Lost Forums

ABC (ended 2010)

The whole Mystery/Character debate is just what was wanted by AbraCuseDelof.

  • Avatar of Dean0Mac

    Dean0Mac

    [1]May 25, 2010
    • member since: 02/10/04
    • level: 5
    • rank: Caveman Lawyer
    • posts: 213

    In an interview prior to the ending being aired; the guys "Promised the ending would leave the audience with way more unanswered questions than questionable answers" - I'm paraphrasing but that's the jist. And they've duely delivered... Mind games; just like Jacob.


    But now for those of you saying they didn't answer certain questions and then being 'dogged on' for it by the pro-character development crew who think we're either one dimensional, ignorant or 'not getting the point'. I simply ask you this...


    What were the promos showing/saying between each and every season finalè and run-up to the new season; throughout the first five (and even sixth) season(s)? Was it things like


    A: "Who will Kate choose, Jack or Sawyer? Will Locke finally find some standing room? Will Charlie and Claire live happy lives with baby Aaron!? Find out on all new LOST!"


    or was it things like...


    B: Who are 'The Others'!? What IS The Island!? Where ARE they (The 'LOSTIES' in other words)!? Who IS Jacob!? Find out on all new LOST!"


    ---


    That right there, proves a massive point. For six years the creators were playing with a character driven plotline with a mysterious subtext; but at the same time they were toying with a mystery/sci-fi/religion doused plotline cohesive with a character driven subtext.


    LOST was about a group of strangers, finding themselves and finding each other. Living, dying, loving, losing and how they coped throughout. - BUT - At the same time it was about science fiction, science fact, religion, faith, fate and every other possible 'fantastical idea' you could possibly imagine.


    Did Cuse, Abrams and Lindelof know what the ending was going to be the entire time? I don't doubt it... Was this the ONLY ending they had in mind? I highly doubt that one. Jimmy Kimmel provided us with some laughs showing 3 "Alternative endings" to LOST, comedy style the other night right after The End (2) had finished airing but I'm pretty damn sure the creators have another season or two's worth of backlog they just COULD NOT, fit into the show. - In fact last I heard the show had so much stuff to show us, it was supposed to be 2.5hrs (NOT INC' Commercials) however I found it only to run an hour and 43 minutes.


    You are all forgetting one MAJOR THING right here. A very, VERY important thing which I am shocked no-one has bought up just yet... Do you really think THE LOYALIST OF LOYAL FANS of a Television show as successful as LOST are going to be unrewarded? Of course you'll have to pay for it... But I say two words, to all of you.


    Bonus DVD's.

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of aidorrocks

    aidorrocks

    [2]May 25, 2010
    • member since: 08/28/07
    • level: 10
    • rank: Holy Level 10!
    • posts: 302
    well said.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of Guildy

    Guildy

    [3]May 25, 2010
    • member since: 05/28/06
    • level: 5
    • rank: Caveman Lawyer
    • posts: 211

    Quite right. I think I can smell future releases promising the answers... Will we fall for it? Maybe... Probably.

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of motleylil

    motleylil

    [4]May 28, 2010
    • member since: 03/02/07
    • level: 19
    • rank: Fall Guy
    • posts: 971

    Oh, because, of course, the "real" fans of the show are those who won't be satisfied until they know everything. No, I think the fans of the show they meant to satisfy are those who don't expect to know everything. Because no matter how much time Damon & Carlton spend answering mysteries, you guys will always want to know more. The guys who made this show just said "Here's what we think is essential to the story. If you want more, pay for it, and if you don't, good for you."

    Edited on 05/28/2010 2:07pm
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of KingofIPirates

    KingofIPirates

    [5]May 28, 2010
    • member since: 08/11/06
    • level: 32
    • rank: Whammy!
    • posts: 45,832
    motleylil wrote:
    Oh, because, of course, the "real" fans of the show are those who won't be satisfied until they know everything.
    Again, not everything, just the majority so there aren't any blatant gaps in the plot.


    motleylil wrote:

    No, I think the fans of the show are those who don't expect to know everything, because no matter how much time Damon & Carlton spend answering mysteries, you guys will always want to know more.

