Lost Forums

ABC (ended 2010)

Why Do Finale-Lovers Find It So Easy To Believe??!!

  • Avatar of buildam2005

    buildam2005

    [41]Jun 6, 2010
    • member since: 05/30/08
    • level: 14
    • rank: Autobot
    • posts: 710
    XXXBox wrote:

    KingofIPirates wrote:
    So your saying the more popular a show the more it will fail to have a good ending? Shows like The Shield had a good ending, So did The Wire, Arrested Development(though it was cancelled), Star Trek TNG, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, etc.


    No offense but I am not going to argue with you over the same points again and again. Well agree to disagree. I loved the show and the ending and again my single favorite aspect to this show is that they left a lot to the viewer. It makes it a million times better in my book. As for the hype, yes that is exactly what I am saying. The more hype a show has the less of a chance it has to live up to that hype. It has been proven time and time again throughout TV history and if your honestly trying to compare the finale of Arrested Development, ST TNG and Buffy to that of Lost, Seinfeld, Sopranos, Cheers, Friends, etc....well that's pretty funny. Those were all great shows but they didn't have nearly the level of hype that shows like Lost had. Its simply a whole different level of hype which is why they are all destined to fail. Shows that have the amount of hype that shows like ST TNG, Buffy, Arrested Development etc. had are completely capable of living up to the hype and many in fact do.


    Lost had even more hype as it had so many unresolved issues and unanswered questions that people were DYING to figure out. it was impossible to live up to that hype and any show that reaches that same level of hype will also fail. The Lost finale made the cover of Time magazine. Funny but I dont remember any of those other shows you mentioned making the cover of time. Why not? because they didn't have nearly the same level of hype. Not even close. I am not even sure why you even mentioned Arrested development. While it was definitely a critically acclaimed show, and definitely one of my favorites, it never had great numbers and only averaged about 4 million viewers in season 3. A show with those numbers is completely incapable of the hype I am talking about.



    Although hype doesn't equal quality, one must admit. American Idol gets a ton of hype, and I doubt anyone is going to say it's the greatest show ever. Why do numbers have any influence on the quality of a show's finale either? Buffy the Vampire Slayer, while certainly never a huge ratings grabber, had one of the strongest series finales ever. And certainly that show has lived on in critical circles and pop culture (even academia) for the last seven years.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of ajokurvanyad

    ajokurvanyad

    [42]Jun 6, 2010
    • member since: 05/25/10
    • level: 4
    • rank: Thighmaster
    • posts: 167

    XXXBox wrote:


    Lost had even more hype as it had so many unresolved issues and unanswered questions that people were DYING to figure out. it was impossible to live up to that hype and any show that reaches that same level of hype will also fail. The Lost finale made the cover of Time magazine. Funny but I dont remember any of those other shows you mentioned making the cover of time. Why not? because they didn't have nearly the same level of hype. Not even close. I am not even sure why you even mentioned Arrested development. While it was definitely a critically acclaimed show, and definitely one of my favorites, it never had great numbers and only averaged about 4 million viewers in season 3. A show with those numbers is completely incapable of the hype I am talking about.



    give it a read


    http://content.usatoday.com/communities/entertainment/post/2010/05/lost-finale-ratings-dont-compare-to-other-big-good-byes/1


    also


    http://johngushue.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/jerry_seinfeld_time_magazine.jpg


    i found all this in less then 2 minutes.


    i'm sorry it's hard for you to swallow your fav show cheating you.....but it did.face facts.nonsense end,huge plot holes and i dare you to prove me wrong(and not with theories pulled out of your ass)


    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of ionee24

    ionee24

    [43]Jun 7, 2010
    • member since: 07/05/06
    • level: 32
    • rank: Whammy!
    • posts: 3,771

    adamfromny wrote:
    That the writers had any clue as to what they were doing, ever had a plan beyond "they all meet up in the afterlife because they were meant to be together," and didn't just throw really, cool sci-fi/fantasy stuff at us in each episode with no intention of following up on it beyond occasional simple platitudes that in the end meant nothing to the series story whatsoever?


    Basically because Jack died on the exact same spot where he landed, closing his eyes in the exact same manner as he opened them and with the exact same dog that came to his side in the pilot episode, since Lost has always been about faith and science, it was only natural the ending would be about faith and science as well: Only difference is that they lived together but didn't die alone (they all saw their "brothers" in "another life", just like Desmond told them).

    Edited on 06/07/2010 9:18am
    Edited 2 total times.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of XXXBox

    XXXBox

    [44]Jun 7, 2010
    • member since: 09/18/02
    • level: 2
    • rank: Sweat Hog
    • posts: 16
    buildam2005 wrote:
    Although hype doesn't equal quality, one must admit. American Idol gets a ton of hype, and I doubt anyone is going to say it's the greatest show ever. Why do numbers have any influence on the quality of a show's finale either? Buffy the Vampire Slayer, while certainly never a huge ratings grabber, had one of the strongest series finales ever. And certainly that show has lived on in critical circles and pop culture (even academia) for the last seven years.


