Support NeoGAF

[Erigu]

I disagree. But no matter what I'd say, you'll never agree with me. I could make the best case for how the writers 'gave a fuck' about the show and you'd dismiss it.

You know, I think there are some really, really hardcore Lost fans here who would most probably never change their mind about the show, no matter what.
(Yeah, that implies I think they're stupidly narrow-minded fanatics (at least in that area), and that's not very nice of me, but then again, that's also what you think of me, based on your post above, so we should be good, yes?)

Now, do I use that as an excuse not to produce arguments and examples?

There's obviously a reason that we liked the show. It wasn't due to lack of 'delving deep into the inner workings of the show', it was a combined experience. I've never experienced anything quite like LOST-Gaf. It was my favorite 'forum' experience (I am saying that word too much) ever.

Then again, I'm criticizing the show, not the forum experience...

For all the missteps the show took, it took plenty of great ones.

Not writing-wise.

Hey Erigu, is there a faster way to do the multi quote thing?
I copy the quote tags and paste them above and below every chunk I want to reply to. Is there a more efficient way?

Not as far as I know? I mean, I can't merge posts, if that's what you were...

EDIT: Ah, wait. Even when replying to a single post, you mean? There's a "quote" icon above the text window.

 

[oatmeal]

You know, I think there are some really, really hardcore Lost fans here who would most probably never change their mind about the show, no matter what.
(Yeah, that implies I think they're stupidly narrow-minded fanatics (at least in that area), and that's not very nice of me, but then again, that's also what you think of me, based on your post above, so we should be good, yes?)

Now, do I use that as an excuse not to produce arguments and examples?

No one is trying to change your mind, though. That's the difference. You're in here trying to 'open everyone's eyes', we're here to reminisce and enjoy the company of people we spent years communicating with.

Then again, I'm criticizing the show, not the forum experience...

It's all part of the show's experience as a whole. If you're going to bring all of the interviews out (which only affect the show if you pay attention to them), then it's the same thing here. LOST had a lot of venues for information/communication/etc. etc. etc.

It got me into Podcasts, too.

Not writing-wise.

*sigh*

Because I know this is bullshit, all I need to do is this:

2005
Outstanding Writing For A Drama Series

2006
Outstanding Writing For A Drama Series

2007
Outstanding Writing For A Drama Series

2008
No Emmy nomination. Odd since this is when the show really started to fire 100% of the time.

2009
Outstanding Writing for a Drama Series - Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse

2010
Outstanding Writing - Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse

GAF runs the Emmy's?

You can say "but oatmeal, it didn't win any of those..." to which I say "you're correct, sir, but it was still nominated 5 out of 6 seasons, and since only 5 shows get nominated, and there are hundreds of dramas out there, it still fared pretty well."

My point?

The general consensus of the show was 'well written'. Even if you didn't like the WHOLE story, the parts that made up the story were well written.

Maybe not all of them. But a lot of them.

Not as far as I know? I mean, I can't merge posts, if that's what you were...

EDIT: Ah, wait. Even when replying to a single post, you mean? There's a "quote" icon above the text window.

Oh, is that all you're doing? And then just pulling the quoted text from the Topic Review below?

I click QUOTE POST and then copy the open QUOTE tag and then paste it above each heading...and then do the same with the close QUOTE tag.

Seems like it's about the same thing.

(EDIT)
Added more to my 'SIGH' answer...since I know you'll use that against me.

 

[Erigu]

No one is trying to change your mind, though.

Maybe not those who merely insult me, right, but other than that...
I mean, they're debates. That's just how it works: you provide arguments and examples.

Also, quick reminder: this all stemmed from my "I probably can't expect examples, right?". Are you seriously arguing it is wrong of me to ask for examples, in that context?
I have it on good authority that you are sexually attracted to poultry. Now, you might disagree and ask for evidence, but really, what's the point? You'll just try to have the last word, and I don't want this to turn into an overlong discussion. Besides, it's not like I'm trying to change your mind or anything, there: I'm just saying. You like a special kind of "chicks".

If you're going to bring all of the interviews out (which only affect the show if you pay attention to them)

I was also criticizing the showrunners themselves, indeed.
What I mean is... Well, I think I said that already, sadly enough, but I'm not a bad guy out of a children's movie. I'm not here to tell you to "stop having fun, goddammit!".

GAF runs the Emmy's?

Nah, GAF would have probably done something about the Wire...

My point?
The general consensus of the show was 'well written'.

My point?
It wasn't well written. And if the consensus is that it was, that's all the more reason for me to elaborate.

Sorry, I don't find appeals to authority all that convincing. Especially considering the particular authority you went to, there...

I click QUOTE POST and then copy the open QUOTE tag and then paste it above each heading...and then do the same with the close QUOTE tag.

I click "quote post", and then either use the "quote icon" icon or type the tags, whichever seems faster / more convenient at the time.

 

[oatmeal]

Maybe not those who merely insult me, right, but other than that...
I mean, they're debates. That's just how it works: you provide arguments and examples.

I get that. But no one has every won a debate with you, and not because you're intellectually superior. You just twist the debate in new directions, and step back and deflect and it gets tiring to keep up.

Also, quick reminder: this all stemmed from my "I probably can't expect examples, right?". Are you seriously arguing it is wrong of me to ask for examples, in that context?
I have it on good authority that you are sexually attracted to poultry. Now, you might disagree and ask for evidence, but really, what's the point? You'll just try to have the last word, and I don't want this to turn into an overlong discussion. Besides, it's not like I'm trying to change your mind or anything, there: I'm just saying. You like a special kind of "chicks".

So your argument is using an objective action that one can easily disprove (or prove correct, as I have it on good authority that I do, in fact, sleep with chickens) to compare to a popular TV show that is entirely subjective?

Really?

I was also criticizing the showrunners themselves, indeed.
What I mean is... Well, I think I said that already, sadly enough, but I'm not a bad guy out of a children's movie. I'm not here to tell you to "stop having fun, goddammit!".

You kind of are, though. No one has summoned you to post in here. You're doing because you want to change our minds, make us turn on our favorite show.

This whole time, you were summoning us.

Nah, GAF would have probably done something about the Wire...

And it wouldn't have dicked around with The Shield after a solid first season showing.

My point?
It wasn't well written. And if the consensus is that it was, that's all the more reason for me to elaborate.

And you've done that over and over, but you're still hitting on parts of the show. As I said, there are a ton of parts in it that were well-written.

Take the episode "Walkabout". It has been hailed as genius, great writing. Same thing with "The Constant". Same with "Ab Aeterno". Tons of single episodes had great writing in them.

