Forum posts to 'FORUMS'

Time Travel Loop

TheTVCritic — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 14:57:01 +0100

The below was sent to me by Paule Gentil. He has gone through and examined detail by detail how MIB's plot to fool Ben and Locke worked out. It's pretty interesting stuff:

---

I have read that many have wondered why Season 5 and time travel was used in the show. Both Season 5 and time travel were very important to the core of Man in Black’s loophole. Season 5 apart from giving us many answers about the DI and some of the history of the Island –was pivotal to the loophole Man in Black (MIB) swore to Jacob he would find at the end of that season’s episode “The Incident”. Basically, season 5 explained MIB’s loophole.

I enjoyed the exercise of going through the seasons and tracing back the loophole. This loophole is one of the most intricate and satisfying elements in Lost lure, but is rarely mentioned – perhaps because as fans of this show we became so conditioned to asking questions that we do not stop and see the answers. I thought you might enjoy it, especially if you are doing a re-watch.

Jorge Garcia mentioned on the podcast with Jay and Jack, when Locke claims to “have seen the heart of the island and it was beautiful” - that was the beginning of the 'seduction' of Locke by the Man in Black. This prompted MIB to use Locke as part of his loophole. Which loophole required that the Island be skipping through time. I do believe that somehow MIB managed to cause the donkey wheel to skip. I also believe that MIB caused the chaos at 'Jacob's cabin' and had been using Jacob's cabin to mislead Ben.

All dialogue was taken from the transcripts posted on Lostpedia.

===========================================================

Man in Black's Loophole debunked:

With Ben’s comment about being summoned by the monster instead of summoning the monster in the episode, 'What they died for', I believe Ben realized that he was part of MIB’s planned loophole all along. In fact, I would say since the beginning of the show, and particularly since Ben”s introduction in season 2.

In fact MIB’s loophole, did have 3 major components to it.

1) Get Locke to trumpet his coming to the 1950’s Others, by speaking with Richard and Ethan (follow Locke and the compass during time flashes). This would cause a myth to be born among the Others, and Ben would inevitably hear that a leader would come to the Island to take his place. Setting up both Richard and Ben.

2) After meeting Locke in 1954 Richard sets out to observe and look out for Locke as a child (the test : which item already becomes to you – it was the compass). When Locke finally “crashes” on the Island in 2004… and eventually goes to the Others camp and decides to stay in episodes “The Brig” and “The Man behind the Curtain”, causes Richard to accept that perhaps his 1954 meeting with Locke foretelling his arrival was indeed what Jacob wanted. That is why he helps Locke by giving him Sawyer’s file and helps Locke kill his father, which was a test Ben had set up to bring Locke down from the pedestal his was on… placed there by the myth that began when Locke visited Richard in 1954.

Certainly, the writers were setting up MIB's loophole since Season 3, particularly evidenced in the episode The Brig.

In season 3 :

Remember how the Others were staring at Locke when he went with Ben to the camp in the Valley after leaving the Barracks (in The Brig) :

[Cindy notices Locke looking at more people staring]

CINDY: Don't mind them. They're all just excited you're here.
LOCKE: Excited?
CINDY: We've been waiting for you.

The reason Cindy says to Locke that the Others have been waiting for you is because Richard was visited by Locke in 1954 and also Locke tells Ethan that he is their leader.

3) Ben has been manipulated by MIB since he was a child. Seeing his dead mother, getting Sayid to shot young Ben and getting Richard to take him to the temple waters, are all part of his manipulations. He was grooming Ben into believing that he was “special” and then setting him up for his downfall when he leads Locke to the cabin and Locke “hears” Jacob. Of course, right after this encounter with "Jacob", who I believe to be MIB, Ben shots Locke and pushes him in the Dharma pit.

I believe that Ben was lead to the Cabin by MIB. MIB was leaving for Ben the lists and made Ben believe he was working for Jacob… but in fact was doing MIB’s bidding. Having Widmore banished, getting the Others to move to the Barracks, trying to solve the fertility problem … all things that eventually caused Richard to doubt that Ben was keeping the best interest of the Island in mind. This undermining of Ben’s leadership played nicely into MIB’s plan to make Ben primed to kill Jacob.

Ben really only wanted to do what was good for the Island, but was played by a better con man. One that had many many more years to plan his actions, and understood that Ben needed to feel special and that he would be threatened by someone who was deemed “more” special than he was (Locke).

==============================================

Below, I describe how MIB planed all the machinations to get Locke to move the Island, causing the time travel, in order to have Locke get shot by Ethan and helped by Richard who gives him the compass and tells Locke to find him (Richard) to give him back the compass, Locke tells Richard that he, Locke, is their future leader, causing Richard to visit Locke as a child…. Yada, yada, yada…. read at your own risk - nosebleeds may result :

In Season 4:

In the episode “Cabin Fever”, Christian (as MIB) tells Locke that they will need to move the Island. Ben, who thinks that Locke is now in the good graces of Jacob and is the new leader to the Others, realizes that he (not Locke) must turn the wheel. Because he knows that to turn the wheel, means you leave the island. Ben understands that Locke must stay to lead his people - ergo: Ben will turn the wheel.

In the season 4 finale Ben and Locke discuss the turning of the wheel in the Orchid:

BEN: He told you what to do, but he didn't tell you how because he wants me to suffer the consequences.

LOCKE: What consequences?

BEN: Whoever moves the island can never come back. So I'd like you to get on the elevator, John, and go back up. Richard and my people will be waiting 2 miles east of the Orchid.

Then when Ben starts to turn the wheel he says out loud :

BEN: I hope you're happy now, Jacob.

===================================================

In season 5 :

We know that when Locke was shot by Ethan (in Because You Left) he tells Ethan then that his name is John Locke and that Ben had appointed him leader;

LOCKE: My name is John Locke. I know this is gonna be hard to understand, but Ben Linus appointed me as your leader.

ETHAN: That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

*** A side note here : This exchange with Ethan and Locke occurred before 2004, before the plane crash and before our Losties arrival on the Island – no doubt Ethan goes back and tells Ben that someone named John Locke says that he is our leader and you told him that. This bit of information, should make us rethink the events in season 2 in a whole new light – the events of the hatch when Ben was caught in Rousseau’s net and brought to the hatch. He wanted to see this Locke person and “played” John Locke against Jack and lied about the button to Locke when he was pinned under the hatch door. BEN knew all along who this Locke character was and he was afraid of him, and jealous of him and he tested him…. he thought that Locke was special, as mentioned by Ben in front of the church in The End.

Then just after the above encounter with Ethan, Locke flashed to 2007 (although we did not know that at that time) and Richard showed up to tell him that he must bring back the Oceanic 6, gave him the compass and told him he would have to die in order to bring them back…. Richard was acting on John Locke’s (as MIB) orders.

[Richard Alpert emerges from the darkness carrying a torch.]
LOCKE : Richard?
RICHARD: Hey, John.
LOCKE: Richard... what is happening?
RICHARD: What's happening is that you're bleeding to death. Here.
RICHARD: I need to get the bullet out.
LOCKE: How did you know there was a bullet in my leg, Richard?
RICHARD: Because you told me there was, John.
LOCKE: No, no. No, I didn't.
RICHARD: Well... you will.
LOCKE: It was Ethan who shot me.
RICHARD: Well... [donning eyeglasses] what comes around, goes around.
LOCKE: Aah! When am I?
RICHARD: Well, John, that--that's all relative.
……….
LOCKE: I don't understand. How--how did you know that I was here? How did you know where to find me?
RICHARD: I wish I had time to explain it, John. But you're gonna be moving on soon, and we need to go over a couple of things before you do.
…….
RICHARD: Second thing--no, no, pay attention. Next time we see each other, I'm not gonna recognize you. All right? You give me this. All right?
LOCKE: What is this?
RICHARD: It's a compass.
LOCKE: What does it do?
RICHARD: It points north, John. Look, I wish I had time to be more sensitive about this because it's a lot to swallow, but you need to know it in order to do what you gotta do. So I'm just gonna say it, okay? [Sighs] The only way to save the Island, John, is to get your people back here--the ones who left.
LOCKE: Jack, Kate... The chopper was headed for the boat. The boat--
RICHARD: No, they're fine, John, and they're already home, so you have to convince them to come back.
LOCKE: How--how am I supposed to do that?
RICHARD: You're gonna have to die, John.

In the episode Follow the Leader, John arrives to the Others camp in 2007 and sees Richard for the first time since coming back to the Island (as MIB) – he is about to set Richard up with the fateful meeting scene above … giving Locke the compass and telling him he will need to die.