    I never said anything about numbers having an influence on the quality of a shows finale. Some of the best finale's I have ever seen were from shows that had somewhat small numbers audience wise. Again I never said anything of the sort. I said that numbers have a lot to do with the level of hype that exists for a particular show. If nobody is watching a particular show then there isn't going to be any hype for that show. The more popular a show is the more hype that show will receive especially in regards to its finale. I absolutely agree Buffy had a great finale but the level of hype surrounding the finale was nowhere near the level of hype that we saw for shows like Lost, The Sopranos, Seinfeld, Friends, etc... as there just weren't enough people watching the show to generate that level of hype. The bottom line is hype has a lot to do with the size of the overall audience. Shows with a small audience are simply incapable of achieving the level of hype that shows with a large audience achieve.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of XXXBox

    XXXBox

    [45]Jun 7, 2010
    • member since: 09/18/02
    • level: 2
    • rank: Sweat Hog
    • posts: 16
    ajokurvanyad wrote:

    give it a read


    http://content.usatoday.com/communities/entertainment/post/2010/05/lost-finale-ratings-dont-compare-to-other-big-good-byes/1


    also


    http://johngushue.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/jerry_seinfeld_time_magazine.jpg


    i found all this in less then 2 minutes.


    i'm sorry it's hard for you to swallow your fav show cheating you.....but it did.face facts.nonsense end,huge plot holes and i dare you to prove me wrong(and not with theories pulled out of your ass)




    Prove you wrong with what? I have no clue what your even talking about. I am talking about the level of hype surrounding the finale, not whether the show had any plot holes. Again I honestly dont even know what your talking about considering what you chose to quote from me in this post. Are you honestly trying to suggest that there wasn't a lot of hype surrounding the Lost finale? I certainly hope that isn't what your trying to argue as the level of hype surrounding the finale was absolutely insane. The cover of time Magazine, Talk show host Lost parties, etc.. In the preceding weeks it was EVERYWHERE and while Lost's numbers dropped significantly from the first couple season, 13.5 Million viewers is still plenty enough viewers to get the hype meter up. Of course that number doesn't account for people who download like myself or people who Tivo it and watch it later. Everyone knows the current system for numbers is severely flawed as a significant number of people now either download it or use some sort of Tivo or on demand system and the Nielsen numbers do not take these numbers into account.

    The fact that people were expecting a lot of the unanswered questions to be resolved just made the hype for this finale that much higher. While number do have a lot to do with the level of hype that a particular show can achieve, it is not the only thing that matters. There are a lot of other things as well that factor into how much hype a particular show has.

    Bottom line - In the weeks and days prior to the Lost Finale airing, the hype was absolutely through the roof. I couldn't turn on the TV or the radio without hearing or seeing something about it. Again it even made the cover of Time magazine and even NPR had a bunch of lost relating programing in those final days. If your honestly suggesting that the Lost finale didn't have a lot of hype....well, I am sorry to say this but you have absolutely no clue what your talking about and a couple of articles that call the finale a bust because the Nielson numbers are only at 13.5 million doesn't disprove anything in this regard. The hype for the Lost finale was through the roof and that is an indisputable fact.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of buildam2005

    buildam2005

    [46]Jun 7, 2010
    • member since: 05/30/08
    • level: 14
    • rank: Autobot
    • posts: 710
    XXXBox wrote:
    buildam2005 wrote:
    Although hype doesn't equal quality, one must admit. American Idol gets a ton of hype, and I doubt anyone is going to say it's the greatest show ever. Why do numbers have any influence on the quality of a show's finale either? Buffy the Vampire Slayer, while certainly never a huge ratings grabber, had one of the strongest series finales ever. And certainly that show has lived on in critical circles and pop culture (even academia) for the last seven years.


    I never said anything about numbers having an influence on the quality of a shows finale. Some of the best finale's I have ever seen were from shows that had somewhat small numbers audience wise. Again I never said anything of the sort. I said that numbers have a lot to do with the level of hype that exists for a particular show. If nobody is watching a particular show then there isn't going to be any hype for that show. The more popular a show is the more hype that show will receive especially in regards to its finale. I absolutely agree Buffy had a great finale but the level of hype surrounding the finale was nowhere near the level of hype that we saw for shows like Lost, The Sopranos, Seinfeld, Friends, etc... as there just weren't enough people watching the show to generate that level of hype. The bottom line is hype has a lot to do with the size of the overall audience. Shows with a small audience are simply incapable of achieving the level of hype that shows with a large audience achieve.


    Sorry--I must have gotten my wires crossed and misread your post in some way to get that meaning out of it. I do agree with you about the fact that Lost had incredible hype built up for it (though I don't think it had as huge of an audience as one might think, in comparison to some other shows such as the unfortunately still around American Idol).
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of BrushYourTeeth

    BrushYourTeeth

    [47]Jun 7, 2010
    • member since: 10/30/07
    • level: 10
    • rank: Holy Level 10!
    • posts: 22

    aidorrocks wrote:
    i have an imagination, i can think of things too. i can imagine that had smokey managed to get off the island he would be ecstatically happy to finally be free & just travel around the globe checking everything out & be happy for the rest of his life. this could be true, maybe smokey was just super pissed & killing people cos he wanted off the island. maybe when he got out there & saw so many good people in the world doing good things he would change his opinions of man (they steal, fight, corrupt etc) just because 1 person says "it would be bad" doesn't make it a good reason. if there's no real explanation, then we don't know that it's definitely bad. some kind of reason would be nice. e.g. because he became smokey, he's tied to the island & if he leaves like that it would wipe out all life. any kind of reason that kills my theory of "if he had left everything would be alright" cos if it's left open for many interpretations then i can can easily theorize that everything would be ok & that nullifies the importance a bit. hope my point makes sense. also, one of the writers from the show (not damon or carlton) has brought out this summary of the show http://lostmediamentions.blogspot.com/2010/05/someone-from-bad-robots-take-on-finale.html as i've said before, surely if a writer has to come out with an explanation of the story, then the story wasn't told properly



    Here you gave a link to a writer giving an explanation of the show and then used it as an argument that the story wasn't told properly. Did you even read the article you link us to? He uses specific examples from throughout the series that show the writers did have the big majority planned out and that they told the story as far as they could with leaving people open to express their opinions. His explanation is the one I've had seen LOST ended, and one I was trying to explain to some of my fellow viewers who weren't grasping that most of the little things left unanswered aren't that important or, in most cases, would an explanation really help?