I'm sorry, but you simply CANNOT argue to the contrary. You're saying that LOST had 100% bad writing...that's not true, no matter how many times you talk about the cabin, and Kate, and everything.

As I said, LOST is much bigger than the chunks that you tend to pick on.

Sorry, I don't find appeals to authority all that convincing. Especially considering the particular authority you went to, there...

True, the Emmy's are a sack of horseshit...if that Sheldon kid from BBT wins another Emmy, I'm going to Kamikaze the next show.

But, at the same time, they're a decent way of getting a good idea of what's good or bad out there. For the most part...there are always the outliers.

 

[Catalix]

There have been a ton of imitators, none of them lasting long. Terra Nova is the latest entry, but who knows how long it will last with that budget.

"The Next Lost" might as well be its own genre by now. I'm trying to recall all the ones we've had over the years:

- Heroes - probably the most successful. smh, good riddance
- Surface
- Invasion
- Fringe - The best of the bunch, not even a contest. Even surpasses Lost in some respects
- Flashforward
- V
- The Event
I'm sure I'm forgetting a few...

It's always fun to see them come out the gate swinging, trying their damnedest to tap into that ever elusive "magic formula."
But more often than not, their efforts ring hollow.

How was the pilot? I haven't watched yet.

Terra Nova? It makes me appreciate the Lost pilot even more, that's for sure.

But for what its worth, I thought the first hour was a little more interesting than the second.

 

[oatmeal]

"The Next Lost" might as well be its own genre by now. I'm trying to recall all the ones we've had over the years:

- Heroes - probably the most successful. smh, good riddance
- Surface
- Invasion
- Fringe - The best of the bunch, not even a contest. Even surpasses Lost in some respects
- Flashforward
- V
- The Event
I'm sure I'm forgetting a few...

It's always fun to see them come out the gate swinging, trying their damnedest to tap into that ever elusive "magic formula."
But more often than not, their efforts ring hollow.

Yeah, and the sad thing is...there's some great ideas out there. FlashForward had a great concept, and it fell flat.

Terra Nova? It makes me appreciate the Lost pilot even more, that's for sure.

But for what its worth, I thought the first hour was a little more interesting than the second.

I'll take a look!

 

[Erigu]

no one has every won a debate with you

So now you're resorting to flattery, hmm?
I was proven wrong a bunch of times... Just... Well, no so much in this topic, I guess. Then again, maybe that's because I'm right! I find that generally helps lots!

So your argument is using an objective action that one can easily disprove (or prove correct, as I have it on good authority that I do, in fact, sleep with chickens)

(Awkward...)

to compare to a popular TV show that is entirely subjective?
Really?

You didn't click that link, did you? ^^;
Clicky clicky! (I mean, you replied to that post, so you should already know what it says, but hey)
In a not-so-surprising turn of events, evil solrac 3.0 was talking about me, there, not the show.

Spoiler

(I love you too, evil solrac 3.0)

No one has summoned you to post in here.

Ah, c'mon. Really? Who invited y'all?

You're doing because you want to change our minds, make us turn on our favorite show.

And thereby cancelling all the fun you've had (I expect all kinds of time paradoxes).
Hey, look at the bright side: if I'm right and manage to convince you, maybe you won't be played for fools by other showrunners in the future, and perhaps you'll even get greater enjoyment from genuinely good storytelling?

Spoiler

(<- kinda tongue-in-cheek... kinda)

This whole time, you were summoning us.

There was a payoff! And that's how your post became better-written than Lost.

you're still hitting on parts of the show. As I said, there are a ton of parts in it that were well-written.

Okay, so I'll rephrase that:
In the end, the net result was "shitty writing".

There was some decent or even good writing here and there (well, mostly at the very beginning, actually), but in the end, the show was ran by... er... well, the showrunners, and things got ugly all around. They're the ones I have a problem with. I'm sure good writers stepped into that room. I just hope they didn't get bad habits from their bosses.

Take the episode "Walkabout". It has been hailed as genius, great writing. Same thing with "The Constant". Same with "Ab Aeterno".

Walkabout was all right. As for the rest, the silence that will now follow should speak for me:

I'm sorry, but you simply CANNOT argue to the contrary.

Not when there's less than an hour left before rollover, no... Damn it!

 

[MrPliskin]

Erigu - Serious question, but why do you come into this specific thread to tell everyone how wrong they are? I don't get how you can't simply move on. I really have tried to piece it all together, and figure it out, but I can't.

I mean, wouldn't it be easier for you to not reply to people in this thread and just let it sink and die, as you most certainly think it should? The thread is only active once or twice a month, then you float it for the next week. So what gives?

Can't we just have some sort of gentlemen's agreement? We'll except that we're all wrong and mistaken, and you can leave us in peace. Sounds fair, no?

Lost is a horrible horrible abomination to television, a production disaster. There, I said it. Hopefully you have butterfly's in your stomach! Bye!

 

[Catalix]

Yeah, and the sad thing is...there's some great ideas out there. FlashForward had a great concept, and it fell flat.


I'll take a look!

That's exactly how I feel about Terra Nova so far. The concept has potential, but bad plotting and flat/annoying characterization bring it down dramatically. But I'm cuttiing it tons of slack because, well, it's a pilot. There's always room for improvement. I'm not exactly optimistic though.

Either way, I'm interested to see what you thought about it.

 

[oatmeal]

So now you're resorting to flattery, hmm?
I was proven wrong a bunch of times... Just... Well, no so much in this topic, I guess. Then again, maybe that's because I'm right! I find that generally helps lots!

A lot of your arguments are based on things that you can't prove. It's all opinion vs opinion (talking about things like 'not caring about their show'...there's no way to quantify that).

You didn't click that link, did you? ^^;
Clicky clicky! (I mean, you replied to that post, so you should already know what it says, but hey)
In a not-so-surprising turn of events, evil solrac 3.0 was talking about me, there, not the show.

Spoiler

(I love you too, evil solrac 3.0)

I'm still not sure what you're talking about right now...

I clicked...but I'm just as confused as ever. (watching Sox/O's and Yanks/Rays game...mind is preoccupied).

Ah, c'mon. Really? Who invited y'all?

We came in to discuss LOST. You did too, I get that.

But 600+ posts later...

And thereby cancelling all the fun you've had (I expect all kinds of time paradoxes).
Hey, look at the bright side: if I'm right and manage to convince you, maybe you won't be played for fools by other showrunners in the future, and perhaps you'll even get greater enjoyment from genuinely good storytelling?