LOCKE (as MIB): I brought dinner.
[Locke sets the boar down in the sand.]
RICHARD: John?
LOCKE: Hello, Richard. It's been a while.
RICHARD: It's--it's been, uh, three years. What happened? What--where--where were you?
LOCKE: I'll explain on the way.
RICHARD: On the way where?
LOCKE: It's gonna be night soon. You and I have an errand to run, and we don't have a lot of time.
LOCKE: What's wrong?
RICHARD: Something different about you.
LOCKE: I have a purpose now.

***Later in the episode :
RICHARD: I'm ready, John.
LOCKE: You still have that compass I gave you?
RICHARD: A little rusty, but she can still find north.
LOCKE: [Shouting] Ben, I'd appreciate it if you'd join us.
BEN: [Shouting] What, John, don't you trust me here with my former people? Afraid I'll stage a coup?
LOCKE: I'm not afraid of anything you can do anymore, Ben.
[Ben nods.]
BEN: Well, in that case, I'd love to come.

***They arrive at the spot overlooking where Locke was shot by Ethan, in this scene MIB is setting up the scene I describe above where Locke is given the compass and gets the bullet removed by Richard – this closes the loop as regards the compass. :

LOCKE: A man's about to walk out of the jungle. He's been shot in the leg.
[Locke pushes a backpack into Richard's chest. Richard grunts.]
LOCKE: You'll need this to get the bullet out.
RICHARD: Uh, I'm sorry, John. I'm not--
LOCKE: Now just listen. This is the important part. You're gonna need to tell him that he has to bring everyone who left back to the Island. And when he asks how to do that... You tell him he's gonna have to die.
BEN: Who is that man, John?
LOCKE: Me.

***A scene between Locke as MIB and Ben – while Richard is doing his thing with Locke, waiting for Richard to get back :

BEN: This must be quite the out-of-body experience.
LOCKE: Something like that.
BEN: Your timing was impeccable, John. How did you know when to be here?
LOCKE: The Island told me. Didn't it ever tell you things?
BEN: No, John. And clearly it hasn't told you where Jacob is, or you wouldn't need Richard to show you.
LOCKE: You've never seen him.
BEN: What?
LOCKE: Jacob. You've never seen him, have you?
[Whooshing thud]

***Here the flash occurred and shot Locke vanishes (flashing back to 1954) and Richard goes back to MIB and Ben.

BEN: What just happened? Where did you go?
LOCKE: To give Richard his compass back.
RICHARD: You want the bullet?
LOCKE: Keep it. Everything go all right?
RICHARD: Well, you--you seemed pretty convinced, especially when I said you were gonna die. I'm certainly glad that didn't have to happen.
LOCKE: Actually, Richard, it did. We better get back to camp.

So the compass loop goes like this :

In 2007 MIB finds Richard, asks if Richard still has the compass he gave him in 1954. Richards says yes, MIB asks Richard to follow him, tells Ben to come along. MIB leads them to the place where Locke was left during the first flash and subsequently shot by Ethan.

MIB tells Richard to give the compass to Locke (and Richard also has to tell Locke that he needs to give Richard the compass back to him the next time they meet ... which will be in 1954), remove the bullet and tell him that to bring back the Oceanic 6 Locke will have to die.

Locke then flashes to 1954, finds Richard (in Jughead) gives him the compass, tells him he is from the future and their future leader, tells Richard that he will be born in 1956 and that he should visit him then. Of course, we see Richard at John’s birth, and then again he visits Locke at the foster home – here he gives him several items and asks him to choose which items already belonged to him – of course he should have chosen the compass.

And so Richard keeps the compass, until in 2007 MIB now comes and asks if Richard still have the compass he gave him in 1954.

This is the compass loop, which is part of the loophole MIB devised to have Jacob killed so he may be free to leave the Island, which serves to fool Richard into accepting Locke as leader, which in turn leads Richard in eventually undermine Ben as leader and helps MIB set Ben up to kill Jacob.

And there you have it – bonus points if you actually made it to the end of this post. Thank you for your time in reading this very long post – your comments are welcome.

Posted to: Time Travel Loop Show Thread | Post Reply

Party Down Cancelled

Brando Calrissian — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 16:02:28 +0100

Damn.

Another (good one) bites the dust.

Posted to: Party Down Cancelled Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: Buffy Podcast

TheTVCritic — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 09:12:03 +0100

You are quick!

Posted to: Buffy Podcast Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: Buffy Podcast

Cordia — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 04:22:46 +0100

Hey!!

But yeah. You can blame the Dollhouse podcast on me. I completely and utterly lost interest in that show. I don't have a professional reviewing career to tarnish.

But still... HEY!

Posted to: Buffy Podcast Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: Post-Lost podcasts

TheTVCritic — Tue, 18 May 2010 10:51:18 +0100

If I follow my review structure fully then the final podcast would be "The Bottom Line" and could give people a chance to talk about stuff like that.

You can always help me "lead" the discussion each week to get people to talk about certain things...

Posted to: Post-Lost podcasts Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: Post-Lost podcasts

Mike — Tue, 18 May 2010 05:10:44 +0100

Hi Robin,

I'm not sure this is quite your focus, but I'd love to have a place to discuss and hear people's take on what made this show such a phenomenon - how its themes and tropes dovetailed with the moment it came into public consciousness. This obviously would necessitate a discussion of what its main themes and overall meaning really are, both as meant by the creators, and as it was received by the viewing public, which is another thing I'd love to hear and share about.

(As an update, my thoughts on Kate's character and her thematic importance have had to be suspended a bit as I realized I didn't really have my thoughts on Lost's themes properly in order in the first place. As that - Lost's major thematic concerns and their cultural resonance in its moment - really is my greatest interest in processing the show as it comes to an end, I didn't want to lead myself down any blind alleys in that department in order to explore Kate's character. I don't think so, but it's possible my claims about her significance were premature. I definitely will come back to the question, as well as perhaps expanding it to other characters, after I feel I've sorted the thematic questions, maybe with help from exchanges here, better first.)

Looking forward to all of it!

Posted to: Post-Lost podcasts Show Thread | Post Reply

Post-Lost podcasts

TheTVCritic — Mon, 17 May 2010 22:19:40 +0100

Hey guys,

It's time to talk about the post-Lost podcasts I will do.

I would like to get your input although I don't plan on doing too many podcasts. I am here to be the TV Critic and not a Lost podcast.

I would like to do some podcasts focussed on Lost as a TV show and then be done with it. I don't plan on discussing mysteries and theories forever. Or rather I'm happy to do that but as part of my free time, not my TV Critic time.

Having said that, I don't particularly want to put out podcasts of just me talking. So if you guys want to throw ideas at me that would get you involved let me know.

Right now the simplest thing to do seems to me to do 4 or possibly 5 podcasts to wrap Lost up. I actually go away on holiday in about 6 weeks so that would work out nicely. The podcasts would be "The Good", "The Bad", "The Unknown" and "Best Moments." If you guys were interested that would allow me to write some actual TV Critic things about the show and give you the chance to talk about the things you loved, the things you hated and so on. If you want one more podcast as a final wrap up or something different that would be cool.

I imagine every podcast out there will be flooding the "market" with "Best of Lost" shows so I figure this will give me a chance to sum up the show in the spirit of my reviews and give you the chance to say whatever you want to for posterity.

Let me know...
Robin

Posted to: Post-Lost podcasts Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: Main Character Discussion Thread

KC — Sat, 15 May 2010 17:32:45 +0100

That's indeed what I think they did--they "glossed over" the trial. I think it's important they showed a trial--in a way Kate's story has been leading up to this event the whole series, since she's always escaped facing her crimes. Also, a trial is an important symbol for her character specifically and for all of Lost: guilty or innocent? Therefore, it was entirely fitting and dramatically and emotionally satisfying that Jack testify and contribute towards her being acquitted. Jack has always represented a moral standard in the show and specifically in Kate's mind. For him to in effect excuse her for what she did before he knew her because he knows her character now was a big thing. It is the fulfillment of what he said to her in Season 1: "We have a chance to start over." It was also entirely fitting that Kate be physically uncomfortable with Jack's defence of her, perhaps because she wasn't ready to address her guilt and then forgive herself. (She is still angry at her mother and not apologetic.) Also, perhaps because she was uncomfortable that Jack was lying, and was so good at it, which is something he has always been against. I agree Robin that the lie turned out to be less dramatic than it was built up to be, and so Season 4 lost some of its power. I think what was the real issue was the persistence of the lie--the characters' avoidance of the truth that they knew they should go back to the Island and how it led to their downfalls.