    So yes, thank you for the link to the article because it supports the side of people who thoroughly enjoyed the finale and the six years spent on the magnificent show LOST. It was told properly and allowed the viewer free will in some areas, just like Jacob tried to give his candidates all along.

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

    buildam2005

    [48]Jun 8, 2010
    • member since: 05/30/08
    • level: 14
    • rank: Autobot
    • posts: 710
    BrushYourTeeth wrote:

    aidorrocks wrote:
    i have an imagination, i can think of things too. i can imagine that had smokey managed to get off the island he would be ecstatically happy to finally be free & just travel around the globe checking everything out & be happy for the rest of his life. this could be true, maybe smokey was just super pissed & killing people cos he wanted off the island. maybe when he got out there & saw so many good people in the world doing good things he would change his opinions of man (they steal, fight, corrupt etc) just because 1 person says "it would be bad" doesn't make it a good reason. if there's no real explanation, then we don't know that it's definitely bad. some kind of reason would be nice. e.g. because he became smokey, he's tied to the island & if he leaves like that it would wipe out all life. any kind of reason that kills my theory of "if he had left everything would be alright" cos if it's left open for many interpretations then i can can easily theorize that everything would be ok & that nullifies the importance a bit. hope my point makes sense. also, one of the writers from the show (not damon or carlton) has brought out this summary of the show http://lostmediamentions.blogspot.com/2010/05/someone-from-bad-robots-take-on-finale.html as i've said before, surely if a writer has to come out with an explanation of the story, then the story wasn't told properly



    Here you gave a link to a writer giving an explanation of the show and then used it as an argument that the story wasn't told properly. Did you even read the article you link us to? He uses specific examples from throughout the series that show the writers did have the big majority planned out and that they told the story as far as they could with leaving people open to express their opinions. His explanation is the one I've had seen LOST ended, and one I was trying to explain to some of my fellow viewers who weren't grasping that most of the little things left unanswered aren't that important or, in most cases, would an explanation really help?


    So yes, thank you for the link to the article because it supports the side of people who thoroughly enjoyed the finale and the six years spent on the magnificent show LOST. It was told properly and allowed the viewer free will in some areas, just like Jacob tried to give his candidates all along.



    I think his point is that while, yes, this article does give solid explanation for these things, a lot of this would be hard to get out of the show. The most glaring one, for me, has to do with Jacob bringing in Dharma. What? Why? What would have been the point in Jacob doing that? I understand--and have always grasped--that it's pretty clear that MIB was in the cabin posing as Jacob (though why Jacob wouldn't clear that up is a bit of a mystery) to get Ben to do what he wants. But Jacob's motivation for bringing Dharma, allowing them to do all these "experiments" on the island doesn't make sense, and would seem completely out of Jacob's character. He's clearly a faith-based character who has no interest in studying the island and understanding it, and instead wants to simply protect it and accept what it is--that's the OPPOSITE of what Dharma was doing. So that makes no sense and would be inconsistent writing.

    The other biggest issue is that the Others were trying to kill Sawyer, Kate, Jack, etcetera. Oh really? Then why, uh, didn't they? They put Sawyer and Kate in cages and could have offed them whenever they wanted to. There are plenty of times in season two and three when they could have easily done that and it didn't happen. No explanation for that.

    The point of posting this article seems to me to use it as evidence that the writers, in "explaining", are trying to back track, and that when you look carefully at these explanations, they're full of holes and inconsistencies, things that shouldn't be present from "the greatest show ever," as so many people have inaccurately colored it.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of aidorrocks

    aidorrocks

    [49]Jun 8, 2010
    • member since: 08/28/07
    • level: 10
    • rank: Holy Level 10!
    • posts: 302
    BrushYourTeeth wrote:

    aidorrocks wrote:
    i have an imagination, i can think of things too. i can imagine that had smokey managed to get off the island he would be ecstatically happy to finally be free & just travel around the globe checking everything out & be happy for the rest of his life. this could be true, maybe smokey was just super pissed & killing people cos he wanted off the island. maybe when he got out there & saw so many good people in the world doing good things he would change his opinions of man (they steal, fight, corrupt etc) just because 1 person says "it would be bad" doesn't make it a good reason. if there's no real explanation, then we don't know that it's definitely bad. some kind of reason would be nice. e.g. because he became smokey, he's tied to the island & if he leaves like that it would wipe out all life. any kind of reason that kills my theory of "if he had left everything would be alright" cos if it's left open for many interpretations then i can can easily theorize that everything would be ok & that nullifies the importance a bit. hope my point makes sense. also, one of the writers from the show (not damon or carlton) has brought out this summary of the show http://lostmediamentions.blogspot.com/2010/05/someone-from-bad-robots-take-on-finale.html as i've said before, surely if a writer has to come out with an explanation of the story, then the story wasn't told properly



    Here you gave a link to a writer giving an explanation of the show and then used it as an argument that the story wasn't told properly. Did you even read the article you link us to? He uses specific examples from throughout the series that show the writers did have the big majority planned out and that they told the story as far as they could with leaving people open to express their opinions. His explanation is the one I've had seen LOST ended, and one I was trying to explain to some of my fellow viewers who weren't grasping that most of the little things left unanswered aren't that important or, in most cases, would an explanation really help?