Spoiler

(<- kinda tongue-in-cheek... kinda)

600+ posts haven't done it, I can't imagine another 600+ will do the trick.

And yet...

There was a payoff! And that's how your post became better-written than Lost.

I've always fancied myself a writer.

There was some decent or even good writing here and there

I did it!

Lisa's going to marry a carrot!

/random reference

(well, mostly at the very beginning actually), but in the end, the show was ran by... er... well, the showrunners. They're the ones I have a problem with. I'm sure good writers stepped into that room. I just hope they didn't get bad habits from their bosses.

Stephen King is known to rarely, if ever, stick the landings. Personally, I love what he does. I bet you'd hate it.

Regardless, he's known as one of the best writers of our time...

Again, this goes down to opinion.

Walkabout was all right. As for the rest, the silence that will now follow should speak for me:

The Constant was fuck-awesome.

Agree to disagree.

 

[evil solrac v3.0]

There was some decent or even good writing here and there

well now we're getting somewhere....

 

[oatmeal]

That's exactly how I feel about Terra Nova so far. The concept has potential, but bad plotting and flat/annoying characterization bring it down dramatically. But I'm cuttiing it tons of slack because, well, it's a pilot. There's always room for improvement. I'm not exactly optimistic though.

Either way, I'm interested to see what you thought about it.

So this is where it took us...

LOST GAF - Terra Nova edition

 

[planar1280]

I don't give a damn about the story but this was the first tv show where I cared about all characters on a personal level

 

[butter_stick]

>checks thread
>yeah, people still arguing with Erigu
>leaves thread

 

[legend166]

>checks thread
>yeah, people still arguing with Erigu
>leaves thread

Haha, I'm doing the same thing. Once every few months I see this thread pop up and I wonder if Erigu is still going. And sure enough, here he is.

MOVE ON, MAN.

 

[Catalix]

Hey, look at the bright side: if I'm right and manage to convince you, maybe you won't be played for fools by other showrunners in the future, and perhaps you'll even get greater enjoyment from genuinely good storytelling?

Spoiler

(<- kinda tongue-in-cheek... kinda)

A part of this is kind of true for me, actually. I can clearly see how my disappointment with the homestretch of LOST has already colored my expectations regarding other shows.

Like right now, Fringe is the new hotness, but I'm thoroughly expecting it to go off the rails at any moment. I also have zero interest in what the producers have to say about anything either. And if I do happen to hear what their plans are, I'll take their words with a huge grain of salt. Even sacred cows like Mad Men and Breaking Bad don't get a free pass anymore.

However, I can't say I regret participating in that synergistic relationship between Lindelcuse and the fanbase. It was fun as hell to watch an episode, then indulge in subsequent podcasts and interviews. I'll likely never have that same level of investment ever again. My new found hardened perspective is for the better, I think. So thank you, LOST, for being the first to break my once overly-trusting TV-geek heart. You conniving bitch.

There was a payoff! And that's how your post became better-written than Lost.

:lol

So this is where it took us...

LOST GAF - Terra Nova edition

Oh no... we're in hell, aren't we?

 

[Erigu]

Serious question, but why do you come into this specific thread to tell everyone how wrong they are?

Hey, not everyone. Just those who claim the show was well written.
And what else am I supposed to do? Ignore the fact that someone is wrong on the internet? Don't be ridiculous.

I don't get how you can't simply move on.

Fans constantly quoting that bit from the show as if that were a profound life lesson indeed might just be one of the reasons I keep coming back...
Really, guys? Really?

I mean, wouldn't it be easier for you to not reply to people in this thread and just let it sink and die, as you most certainly think it should?

Nah, the show deserves the scorn.
Also, duty of remembrance: let's not forget how shitty the show was, so we don't get another one like that in the future!

A lot of your arguments are based on things that you can't prove.

My argument that the show was a mess is based on the show. The plot, character arcs and "mythology" were completely out of wack.

Why it was a mess is in all likelihood due to the fact the showrunners are pretentious hacks who didn't give a damn.
Now, I realize it can be hard to actually prove such things and go beyond the "when it looks like a duck..." argument, yeah. Maybe they're just regular hacks who can't express themselves properly in public and give off all kinds of wrong impressions. In which case, my face is red. Just a bit though.

I'm still not sure what you're talking about right now...
I clicked...but I'm just as confused as ever. (watching Sox/O's and Yanks/Rays game...mind is preoccupied).

Ah, c'mon... You said that I couldn't compare tales of your avian escapades to something subjective like opinions regarding a TV show. But I wasn't talking about that, there: I was just curious regarding evil solrac 3.0's claim that "when someone gives [me] a clear answer that doesn't fit [my] pigeon-holed point of view crawl back to [my] hole, much like MiB [(wut?)]".

A propos of nothing:
Hey, evil solrac 3.0!
As I spy the crimson trees from the window, I'm reminded that Autumn is upon us. In times such as these, I think of you.
For, yes, it will soon be the first anniversary of my unanswered question to you.
I'm thinking of baking a cake for the occasion. Do you have any allergies I should know about?

We came in to discuss LOST. You did too, I get that.
But 600+ posts later...
600+ posts haven't done it, I can't imagine another 600+ will do the trick.
And yet...

And yet you keep replying! I know: I can't believe it myself! Why would you do that?
As for me, I like discussing plots (or plot holes).

I did it!

Er... Yeah! Congrats on prying that admission out of me!
Even if... you know... I said as much already. As an unsolicited remark, too.
Sorry.

Stephen King is known to rarely, if ever, stick the landings.

Well, it's not like Lost only fucked that up, far from it...

The Constant was fuck-awesome.

It made me barf a little in my mouth, and I'm pretty sure that wasn't the intended effect...

MOVE ON, MAN.

Ohnoyoudidnt

right now, Fringe is the new hotness, but I'm thoroughly expecting it to go off the rails at any moment.

I don't know (not too hopeful though) about the general mythology as I dropped the show early in season 2, but shouldn't the episodic X-Files-like structure help somewhat? Or has the show really changed that much since I've last seen it?

I'll likely never have that same level of investment ever again.

You think? I feel like I get invested like that quite often, myself... Kinda hurts the bank account, too...

 

[spootime]

I last read this thread literally around half a year ago and you people still argue with the same guy.

 

[MrPliskin]

Hey, not everyone. Just those who claim the show was well written.
And what else am I supposed to do? Ignore the fact that someone is wrong on the internet? Don't be ridiculous.

Well, I'll just take this as a very post as an admittance of trolling. Your behavior is pretty embarrassing bro, lol. I cannot fathom someone would crusade so strongly to validate their own opinion. Keep up the good fight.