Anyhow, all this to say that I think the trial was important to see, but they should have made it more convincing. To not present it better, as Robin says, robbed the story of some of its power. We've all seen enough legal shows that may not be accurate but seem convincing, so they needed to (once again) work harder at the details. I can see that it might be possible that Kate get off the murder charge if the main witness doesn't testify, but what about addressing the other charges? Could it have been a matter of "time served" or a pardon because of the plane crash? Why not mention why she hadn't been in jail up to that point? Was she initially allowed bail because of her celebrity status and she wouldn't be able to get away anyway since people would recognize her? Why say she's now a flight risk? Because now she has to actually face jail time and so would see the urgency of escape? Having these questions is an unnecessary distraction and makes it harder to lose oneself in the story, for it seems less believable.

Posted to: Main Character Discussion Thread Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: Interview with Darlton

Tim — Thu, 13 May 2010 14:05:33 +0100

The producers have always been very much connected to the fanbase, they've been out there in the spotlight as opposed to a "man behind the curtain" role. They make a point of saying "This is the story we want to tell", but I think it's become more and more difficult for them to lock themselves in a room with Lost and not think about the fans and the show's legacy.

I think they come off as vulnerable because they ARE very vulnerable. Right now, they're telling us, "Here's what Lost is", we're opening the magic box, and the producers' situation is very different from before.

There are a lot of problems with season 6, but most of them seem to be about the presentation of things, the way the final act is told, I don't see anything wrong with the story itself. I think everything from "Everybody loves Hugo" onwards would have worked a lot better, had the first half of the season done a better job of setting up character motivations.

Even with the Sayid and Claire stuff, I'd still say that there is a good story in there somewhere, but the writer's weren't confident enough to really commit to it. To me it feels like with the flash sideways and all, season 6 was planned during a very confident week and things changed once they were actually writing it.

That being said... I liked the interview and I loved "Across the Sea".

Posted to: Interview with Darlton Show Thread | Post Reply

Interview with Darlton

Brando Calrissian — Thu, 13 May 2010 03:20:04 +0100

Interesting interview the day after "Across the Sea" aired with Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse.

Don't worry, no spoilers inside. At least not spoilers of things that *will* happen, however there are some mentions of things that *won't* happen...or perhaps more precisely, a few minor mysteries that won't be answered.

So I guess that means still enter with caution, but honestly I didn't find the interview harmful in the spoilery sense.

Anyway, let me know what you all think if you read it. Honestly I find it increasingly disconcerting that the creators of Lost are so defensive about how things will end. It's one thing to anticipate the fact that many people will be disappointed with the way things actually end...it's a completely different thing to constantly need to put up the calculated wall of defense as they have. Honestly from their own podcast, this interview, and other such interviews I have become less convinced that they even like their ending.

If they truly loved it and were confident about it, you would think they would be excited and would be talking it up. I feel like a finale (and final season) should be a show's greatest moment. The exciting and sensational moment in which the creators are able to share the joy of what they've created and share the conclusion of their story that they have been keeping from us for so long.

Easier said than done I guess. I just feel like for a pair of creators who have always come off as confident and surefooted in their creation, they have come off as particularly vulnerable in this final season. I don't blame them...I know they have a mass amount of pressure on them...I've just grown accustomed to them confidently letting the show speak for itself rather than having to constantly reiterate, "the show will speak for itself, and we know a lot of people will hate it."

http://www.hitfix.com/blogs/whats-alan-watching/posts/exclusive-interview-lost-producers-damon-lindelof-and-carlton-cuse-talk-across-the-sea

Posted to: Interview with Darlton Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: Happy Town

Brando Calrissian — Thu, 13 May 2010 03:07:15 +0100

Already cancelled! Ha! Only two episodes in and it's cancelled. Such an occurrence begs the question, what was the point of ever green lighting a show only to cancel it two episodes in?

Posted to: Happy Town Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: Main Character Discussion Thread

TheTVCritic — Tue, 11 May 2010 22:35:22 +0100

The trial was indeed a mess. I remember at the time hearing several podcasts arguing that Kate's crimes had crossed state lines and so her trial would be more complex than it was presented. And that the setting of her trial should have been a grander looking courthouse rather than the low ceiling office-like room it was in.

I can't comment on the American legal system but felt those points sounded convincing. The fact that the case against her hinged on her mother's testimony seemed flimsy after the bank robbery, resisting arrest for so long and all the identity fraud.

I do remember loving the scene where Jack testified and lies effortlessly about their time on the island. Kate looked physically sick listening to it and I thought it really built the mystery of what had really happened.

In a way though that underlines several things I didn't like about the post-flashforward world of Lost. The trial was less important to the writers than the mystery of what had really happened. Which would be forgiveable if their lies had been hiding something deeply tragic and shocking. But in the end the lies they were telling didn't seem to match the gravity of the build-up.

But anyway, perhaps they could have glossed over the trial, implying it was a huge ordeal for Kate but thanks to her mom and Jack etc she had managed to get a lenient sentence to stay in LA and look after Aaron.

Posted to: Main Character Discussion Thread Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: Main Character Discussion Thread

Mike — Mon, 10 May 2010 21:19:17 +0100

The discussion is just great. Each post I have lots of thoughts, but they all speak for themselves so well I don't have that much to add. But I'll get to it eventually. For right now, I just want to agree with KC: the trial was nearly a farce - totally unbelievable. Probably would have been better to just let it go unaddressed. The suggestion seemed to be that the celebrity status and sympathetic protrait got at least a hung jury (did we hear what the final result was?). But the case seemed an absolute slam-dunk. I don't know: maybe that's more a realistic outcome than my initial reaction suggests. There was at least an ostensible explanation. I'd be interested to hear Robin's thoughts.

Posted to: Main Character Discussion Thread Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: Main Character Discussion Thread

KC — Mon, 10 May 2010 18:07:46 +0100

I totally agree about Jack and Kate. Even though they are now estranged, it often doesn't seem like they ever became that close, particularly from Kate's looks. Contrast this with the S3 finale where Jack and Kate met at the airport. Even though we didn't know what had happened in their relationship at that point in time (in the future), it had a different vibe, like they had been intimate, and indeed we later learned that they had become engaged but broke it off as Jack became an addict. So why have them interact now as if they did not have all this history between them, however far apart they've become?

We don't know how much Jack's told Kate about his daddy issues and we don't know how much they've discussed her feelings about Sawyer, or if they'll ever discuss it. Seems like Jack just feels it's his issue of not trusting her, but I don't think that's really fair. I don't know how much Kate's given him reason to believe Sawyer wouldn't be a factor if he were actually an option and not stuck on the island.

What does everyone think about Kate's trial? It felt farfetched to me and made her ff transformation as a character seem less believable/satisfying for me.

Posted to: Main Character Discussion Thread Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: Main Character Discussion Thread

TheTVCritic — Sun, 09 May 2010 21:59:55 +0100

Interesting stuff. I've never really disliked Kate's character. I've always just wished for greater clarity. But I guess if she is acting impulsively or following changing emotions then it's not always going to look very consistent.

I was fine with the Kate-Aaron story. I liked that she had a reason to stay put. I wish that there had been time in the last two seasons to acknowledge how much closer Jack and Kate should be at this point than they used to be. They lived together so they ought to know loads about one another that no one else does. I felt at times they played their longing looks as if we were back in Seasons 1-3.

Posted to: Main Character Discussion Thread Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: Main Character Discussion Thread

KC — Fri, 07 May 2010 16:31:42 +0100

I can see that it's farfetched. I guess in defending it I guess it doesn't bother me overall as much as it does you perhaps? It certainly bothered me at the time when I first saw that episode. Since then there's been more illogically written behavior-- or it's bothered me more-- coming from all the characters, including from Kate, making the bank robbery episode seem better written now than it did then! ;) Perhaps it was just too little logic too soon for you to warm to her character! I guess I'm just sensitive regarding Kate's character, because I think people in general are too hard on her but readily "excuse" illogical writing in other characters. Maybe others had the same reaction as you, it's nice to hear you explain it.

Indeed, Kate seems to be a character that doesn't think through fully the consequences of her actions. She seems to be able to make a plan and carry it out in cold blood (her father's murder a perfect example), but I think her motivation comes from her heart. I think she tries to do the right thing. Problem is, she often gets it wrong what that is. I think even she doesn't know her own heart--or doesn't admit the truth of it to herself. She runs from it. That's why she pursued Jack but kept being drawn to Sawyer, then felt hurt when Jack backed away or considered other options, like Juliet.