    So yes, thank you for the link to the article because it supports the side of people who thoroughly enjoyed the finale and the six years spent on the magnificent show LOST. It was told properly and allowed the viewer free will in some areas, just like Jacob tried to give his candidates all along.



    my point is, like i stated at the end of my last post, if a writer has to come out and explain the story after its told, then surely it wasn't told coherently in the 1st place.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of XXXBox

    XXXBox

    [50]Jun 9, 2010
    • member since: 09/18/02
    • level: 2
    • rank: Sweat Hog
    • posts: 16
    buildam2005 wrote:
    Sorry--I must have gotten my wires crossed and misread your post in some way to get that meaning out of it. I do agree with you about the fact that Lost had incredible hype built up for it (though I don't think it had as huge of an audience as one might think, in comparison to some other shows such as the unfortunately still around American Idol).


    Not a problem. Was a simple mistake. I agree 100% that lost's numbers dont compare to some of the other big shows and especially to some of the other big finale's that we have seen on TV in the past. M.A.S.H. had like 80 million viewers for its finale and even shows like Cheers, Friends and Seinfeld crushed the Lost numbers. With that being said there were certain factors that really upped the Lost hype even tho its numbers were relatively small compared to some of those other shows. Most importantly people were expecting that a lot of the unanswered questions would in fact be answered and that in itself drove the hype meter through the roof as people had been debating for 6 years just what it all meant. Again I couldn't turn on the TV or radio and not hear something about Lost in those preceding weeks so while the numbers definitely dont compare, the hype meter for Lost was just as high as some of those other shows like M.A.S.H. and Seinfeld.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of XXXBox

    XXXBox

    [51]Jun 9, 2010
    • member since: 09/18/02
    • level: 2
    • rank: Sweat Hog
    • posts: 16

    buildam2005 wrote:
    The other biggest issue is that the Others were trying to kill Sawyer, Kate, Jack, etcetera. Oh really? Then why, uh, didn't they? They put Sawyer and Kate in cages and could have offed them whenever they wanted to. There are plenty of times in season two and three when they could have easily done that and it didn't happen. No explanation for that. The point of posting this article seems to me to use it as evidence that the writers, in "explaining", are trying to back track, and that when you look carefully at these explanations, they're full of holes and inconsistencies, things that shouldn't be present from "the greatest show ever," as so many people have inaccurately colored it.


    Wow, how can someone watch Lost and then be so "Lost" in regards to whats going on in the show???


    The reason the Others didn't kill Sawyer, Kate, Jack etc. during the period of time your talking about, when they were in the cages, is because Ben had a tumor and NEEDED jack to operate and remove it. Kate and Sawyer were Ben's leverage if he couldn't convince jack to do it willingly. This was explained about as well as it possibly could have been explained. In fact, this was the entire reason they were kidnapped and brought over to the other island. How you can forget this is utterly beyond me. Its was basically the main premise behind that entire season.


    Some of you obviously need to go back and re-watch the show as you have OBVIOUSLY forgotten some of the key elements over the years. There aren't nearly as many plot holes as some of you are suggesting. Its that some of you are obviously having a hard time remembering information that was clearly given in the previous seasons. This is just a perfect example of just that. Again this was explained as well as it could have been and there are no plot holes in this aspect of the story. Ben was going to die unless he could convince jack to operate and Ben needed leverage in case he couldn't convince jack to do it willingly. Jack actually had Kate and Sawyer escape during the operation.


    Unbelievable.



    Oh and by the way, Lost will go down in history as one of the best shows in TV history, regardless of how people feel about the finale. Suggesting otherwise is inaccurate, not the other way around.

    Edited on 06/09/2010 8:29am
    Edited 4 total times.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of KingofIPirates

    KingofIPirates

    [52]Jun 9, 2010
    • member since: 08/11/06
    • level: 32
    • rank: Whammy!
    • posts: 45,832
    XXXBox wrote:

    The reason the Others didn't kill Sawyer, Kate, Jack etc.
    Why didn't they just kill them after the fact when Locke blew up the sub?
    XXXBox wrote:
    There aren't nearly as many plot holes as some of you are suggesting.

    Quite the contrary, there are..
    Edited on 06/09/2010 9:11am
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of buildam2005

    buildam2005

    [53]Jun 9, 2010
    • member since: 05/30/08
    • level: 14
    • rank: Autobot
    • posts: 710
    XXXBox wrote:

    buildam2005 wrote:
    The other biggest issue is that the Others were trying to kill Sawyer, Kate, Jack, etcetera. Oh really? Then why, uh, didn't they? They put Sawyer and Kate in cages and could have offed them whenever they wanted to. There are plenty of times in season two and three when they could have easily done that and it didn't happen. No explanation for that. The point of posting this article seems to me to use it as evidence that the writers, in "explaining", are trying to back track, and that when you look carefully at these explanations, they're full of holes and inconsistencies, things that shouldn't be present from "the greatest show ever," as so many people have inaccurately colored it.


