

No some are The Others rules that can be broken. They are Others laws, agreements.

Some are supernatural rules, created by protector of the island that can never be broken.

Convoluted is a good word here.

 

[Erigu]

"Nonsense is nonsense"
Well, its not exactly a done deal on what is nonsense.
Is Across the Sea nonsense to alot of people? Sure! Not to me though.
I love the writing and plot of this episode. Is it perfect? No, but i still greatly enjoy it.
Is Desmond pulling out the cork or jack flying leap nonsense to alot of people? Sure! Not to me. I think they are both incredibly cool.

You didn't explain much of anything, here...

You could also try those DHARMA-flavored examples:
Why paint that map on a a blast door that closes only during lockdown (you know, that mysterious lockdown that was never explained/justified)? Why special paint (let's not even wonder where the guy got that paint in the first place)? Why Latin?
Speaking of which, why was it so important to put that film reel back behind the Turn of the Screw?
Why hide all those things? From whom?
Why would someone (Radzinsky?) edit that one part of the orientation movie out and hide it in a Bible that would end up in the Arrow station?
Why would anybody salt the ground in a giant question mark at the location of the Pearl station?
And our old friend: why bother putting hieroglyphs in the Swan countdown?

It doesn't take a genius to see those are all "pretend mysteries": they make no sense and were on the show just to give it "an air of mystery". I'm tempted to say they were "gratuitously" included, but it was all at the cost of a great deal of credibility, really.

Inconsistencies is Inconsistencies. Look at your above post with the rules. Its been explained many times on this thread that some are others rules that can be broken, and others are supernatural rules that cannot.
Yet you seem to forget that and bring it all up again.

I don't "forget", no. It looks like you're referring to that official explanation (from the Lost Encyclopedia, I believe? maybe they also talked about that on a podcast?) regarding those rules between Ben and Widmore, and how they were "more of a gentlemen's agreement". How that would explain why Ben could shoot Widmore at the end of the show.
Sorry, but that makes no sense either way, supernaturally binding rule or not.

Why would they refrain from killing each other, if the rules weren't supernaturally binding? The show made it a point that Ben was pissed off because Widmore "changed the rules" by killing his daughter, right? And he decided "alright, then, I'll respond in kind", right? Does it look like any of them still cares about that "gentlemen's agreement", at that point? They're going out of their way to ignore it!
So, when they then talk about how they can't kill each other... Well, what's that? Still that gentlemen's agreement? But for some reason, they care about it again, there? Until they don't anymore and Ben goes back to targetting Penny? What?

I remember a few weeks ago, I answered something and then the next day you brought the same thing up again, ignoring everything I ever said.

What was it?

 

[brandonh83]

Dreal, you are a serious glutton for punishment. I'm glad I learned a long time ago.

 

[Drealmcc0y]

I agree that Ben saying he cant kill him is a bit dumb, when he can.

Why did they put orientation film behind turn of the screw? damn, you got me there

 

[Drealmcc0y]

Dreal, you are a serious glutton for punishment. I'm glad I learned a long time ago.

I love talking about lost, and most forums have dried up.

I guess I have to take what I can get.

 

[Erigu]

I agree that Ben saying he cant kill him is a bit dumb, when he can.

The other way around, too. Ben is flat out saying he's going to kill Penny... and acts like there's nothing Widmore can do about it: he's obviously going to leave the hotel unharmed. Huh?

Why did they put orientation film behind turn of the screw? damn, you got me there

Obviously, the question isn't "why behind that particular book?"
Why hide it at all?

 

[Drealmcc0y]

Obviously, the question isn't "why behind that particular book?"
Why hide it at all?

Who says they are hiding it, just where they put it lol

 

[Erigu]

Sure, behind a book. Where else could they possibly put it?

INMAN: Just make sure you put that back behind Turn of the Screw when you're done with it.

Yeah, don't forget about that, Desmond. Who knows what would happen, otherwise.

 

[brandonh83]

I guess I have to take what I can get.

I like talking about Lost too, just not in this kind of environment. I like talking about the story and what certain things mean, not exactly what the writers made up or whatever other flaws are beaten around ad nauseum.