It's also why, in this particular episode, Jack yelled at her to tell him the truth about the plane. Not because he was trying to make her cry, although yes his issues were also surfacing here, but because he knew Kate was always trying to avoid the truth, so her cornered her. Phew! No wonder people don't understand her! She comes off seeming shallow when really she is quite complex, but as the seasons have progressed she hasn't been made more clear. In later seasons, when they do attempt to clarify her, it's like they're trying too hard. She's given labels with overly simplistic comments by other characters; for example, Cassidy saying, "You kept Aaron b/c Sawyer broke your heart", which only makes it worse IMO.

Posted to: Main Character Discussion Thread Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: Main Character Discussion Thread

TheTVCritic — Thu, 06 May 2010 20:40:58 +0100

Hey guys, I love the discussion, thanks so much for having it here. I am jumping on board quite late. But from what I have just read.

KC - Excellent point about Kate's behaviour not being spelled out. We hardly ever hear her talk about herself and justify how she is feeling the way we do with other characters. I haven't thought about that before. In a way that makes her seem more real because she has spent years not telling anyone the truth. On the other hand I think that maybe why many of us don't understand her very well.

Mike - I couldn't agree more with what you said about how Seasons 5 and 6 have been so focussed on the overall plot that individual characters have been neglected. I had a real problem with the way the Oceanic Six came back to the island for example. I would be fascinated to hear about how you think Kate's character fitted into the overall thematics of the show early on etc.

As for the bank robbery...I like many of the points you guys have raised about it. But I don't buy that it was an emotionally driven act. She had to put weeks of logical thought into planning how to get the right group of guys to rob that particular bank. How many times did she sleep with that guy just to win his trust? And then gunning down all the robbers was no guarantee that more people wouldn't be killed in an ensuing hostage situation with the police.

I guess ultimately you're right. I can't justify it with logic and you can't convince me otherwise. I believe the writers came up with it to display her guilt and sentimentality over Tom's death. But I don't think they thought through how extreme and unlikely a plan she would have to have gone through in order to get the plane.

One of the reasons I pick out logic flaws is to help explain and provide evidence for people's emotional disconnection, disinterest or dislike in certain plot holes. Some people can't explain why they feel a certain way and I suspect for some these little flaws can chip away at your enjoyment of a story.

In this case I think the bank robbery may have been too far fetched for some to relate to.

Posted to: Main Character Discussion Thread Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: Main Character Discussion Thread

KC — Thu, 06 May 2010 01:51:59 +0100

Hehe Mike, something like that happens to me all the time but it helps me trim down my own rambling!

I agree that the storytelling has suffered overall last season and this one. I had high hopes for this season, but it would take a lot to make up for the mistakes of past seasons, even ones that overall I thought were good. I know a lot of people enjoyed last season and I agree some of it was fascinating. However, characterization of the original Losties took a back seat to an even more complicated plot that involved time travel, and they are what I am most invested in.

Brando, I can't stand Kate's constant flipflopping either. Even if that's the point they are trying to make about her character, that she is impulsive or whatever, it just hasn't been explored in depth. Contrast that with Jack's character. Many people grew tired of his stubbornness, as did I to some degree, but I really feel like the writers explored the many facets of his behavior so that I understand why he acts the way he does and can see how he takes a step forward and two back in terms of personal growth. I don't feel they did the same for Kate.

Posted to: Main Character Discussion Thread Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: Main Character Discussion Thread

Mike — Wed, 05 May 2010 16:26:26 +0100

To all: Safari froze up on me last night and I lost my rambling reflections on Kate's thematic significance, which were preceded by a boring discussion of what kind of critical modalities might make a character that in some ways might seem unlikely or less than fully relatable nevertheless compelling within the dramatic context in which it's presented. I think this is actually for the best. I'm going to try to recreate and clarify some of the less worthless parts of what was lost and hopefully have them soonish (hopefully with none of the modality stuff).

Posted to: Main Character Discussion Thread Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: Main Character Discussion Thread

Mike — Wed, 05 May 2010 16:19:21 +0100

Totally with you, Brando. And I'd actually go much further to say that over the last two seasons, ALL (by which I of course mean MOST) of the major original characters have suffered a fall-off in writing strength, development, novelty of individual stories, and above all just general presentation as their individual story arcs have been subsumed into the larger plot machinery of the show's end game, and the show overall has suffered a significant decline in emotional impact compared with the first four seasons as a result. The worst case in my view would be Sayid, and the most prominent exception Hurley. Kate in my view has just fallen victim to that overall trend along with most of the other major characters. None of the major characters' stories - even the best ones like Desmond's - are being done as well in this last overall leg of the journey (s.5-6) as they were in the first two (1-2 and 3-4).

[As far as the triangle goes (not that you brought it up, but I'll just take the opportunity to hold forth), i've thought about that a lot, and I've come to think that it was both far more organic to the characters present in the show from the start than most people give it credit for, and also was more or less wrapped up two seasons ago and hasn't been nearly as obtrusive since then as the reaction of many have suggested. As Robin said in a review recently, the reminders that we get of it (such as Sawyer reminiscing over the dress) aren't really the triangle coming back into play, but just rather echoes of a part of the drama that was, like it or not, pretty central to the emotional core of the show for a while.]

Posted to: Main Character Discussion Thread Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: Main Character Discussion Thread

Brando Calrissian — Wed, 05 May 2010 14:45:42 +0100

I rescind "awful," and it can be replaced with something a little lighter: disappointing, underwhelming, frustrating, or slightly groanworthy

Let's be frank. Thought it may not come through in my podcasts with Robin or my words on this forum, in my mind there are very few things that are "awful" about Lost.

It's a revolutionary show, always has been, and "awful" in the world of Lost does not carry the same weight as "awful" when speaking about other network television.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I'd have absolutely no problem with someone telling me Kate is their favorite character. We all experience the show a little differently, and I like that. Kate started out as an interesting character, and for me (unfortunately) became one of my least favorite "main" characters as the series went on.

Back and forth and always predictably being unpredictable may be the exact charaterization the writers have wanted to portray with Kate...it's just not an MO that worked for me on a "favorite characters" level.

Posted to: Main Character Discussion Thread Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: Main Character Discussion Thread

Mike — Wed, 05 May 2010 14:19:13 +0100

So then it seems reasonable to ask you to reconsider the "awful" assessment, or else seek to justify it by other means, is that fair?

Posted to: Main Character Discussion Thread Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: Main Character Discussion Thread

Brando Calrissian — Wed, 05 May 2010 13:24:01 +0100

I shouldn't say that she hasn't evolved even the littlest bit. Just not as convincingly as some characters. I liked that she came to the realization that Claire should be the one with Aaron.

I actually liked Kate a lot in The Candidate, believe it or not. The dire circumstances finally allowed all of the Losties to just drop all pretenses and act out of instinctual care and affection for each other.

Posted to: Main Character Discussion Thread Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: Main Character Discussion Thread

Mike — Wed, 05 May 2010 05:53:44 +0100

Hi all -

I've had a few distractions, but I'm back on the case. I'm working on some thoughts on Kate, but I just wnted to pop in to respond to the good discussion. I'm really glad KC shared her views - I really wanted to hear her views of the character. I agree with almost everything she said.

In the other post I'm working on I'm currently reasoning through a complicated discussion (which I may jettison) of just what it would be to make a 'case' for the robbery - whether Robin would consider the basic point I would set out to make to be relevant to his objections at all. But I also have been wondering if it is really all that incomprehensible an act to begin with. KC suggests I'm not alone in this. No, it's not strictly rational to take all that risk for such a seemingly small reward. But clearly the value of the object is highly sentimental (even symbolic) and subjective, so who's to say whether it's an incomprehensible or unbelievable act from the perspective of the character? That's is certainly a legitimate personal reaction to it for Robin to have, but from an objective critical standpoint it seems to me such subjective judgements are the kind of thing you have allow for writers to simply say, 'Yes this is what this character was led by her motivations to do.' Kate's character had been clearly presented as strongly emotional, sentimental, and focused on the symbolic meaning of things over their practical impact. She had reasoned that having her husband killed would be something her mother would welcome and see as being saved. It's not clear to me why the robbery then would be beyond the bounds of reasonably suspended disbelief. I guess I feel like the burden of proof is actually on the skeptic in such cases. I'm really not so sure I see how this incident can't be accounted for by the mysteries of the heart, especially in the context of TV drama. Do we not hear crazier motives on true-crime shows all the time?

I tend to view the point of the backstories as less to be perfectly-told stories in their own right (the best ones were of course -- and I'm not claiming this was one of the best-done backstories) but rather to tell us important things about these characters. I think that sequence told us a lot about this character, and in my next post I hope to talk about how what we learned about Kate there (and in her overall story) was actually important to the overall show thematically. That's really more the nature of the 'case' I'd be interested in making for that incident. In terms of a case for believability, which would be a key to a case Robin would find persuasive, I think I have to agree with KC that if we accept what we'd seen of Kate that far (killing her step-father) - and Robin you say you did - then it's not clear to me what is objectively so unacceptable about that action. I'm not sure we're not going to be able to override your reaction to it with rational argument, when clearly the point of it was to demonstrate the emotionalism of the character.