    Wow, how can someone watch Lost and then be so "Lost" in regards to whats going on in the show???


    The reason the Others didn't kill Sawyer, Kate, Jack etc. during the period of time your talking about, when they were in the cages, is because Ben had a tumor and NEEDED jack to operate and remove it. Kate and Sawyer were Ben's leverage if he couldn't convince jack to do it willingly. This was explained about as well as it possibly could have been explained. In fact, this was the entire reason they were kidnapped and brought over to the other island. How you can forget this is utterly beyond me. Its was basically the main premise behind that entire season.


    Some of you obviously need to go back and re-watch the show as you have OBVIOUSLY forgotten some of the key elements over the years. There aren't nearly as many plot holes as some of you are suggesting. Its that some of you are obviously having a hard time remembering information that was clearly given in the previous seasons. This is just a perfect example of just that. Again this was explained as well as it could have been and there are no plot holes in this aspect of the story. Ben was going to die unless he could convince jack to operate and Ben needed leverage in case he couldn't convince jack to do it willingly. Jack actually had Kate and Sawyer escape during the operation.


    Unbelievable.



    Oh and by the way, Lost will go down in history as one of the best shows in TV history, regardless of how people feel about the finale. Suggesting otherwise is inaccurate, not the other way around.



    What I meant was that it wouldn't make sense that the Others were expected to kill Kate, Sawyer, Jack, etcetera. I understand why they were taken to the Others' camp entirely. The article that was linked earlier in this thread had a writer from the show claiming that this was the Others' goal, which wouldn't make any sense--that's what I meant. I know that in the show the reason they were really taken was because Ben needed Jack and was using Kate and Sawyer as leverage. My point was that for one of the show's writers to backtrack and claim that the Others were supposed to kill Jack, Kate, Sawyer, etcetera (as the writer appears to be doing) is a very big stretch and doesn't make sense in the context of the show. The explanation you've given DOES make sense and IS what I had always thought was happening. But this writer is trying to argue something else, and my point was that his/her explanation doesn't have much consistency with what we saw and know about the characters and their motivations/plans.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of ajokurvanyad

    ajokurvanyad

    [54]Jun 11, 2010
    • member since: 05/25/10
    • level: 4
    • rank: Thighmaster
    • posts: 167

    XXXBox wrote:
    The reason the Others didn't kill Sawyer, Kate, Jack etc. during the period of time your talking about, when they were in the cages, is because Ben had a tumor and NEEDED jack to operate and remove it. Kate and Sawyer were Ben's leverage if he couldn't convince jack to do it willingly.


    and the others had no shot of killing them after right?....a friggin stealth team of sociopaths who knew the island like the back of their hands couldn't kill a conman and a fugitive girly?gi'me a break


    XXXBox wrote:


    The hype for the Lost finale was through the roof and that is an indisputable fact.


    i didn't say there wasn't any hype,i'm just saying that it did not go through the roof.


    the numbers may be from a flawed rating system but they do count(!),not to mention that the other shows are messured by the same system yet they still came out higher.yeah.even two and a half men had higher finale ratings than lost...and believe me this was the worst two and a half men season EVER.it was horrible!still beat lost.you wanna know why?most people figured out that the hype around lost was a only a publicity stunt,it wouldn't give the finale it promissed.


    XXXBox wrote:
    I certainly hope that isn't what your trying to argue as the level of hype surrounding the finale was absolutely insane. The cover of time Magazine, Talk show host Lost parties, etc.. In the preceding weeks it was EVERYWHERE


    yeah,every bigger show does that when there's a premier or a finale so it's not a big deal,it's just the usual publicity.it made the cover of time magazine.SO WHAT?!so did kanye west,glenn beck,ellen degeneres being gay(really that's news?),a penguin and a friggin football even made the cover of time!time has covered entertainment news before.if you want to talk lost achievements talk about the season 6 premier and the state of the union speech being moved to a different date.the finale had nothing special as far as finales go,especially if charlie sheen beets you in the ratings )


    Edited on 06/11/2010 10:14am
    Edited 3 total times.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of XXXBox

    XXXBox

    [55]Jun 11, 2010
    • member since: 09/18/02
    • level: 2
    • rank: Sweat Hog
    • posts: 16

    ajokurvanyad wrote:
    and the others had no shot of killing them after right?....a friggin stealth team of sociopaths who knew the island like the back of their hands couldn't kill a conman and a fugitive girly?gi'me a break


    LOL, yeah that's it. Make it seem like Jack, Kate and sawyer were completely and utterly helpless. I understand why you do it as its required to buy into your warped and twisted view of this show. All of the main characters wound up being extremely resilient which is probably one of the reasons they were chose by Jacob to begin with. Sorry but I didn't see anything unrealistic in regards to the ongoing conflict with the others and the main characters of the show. Your entitled to your opinion, just dont expect anyone to agree with you.


    :
    i didn't say there wasn't any hype,i'm just saying that it did not go through the roof.


    Anyone claiming that the Lost hype wasn't through the roof either lives in a hole in the ground with absolutely no contact with society or they just have absolutely no understanding of this subject at all. In all honestly it was well beyond "Through the Roof".