 

[Drealmcc0y]

I like talking about Lost too, just not in this kind of environment. I like talking about the story and what certain things mean, not exactly what the writers made up or whatever other flaws are beaten around ad nauseum.

I feel the same.

I dont know about you, but im unemployed lol

I dont have alot to do except hit the gym and surf the web lol

 

[Deleted member 12837]

If he actually doesn't care all that much about the quality of the writing, he has no reason to get annoyed about all this in the first place, right? So either he got annoyed for no good reason, or he was talking about that, and there's nothing wrong with my reply.

Sure he does. He's not annoyed by your take on the quality of the writing, he's annoyed by you.

Why paint that map on a a blast door that closes only during lockdown (you know, that mysterious lockdown that was never explained/justified)? Why special paint (let's not even wonder where the guy got that paint in the first place)? Why Latin?
...
etc

Why do you care about these minor, incredibly specific details? (where did he get the paint? Really!? THAT's a concern of yours?) How could that detail possibly impact your enjoyment of a 6-season series in any meaningful way? Why is that worth bringing up at all, or even thinking about for more than a split second? Are you suggesting if the map had been painted with regular paint, in english, hidden behind a painting or a tarp or something, you would've felt much better about the whole thing? Are the writers expected to explain the source of the paint, otherwise it's nonsense/a plot inconsistency/unbelievable/bad writing?

Occasionally you'll bring up some interesting and legitimate criticism of Lost that would be worth discussing if it wasn't with you, but usually it just drowns in paragraphs concerning details like these. You pick strange battles.

If ultimately you don't care that much about those details, why bring them up at all and draw attention from/dilute the much more relevant, valid points you're trying to make?

 

[Erigu]

I don't see him quoting you anywhere in that post, nor specifically mentioning your take on the writing.

Ah, c'mon... That's what I was talking about, so what else would it be?
Buf if you go there, he didn't mention my username either, so who knows who he was talking to after all?!

It is.

;_;

Why do you care about these minor, incredibly specific details?

Sure: clearly, nobody cared about all those things when they aired.
The blast door map, for example? Nah, it went completely unnoticed. And for a good reason, too: it was nothing more than a background prop in the corner of the screen, not something the show ever focused on at all.
Wait, sorry: my sarcasmlock key got stuck.

Point is, the writers introduced a whole bunch of elements strictly for the sake of intriguing viewers (those were just some examples), without bothering to try and make sure they made some kind of sense. They just never gave a shit about worldbuilding ("*snoring noises*"), which is a bit of a problem considering they were selling Lost as this huge "tapestry" that would progressively reveal itself ("and we totally know what's up with all the mysteries and weird stuff we're introducing, you guys!").

(where did he get the paint? Really!? THAT's a concern of yours?)

Guy's stranded on an island, so yeah, I kinda wonder about that, too. Sorry.
All in all, seems like a lot of trouble for no apparent reason at all.

Are you suggesting if the map had been painted with regular paint, in english, hidden behind a painting or a tarp or something, you would've felt much better about the whole thing?

Would already be that much less random shit thrown at the audience (while the producers are still assuring viewers that "it will all make sense in the end!", naturally).

Are the writers expected to explain the source of the paint, otherwise it's nonsense/a plot inconsistency/unbelievable/bad writing?

I expect professional writers not to come up with nonsense like that shit in the first place.

 

[Deleted member 12837]

Ah, c'mon... That's what I was talking about, so what else would it be?
Buf if you go there, he didn't mention my username either, so who knows who he was talking to after all?!

I'll repeat myself:

He's not annoyed by your take on the quality of the writing, he's annoyed by you.

Sure: clearly, nobody cared about all those things when they aired.
The blast door map, for example? Nah, it went completely unnoticed.

I guess I should've been more specific, sorry:

The blast door map itself is significant.
The specific group of facts that you're whining about, that it was painted with that paint, on that blast door, in Latin, is not significant to the big picture of the show. I don't think the average viewer (so not the people on neoGAF or blogs trying to dissect every detail of the show) really thought that much about those particular elements at all.

Guy's stranded on an island, so yeah, I kinda wonder about that, too. Sorry.
All in all, seems like a lot of trouble for no apparent reason at all.