    If a mystery is solved effectively and has a great resolution there is no need to know more. Two examples of this happening was brought up in another thread/
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of motleylil

    motleylil

    [6]May 28, 2010
    • member since: 03/02/07
    • level: 19
    • rank: Fall Guy
    • posts: 971

    KingofIPirates wrote:
    motleylil wrote:
    Oh, because, of course, the "real" fans of the show are those who won't be satisfied until they know everything.
    Again, not everything, just the majority so there aren't any blatant gaps in the plot.
    motleylil wrote:
    No, I think the fans of the show are those who don't expect to know everything, because no matter how much time Damon & Carlton spend answering mysteries, you guys will always want to know more.
    If a mystery is solved effectively and has a great resolution there is no need to know more. Two examples of this happening was brought up in another thread/


    What I'm saying isn't about people wanting further explanation about one particular mystery, only that if they explain one thing, then people will move on to the next thing they want to be answered. Because it seems that some people do have lists.

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of buildam2005

    buildam2005

    [7]May 28, 2010
    • member since: 05/30/08
    • level: 14
    • rank: Autobot
    • posts: 710
    motleylil wrote:

    KingofIPirates wrote:
    motleylil wrote:
    Oh, because, of course, the "real" fans of the show are those who won't be satisfied until they know everything.
    Again, not everything, just the majority so there aren't any blatant gaps in the plot.
    motleylil wrote:
    No, I think the fans of the show are those who don't expect to know everything, because no matter how much time Damon & Carlton spend answering mysteries, you guys will always want to know more.
    If a mystery is solved effectively and has a great resolution there is no need to know more. Two examples of this happening was brought up in another thread/


    What I'm saying isn't about people wanting further explanation about one particular mystery, only that if they explain one thing, then people will move on to the next thing they want to be answered. Because it seems that some people do have lists.



    That may be true, but at least the further down the list one gets, the less people will complain
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of KingofIPirates

    KingofIPirates

    [9]May 28, 2010
    • member since: 08/11/06
    • level: 32
    • rank: Whammy!
    • posts: 45,832
    motleylil wrote:

    KingofIPirates wrote:
    motleylil wrote:
    Oh, because, of course, the "real" fans of the show are those who won't be satisfied until they know everything.
    Again, not everything, just the majority so there aren't any blatant gaps in the plot.
    motleylil wrote:
    No, I think the fans of the show are those who don't expect to know everything, because no matter how much time Damon & Carlton spend answering mysteries, you guys will always want to know more.
    If a mystery is solved effectively and has a great resolution there is no need to know more. Two examples of this happening was brought up in another thread/


    What I'm saying isn't about people wanting further explanation about one particular mystery, only that if they explain one thing, then people will move on to the next thing they want to be answered. Because it seems that some people do have lists.

    What do you expect? The creators ignored much of the mysteries that made up a significant portion of the plot.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of ajokurvanyad

    ajokurvanyad

    [10]May 28, 2010
    • member since: 05/25/10
    • level: 4
    • rank: Thighmaster
    • posts: 167

    motleylil wrote:


    Oh, because, of course, the "real" fans of the show are those who won't be satisfied until they know everything. No, I think the fans of the show they meant to satisfy are those who don't expect to know everything.



    you are absolutily RIGHT.the fans don't want to know because the FANS are into the personas,the characters,the stars of the show.meanwhile people who are entertained by things that are bigger than "life" and like to use what's called their gray matter aren't.because for them the characters a mearily objects used to explore great concepts.


    personally i didn't give a rats ass about these characters we all saw before in other movies,shows before the whole men of science vs men of faith aspect kicked in and i am deeply dissapointed that they made the men of faith "win"

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of motleylil

    motleylil

    [11]May 28, 2010
    • member since: 03/02/07
    • level: 19
    • rank: Fall Guy
    • posts: 971

    ajokurvanyad wrote:


    motleylil wrote:


    Oh, because, of course, the "real" fans of the show are those who won't be satisfied until they know everything. No, I think the fans of the show they meant to satisfy are those who don't expect to know everything.



    you are absolutily RIGHT.the fans don't want to know because the FANS are into the personas,the characters,the stars of the show.meanwhile people who are entertained by things that are bigger than "life" and like to use what's called their gray matter aren't.because for them the characters a mearily objects used to explore great concepts.


    personally i didn't give a rats ass about these characters we all saw before in other movies,shows before the whole men of science vs men of faith aspect kicked in and i am deeply dissapointed that they made the men of faith "win"



    Why, because you're a man of science yourself? I suppose you'd hate Che (the movie) for the sole reason that it' about a communist?