As to Brando's points, I just can't agree that Kate hasn't evolved even a little bit. I mean, whatever you think of the determination to raise Aaron, then facing up to the fact that that was wrong, then heading to the Island to try to set it right -- it is an evolution of some kind compared to the early fecklessness in my view. And we're not finished yet. Moreover, I guess I just don't share the absolute requirement for evolution in a character that many seem to focus so much on. A character that shows resolve or continuity in the face of change can also be a strong and interesting one. I agree that as a "person" the character Kate was portrayed early on to have a lot of room for growth, and that not as much has happened on that score as might have. (That itself is a choice the writers made -- and, again, we're not finished.) But I don't necessarily see that as the be-all-end-all of a failed character. I still think the essential nature of her character played an important role in the thematic development of the show, which I hope to elaborate on soon.

Posted to: Main Character Discussion Thread Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: Main Character Discussion Thread

KC — Wed, 05 May 2010 04:12:34 +0100

I know--it certainly seems like she hasn't changed. The problem is that we really don't know what's going on with her. It's never explained. We only have her actions to go on and the words of others speaking for her, rarely if ever her own words. Her looks are usually ambiguous and her actions can always be interpreted in different ways. That's why there are "shipper wars" where you get vastly different opinions about how she feels about Jack and Sawyer.

I think she has changed, and it has to do with her raising Aaron, but I agree Brando, I never fully bought into that, either. Again, as Robin explains, it's the "presentation". I can see how raising Aaron would change her--it's a good idea: a person who's always on the run has to stay put to take care of a little baby who is defenseless. She's a person who probably felt defenseless as a child with an abusive stepfather and she probably connected with him on this level. Like many lonely people who raise children, it became a somewhat unhealthy attachment, where she clung to the child instead of seeking out Claire's mother to raise him. Because Kate always runs from her feelings, she probably also used the child to bury her sadness about how things didn't work out with Sawyer. Then Jack tells her they have to go back to the island. Jack has always represented "the right thing to do" to her, but since they were then estranged and Jack was a drunk, she didn't listen to him. A part of her did, however, and knew it was the right thing to do. To make a long story short, I think it shows unselfishness in her character that she was willing to give up something she loved so much in order to do the right thing and try to reunite him with his mother. Also, it would be giving up her "freedom" since she would then be breaking parole by going back to the island. Now, I'm very invested in her character, so I've taken the time to work all this out and work out my frustrations with her. Most people don't. All this should have been more evident in the show. Why not show Kate making more of an effort to find Claire when she goes back to the island, and if not, show why (there's a good deleted scene between her and Jack at the Dharma barracks where she expresses to him that she doesn't even see the point in going to breakfast because "Sayid's locked up. It's 1977. And you want to go to breakfast?") Not having her do so makes any change in her seem less believable.

I think that when all is said and done her actions do add up. She acts according to her heart, which was probably the best explanation we've had yet about her character last season in a convo between Jack and Sawyer. However, this also makes her frequently appear stupid. Does she ever think about the consequences beforehand?

Robin, that episode where she robbed the back bothered me at first, until we learned the significance of the plane in a later episode. It makes sense to me that she would rob the bank just for that, since she doesn't really want to do the wrong thing and take the money--she only wanted the plane. Just like when she wanted the man in Sydney to get his reward, even though he turned her in. Of course, she ends up shooting the robbers, but that was because she didn't want them to kill the manager. It looked to me like she shot them not to kill them, but in the leg. However, when there's a character like her that acts in such contradictory ways, it's already confusing enough--why not make some aspects of her more clear so that we have some reference point as to where she's coming from? When they try to make her more clear, it only seems like they are over-simplifying her, as in last season's episode which made it seem like Cassidy was speaking for her in saying that it was simply a matter of being "broken hearted" over Sawyer, when it was much more complicated than that.

Posted to: Main Character Discussion Thread Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: Main Character Discussion Thread

Brando Calrissian — Tue, 04 May 2010 15:57:19 +0100

KC -

You bring up something that I think perfectly describes my thoughts on Kate. In Seasons 1-2 her moral ambiguity, or even duality, was intriguing. The girl next door murderer is exactly right, and she was a compelling character because of this dichotomy. It also became apparent that the different sides of her were drawn to different men. The straight laced girl next door connected so well with Jack and his eager well to do disposition. Her wild child and defiant side, though, had a natural and raw chemistry with Sawyer. The love triangle was important back then, and even was compelling back then.

This ultimately defines what I think is awful about the character now: she's exactly where she started the series! Where's the real growth? Where's the real arc? Jack and Sawyer have at least changed dramatically, yet Kate remains almost exactly the same. Choosing to go back to the island "just for Claire and no one else" always fell flat for me, and even if it was entirely genuine I still don't see it as a character change. Just a character motivation.

She is still stuck in her duality, and still drawn to two different sides...be it the men, the morality...everything. She's exactly the same, which is sad considering they've gone through so much. Everything that has gone on has sparked changes in nearly every single character...

Posted to: Main Character Discussion Thread Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: Main Character Discussion Thread

TheTVCritic — Tue, 04 May 2010 10:57:36 +0100

Hey KC, thanks for posting. What I would like to hear is Mike arguing for Kate robbing a bank in order to retrieve a toy plane. As I said in my review at the time - I can understand her killing her father. But to shoot a bunch of guys and rob a bank just for that plane seems a mindless act. Anyone care to mount a defence?

Posted to: Main Character Discussion Thread Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: Main Character Discussion Thread

KC — Mon, 03 May 2010 18:55:22 +0100

I haven't had much time online this week, so I am late to this discussion. I do have a few thoughts about the importance of certain characters--particularly Kate. I hope I don't steal your thunder, Mike--let me know what you think!

As has been said, Lost is very much an ensemble show and many of the characters are important to some extent. I think Lost is very much like a Dickens novel in this sense (and indeed, the producers have cited him as an influence!). If I had to pick only two, however, I would say: Jack and Locke. One, I would say Jack. However, as Yogabon pointed out, I think the Island is also a character of sorts and could also be considered as important as those two.

Kate is important because:

1. The love triangle, one of the main foci (?) of the show (despite the consternation of many fans)

2. Jack. His love for her has motivated many of his decisions and helped spur on his redemptive journey. She has also continuously supported (and ironically, subverted!) his leadership role.
(Kate has also spurred on Sawyer's redemptive journey, which the show at some point focused on more than her own IMO.)

3. Her character displays some of the show's central themes: daddy issues, mommy issues, second chances, freedom of choice.

Jack, Locke, and Kate are my personal favorites, however, I liked her much more in Seasons 1 and 2. I think she was a stronger character then. Back then her ambiguity was intriguing: she's a criminal and the girl next door--and she is kind of a femme fatale type. I love how she compliments Jack; he stays and fights (too long); she runs away (too quickly). However, I think the producers have deliberately held back on giving enough insight into her inner self so that Kate's heart and "Who will she choose?" could be one of Lost's mysteries that will go unanswered until the end. It's too bad. In the process her character has been oversimplified for the sake of plot and now very few people root for her.

Posted to: Main Character Discussion Thread Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: Happy Town

TheTVCritic — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 00:02:00 +0100

I guess I would like to be cheeky and see if you keep watching it I have read a couple of critics putting it down and I guess that's all it took to keep me from adding another show to my schedule. But if you still like it in a couple of episodes time...

Posted to: Happy Town Show Thread | Post Reply

Happy Town

Brando Calrissian — Thu, 29 Apr 2010 22:47:11 +0100

Anyone going to be watching this?

I caught the first episode last night, and while it was pretty cheesy it also intrigued me a lot more than I expected.

They did themselves a favor by getting some fine actors to be on the show (Mr. Friendly from Lost, Amy Acker, Bunny Colvin from The Wire, and Sam Neill to name a few).

I was expecting the show to play out similarly to 2009's Harper's Island, but then was pleasantly surprised to find it as more of a modern day Twin Peaks (though a watered down version at this point).

Here's to hoping it follows the footsteps of the latter more than the former and perhaps we'll have a decent surreal mystery show on our hands.