To everyone else Please, put this super anti-fan on your ignore list and improve this thread one hundred fold. If *everyone* in this thread does it, it will actually be possible to have discussion instead of useless banter. PLEASE, for the love of all that is holy...put this guy on your ignore list. Just as a social experiment, if nothing else.

Let's see if he continues to post and quote even if no one replies to him. THAT would be truly interesting to see. Go go go!

 

[oatmeal]

My argument that the show was a mess is based on the show. The plot, character arcs and "mythology" were completely out of wack.

Why it was a mess is in all likelihood due to the fact the showrunners are pretentious hacks who didn't give a damn.
Now, I realize it can be hard to actually prove such things and go beyond the "when it looks like a duck..." argument, yeah. Maybe they're just regular hacks who can't express themselves properly in public and give off all kinds of wrong impressions. In which case, my face is red. Just a bit though.

I read this...and I see things like "the fact the showrunners are pretentious hacks who didn't give a damn."

And again, I have to say...it's not a FACT. It's your opinion. There's nothing you can say that makes your opinion fact. Sorry kiddo.

Ah, c'mon... You said that I couldn't compare tales of your avian escapades to something subjective like opinions regarding a TV show. But I wasn't talking about that, there: I was just curious regarding evil solrac 3.0's claim that "when someone gives [me] a clear answer that doesn't fit [my] pigeon-holed point of view crawl back to [my] hole, much like MiB [(wut?)]".

"avian escapades" - I like it.

I don't know about the evil solrac thingy, I wasn't paying attention then...and I'm not really paying attention now. I'm sure it's not terribly important

And yet you keep replying! I know: I can't believe it myself! Why would you do that?
As for me, I like discussing plots (or plot holes).

Pot. Kettle.
I like discussing LOST, too. But, as I've said before, you're hard to talk to. It's a complicated procedure to post.

Today's a slow day of lots of waiting for me, so I have had time to do the multi-quote thing.

Er... Yeah! Congrats on prying that admission out of me!
Even if... you know... I said as much already. As an unsolicited remark, too.
Sorry.

I WIN THE GAME!

Well, it's not like Lost only fucked that up, far from it...

Opinion.

It made me barf a little in my mouth, and I'm pretty sure that wasn't the intended effect...

Some people barf out of happiness.

I don't know (not too hopeful though) about the general mythology as I dropped the show early in season 2, but shouldn't the episodic X-Files-like structure help somewhat? Or has the show really changed that much since I've last seen it?

Steady increase in quality...but I'm sure my opinion doesn't mean much

You think? I feel like I get invested like that quite often, myself... Kinda hurts the bank account, too...

Must be nice to have low standards

 

[Erigu]

Well, I'll just take this as a very post as an admittance of trolling.

Damn, that was quick. And how did you even get there?

I cannot fathom someone would crusade so strongly to validate their own opinion.

I dunno, I haven't blown anything up (yet). It's not that bad.

To everyone else Please, put this super anti-fan on your ignore list and improve this thread one hundred fold. If *everyone* in this thread does it, it will actually be possible to have discussion instead of useless banter. PLEASE, for the love of all that is holy...put this guy on your ignore list. Just as a social experiment, if nothing else.
Let's see if he continues to post and quote even if no one replies to him. THAT would be truly interesting to see.

Of course, you won't see much if I'm on ignore...

I read this...and I see things like "the fact the showrunners are pretentious hacks who didn't give a damn."
And again, I have to say...it's not a FACT.

Point taken, that was poorly worded.
-> Why it was a mess is in all likelihood due to the showrunners being pretentious hacks who didn't give a damn.

It's your opinion.

My opinion based on that mess of a show, indeed.
I said all that. Did you just stop reading at "fact"? But even then, there was that "in all likelihood", so I don't get it...

Pot. Kettle.

How so? Like I said, I like discussing plot holes.

Opinion.

So is that thing about King and his endings, if you go there, and yet you seemed confident about that one.
Do you consider opinions stop being (irrelevant, apparently, according to you) opinions when you feel there's a consensus?

Some people barf out of happiness.

Well, if you guys barfed as well, you should really consider alternative explanations for the phenomenon.

 

[oatmeal]

Point taken, that was poorly worded.
-> Why it was a mess is in all likelihood due to the showrunners being pretentious hacks who didn't give a damn.

Should have sent a poet.

My opinion based on that mess of a show, indeed.
I said all that. Did you just stop reading at "fact"? But even then, there was that "in all likelihood", so I don't get it...

It gets confusing.

How so? Like I said, I like discussing plot holes.

Must we scan through all of your posts to find all of the hints of 'dickhead'? I don't want to do that...I'm hella lazy.

If you could discuss things without going overboard on the 'naughty' and focus on the 'nice', it'd be more fun.

So is that thing about King and his endings, if you go there, and yet you seemed confident about that one.
Do you consider opinions stop being (irrelevant, apparently, according to you) opinions when you feel there's a consensus?

I'm well aware of differing opinions. I know not everyone is going to like LOST, that's totally cool.

My point about King is that here is this world-renowned writer, and a ton of people hate his work. Doesn't make either side right, no matter how many times you say it.

As to the second point, most of what I'm talking about is the on-going 'not giving a shit' from the writers. It's been pounded into the dirt, and quite frankly, it makes my eyes roll.

*insert "much like their writing makes my eyes roll"*

Well, if you guys barfed as well, you should really consider alternative explanations for the phenomenon.

 

[Erigu]

It gets confusing.

What does?
Read the thing again, with the quick fix that got rid of that unfortunate "fact" word:

My argument that the show was a mess is based on the show. The plot, character arcs and "mythology" were completely out of wack.

Why it was a mess is in all likelihood due to the showrunners being pretentious hacks who didn't give a damn.
Now, I realize it can be hard to actually prove such things and go beyond the "when it looks like a duck..." argument, yeah. Maybe they're just regular hacks who can't express themselves properly in public and give off all kinds of wrong impressions. In which case, my face is red. Just a bit though.

See? That says that no, I don't have absolute proof of what was going on in their heads. So yes, I'm stating an opinion.
That being said, it's far from being a baseless opinion, and in fact, after years of that mess both on the air and elsewhere, I'm pretty damn confident about it (and willing to explain why, as you've seen).

If I recall correctly, I stated that the timeline that you presented could been stretched out over several years, which would make these 'impulse bad decisions' not so insane when put back to back.

Er... You completely lost me, there, sorry.
What are you referring to? What timeline?