    :
    the numbers may be from a flawed rating system but they do count(!),not to mention that the other shows are messured by the same system yet they still came out higher.


    You cant read very well can you. I have said multiple times in this thread that the numbers count. Besides, there are other factors as well that come into play when discussing hype and it was actually these other factors that were responsible for the majority of the hype surrounding Lost. Just what are these other factors? Well the one that played the most important role with Lost is the fact that it was expected that the finale was going to answer many of the questions that people had been asking for 6 years. This one thing alone is largely responsible for Lost's hype being as crazy as it was. Having lingering unanswered questions is guaranteed to bring up the hype meter significantly, especially when you have a situation like Lost where the entire meaning of the show was going to be revealed. Again this one reason alone was largely responsible for most of Lost's hype. On the other hand you have shows like Law and Order where the finale is just another episode. No big mysteries being revealed. No long term story arc coming to a conclusion. Just another episode using the same formula they have always used. Even tho it had been on for 20 years, having a finale like they did just doesn't drum up a lot of hype. In all honesty using the finale numbers like you are doesn't make any sense as you have no idea what those numbers are until after the finale has aired and hype is the building excitement of that episode airing and it occurs in the weeks preceding the airing of the finale. If you have a show that has a MASSIVE amount of hype in the weeks prior to the airing and then for some strange reason most people dont watch it, that doesn't suddenly negate all of the hype that had taken place. Again the numbers are just one thing out of MANY that make up just how much hype a particular show has and the bottom line is the hype for Lost in that final week was absolutely OFF THE HOOK. You couldn't turn on the TV, read a magazine or listen to the radio without seeing or hearing something about it. A finale hasnt had this much attention in a long long time.


    :
    yeah.even two and a half men had higher finale ratings than lost...and believe me this was the worst two and a half men season EVER.it was horrible!still beat lost.you wanna know why?most people figured out that the hype around lost was a only a publicity stunt,it wouldn't give the finale it promissed.


    So what if two and a half men had higher numbers. Once again that is a show whose season finale was just another episode. There weren't any big mysteries being revealed. There wasn't some big story arc coming to a conclusion. Yes that show has big numbers but the finale had very little if any hype. It wasn't like people were sitting around that entire week saying "OOOH, I just cant wait for the two and a half men finally. Its gonna be so amazing", lol. In fact I didn't hear a single thing about Two and a Half Men's finale in the preceding weeks. Your using the numbers as a direct gauge to hype and that just proves you have absolutely no clue what your talking about in regards to this subject. Finale audience size is not equal to hype level and suggesting otherwise is nothing short of comical. If this was the case then why didn't Time Magazine put Two and a Half men on the cover instead of Lost?? Why weren't talk show hosts haveng Two and a Half Men parties? Ill tell you why because there was no hype for the Two and a Half Men finale. Of course then you have the fact that Lost was having its series Finale, not just the season finale. A HUGE difference!!


    :
    yeah,every bigger show does that when there's a premier or a finale so it's not a big deal,it's just the usual publicity.it made the cover of time magazine.SO WHAT?!


    So what? its one of the biggest magazines in the country and they dont put TV finale's on there very often. When then do, its a big deal and ultimately its one of many ways in which to gauge the overall hype. The fact that your writing off the cover of Time as meaningless is just more proof to your ignorance in this matter. Is Time the end all be all, no, but the cover is ABSOLUTELY, without a single doubt, a big deal for a TV show. Again none of those other shows you mention have ever made the cover of time. Plus I think ill take the word of Time Magazine over some misc internet user who has absolutely zero credibility on such matters.


    :
    so did kanye west,glenn beck,ellen degeneres being gay(really that's news?),a penguin and a friggin football even made the cover of time!


    Yes that is BIG news. Ellen DeGeneres is only one of the most popular entertainers in the country and given the fact that Americans are obsessed with movie stars and the entertainment industry...well it becomes very clear that such things are BIG news in the eyes of most Americans. Just because you dont think so doesn't mean squat. Thankfully Time doesn't care what you consider to be newsworthy.


    A football? LOL, man you just look worse and worse with each new sentence. The reason they put a football on the cover was because the main story for that issue was the serious physical damage that the sport of football is causing the players. Whats next? Are you going to argue that the sport of football isn't newsworthy?? Only 90 million Americans watch the Super Bowl. No big deal. Only 3 million kids play football at the youth level. No big deal. Only 1.2 million high school kids play football, Again no big deal. Yep, the serious medical issues of football are not worthy of Time Magazine or at the very least the cover. I wont even address the other laughable things you said about time. There is no reason to as your creditability is gone after those remarks.


    :
    time has covered entertainment news before.


    Really?? What gave you that idea? Could it be the fact that they have sections in every magazine for movies, music and books? You must be some sort of detective digging up that info.


    :
    if you want to talk lost achievements talk about the season 6 premier and the state of the union speech being moved to a different date.the finale had nothing special as far as finales go,especially if charlie sheen beets you in the ratings
    Sorry but I dont want to talk about Lost's other achievements. I am sure if you ask around you can find someone to discuss such things with. I am uninterested. As for the finale, whether or not the finale had anything special in it is completely subjective. Whether or not Lost's hype was through the roof is not. It absolutely was.