Posted to: Happy Town Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: Main Character Discussion Thread

Mike — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 11:29:22 +0100

I should add -- lest anyone think I'm saying I would have liked nothing but scenes with the main characters and them only -- that's not what I mean at all. Some of my favorite scenes are when the focus widens and we get reveals and perspectives not given to the main characters. But what I like about those is that they give us perspective on the tight drama that we had been involved in to that point -- we really experience the kind of a-ha the characters might if they could watch their own story on the screen, and then be lifted out of it. So my interest in either Dharma, the Others, Widmore's empire, what have you, is not inherent, but rather contingent on the status of those things as mysteries to our group of protagonists. Presented with a full portrait of all that exists in the world of Lost in the first episodes, and given the main mover and shakers in that world as primary characters with these survivors as the kinds of bit players they actually were for most of the series, there is a very good chance I would have absolutely laughed at the idea that I would watch the show. What got me so interested was the way into that world we were provided -- this very real-feeling (to me) group of people through whose eyes we came to see it, bit by bit.

Posted to: Main Character Discussion Thread Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: Main Character Discussion Thread

Mike — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 11:10:51 +0100

Lots of great perspectives!

I was kind of secretly thinking I might want to write about Kate. I thought KC might want to, so i waited, but it seems she (Kate) could use a stout defender around here, and I'm happy to step up. (KC, if you want the first crack at her, speak up soon!) I will try to get some thoughts together this week. I think Kate is a compelling and effective character. I definitely agree with Bonita that she has been at times underserved.

I'm a little mystified where Robin thinks Sawyer has been underserved -- his part has just expanded and expanded, from slightly humbleorigins, as he points out. I'm even more mystified how he could say Sawyer evolved into more of a leader than Jack. My view of LaFleur's ascent within the Dharma was more that he rose in the way ambitious people do in organizations - playing along to get along. He became head of security, which sounds big, but in reality it doesn't seem to me he ever got himself in a position to really influnce the project overall. I suppose having not seen it, we'll never know, so that does support the point that more on Dharma, as well as the Others, would have been interesting. I think it would have worked in a more sprawling, exclusively sci-fi series that really focused on the Island and its power-brokers (the Sawyer LaFleur years themselves I think could have easily made a series of its own -- I'd totally watch that spinoff). But as I've been arguing, this isn't that series -- this is a series about a dozen or so very particular -- and arbitrary -- survivors of a plane crash, and what they encounter. And that's not to say-- to Bonita's point -- that I didn't like the introduction of sci fi elements, or that I don't want mysteries explained. Only that I want to experience those things tightly through the aperture of this relatable group of real-world-dwelling (or so desring to dwell) characters, which I think provide the show with its core strength.

IN any case - more on Kate coming up when I get my thoughts together. We need to seriously look at this question of the role of logic and "things making sense" in human character, motivation, and behavior, and consider the place of internal conflict, irrationality, and multiplicity within individuals. (BTW, I don' buy gender as an excuse for a particular viewpoint on this, Robin, though that doesn't mean any view should be dismissed without consideration, either). More soon.

Posted to: Main Character Discussion Thread Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: Main Character Discussion Thread

Yogabon — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 20:12:40 +0100

Kate's character suffered from some poor writing and maybe it was also poorly defined. She was often reduced to simply moving the plot along or dressed up and treated like some object of desire.

Posted to: Main Character Discussion Thread Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: Main Character Discussion Thread

TheTVCritic — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 16:48:46 +0100

Hey guys,

I am obviously someone who focusses on the show as a TV product rather then look for deeper meanings first.

The reason I include Kate as a core character is the amount of time spent on her. She has more centric episodes than anyone (except Locke and Jack) and I thought giving her Aaron to look after was a big deal. Instead of letting her story come to rest with her trial, it immediately changed course and she became the mum on the run.

Sawyer I think probably has grown in importance because of how well he has worked out and how popular he is. By jumping off the helicopter he remained on the island to be a real leader in a way Jack and Locke never were. I actually think Sawyer was underserved or underwritten by not having a flashback to more of his time in the Dharma Initiative.

I suspect the writers may never have anticipated Sawyer becoming as big a part of the show as he has. He has less centric episodes than Sun for example! Where as I think the writers thought Kate would be the heroin of the show and I don't feel she was able to fulfil that role.

This is where I would love to hear Mike's views on Kate's character. You can find my criticism of her character in my reviews for each of her centric episodes. And I suspect Brando will echo the general sentiment that she never seemed to quite fit one part of herself. She either seemed to nice to be brutal or vice versa.

But I would like to hear another perspective. I am definitely guilty at times of holding everyone to the standards of a male logical mind and not necessarily appreciating a different way of thinking...

Posted to: Main Character Discussion Thread Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: Season 6 Episode 6 - Mafia

TheTVCritic — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 16:31:45 +0100

Hey Keith,

Thanks for joining the forums. I really enjoyed Season 5 of the show. I thought it was the best season by far but I know many will disagree with me.

The Ryan and Pam branching out story (no spoilers) is really fun, you have some good stuff to look forward to.

Robin

Posted to: Season 6 Episode 6 - Mafia Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: Season 6 Episode 6 - Mafia

Kei — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 19:56:18 +0100

Well you will see them on the DVD release which may just make it to our shores by 2014!

Like the sound of Pam bruching out by herself and the link with Ryan, should be a nice twist on things, we're only as far as Series four over here.

Hi I'm new my really name is Keith.

Posted to: Season 6 Episode 6 - Mafia Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: Final Season

Yogabon — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 19:47:20 +0100

Let me concur regarding Six Feet Under. Great characters, fabulous cast, phenomenal Finale. And they did the Dead Dad stuff way better than Dexter does (Especially Season 3).

Posted to: Final Season Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: Main Character Discussion Thread

Yogabon — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 19:38:24 +0100

HI Gentlemen,
I see a Trinity: Locke/Jack and The Island. I think the Island is more than the playing field for White v Black. It definitely has input and influence on the events we have seen.

I support Brando's notion that the show got even more interesting once Sci Fi plots were introduced and I enjoy the Mythology very much. Put me in the camp that would like more of it revealed and explained.

Namaste,
Bon

Posted to: Main Character Discussion Thread Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: Main Character Discussion Thread

Mike — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 14:55:36 +0100

Thanks Brando! I do get where you're coming from. I'm personally somewhere between you and Robin on who makes up the core. I think the Jack-Locke answer is analytically satisfying but dramatically unsatisfying, in that we certainly care about far more than just those characters. I don't know, it may be too unspecific a question to answer, or just different questions. There's far more going on plainly than just a two-man struggle, but at the same time I feel to have emotional coherence we can't be expected to care equally for, say, Ilana and Kate. Or Ben and Sawyer, even. I certainly think that isolating the Jack-Locke dynamic is pretty key to understanding the show in any case. But it's still not the whole story.

Posted to: Main Character Discussion Thread Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: Main Character Discussion Thread

Brando Calrissian — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 14:38:16 +0100

Great post Mike!

Your DOUBLE-Double Down actually sits quite well with me. You definitely hit the nail on the head. I hadn't quite thought of it as just Jack and Locke, but tying in with what you mentioned about taking us back to Season 1, it makes perfect sense. Season 1 my best friend and I always went back and forth on the show, discussing Jack and Locke. We never thought anyone else was really the "leader" or the "center" of what was going on...it always came down to Jack and Locke.

Your commentary is insightful and well thought out. I have a much easier time saying the core is Jack and Locke than saying the core is Jack, Locke, Sawyer and Kate. As I mentioned before, my reasons being that I think Kate is as ancillary a character as Hurley, she being brought into the forefront in the show's beginning only through a love triangle which has since all but died from the show's importance.

Posted to: Main Character Discussion Thread Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: Main Character Discussion Thread

Mike — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 11:29:06 +0100

I hear that too, Brando. One way to respond (well, one way would be just to defer to Robin, because the four-core-character limitation is more his contention than mine, but until he weighs back in...) might be to suggest we look at what was presented to us when the show was introduced. I personally think that's a very dispositive piece of evidence on this question, but I know not everyone would agree with that. So if after watching the Pilot, or even all of season one really, you could conclude Kate is not a core character of the show, then I would say, fair enough. If so, then we're really just looking at the whole series differently, which as we all know is one of the absolutely fantastic things about Lost. It's so many things to so many people.

(As an aside, in terms of what's happened subsequently, I take your point -- Kate has certainly been sidelined to some extent. But so has Jack been, for that matter, and really all of the main characters to some extent. This is really part of a larger mystery for me at least, which is the direction the writers have taken where they have allowed the focus of the show to wander so much from its origins. They would argue it was just necessary to keep things fresh and interesting, and I don't disagree. And indeed some of the new characters and stories have been amazing. But for me the focus, especially this season, has been pulled away from the initial survivors -- and muddied by raising the question of whether certain versions of them are 'real' or not -- to such an extent that it has been a challenge for someone like me who sees the show in the way I do.)