As to the second point, most of what I'm talking about is the on-going 'not giving a shit' from the writers. It's been pounded into the dirt, and quite frankly, it makes my eyes roll.

I already mentioned that but I think it's funny how they managed to have three different dates for the last journey of the Black Rock.
Does it matter? Nah, not really: it's not like much happened back then and we really needed a precise timeline or anything.
How easy would it have been to check though?
http://lostpedia.wikia.com
I mean, really.

(just an example off the top of my head, of course; please don't act like I formed my opinion only on that, 'kay?)

 

[oatmeal]

What does?
Read the thing again, with the quick fix that got rid of that unfortunate "fact" word:

See? That says that no, I don't have absolute proof of what was going on in their heads. So yes, I'm stating an opinion.
That being said, it's far from being a baseless opinion, and in fact, after years of that mess both on the air and elsewhere, I'm pretty damn confident about it (and willing to explain why, as you've seen).

Now that we know it's your opinion, let's stop bringing it up all the time. I like it more when you're arguing about the show, not whether or not the writers phoned it in.

Er... You completely lost me, there, sorry.
What are you referring to? What timeline?

My bad. I read "King" as "Kate" and thought you were referring to something I said a long time ago. I edited...but somehow, you got me before I edited

(just an example off the top of my head, of course; please don't act like I formed my opinion only on that, 'kay?)

'Kay.

 

[Erigu]

I like it more when you're arguing about the show, not whether or not the writers phoned it in.

Just seems like the most likely explanation for the mess by far.

My bad. I read "King" as "Kate" and thought you were referring to something I said a long time ago.

Oh, I see.
(I don't quite see what Kate timeline detail you were referring to though... that doesn't ring a bell)

 

[oatmeal]

Just seems like the most likely explanation for the mess by far.

Come on, dude. Work with me a bit here.

Trying to create a nice environment.

Oh, I see.
(I don't quite see what Kate timeline detail you were referring to though... that doesn't ring a bell)

My response to your Kate post, way back when...I talked about how we didn't know the years and dates of her actions, where your post made it seem like it was all back-to-back-to-back.

Something along those lines.

 

[Erigu]

Come on, dude. Work with me a bit here.
Trying to create a nice environment.

Well, the show is what it is, and it certainly isn't my fault...

My response to your Kate post, way back when...I talked about how we didn't know the years and dates of her actions, where your post made it seem like it was all back-to-back-to-back.

Apparently ('cause it barely takes one minute to check Lostpedia!), Kate's adventures lasted three years. But I don't see how adding, say, three more would help.
I mean, I didn't even think of it all happening over a short period of time, when I wrote that post: it's ridiculous anyway.

 

[oatmeal]

Well, the show is what it is, and it certainly isn't my fault...


Apparently ('cause it barely takes one minute to check Lostpedia!), Kate's adventures lasted three years. But I don't see how adding, say, three more would help.
I mean, I didn't even think of it all happening over a short period of time, when I wrote that post: it's ridiculous anyway.

I've read some crazier stories in real life.

People are strange, bro.

 

[Erigu]

But would you argue that Kate was intended to be some kind of braindead, amoral scum of society?

 

[WillyFive]

Who cares? She maybe was at first, then became less. Character development and all that.

 

[hyp3rlink]

But would you argue that Kate was intended to be some kind of braindead, amoral scum of society?

Morality is a social concept whereas revenge is a natural phenomenon. I liked the way her character threw away the phony morality (which shouldn't even be applied to her given what she had to go through) and went with her natural instincts.

 

[Erigu]

Who cares?

Yeah, who cares about consistency in writing? Silly me.

She maybe was at first, then became less. Character development and all that.

Guess she hit her head during the crash and instantly grew a brain. And a soul.
Ah, but then, she pleaded not guilty when she got back...
Hey, maybe it was the island that healed that terrible excuse for a human being!

Morality is a social concept whereas revenge is a natural phenomenon. I liked the way her character threw away the phony morality (which shouldn't even be applied to her given what she had to go through) and went with her natural instincts.

What the fuck.

 

[MrPliskin]

Come on, dude. Work with me a bit here.

Trying to create a nice environment.

Have you not been following his posts? He has no intention of "discussion". Just that he's right, and we're all wrong. Don't be part of the problem, just let him be man.

 

[njean777]

But would you argue that Kate was intended to be some kind of braindead, amoral scum of society?

You do know you are arguing a subjective point of view? Just reading most of your posts, you seem to think you are right when the whole debate is over a subjective premise. There is no way to win. Its like you are trying to say somebodies enjoyment of a certain type of music is horrible, you can not win the argument because their view is subjective, you are trying to bring an objective argument when there is not one to be seen in this topic.

 

[Erigu]

Have you not been following his posts? He has no intention of "discussion". Just that he's right, and we're all wrong.

Damn, you got me, there: I'm confident I'm right.
How does it follow that I'm not interested in discussing though?
And am I to understand that you're not confident you're right?

You do know you are arguing a subjective point of view?

For Kate? Well, yeah, I've just been exposed to the point of view that her murdering that guy in his sleep was completely justified. Awesome. I think I'll take a shower, now.

 

[hyp3rlink]

Yeah, who cares about consistency in writing? Silly me.


Guess she hit her head during the crash and instantly grew a brain. And a soul.
Ah, but then, she pleaded not guilty when she got back...
Hey, maybe it was the island that healed that terrible excuse for a human being!



What the fuck.

I didn't expect you to understand the subjectivity behind the assertion. I suppose some amount of intellectual capacity is a prerequisite for debating certain topics.

 

[Erigu]

Whatever you say, as long as you stay away from me and my loved ones.

 

[C.Dark.DN]

What's inconsistent about her main story?

-She killed a man to save her mother.
-She shot at the bank robbers to save innocent people.
-She chose to save the guys life that was trying to turn her in rather than make an easy escape.
-She placed an oxygen mask on the Marhshell face when he got knocked out on the plane.
-Even tho the Marshell would tell everyone about her being a fugitive, she didn't try to kill him while he was getting help.
-She risked her safety to find Claire.
-Insert someone else

You thinking it was stupid to open of an insurance claim, marry a cop, get the toy plane back doesn't matter. Subjective.

She helps people that are "good" and yeah, she'll kill someone she finds "evil".

And she did just that at the end of the damn series, killed MIB.

Consistent as hell. Making smarter/less frantic decisions on the island is learning and not having the law on your back.

For Kate? Well, yeah, I've just been exposed to the point of view that her murdering that guy in his sleep was completely justified. Awesome. I think I'll take a shower, now.