    Edited on 06/11/2010 8:12pm
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of buildam2005

    buildam2005

    [56]Jun 11, 2010
    • member since: 05/30/08
    • level: 14
    • rank: Autobot
    • posts: 710
    XXXBox wrote:

    ajokurvanyad wrote:
    and the others had no shot of killing them after right?....a friggin stealth team of sociopaths who knew the island like the back of their hands couldn't kill a conman and a fugitive girly?gi'me a break


    LOL, yeah that's it. Make it seem like Jack, Kate and sawyer were completely and utterly helpless. I understand why you do it as its required to buy into your warped and twisted view of this show. All of the main characters wound up being extremely resilient which is probably one of the reasons they were chose by Jacob to begin with. Sorry but I didn't see anything unrealistic in regards to the ongoing conflict with the others and the main characters of the show. Your entitled to your opinion, just dont expect anyone to agree with you.




    I actually side with you about the hype issue, but I'm not sure you're understanding what we're saying here. I don't know if you've read the article that we're discussing (not trying to make it sound like I'm attacking you or anything, I just can't tell). We don't think the interaction with the Others was unrealistic (at least I don't). What IS unrealistic is for one of the show's writers to come out and claim that the Others WERE trying to kill them. I think (and of course I can't know this, as I didn't write the response I'm referring to here) the poster is pointing out how ridiculous it is for one of the show's writers to claim that this is what the Others were trying to do, as they had plenty of chances to do so, even after Jack had fixed Ben. If that was really their goal/task/order, they could have easily done so, so for a writer on the show to say this is what they were going for seems a bit ridiculous. That, or they just did a piss-poor job of showing that motivation on screen.

    Does that make sense? Again, I'm not trying to come across as attacking, but I think the two sides of the fence are somehow not communicating clearly about this point of discussion.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of ajokurvanyad

    ajokurvanyad

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

    XXXBox wrote:
    LOL, yeah that's it. Make it seem like Jack, Kate and sawyer were completely and utterly helpless. I understand why you do it as its required to buy into your warped and twisted view of this show. All of the main characters wound up being extremely resilient which is probably one of the reasons they were chose by Jacob to begin with.


    so you actually think it was a fair fight?lol extremely resilient??!!!what?against machine guns??!!!or flaming arrows?or explosives?


    i don't need you to buy into anything warped or twisted in any manner.you just have to look at things as they are not as how you'd like the outcome to be... but to spell it out for you the interview with one of the writers claimed that the others wanted to kill jack,sawyer and kate.fact is they could have killed every last one of the survivors because they had better resources,had training,knew the terrain.not to mention the fact that the only one of the survivors who had combat experience was sayid.one man.sure sawyer could fire a gun,but at best that's still just two...


    XXXBox wrote:
    Just what are these other factors? Well the one that played the most important role with Lost is the fact that it was expected that the finale was going to answer many of the questions that people had been asking for 6 years. This one thing alone is largely responsible for Lost's hype being as crazy as it was. Having lingering unanswered questions is guaranteed to bring up the hype meter significantly, especially when you have a situation like Lost where the entire meaning of the show was going to be revealed. Again this one reason alone was largely responsible for most of Lost's hype.


    noone is arguing that lost had a huge amount of publicity.that's because it is a big show,again that's what big shows do.if you can't remember last time you saw anything like it just think back to the finale of bsg."hype meter"?how la of you,let's just call it what it wasUBLICITY STUNT.they did NOT deliver the answers,you know,what all the "hype" was about.all the "hype",i'm still going to call it publicity, didn't do a good job eighter.the point of it is to bring a big audiance,and we're back to the numbers(not those numbers lol)


    XXXBox wrote:
    In all honesty using the finale numbers like you are doesn't make any sense as you have no idea what those numbers are until after the finale has aired and hype is the building excitement of that episode airing and it occurs in the weeks preceding the airing of the finale. If you have a show that has a MASSIVE amount of hype in the weeks prior to the airing and then for some strange reason most people dont watch it, that doesn't suddenly negate all of the hype that had taken place.


    the first part i don't understand what you're trying to say cuz it just doesn't make sense.sorry.but the second part i do:sure if you have big publicity and anticipation from a fanbase and then less pepople choose to watch your show then the one with fart jokes, doesn't mean the advertising never happened.of course it happened.your advertising just didn't do the trick


    XXXBox wrote:
    It wasn't like people were sitting around that entire week saying "OOOH, I just cant wait for the two and a half men finally. Its gonna be so amazing", lol.


    yet more people were watching that show then lost....so was that by accident?15million people just happened to accidentally turn on the tv when two and a halfmen were on?


    XXXBox wrote:
    In fact I didn't hear a single thing about Two and a Half Men's finale in the preceding weeks. Your using the numbers as a direct gauge to hype and that just proves you have absolutely no clue what your talking about in regards to this subject. Finale audience size is not equal to hype level and suggesting otherwise is nothing short of comical. If this was the case then why didn't Time Magazine put Two and a Half men on the cover instead of Lost?? Why weren't talk show hosts haveng Two and a Half Men parties? Ill tell you why because there was no hype for the Two and a Half Men finale. Of course then you have the fact that Lost was having its series Finale, not just the season finale. A HUGE difference!!


    season finale and series finale are different things.i agree.i just think a big hyped(or whatever) series finale should produce more viewers then a season finale with less advertising(what you implied was none,wich isn't true).don't you agree?oh and one more question:was by any chance kimmel the talk show host who had that lost party you keep mentioning?