Here's another way to take the question, though. I had initially thought I would be a radical to suggest the real core was limited to the initial survivors plus the absolutely essential power-wielding characters, more or less. But Robin one-upped me big-time by naming just four(!). Well, two (or more) can play at that game: we in turn could now DOUBLE-Double Down! If we say that Kate, too, is merely an instrumental/influential character and not an essential one, then I frankly have a hard time seeing the argument for Sawyer as essential, either. That would leave us with TWO: Jack and Locke! ...And when you think about it, this is a pretty reasonable way to read the show; i.e. in an uber-symbolic proxy battle standing in for their Island predecessors. It's not necessarily my favorite reading, but it's a pretty plausible, even persuasive, one I'd say.

I've found some great Lost links over the past few days that I think shed a bit of light on this (and many other things). They're a bit spoilerish, but not really more than the Cuse-Lindeloff podcasts are. You've probably seen this one: http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/04/ff_lost/8/

There, Lindeloff pretty much says it comes down to Jack and Locke. They say a lot of other stuff too, including about general directions for the final stretch, so beware.

[The remainder of this post is strictly speaking off-topic, but continue on if you're interested in hearing about a great Lost resource I just found.]

A link I found that definitely has no spoilers but is some truly great commentary, including some fairly in-depth (and much more comprehensible and well-grounded than Doc Jensen) exploration of the literary and philosophical allusions and themes in Lost is here: http://www.powells.com/blog/?author=104

This guys seems to have started blogging Lost for powells.com after the strike hiatus in season three, and intended to discuss, as I said, the literary and philosophical background of each episode. He appears to have fallen ill in the fourth season, and has not picked back up since recovering because he missed too much. It's too bad his analysis is incomplete, because it's some of the best of its kind I've seen.

The writer, who signs his posts J. Wood, has also written a book on Lost, Living Lost, whose publisher's blurb reads: "Miracles, viruses, plane crashes and acts of terror perpetrated by a group of Others: This is the perplexing and radical world of the television show Lost. With wit and insight, J. Wood explores the show's strange engagement with the contemporary experiences of war, (mis)information, and terrorism, and argues for an idea as weird as the show itself: That we're all stuck on the island." Amazingly, there is something like a 50-page preview of the book available at the above link - just click on the icon for the book cover ("Living Lost") near almost every post.

Sounds like a home run, no? Well, maybe it's partly that his view of and interests around the show runs very close to mine: that blurb probably sums up my view of Lost about as well as anything I've ever seen (though there are definitely some things I'd have to add). But that in turn comes as not much of a shock: it turns out we both have the same undergrad alma mater -- University of Wisconsin-Madison (Go Big Red!). I guess you could say it's a Lost Thing. ;)

Peace Out, y'all! I'm lovin' this!

UPDATE: Can't believe I didn't know this, but just read that writer-producers Eddy Kitsis and Adam Horowitz are also UW-Madison grads, having met there in a film class, begun writing as a team, and moving to L.A. together to pursue screenwriting careers. Numen Lumen! ("Shining Light" - the school's motto!)

Posted to: Main Character Discussion Thread Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: Main Character Discussion Thread

Brando Calrissian — Sun, 25 Apr 2010 04:04:09 +0100

While I understand the arguments coming from both you, I still think that Kate is being vastly overrated. Of course it is known by Robin, and possibly even you Mike since you've listened to our podcasts together, that I don't really like the character of Kate. I feel that she is actually overrated in importance outside of my prejudices towards her character, though.

Think about it. Is she independently a core character? Or is she a core character by proxy via Jack and Sawyer? My opinion is the latter. If we're saying the benchmark for core character means those who have their own story, then I don't think Kate stands out to me any more than Hurley.

Of course, it's always a matter of opinion and there's no right or wrong really. The characters who are essential to my experience of viewing Lost may be entirely different than anyone else's and vice versa...and surely that's valid on all accounts.

Unless the person argues that the core characters of the Lost are Vincent, Arzt, Nikki, and Paolo. In that case they would be incontestably wrong

Posted to: Main Character Discussion Thread Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: Main Character Discussion Thread

Mike — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 14:17:03 +0100

The more I think about it the more I come down with Robin here. At most four other characters struck me as possibly essential: Hurley, Sayid, Desmond-Faraday (whom I think of as parts of one character), and maybe Charlie or Claire. but the more I think about it, the more I agree that the argument just isn't there for them. I think Hurley would be the closest of them. But even with him, his sgnificance is more in how he has influenced the story, and these other four major characters' lives, than it has been his own story's outcome is central to the show. Of course, on never knows... maybe he'll be the next Jacob (or MIB). But even then, and here is the real tell in my view, I think we'd still in that scenario be overridingly interested in such matters as how the Jack-Kate-Sawyer soap opera turns out, who's the biggest hero between Sawyer and Jack, if Kate can ever be happy, how Jack might overcome his demons (on the Island? Off the Island?), and, perhaps above all, Just Who Is John Locke??? And, of course, will any of them have their final fate be intertwined with that of the Island in some way?

So I have to come down ultimately with Robin here on the central core. I'm trying to decide whom I want to write about for the thread. I'm a big Jack fan, but I think overall the best, most intriguing, and central character to the show overall (not just the survivors' drama) has been John Locke. But I can write about others, so if anyone (KC?) wants to reserve a character ofr the first round, speak up, and I'm happy to write about any of them (and even moderate my feelings about a character for the sake of analysis where necessary...).

Posted to: Main Character Discussion Thread Show Thread | Post Reply

Logic Leaps, Not Asking Questions, and Character Irrationality: How Bad Are They, Really?

Mike — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 13:46:28 +0100

Ok, so I am just going to throw this out there. There is no doubt these types of problem abound in Lost. And if they really bother a person, then that is all the reason anyone should need to hold them up as defects of the writing. And maybe it's just me, because I generally struggle to make sense out of the show in real time anyway, or maybe it's something in the way the characters have been presented from the beginning has just made me inured to it, but these things just don't tend to detract from my viewing experience on a consistent basis for some reason. On occasion, especially on the failing to communicate or ask questions score, when the full plot of an episode rides on such a failure, it is a problem. The biggest example for me is season one's Confidence Man, in which Jack and Sayid are carefully prevented by the writers from ever simply asking Sawyer if he has Shannon's inhaler, and Sawyer from denying that he does when accused. Patterns of interaction among those characters lasting for really the whole series are deeply influenced by the events that flow from that construct. But often (though agin, certainly often enough not), I find it quite easy to explain characters' lack of curiosity or seemingly obtuse decisionmaking by simply reminding myself that they don't have the omniscient sofa-eye view of everything that is going on that we do, and moreover, they're usually working under threats against their life or at least the stress of being stranded on a haunted/hostile/physically unstable island.

When we're thinking about these things, I think it is helpful to keep a couple of ideas in mind. They're pretty obvious, and by no means do I think people aren't aware of these facts. But in my view it's possible we don't always have in mind all their implications. First:

1) There has to be real content in each episode, so if what we saw hadn't happened, something else would have had to.

Duh, you say. So what? The so what is that we have to remember that simple logic is not the only thing driving the writers in their determination of what goes in the script. First, they have to start up where they left off - they can't just start things over. Next, they have to have an idea where they are taking things, or else we would not have a story, but rather a formless vision of evolutionary events much like what we see in actual reality, where logic relentlessly drives events to depressingly predictable, but then sometimes incomprehensible outcomes. Last, what they come up with has to be watchable (or able to be made watchable by competent actors) on a minute-to-minute basis. As much as we might complain about gaps in logic in what they do come up with, our complaints are as nothing compared to what they'd be if there were major lapses in these major requirements - basic continuity of content, the telling of a coherent, interesting story, or presenting something watchable to the audience. None of this means that the show couldn't be better, or that there haven't been shows that did all of that while having far fewer of these breakdowns. But in my view, considering the wild path the writers have chosen to take the show on, the gaps we do see are quite tolerable and are mostly subordinate to the larger choices that were made with regard to the need to meet the above requirements. In some cases I agree the lapses seem like they could have been easily avoided, but for the most part I find them to be more or less natural results of what is going on in the plot. If the changes that would have been necessary to eliminate the lapses had been made, while they might seem minor in theory, in fact they might well have upset important pieces of the puzzle of satisfying each of these requirements. Moreover, I often find that they can be made consistent with what we're seeing happen if we just step back a bit from some of our assumptions about what the producers have actually told us, and relax somewhat the specificity and certainty with which we think we understand what's been played.

This brings me to the second thing I think it is important to keep in mind when watching Lost, or any other show where mystery or curious happenings play an important part in the drama:

2) Everything we see happen in the show is equally real, and conveys, at least until shown otherwise, equally legitimate information to us about the story, the characters, their development, etc.