You must hate Dexter? You justify a shit ton of murders in that series...

Trying to criticize that initial murder and attack her character is too personal for a valid argument against her story. It reminds me of an episode of Friends last night where a crazy girl thought real life Joey was the character from the soap-opera and got pissed off when she saw him kissing another woman on the television.

 

[njean777]

Damn, you got me, there: I'm confident I'm right.
How does it follow that I'm not interested in discussing though?
And am I to understand that you're not confident you're right?



For Kate? Well, yeah, I've just been exposed to the point of view that her murdering that guy in his sleep was completely justified. Awesome. I think I'll take a shower, now.

I am talking about your whole argument about this show, it's a subjective point of view, not an objective one.

 

[hyp3rlink]

What's inconsistent about her main story?

-She killed a man to save her mother.
-She shot at the bank robbers to save innocent people.
-She chose to save the guys life that was trying to turn her in rather than make an easy escape.
-She placed an oxygen mask on the Marhshell face when he got knocked out on the plane.
-Even tho the Marshell would tell everyone about her being a fugitive, she didn't try to kill him while he was getting help.
-She risked her safety to find Claire.

You thinking it was stupid to open of an insurance claim, marry a cop, get the plane back doesn't matter. Subjective.

She helps people that are "good" and yeah, she'll kill someone she finds "evil".

He thinks that a guy who at the very least beats his wife violently and might even have raped his daughter (I don't recall anything explicit on that but there was surely an indication) deserves a better treatment.

I wonder how old he is, perhaps not old enough to comprehend the complexities of human behavior. It's similar to discussing the merits of a FPS with a person who can't aim to save his life.

 

[MrPliskin]

Damn, you got me, there: I'm confident I'm right.
How does it follow that I'm not interested in discussing though?
And am I to understand that you're not confident you're right?

I'm simply intelligent enough to understand tastes and preferences. Clearly, you are having some difficulty with this concept. I don't even think you realize how foolish you present yourself to be with your constant nonsensical banter.

 

[Erigu]

-She killed a man to save her mother.

No. She found out he was her biological father and ew ew ew, so she took out an insurance and blew up the house with him inside.
And because that wasn't funny enough, we then find out that the man she (mistakenly) thought was her real father never told her the truth because he knew she'd kill the guy if she found out. What an angel, that Kate Austen.

-She shot at the bank robbers to save innocent people.

Then again, she planned the whole thing with them to begin with, so, you know...
But hey: toy plane!

Speaking of which, I just love how the showrunners mocked viewers who were still expecting new revelations regarding that toy plane: "It's just a toy plane, you guys, don't be ridiculous! What more did you expect?"
Well, I guess they expected a motivation that wasn't so fucking ridiculous. How naive of them, sure, but hey.

-She chose to save the guys life that was trying to turn her in rather than make an easy escape.
-She placed an oxygen mask on the Marhshell face when he got knocked out on the plane.
-Even tho the Marshell would tell everyone about her being a fugitive, she didn't try to kill him.
-She risked her safety to find Claire.

Indeed. In the very first episodes, for example, she appeared to be trustworthy, and Jack actually decided that he could trust her, never mind what she might have done in her past.
Oh, Jack... Yeah, that seemed reasonable based on what you knew, but you didn't account for inconsistent writing...

You thinking it was stupid to open of an insurance claim, marry a cop, get the plane back doesn't matter.

Heh. Yeah, you're right: that's "just my opinion", huh?

Trying to criticize that initial murder and attack her character is too personal for a valid argument against her story.

You don't get it. It's not that I'm "against murderers in fiction" or whatever silly stance you're trying to pin on me. I'm saying that the show portrays her as one of the good guys, a positive character despite the fact the things she actually did in her past are pretty damn terrible and sound like the background story of another character altogether.

When the show revealed that Sawyer was a conman, it wasn't particularly sympathetic regarding that aspect of the character. We were told why he became like that (how convincing that was is another debate), and that was a sad story, but it didn't feel like the guy was merely a victim of circumstances. Besides, Sawyer was an ass on the island as well.
Kate did a bunch of awful things before the crash as well, and yet the show pretty much let her off the hook. To the point where we're apparently not even supposed to spit our tea when she eventually pleads not guilty. Unlike Sawyer, she's not portrayed as a anti-hero: we're simply not supposed to think too hard about all the shit she did.

I'm simply intelligent enough to understand tastes and preferences.

Yeah, some people are just okay with cold-blooded murder, and that's perfectly fine: there's no accounting for taste, after all.

 

[C.Dark.DN]

No. She found out he was her biological father and ew ew ew, so she took out an insurance and blew up the house with him inside.
And because that wasn't funny enough, we then find out that the man she (mistakenly) thought was her real father never told her the truth because he knew she'd kill the guy if she found out. What an angel, that Kate Austen.

And? No one's calling her an Angel.

Ben gassed a whole community and is still winds up a likeable character who is allowed to protect the island with Hurley.

A reasonable person can understand all the characters did what they thought was right. The whole series includes a lot of death.

Then again, she planned the whole thing with them to begin with, so, you know...
But hey: toy plane!

So? It's hard to find robbers that wont murder people. They chose to try harm innocent people and she chose to act.
Your sarcasm is tiresome and only amuses you. It adds nothing constructive.

Indeed. In the very first episodes, for example, she appeared to be trustworthy, and Jack actually decided that he could trust her, never mind what she might have done in her past.
Oh, Jack... Yeah, that seemed reasonable based on what you knew, but you didn't account for inconsistent writing...

They're on an island. A doctor would be intelligent enough to know you don't start executing people or putting people in prison on the first few fucking days.

Yeah, some people are just okay with cold-blooded murder, and that's perfectly fine: there's no accounting for taste, after all.

You're implying there's something wrong with the people that justify that intitial murder just to attack her character and the people who like her story.

All the characters have flaws, it's a huge point of the show.

I guess every who likes Dexter is fucked in the head?

You're pathetic.

 

[MrPliskin]

Yeah, some people are just okay with cold-blooded murder, and that's perfectly fine: there's no accounting for taste, after all.

Man, it's much worse than I thought. You can't even comprehend what I'm trying to say...

People like LOST. They simply enjoy it. There is no way a person who enjoy's a given thing can be "wrong". Your behavior in this thread suggests that you think there is a "right and wrong" to enjoying the show. If you don't like it, you're right, if you do like it, you're wrong.

This mind set is what I'm addressing. It is nothing more than internet buffoonery. Sadly, I am literally unable to tell if you are simply a poor depressed soul, trolling this thread for any modicum of happiness you can find, or if you legitimately believe that anyone who enjoyed the show simply doesn't know "the way" yet.