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of ajokurvanyad

    ajokurvanyad

    [12]May 29, 2010
    • member since: 05/25/10
    • level: 4
    • rank: Thighmaster
    • posts: 167

    motleylil wrote:


    Why, because you're a man of science yourself? I suppose you'd hate Che (the movie) for the sole reason that it' about a communist?



    lol i don't think i'd hate it because he was a communist but it' true that i have no interest in watching that movie,i think maybe because he was an idealist.or maybe because these movies about iconic figures usualy suck,i'd rather watch the documentary.i don't have that many problems with communism since i was 2 when the revolution went down in our country.i just don't remember,some say it was an awfull time,some say it wasn't that bad people make it out to be.


    my problem is the message they sent with the men of faith winning.it just turned out to be another faith is the answer to everything story stroking on the hopes and fears of people.i didn't see that coming in the seasons that made me follow the show so i'm very dissapointed

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of Omnia87

    Omnia87

    [13]May 29, 2010
    • member since: 03/22/09
    • level: 2
    • rank: Sweat Hog
    • posts: 24

    Just as a response to the whole man of science/faith thing. A true man of science cannot stomach a depiction of faith being virtuous. There is nothing morally praiseworthy about being convinced in something without, or sometimes even against, evidence. 'Not thinking' is never the best solution for anything so it's hard to watch for a person of reason. It all seems sort of infantile, the whole notion of "as long as you believe, everything you want can be true". And in the end, that sort of seemed the message that was given off a little at the end, culminating with Jack telling the MIB that 'John Locke told me to stay', as a sort of final shedding of Jack's disbelief. Then coming back to the question about the film Che and communism: I've not seen the film, but to give another example: I can watch Der Untergang without being a nazi, and still think it to be a great film, but that's because the film doesn't portray being a fascist as a virtue. Can you claim to be able to watch nazi propaganda without feeling some measure of unease?

    That said, I never considered Locke to be such a 'man of faith'. You see, science is all about observation. I remember at some point in season 1 Locke stares into (what we may assume to be) the black smoke. He observes something that shouldn't be possible in our reality, yet there it is. In the pilot, Jack is on the run from it and later finds the body of the pilot shredded and hanging from a tree 7 meters up, but that didn't ring any bells for him. I just always thought Jack was being stubborn. It was clear to everyone that more was going on on this Island, and science is always about adjusting models that no longer fit our observations of reality, to a new model that does. Jack didn't bother adjusting his model, in the face of terrible truths, Locke did. So who's the man of science and who's the man of faith?

    Edited on 05/29/2010 4:38pm
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of motleylil

    motleylil

    [14]May 29, 2010
    • member since: 03/02/07
    • level: 19
    • rank: Fall Guy
    • posts: 971

    Omnia87 wrote:


    Just as a response to the whole man of science/faith thing. A true man of science cannot stomach a depiction of faith being virtuous. There is nothing morally praiseworthy about being convinced in something without, or sometimes even against, evidence. 'Not thinking' is never the best solution for anything so it's hard to watch for a person of reason. It all seems sort of infantile, the whole notion of "as long as you believe, everything you want can be true". And in the end, that sort of seemed the message that was given off a little at the end, culminating with Jack telling the MIB that 'John Locke told me to stay', as a sort of final shedding of Jack's disbelief. Then coming back to the question about the film Che and communism: I've not seen the film, but to give another example: I can watch Der Untergang without being a nazi, and still think it to be a great film, but that's because the film doesn't portray being a fascist as a virtue. Can you claim to be able to watch nazi propaganda without feeling some measure of unease?