We think we understand a character, or we think we understand a sequence of events. Then something happens that doesn't fit with that understanding. That's an important moment to consider ways of reacting. Is it bad writing merely because we feel we've been led to expect character A to react to an event with reaction X, but she reacts with Y? Or does that unexpected reaction impart new information about the character, or tell us that perhhaps we didn't understand his or her motivations or plans at this moment so well after all? The same with events in a plotline. Does something really not hold together, or was our framework for understanding it just mistaken? (I'm probably guilty of just assuming it's the latter too often.) Where a mystical Island of seemingly unlimited possibility is essentially a main character in the show, are unexpected events bad writing? In any of these cases, it very well might be bad writing. But I feel as though we sometimes think that because we see something we don't expect and that doesn't seem to make sense, or a character says or does something we think doesn't match her plans or nature, that that is ipso facto bad writing. But it's also possible we indulged in certain assumptions that, even if they seemed (or were!) reasonable at the time, we should be willing to reconsider and discard for the sake of our own enjoyment of the time we're spending. This is not to say a critic has to bend over backward to like what he's seeing. But if our own limitations are keeping us from enjoying surprises offered to us by the producers, merely because we like to see things work out in the way we expect them too, that's another matter. It's a fine line. I know I'll often have a negative reaction to a development, but then have to stop and think, "Now was that actually badly done, or was I just not expecting/wanting it to happen?"

As I said, to whatever extent these things really bother a person as they watch, it's a completely fair reaction to note how they detract from the experience. But if we are able to suspend our concern for these inconsistencies by relaxing our understanding of the story and characters somewhat, and thereby appreciate better what the producers are trying to give us and enjoy the experience more, that seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to go ahead and do. I think it really all comes down to whether a given problem truly detracts from a person's attempt to enjoy the show for what it's trying to be. If so, then it's a problem, if not, then it's picking nits.

Thoughts?

Posted to: Logic Leaps, Not Asking Questions, and Character Irrationality: How Bad Are They, Really? Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: Main Character Discussion Thread

Brando Calrissian — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 02:01:47 +0100

I hear ya Robin. Just like you I have been listening to the Official Lost Podcast and you may very well be right. And while I agree that the show will probably end up being more about the relationships than the sci-fi and the mythology, I still believe they have some tricks up their sleeve and will wrap up some of the sci-fi/mythos.

Unfortunately for me the plot, story, science fiction, mystery, and mythology are the things that captivate me the most. Don't get me wrong...I'm pulling for the Desmond and Penny, Sun & Jin, and even see Hurley get a little love.

Season 5 was so rich with brilliant sci-fi plotting, some amazing mythology revelations/implications, and some great characterization as well. I seriously loved Season 5 and I suppose that is why I've been hoping Season 6 will capitalize on those "promises" made last season.

I certainly don't think you're wrong in your assessment of where things are going. I think there would be a good deal of disappointment, though, if that's all the show ended up being.

Also I agree with your takes on Dharma and Alpert. The Dharma part, for me, is more about the intrigue of Alvar Hanso and the formation of the Initiative. Even though I understand the whole timeline of the Initiative I still feel like their purpose was not clearly defined, or at least has not been concluded. I'm certainly not reserving any expectations for those to be touched upon again, but I fella can still hope As for Alpert...I just want to see that his decades of servitude amount to more than the character he has become now. His unraveling and desire to die made sense...but I feel as though his scene with Jack in the Black Rock and then his interaction with Hurley should have given closure to his defiance and despair. That's another reason he's on my list. He just seems to important (at one time) to go out in this whiny and defiant fashion.

Posted to: Main Character Discussion Thread Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: Main Character Discussion Thread

TheTVCritic — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 00:06:56 +0100

Absolutely fascinating. I think I would have agreed with that list before this season. Though even then not the Dharma Initiative.

To clarify, I would love for their part in the story to have more of a resolution to it. I always assumed that the reason Dharma and the Others were locked in mortal combat was because they were both trying to save the world in some way.

But now I am pretty convinced that the producers are saying the island is a morality play location and nothing else. It is where humans are brought to play out an eternal struggle to keep evil bottled up and no more.

Part of my conviction is listening to the official podcast and assuming that what they say on there is what they mean. I think they saw Season 5 as all the Dharma resolution they needed to do. Similarly I think "Ab Aeterno" was all she wrote about Richard Alpert. I think both developments are a disappointment.

But I think that's where Mike comes in. He has been arguing for the fan who is perhaps more in line with Cuse and Lindeloff's mindset. That the show isn't about intriguing sci-fi ideas or cult like groups. It's about the simple human stories which are being told.

Personally I'm a have my cake and eat it guy. But clearly we won't get both. Hence my belief that it really comes down to Jack, Kate, Sawyer and Locke.

Posted to: Main Character Discussion Thread Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: Main Character Discussion Thread

Brando Calrissian — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 23:00:34 +0100

So I wrote out an incredibly long post on my thoughts, but I figured I'd either save it for later or break it up into pieces since it was so long.

I'll start things off with my list of who I think are the core characters and would be disappointed if we didn't get some solid resolution to their character and storyline. My own criterion for what "core character" meant to me is that they must be absolutely pivotal to the story of Lost. That is to say, without these characters we could not be where we're at today in the story of Lost, and without resolution to these characters Lost wouldn't be wrapped up in a satisfying way to me personally. *Disclaimer* Some of these are far more resolved than others...some may not even need much more resolution (if any) at this point but were included because I feel they are core characters in the full 6 season arc. They have shaped the course of the show and without them the story would be in a distinctly different place. Conversely you could argue that every single character was needed to get the story to where it is right now. While I agree with that from a strictly literal standpoint, I do not believe that the "butterfly effect" caused by the absence of any unlisted characters would have been great enough to completely change the course of the show as would the absence of those listed. Anyway, without further adieu:

*Locke
*Jack
*Sawyer
*Desmond
*Ben Linus
*Daniel Faraday
*Jacob
*The Man in Black
*Charles Widmore
*Richard Alpert
*Alvar Hanso & The Dharma Initiative
*The Candidate/Jacob Replacement (if that's what ultimately happens)

Some, like Daniel Faraday and John Locke (pre-death, pre-MIB inhabitancy), have been mostly resolved for me. There are a few loose ends I wouldn't mind tied up for them, though.

Anyway, that's my core for Lost. A lack of acknowledgement or resolution of any of those characters would result in a major letdown for me personally.

Of course, just as most, I want resolution for every character possible. But my core group are the characters whose resolutions I feel are absolutely pivotal to the show's successful.

I know I viewed it from a slightly different lens than you guys, but I'm definitely set on my core.

*Edit* My explanation of including Richard Alpert and Charles Widmore being that they have been both instrumental to all that has gone on, shrouded in mystery, and also have been keyed in on as characters who possess more knowledge than most as far as what "Lost" is all about. Since they have both been brought back for major roles in this final season I feel as though they are likely to be resolved just fine. Their importance, to me, was more of a flip side view...for instance, I would have been astonished if they never brought Charles Widmore back or explained why he was as important as they made him out to be the past 2-3 seasons.

Posted to: Main Character Discussion Thread Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: Main Character Discussion Thread

TheTVCritic — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 18:12:51 +0100

Yeah great idea, I am very happy to contribute of course. I stick to my guns about it being those 4 only. I feel like they were the only original characters who had several different aspects of their lives explored.

In a way so did Ben but his late arrival rather disqualifies him. With Charlie, Claire, Jin, Sun, Desmond and even Hurley and Sayid I feel the show only focussed on one or two major aspects of their lives.

Posted to: Main Character Discussion Thread Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: The Wire

TheTVCritic — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 18:09:43 +0100

I have to schedule some time to watch this...

Posted to: The Wire Show Thread | Post Reply

Re: Why do you choose the shows you review vs other shows you watch?

Brando Calrissian — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 15:10:04 +0100

Yogabon- I would like to catch up with Wonderfalls at some point. I tried watching it right after having gone through the whole series of Dead Like Me, but got caught up in other shows before I could make it through.

Dead Like Me is an odd show for me. I enjoyed watching it. I was thrilled to have a show that was almost wholly unique to television in its story and setup...but it stands as one of the most frustrating series ever for me. I still rank it in my "Top 20 TV Shows You've Never Seen" (coming soon to thecinemaphiles.com), but there were just some major complications with that show for me.

Mike - You need to see Dexter man. The first season, for me, is by far the best, but it's still one of the better shows out there right now.

Posted to: Why do you choose the shows you review vs other shows you watch? Show Thread | Post Reply