    XXXBox wrote:
    So what? its one of the biggest magazines in the country and they dont put TV finale's on there very often. When then do, its a big deal and ultimately its one of many ways in which to gauge the overall hype. The fact that your writing off the cover of Time as meaningless is just more proof to your ignorance in this matter. Is Time the end all be all, no, but the cover is ABSOLUTELY, without a single doubt, a big deal for a TV show. Again none of those other shows you mention have ever made the cover of time. Plus I think ill take the word of Time Magazine over some misc internet user who has absolutely zero credibility on such matters.


    i think you're not getting what the porpouse is of lost on the cover of time.it was advertising.it wasn't because lost is the biggest,baddest show of all time.ratings were nowhere near where they should have been all season long and they tryed building up "hype" around the show.i


    XXXBox wrote:
    Yes that is BIG news. Ellen DeGeneres is only one of the most popular entertainers in the country and given the fact that Americans are obsessed with movie stars and the entertainment industry...well it becomes very clear that such things are BIG news in the eyes of most Americans. Just because you dont think so doesn't mean squat. Thankfully Time doesn't care what you consider to be newsworthy.


    actually those aren't news.they're entertainment news that are actually NOT any way important or really relevant pices of information to anyobdy.IT'S ONLY ENTERTAINMENT


    XXXBox wrote:
    A football? LOL, man you just look worse and worse with each new sentence. The reason they put a football on the cover was because the main story for that issue was the serious physical damage that the sport of football is causing the players.


    how dumb are you people?lol


    Edited on 06/12/2010 4:53am
    Edited 3 total times.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of XXXBox

    XXXBox

    [58]Jun 12, 2010
    • member since: 09/18/02
    • level: 2
    • rank: Sweat Hog
    • posts: 16
    ajokurvanyad wrote:
    how dumb are you people?lol


    This is your response to Time Magazines football issue, lol. And your calling other people dumb. Wow if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black I dont know what is. There is really no point addressing your other points. Its clear now that your either 12 years old or 30 and still living in moms basement. "How dumb are you people" You must be kidding me, lol.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of XXXBox

    XXXBox

    [59]Jun 12, 2010
    • member since: 09/18/02
    • level: 2
    • rank: Sweat Hog
    • posts: 16

    buildam2005 wrote:
    I actually side with you about the hype issue, but I'm not sure you're understanding what we're saying here. I don't know if you've read the article that we're discussing (not trying to make it sound like I'm attacking you or anything, I just can't tell).


    Yeah I read it and your posts are fine. I didn't get any sort of impression that you were attacking me.


    :
    We don't think the interaction with the Others was unrealistic (at least I don't).


    You may not but the other people that I have been debating with clearly do.


    :
    What IS unrealistic is for one of the show's writers to come out and claim that the Others WERE trying to kill them.


    See I disagree. The others were not keen on sharing the Island with anyone and I have no problem believing that ultimately their plan would have been to kill everyone including Jack, Kate Sawyer Etc.. Obviously we weren't given much info in regards to this as we didn't even see things from the Others side until the 3rd season and by that time everything had changed as Ben now knew he had a tumor and would have called off any plans he had to kill them. Sorry but I just dont think its realistic to assume that the others would have just bum rushed the camp and killed everyone as soon as possible. First they had to figure out who was who and that is one of the reasons they had Ethan infiltrate the camp. There are also other things that happened that would have put a stop to such plans as well for instance when they captured Ben. Maybe if you go back and watch the show again,now that you know what you know, things might seem a little different.


    Who knows maybe I am just gullible when it comes to this show cause I really dont have a problem with the idea that the Others wanted those people dead. In fact I assumed this during those beginning seasons, that they were not good people and would have killed the crash survivors. Remember the finale whenthey went to get the dynamite so they could blow the hatch and hide everyone down in it. They were doing this because they thought the Others were coming and would kill them. So again I was already in this mindset in those beginning seasons. They blew up the boat that Sawyer, Jin and Michael were on when they took Walt. They were very lucky to survive and Sawyer got shot. This in itself could be viewed as an attempt to kill those 3. Obviously it wasn't successful. I just dont see why you would see this as being unrealistic. I sure dont.


    I guess well just agree to disagree.


    As for the hype, There is only one person in here that doesn't believe the hype issue and its completely irrelevant what he thinks.


    Edited on 06/12/2010 10:09am
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of buildam2005

    buildam2005

    [60]Jun 12, 2010
    • member since: 05/30/08
    • level: 14
    • rank: Autobot
    • posts: 710

    If I have anything to point to as reason I can't buy that the Others were ordered to kill Jack, Sawyer, etcetera, it's "Through the Looking Glass" when the Others have Sayid, Jin, and Bernard trapped on the beach and choose NOT to shoot them. If that was their goal, why not just do it? The writer seems to be claiming that the Others were actually working at the behest of the MIB who was galavanting as Jacob, right? So he would order Sayid and Jin killed, as they were potential candidates. So why not just shoot them then? I never understood what advantage the Others had in pretending to kill them and not actually doing so. I suppose I can buy an argument that the Others wanted to keep them alive either as a bargaining chip or perhaps as further "proof" that they're the "good guys," but according to the writer's claim that the Others wanted to kill the candidates, to me there just seems to be too much inconsistency over proof-positive for that to be the case.


    But yes, agreeing to disagree is probably as good as we'll get, eh? At least we can be diplomatic in our discussion.

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