    That said, I never considered Locke to be such a 'man of faith'. You see, science is all about observation. I remember at some point in season 1 Locke stares into (what we may assume to be) the black smoke. He observes something that shouldn't be possible in our reality, yet there it is. In the pilot, Jack is on the run from it and later finds the body of the pilot shredded and hanging from a tree 7 meters up, but that didn't ring any bells for him. I just always thought Jack was being stubborn. It was clear to everyone that more was going on on this Island, and science is always about adjusting models that no longer fit our observations of reality, to a new model that does. Jack didn't bother adjusting his model, in the face of terrible truths, Locke did. So who's the man of science and who's the man of faith?



    I don't consider myself that much of a man of faith, but I think that it takes a lot to be able to keep faith in tough moments such as what Locke has experienced. Contrary to what some may think, there are moments where faith isn't a sign of weakness. It's easy for an nonreligious person to say that believing in God is just an excuse not to take responsability for everything bad that happens, but I think that those people never consider that it's actually hard to keep faith in such times. It takes a lot of willpower to believe that there is a God when your life is going down the drain. In that sense, I think that Locke is probably one of the strongest characters on the show.


    And about nazis, I believe that the reason for the unease is more about what they did than about how they thought. Their basic idea was to make Germany better than everyone else. If they could have figured out a way to do it without killing everybody, I'd say that it would have been quite an honorable thing.

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of Guildy

    Guildy

    [15]May 29, 2010
    • member since: 05/28/06
    • level: 5
    • rank: Caveman Lawyer
    • posts: 211

    Omnia87 wrote:


    Just as a response to the whole man of science/faith thing. A true man of science cannot stomach a depiction of faith being virtuous. There is nothing morally praiseworthy about being convinced in something without, or sometimes even against, evidence. 'Not thinking' is never the best solution for anything so it's hard to watch for a person of reason. It all seems sort of infantile, the whole notion of "as long as you believe, everything you want can be true". And in the end, that sort of seemed the message that was given off a little at the end, culminating with Jack telling the MIB that 'John Locke told me to stay', as a sort of final shedding of Jack's disbelief. Then coming back to the question about the film Che and communism: I've not seen the film, but to give another example: I can watch Der Untergang without being a nazi, and still think it to be a great film, but that's because the film doesn't portray being a fascist as a virtue. Can you claim to be able to watch nazi propaganda without feeling some measure of unease?

    That said, I never considered Locke to be such a 'man of faith'. You see, science is all about observation. I remember at some point in season 1 Locke stares into (what we may assume to be) the black smoke. He observes something that shouldn't be possible in our reality, yet there it is. In the pilot, Jack is on the run from it and later finds the body of the pilot shredded and hanging from a tree 7 meters up, but that didn't ring any bells for him. I just always thought Jack was being stubborn. It was clear to everyone that more was going on on this Island, and science is always about adjusting models that no longer fit our observations of reality, to a new model that does. Jack didn't bother adjusting his model, in the face of terrible truths, Locke did. So who's the man of science and who's the man of faith?



    Well said, that man! I've been thinking along those lines myself, but I couldn't reconcile it with my opinion of Lost fans. Lost began as great story, but ended as a third rate Fairy Tale. I also see your point about Jack, and it makes me wonder if many of us felt that way about him subconsciously, and that's why so many people, myself included, considered him to be a stupid, selfish jerk alot of the time.

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of Guildy

    Guildy

    [16]May 29, 2010
    • member since: 05/28/06
    • level: 5
    • rank: Caveman Lawyer
    • posts: 211

    motleylil wrote:


    Omnia87 wrote:


    Just as a response to the whole man of science/faith thing. A true man of science cannot stomach a depiction of faith being virtuous. There is nothing morally praiseworthy about being convinced in something without, or sometimes even against, evidence. 'Not thinking' is never the best solution for anything so it's hard to watch for a person of reason. It all seems sort of infantile, the whole notion of "as long as you believe, everything you want can be true". And in the end, that sort of seemed the message that was given off a little at the end, culminating with Jack telling the MIB that 'John Locke told me to stay', as a sort of final shedding of Jack's disbelief. Then coming back to the question about the film Che and communism: I've not seen the film, but to give another example: I can watch Der Untergang without being a nazi, and still think it to be a great film, but that's because the film doesn't portray being a fascist as a virtue. Can you claim to be able to watch nazi propaganda without feeling some measure of unease?