In that case, I'm not sure I have much more to discuss with you. I would go nuts watching even shows like The Wire (Can we agree that that show has quality writing? That's pretty universally accepted, right?) if I was that consumed by the small details, let alone my favorite video games, movies, and books. How can you stand Metal Gear? That series is incredibly convoluted and has plenty of plot points that are sloppily sewn up or never were (at least by the time I stopped having time for gaming several years ago).

I can't say I envy you, but with this quote in mind, it does make sense that Lost bothers you so much.

 

[WillyFive]

Sure they did.
The rules, for example. A lot depended on those. The leader of the Others can't simply see Jacob, Widmore can't have a family off-island, Ben and Widmore can't kill each other (until it's the end of the show and they suddenly can because who gives a shit now), Michael can't kill himself, the protagonists have to come back to the island together, the Smoke Monster can't simply kill the candidates...

And what's the problem here? You didn't like those rules? They kept a good dynamic.

Oh, please, don't ever compare those two, really...

?

In case you didn't know, that doesn't constitute a valid excuse for poor storytelling at all. That's just absurd.

Sure it doesn't. But Lost wasn't poor storytelling. Quite the opposite, it's a big reason why the show is so good, it's brilliant and excellent storytelling. Story and storytelling are two different things, a well told story can make a bad story seem good (like Star Trek) and a badly told story and make a good story seem bad (like The Last Airbender).

 

[dave is ok]

and a badly told story and make a good story seem bad (like The Last Airbender).

Wait what

 

[Erigu]

He's not annoyed by your take on the quality of the writing, he's annoyed by you.

While you're talking for him with this interesting interpretation of his post, could you tell me what the problem is exactly, then? I also asked you earlier (twice), but didn't get an answer...

The blast door map itself is significant.
The specific group of facts that you're whining about, that it was painted with that paint, on that blast door, in Latin, is not significant to the big picture of the show.

You can't just ignore all that as if those were completely mundane details, sorry. Why all those efforts to hide that map and make it both hard to see and decipher?

In cases like this, seems like I'm never getting a better answer than "why not?"
You know, a bit like when I asked why the Smoke Monster would even want to exterminate mankind: "why not?"
I mean, sure: when you're fine with that, I don't quite see what you wouldn't be fine with, plot-wise... Enjoy your Lost box-set!

I would go nuts watching even shows like The Wire (Can we agree that that show has quality writing? That's pretty universally accepted, right?) if I was that consumed by the small details

That wouldn't be much of an issue for the Wire, precisely because it indeed has quality writing.

How can you stand Metal Gear?

For one thing, the series strikes an odd balance between its dashes of pretentiousness and how self-aware it is about being just a video game... of hide and seek... where military men tend to have superpowers and comic book codenames.
Plus, Kojima didn't hide the fact he wasn't thinking ahead, with his "last reel" plot twists: "I'm supposed to write another sequel? after the shit I pulled last time? oh, man..." (*)

And then, yeah, it's a series of video games. Does anybody actually have the exact same expectations towards the plot of a video game and that of a movie or TV show? I mean, I know I'm setting the bar higher and higher as years go by and the medium "matures", but still...


(*)
That being said, yeah, I wish he were a bit more careful about all that, sure.
For example, I was liking myself this new Naked Snake arc (tabula rasa! cold war setting! no nanomachines! more human/relatable main character!), and the "OMG twist reveals!" of Metal Gear Solid Portable Ops and Metal Gear Solid Peace Walker annoyed me...

[The rules]
And what's the problem here?

Oh, c'mon, man... You're not new to the topic, are you?

?

See above, regarding the worldbuilding stuff... One one hand, you have Lindelof/Cuse who scoff at the notion on their podcast (but will still throw random shit at the screen anyway: gotta hook those viewers!), and on the other hand, you have freakin' Tolkien, who is pretty much always the first name invoked whenever worldbuilding is brought up, and for good reason.

Story and storytelling are two different things

I would argue "storytelling" actually encompasses things such as plot and characterization...

 

[Drealmcc0y]

I just watched the full interview.

A little bit boring in the middle, but damn, Damon is awesome.