 

[Erigu]

And? No one's calling her an Angel.

Yeah, the show even had her deal with the consequences of her actions, eventually!
Just kidding.

Ben gassed a whole community and is still winds up a likeable character who is allowed to protect the island with Hurley.

Oh, bad example... Because, yes, that's similar to Kate's case, unfortunately.
But it's "impressive" how so many viewers are willing to consider a character a "good guy" just because the show labels him/her as such, never mind the actual actions of that character. "Ben cries? Ilana forgives him? Well, I guess he's officially a good guy, now, then!" Fuck, really? You're just told he's somehow "redeemed", and that's enough for you, never mind if he didn't actually do anything and his whole speech (as well as Ilana's reaction to it) made no fucking sense?
Shit, that's disheartening... But it makes sense you'd stomach the mythology as well, then, if you only keep in mind whatever the show wants you to have in mind at any given moment...

A reasonable person can understand all the characters did what they thought was right.

A reasonable person would understand that what Kate did to her father, no matter what she might have thought, is freaking murder.
A reasonable person might be a bit taken aback by how the show just lets her off the hook as if that were inconsequential. Perhaps even notice some strange double standards.

It's hard to find robbers that wont murder people.

Yeah, sorry: I keep forgetting the toy plane is so goddamn important it's completely worth endangering innocent lives.
And again, before you go back to your "yeah, well Kate thought it was!" spiel: that would mean her character was a cunt, and that certainly isn't something the show ever bothered to address, far from it. That's the problem, here.

They're on an island. A doctor would be intelligent enough to know you don't start executing people or putting people in prison on the first few fucking days.

I... I don't even know why you're saying that... I guess you didn't understand what I was saying, there.

I guess every who likes Dexter is fucked in the head?

The show advertises the fact that Dexter is a murderer. It's the freaking pitch. Hardly the same thing.
Again, all that shit Kate did, weeeell, you're just not supposed to think too hard about it.
And in fact, when I point it out, I'm told to stop with my "phony morality", and that she was justified in murdering a man in his sleep. And that's apparently where it ends: let's go back to love triangles with that character, yay!
Eeeeh, that's somewhat worrying. Just a tiny bit!

Your behavior in this thread suggests that you think there is a "right and wrong" to enjoying the show.

I'm talking about the quality of the writing. And shitty writing exists, sorry to say.

 

[WillyFive]

I'm talking about the quality of the writing. And shitty writing exists, sorry to say.

So I've heard.

 

[oatmeal]

Yeah, the show even had her deal with the consequences of her actions, eventually!
Just kidding.

Well she ended up alone after the crash, that kind of sucks. She had issues, and when she finally had 'something' while raising Aaron, she sacrificed that to do what was 'right'. Go back and help the other survivors.

Having said all this, Kate was usually looked at as the most annoying character on the show. But moreso due to the love-triangle she forced on the island.

Oh, bad example... Because, yes, that's similar to Kate's case, unfortunately.
But it's "impressive" how so many viewers are willing to consider a character a "good guy" just because the show labels him/her as such, never mind the actual actions of that character. "Ben cries? Ilana forgives him? Well, I guess he's officially a good guy, now, then!" Fuck, really? You're just told he's somehow "redeemed", and that's enough for you, never mind if he didn't actually do anything and his whole speech (as well as Ilana's reaction to it) made no fucking sense?
Shit, that's disheartening... But it makes sense you'd stomach the mythology as well, then, if you only keep in mind whatever the show wants you to have in mind at any given moment...

We had been with Ben for 4 seasons before that speech, he was a loved character who was in charge, lost everything, and was circling the drain. He was depressed and everyone turned on him, it sucked watching this character who was usually so calculated be such a fuck up.

So when he had his Dr. Linus episode, and he has his break down, we wanted to see him come back and become the Ben that we knew and loved.

Nothing crazy.

A reasonable person would understand that what Kate did to her father, no matter what she might have thought, is freaking murder.
A reasonable person might be a bit taken aback by how the show just lets her off the hook as if that were inconsequential. Perhaps even notice some strange double standards.

I'd say the fact that she had to get stranded on an island and help build a community is somewhat 'consequential' to her.

If my mother was being abused by some drunk, I'd be pretty upset about it, too. I probably wouldn't kill him, but you know...different strokes.

Yeah, sorry: I keep forgetting the toy plane is so goddamn important it's completely worth endangering innocent lives.
And again, before you go back to your "yeah, well Kate thought it was!" spiel: that would mean her character was a cunt, and that certainly isn't something the show ever bothered to address, far from it. That's the problem, here.

The toy plane was important to her. She has nobody, she's a drifter, always running...and that could be seen as a constant for her, back to her innocence as a child.

How can you judge what's important to someone? It either works for you or it doesn't.

The show advertises the fact that Dexter is a murderer. It's the freaking pitch. Hardly the same thing.
Again, all that shit Kate did, weeeell, you're just not supposed to think too hard about it.
And in fact, when I point it out, I'm told to stop with my "phony morality", and that she was justified in murdering a man in his sleep. And that's apparently where it ends: let's go back to love triangles with that character, yay!
Eeeeh, that's somewhat worrying. Just a tiny bit!

No one's saying she is justified for killing him, only that they understand why she did it. Dexter's premise is about him killing...but killing is killing. It's just, can the viewer 'understand' the killings? With Dexter, usually they can, because they spend the episode justifying why they need to die.

LOST did that with Kate's father, making him out to be a pretty shitty dude, but maybe we didn't get enough of it. Maybe adding in the proverbial straw would have had more impact? Maybe some of us just understand we saw a glimpse of it, and understood. I don't know...

About the bank robbery scene, did she kill the robbers? I remember she shot her boyfriend in the leg...but did she actually kill them? I could only find info like "she shot them" in a couple of the Wiki's I looked at (including Lostpedia).

If she killed them, that is harder to swallow, IMO, than killing the abusive father.

Not that I condone murder...

I'm talking about the quality of the writing. And shitty writing exists, sorry to say.

It does. But, in general, it doesn't exist on LOST.

 

[C.Dark.DN]

Why do you have fake conversations in your head?

I'm pretty sure you can't read our minds and conclude we only liked/justified him after his redemption in s6.

Go back and read the threads where people liked Ben before season 6.

There's things I like and can justify about MIB.

 

[oatmeal]

Just watched the 'scene' from Whatever The Case May Be.