    That said, I never considered Locke to be such a 'man of faith'. You see, science is all about observation. I remember at some point in season 1 Locke stares into (what we may assume to be) the black smoke. He observes something that shouldn't be possible in our reality, yet there it is. In the pilot, Jack is on the run from it and later finds the body of the pilot shredded and hanging from a tree 7 meters up, but that didn't ring any bells for him. I just always thought Jack was being stubborn. It was clear to everyone that more was going on on this Island, and science is always about adjusting models that no longer fit our observations of reality, to a new model that does. Jack didn't bother adjusting his model, in the face of terrible truths, Locke did. So who's the man of science and who's the man of faith?



    I don't consider myself that much of a man of faith, but I think that it takes a lot to be able to keep faith in tough moments such as what Locke has experienced. Contrary to what some may think, there are moments where faith isn't a sign of weakness. It's easy for an nonreligious person to say that believing in God is just an excuse not to take responsability for everything bad that happens, but I think that those people never consider that it's actually hard to keep faith in such times. It takes a lot of willpower to believe that there is a God when your life is going down the drain. In that sense, I think that Locke is probably one of the strongest characters on the show.


    And about nazis, I believe that the reason for the unease is more about what they did than about how they thought. Their basic idea was to make Germany better than everyone else. If they could have figured out a way to do it without killing everybody, I'd say that it would have been quite an honorable thing.



    Having faith can be a good thing, yes. But having blind faith? Believe something because someone says so? With nothing else to back it up? I could successfully argue, if we allow no evidence at all, that a tortoise can outrun an arrow, in fact, if you were to fire an arrow at a moving tortoise, the arrow could never possibly hit it. Faith, under those circumstances, is not what you could call an admirable quality in a man of reason - which I consider to contain the most rational people from both camps.


    About Nazis.... ummm, dude? If you can honestly say that, you don't really understand what real Nazis were like. Real Nazis believed they already knew the best, master race. And if you didn't fit close enough to the mold they cast, you got broken. Naziism gave rise to evil the likes of which was seen during the Inquisition or the Salem Witch Trials.

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of ajokurvanyad

    ajokurvanyad

    [17]May 29, 2010
    • member since: 05/25/10
    • level: 4
    • rank: Thighmaster
    • posts: 167

    @guildy


    to the men of reason:faith may be hard to keep but keeping a straight face is even harder

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of motleylil

    motleylil

    [18]May 29, 2010
    • member since: 03/02/07
    • level: 19
    • rank: Fall Guy
    • posts: 971

    Guildy wrote:


    motleylil wrote:


    Omnia87 wrote:


    Just as a response to the whole man of science/faith thing. A true man of science cannot stomach a depiction of faith being virtuous. There is nothing morally praiseworthy about being convinced in something without, or sometimes even against, evidence. 'Not thinking' is never the best solution for anything so it's hard to watch for a person of reason. It all seems sort of infantile, the whole notion of "as long as you believe, everything you want can be true". And in the end, that sort of seemed the message that was given off a little at the end, culminating with Jack telling the MIB that 'John Locke told me to stay', as a sort of final shedding of Jack's disbelief. Then coming back to the question about the film Che and communism: I've not seen the film, but to give another example: I can watch Der Untergang without being a nazi, and still think it to be a great film, but that's because the film doesn't portray being a fascist as a virtue. Can you claim to be able to watch nazi propaganda without feeling some measure of unease?

    That said, I never considered Locke to be such a 'man of faith'. You see, science is all about observation. I remember at some point in season 1 Locke stares into (what we may assume to be) the black smoke. He observes something that shouldn't be possible in our reality, yet there it is. In the pilot, Jack is on the run from it and later finds the body of the pilot shredded and hanging from a tree 7 meters up, but that didn't ring any bells for him. I just always thought Jack was being stubborn. It was clear to everyone that more was going on on this Island, and science is always about adjusting models that no longer fit our observations of reality, to a new model that does. Jack didn't bother adjusting his model, in the face of terrible truths, Locke did. So who's the man of science and who's the man of faith?