 

[Drealmcc0y]

You know, a bit like when I asked why the Smoke Monster would even want to exterminate mankind:

Erigu what do you think happens when the cork is popped and the MiB is able to leave?

It seems to me you think smokey will rob banks and shizzle

 

[DrEvil]

Can we agree that the charm of LOST was in the experience of watching it season to season, with a grueling wait before you find the answers?

Half the fun was everyone spinning wild theories making everything 20x more epic.

Having the entire series run back to back to back with no breaks can lose some of that charm, magnify the inconsistencies, and you'll notice problems/flaws that you never saw before.

Regardless, the six years of watching it on the air was some of the best TV ever, regardless of writing, pacing, plot holes or the lack of 'answers'. The finale was satisfying and even rewatching the final two seasons with the knowledge of the end game in mind, they felt stronger than when they originally aired.


On the flip side, shows like BSG butchered their final season, shit went bad and it fell apart -- BUT -- if you rewatch all four seasons with the knowledge of their endgame from the get-go, the series is stronger when you watch it all at once. The final season is no longer mystery, but the viewer is 'in the know' and things make tons more sense.

In the end, all TV is written poorly in some way, every show has critics, every season has terrible filler episodes that shouldn't have made it past the first draft, and people will debate and defend their shows to the end of time. Just enjoy LOST for what it was, and suspend whatever disbelief you need to accept a smoke monster could really exist and never hopped on the sub to ever leave the island.

 

[Erigu]

Erigu what do you think happens when the cork is popped and the MiB is able to leave?

I dunno. The world cowers in abject terror in front of that 48-year old hobo that just showed up on his sailboat?

 

[Drealmcc0y]

I dunno. The world cowers in abject terror in front of that 48-year old hobo that just showed up on his sailboat?

No everybody goes to hell.

The end of the world

 

[dave is ok]

No everybody goes to hell.

The end of the world

So they don't go to the nice multi-denominational church?

 

[Erigu]

No everybody goes to hell.
The end of the world

Really? Why?

 

[Drealmcc0y]

So they don't go to the nice multi-denominational church?

Sure the reveal of the FSW is also the key to what the fuck the importance of this island is.

I think ive posted these thoughts before but i guess i will post it again.

The island was the holder of heaven and hell, good and evil, light and darkness.

Thats why it was so special, so important and why it must be protected. If they never saved the world of the threat from the MiB(who was the darkness, hell, malevolence in physical form) then the world would have ended and everybody would go to hell as Hurley says in season 6.

None of the FSW would have happened, nobody would be able to move on together into whatever comes next after you die.

 

[dave is ok]

Sure the reveal of the FSW is also the key to what the fuck the importance of this island is.

I think ive posted these thoughts before but i guess i will post it again.

The island was the holder of heaven and hell, good and evil, light and darkness.

Thats why it was so special, so important and why it must be protected. If they never saved the world of the threat from the MiB(who was the darkness, hell, malevolence in physical form) then the world would have ended and everybody would go to hell as Hurley says in season 6.

None of the FSW would have happened, nobody would be able to move on together into whatever comes next after you die.

So, MIB couldn't pull the cork out and leave the island himself... so why did the island need Jacob there to protect it? Why did Jacob keep bringing humans to the island? Why on earth would MIB be killing them all the time if they were his only hope at escape?

The show makes no sense. Just admit it

 

[Drealmcc0y]

So, MIB couldn't pull the cork out and leave the island himself... so why did the island need Jacob there to protect it?

There always need to be a protector of the island. Its not just MiB they protect it from.

Why do you think Hurley is protector with no MiB?

Its like Mother says

MiB: "Whats down there"

Mother: "The light. The warmest, brightest light, that you have ever seen or felt and we must make sure that nobody ever finds it"

MiB: "Its beautiful"

Mothers: "Yes it is. Thats why they want it, because a little bit of this same light exists inside of every man, but they always want more.

Jacob: "Can they take it?"

Mother: "No but they could try, and if they tried they could put it out and if the light goes out here, it goes out everywhere"

So whats being said here is that humans want this light, they are intrigued by its magic.

Like the dharma initative, the egytptians and romans that wanted to exploit it.

That is why The others purged the DI i think, they took their experiments too far.