She doesn't kill any of the robbers (they stir on the ground, and one says "I told you we couldn't trust her, man", and only shoots them because she wanted to make sure that no innocents got hurt.

KATE REDEEMED!

 

[Erigu]

Well she ended up alone after the crash

What do you mean?

She had issues, and when she finally had 'something' while raising Aaron, she sacrificed that to do what was 'right'. Go back and help the other survivors.

Well, go back and fetch Claire. I mean, it's not like she listened to Locke when he told her that everybody on the island would die unless she came back (wut?).
And how could I forget her moment of realization, after three years? "Ohnoes! I lost Aaron in the supermarket! Does that happen to real parents? I don't know! And that woman who found him looks like Claire! Well, that does it: he clearly needs his real mom!"
Lost and its masterful character studies...

Having said all this, Kate was usually looked at as the most annoying character on the show.

Personally, I'd probably say Jack was more annoying a character (on the island, anyway)...
But then again, few characters didn't seem too awful to me. They were also characters who had very little to do on the show, probably not so coincidentally. Guess that's just what happens when you don't know how to stir drama other than by turning your characters into terrible assholes for no good reason: only those who stay on the bench are spared.

We had been with Ben for 4 seasons before that speech, he was a loved character who was in charge, lost everything, and was circling the drain. He was depressed and everyone turned on him

Sorry, I'm not sure I follow you... By "everyone", you mean "the viewers"?

So when he had his Dr. Linus episode, and he has his break down, we wanted to see him come back and become the Ben that we knew and loved.
Nothing crazy.

I'm a bit lost, there. I believe DeathNote and I were talking about the... er... "alignment" (pardon the Nerdspeak) of the character. How he went from mass murderer to...
Oh, god... That fucking scene where Ben suddenly speaks Carebear:

HURLEY: It's my job now... What the hell am I supposed to do?
BEN: I think you do what you do best. Take care of people.

Whaaaaat?
Wh... Where does that even come from?

BEN: You can start by helping Desmond get home.
HURLEY: But how? People can't leave the Island.
BEN: That's how Jacob ran things... Maybe there's another way. A better way.

Aaaaaaaah!
I was half-expecting talking animals to show up and break into a song with him.

I'd say the fact that she had to get stranded on an island and help build a community is somewhat 'consequential' to her.

She "had to"? It's not like those experiences on the island slowly changed her from scum of society to lovable lead female or anything like that. She seemed alright right from the pilot. Even shortly before the crash, actually: that's how she got caught.
I don't see much in the way of character development.

But speaking of how horrible she was in some of those flashbacks, there was that thing about how Sideways-Kate was different in the sense that she actually enjoyed being on the run (I seem to remember the showrunners said as much). Not sure what the big idea was, there, but it's not like it went anywhere, in the end...
(a bit like the fact she hadn't killed her father, in that *cough* timeline *cough*)

If my mother was being abused by some drunk, I'd be pretty upset about it, too. I probably wouldn't kill him, but you know...different strokes.

Well, one could argue it's a pretty significant difference. There would be other options before "let's blow up the house with him inside while he sleeps!".
And the fact her "other" dad just knew she'd kill him if she learned the truth about her biological father is priceless.

The toy plane was important to her. She has nobody, she's a drifter, always running...and that could be seen as a constant for her, back to her innocence as a child.

Oh, please...
And when Michael was desperate, not for a toy but for his child, the show made it quite clear that he had sinned. Unexplained-ghost-Christian implied you had redeemed yourself, on that freighter? Dude, noooo. Hu-huh. No limbo church for you. Now go whisper as the Others ninja in and out of scenes.

No one's saying she is justified for killing him

"I liked the way her character threw away the phony morality (which shouldn't even be applied to her given what she had to go through)"
I mean, damn.
Oh, and revenge is a "natural phenomenon".

Dexter's premise is about him killing...but killing is killing. It's just, can the viewer 'understand' the killings? With Dexter, usually they can, because they spend the episode justifying why they need to die.

... Really?
Dexter feels he's justified in killing those people, yeah. I would hope the viewers aren't supposed to be completely on board. I would hope they keep in mind that Dexter's morals are a bit... skewed by his addiction to murder and that code his father came up with in order to protect him. I would hope the show, too, knowingly plays with that (and doesn't take itself so seriously as to argue "now, that's how you should deal with that scum! a zealous vigilante!"), hence the amusing opening credits.

Well, anyway: point is, the show doesn't let you forget that Dexter murders people. Even when it humanizes its main character, I believe the idea is to play on that gap between his ghastly hobby and the fact he's the sympathetic main character who learns what it means to be in a relationship or start a family. That's what makes the show "quirky".

Lost doesn't play on that at all, with Kate. It just sweeps it all under the rug, whereas other characters aren't so lucky because they're not Approved Good Guys.

LOST did that with Kate's father, making him out to be a pretty shitty dude, but maybe we didn't get enough of it. Maybe adding in the proverbial straw would have had more impact?

Er... No, it's not about how bad the guy was. It's about how inconsequential his murder appears to be for Kate, the show... and some viewers, apparently. "He had it coming!" + "no reason to even mention that outside of flashbacks because who gives a damn; that was a good murder" + "I'll even plead not guilty: that's how much I don't give a shit" + "it worked, naturally"
Simple as that, really? 'Kay...

But that's really part of a bigger issue I have with the show: how lightly it treats human lives as long as we're not talking about the Cool Kids. That it nevertheless pretends to be profound, spiritual and full of positive messages is a never-ending source of amazement to me.

About the bank robbery scene, did she kill the robbers? I remember she shot her boyfriend in the leg...but did she actually kill them? I could only find info like "she shot them" in a couple of the Wiki's I looked at (including Lostpedia).

Ah, it looks like you're right. I didn't remember that and was going from the marshal's "she seduces some idiot to rob the damn bank, and then she puts a bullet in her new friend because she's done using him" and the same "she shot them"s you found on Lostpedia.
I apologize for the mistake.

Not that I condone murder...

That really shouldn't sound refreshing, and yet...

It does. But, in general, it doesn't exist on LOST.

"I married her!! (("

I'm pretty sure you can't read our minds and conclude we only liked/justified him after his redemption in s6.

And I'm pretty sure that wasn't what I was arguing either.
I wasn't talking about the character's popularity (I know it didn't start with that scene in season 6, as his being popular fairly early on supposedly is the very reason he was still around at that point), I was talking about his "alignment", like I said above. And I thought you were, too: "Ben gassed a whole community and is still winds up a likeable character who is allowed to protect the island with Hurley."

KATE REDEEMED!

I wouldn't go that far!