    I don't consider myself that much of a man of faith, but I think that it takes a lot to be able to keep faith in tough moments such as what Locke has experienced. Contrary to what some may think, there are moments where faith isn't a sign of weakness. It's easy for an nonreligious person to say that believing in God is just an excuse not to take responsability for everything bad that happens, but I think that those people never consider that it's actually hard to keep faith in such times. It takes a lot of willpower to believe that there is a God when your life is going down the drain. In that sense, I think that Locke is probably one of the strongest characters on the show.


    And about nazis, I believe that the reason for the unease is more about what they did than about how they thought. Their basic idea was to make Germany better than everyone else. If they could have figured out a way to do it without killing everybody, I'd say that it would have been quite an honorable thing.



    Having faith can be a good thing, yes. But having blind faith? Believe something because someone says so? With nothing else to back it up? I could successfully argue, if we allow no evidence at all, that a tortoise can outrun an arrow, in fact, if you were to fire an arrow at a moving tortoise, the arrow could never possibly hit it. Faith, under those circumstances, is not what you could call an admirable quality in a man of reason - which I consider to contain the most rational people from both camps.


    About Nazis.... ummm, dude? If you can honestly say that, you don't really understand what real Nazis were like. Real Nazis believed they already knew the best, master race. And if you didn't fit close enough to the mold they cast, you got broken. Naziism gave rise to evil the likes of which was seen during the Inquisition or the Salem Witch Trials.



    Yes, that's how it ended, but there was a period in german history where nazis weren't as horrible as they ultimately turned out to be. But, of course, I'm talking about the 20s, the part that doesn't really matter all that much to anything.

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of Omnia87

    Omnia87

    [19]May 30, 2010
    • member since: 03/22/09
    • level: 2
    • rank: Sweat Hog
    • posts: 24

    Just because it's hard doesn't make it commendable. What I thought would be much harder for someone like Locke is to face up to the fact that his life would never be as good as he wanted it to be. That he was not destined for anything other than being used as a pawn. Are you saying it's harder to believe he was meant to do something special than to accept the pathetic state of his life? I'm not sure you get the psychology behind this, but man in many cases does a lot to blind himself from harsh realities. Just like the thought of afterlife. Nothing in life gives any hint of there being an afterlife, yet a lot of people 'hold on' to that idea because they can't bear the thought they would be seperated from the ones they love for all eternity. That pain, of losing someone really close is almost always going to be greater than the mental gymnastics necessary to believe in something unwordly. So I disagree with your notion that it can be harder than accepting the truth.

    And about the whole nazi thing, please look up the definition of Nazism and the history of the ideology before you say anything more. Nazism is a definition of a way of thought, and it was defined by the most horrible parts of humanity. The reason you would feel unease about nazi propaganda is because the propaganda was full of inhuman ideas about hatred, intollerance, societal hierarchy, the works... So let's stop the nazi metaphor here before you start offending people.

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of motleylil

    motleylil

    [20]May 30, 2010
    • member since: 03/02/07
    • level: 19
    • rank: Fall Guy
    • posts: 971

    Omnia87 wrote:


    And about the whole nazi thing, please look up the definition of Nazism and the history of the ideology before you say anything more. Nazism is a definition of a way of thought, and it was defined by the most horrible parts of humanity. The reason you would feel unease about nazi propaganda is because the propaganda was full of inhuman ideas about hatred, intollerance, societal hierarchy, the works... So let's stop the nazi metaphor here before you start offending people.



    All right, I looked it up a bit and I must admit that I was completely wrong. I overestimated the extent of the word "nazi", and (wrongly) assumed it included the time in Germany's history where just really wanted to be better than the rest of the world. What I was talking about was the period of time before they adopted the nazi ideology. I'm profoundly sorry to whomever has been offended what I said about it. I was wrong, and I apologize.

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.