~ Interestingly, Lord of the Flies does get mentioned...by one clearly oriented to a 'dog-eat-dog' way of living; yet he, really doesn't quite live up to (er-r, down to) that.

~ Got hooked when the DVD of the series came out. Am on EP 18, 1st-season.

~ Anyone familiar with this series have any comments? (No 'spoilers', puh-leeeze!)

LLAP/I-D-I-C
J:D

P.S: It really is...'fascinating.'

I'm coming out of hiding just for this...you should feel special.

I just got into LOST because my sister had been talking about it forever (she thinks that Sayid is sexy...and he is) and she got Season 1 and 2 for Christmas. We watched all of Season 1, but I've not yet finished Season 2. I've rented the first two discs, and I'm actually going after school to rent more. It's ridiculously addictive and kind of scary...always on the edge of my seat. I had to get used to watching it alone after she went to college...yeah, I'm that much of a pussy. How far into it are you, John? I'm afraid to say anything because it's awful to have it spoiled for you. I keep trying not to see previews for season 3. My sis says that they have already aired about 6 episodes from Season 3 and then took a break. If that's the case, then I'm going to have to wait until season 3 comes out on DVD to see it. *sigh* So suspenseful...

Also...who's your favorite character?

I'm also a recent "Lost" convert (started watching during my Thanksgiving holiday). I originally snubbed the series, but then I watched it beginning-to-now, and was really impressed. Not only is the story a lot of fun, but the production values, directing, camera-work, writing, casting, and acting are all top notch, especially when you compare it to NBC rip-offs like "Heroes" (which I think just sucks, despite all my friends claiming otherwise).

Btw, there have been 6 episodes aired from season three, and the rest are due to kick off in Feb. Also, you don't have to wait for the DVDs; ABC puts the episodes online...you can see the first half of season three now (which is how I watched them).


http://abc.go.com/fsp/index.html?channel=Lost





RCR

My favorite show on television. It reminds me a lot of Twilight Zone stories. Of course, there are many mystical elements in the show but they have left the door open somewhat for rational explanations.

Have you gotten to the Mama Cass thing yet? Because that will rock your world!

Haven't gotten to the Mama Cass thing. We all need to catch up...lol.

RCR (What does the first R stand for?), thank you for the tip about Season 3! Now I can watch the rest of the Season and not have to wait!

Those of you who watch the show, who are your favorite characters?

Kori:

~ Not to worry. Finally finished Season-2 a couple weeks after that post...via DVD. It IS a 'fascinating' story re that 'special' island.

~ I refuse to watch TV re these new story-types they do now; non-'episodic' where each week is a sorta cliff-hanger with 1/2 the story dependent on the previous week(s) (as in 24, Prison Break, and this). I'll wait 'till S-3 hits DVDs. --- Seems like some TV writers/producers took a hint from Lucas with his multi-episodic movies. With good enough writers like those for these series, they may have hit a new jack(bauer?)pot.

~ I'm almost afraid to pick a 'favorite', since s/he'll probably get offed somewhere down the line.

LLAP
J:D

John,

LOL. I agree, it is very annoying when each week is a cliff hanger...very nice to watch the episodes one after another (commercial free!).

My least favorite got offed first. Well, of the main cast of course. It is quite difficult to pick a favorite, not only because they might be offed, but also because they could turn evil. It's hard to tell with Locke sometimes (for me anyway), but he is still a favorite of mine. My sis and I always joke that Dr. Jack blinks too much...he's not a terrific actor, in my opinion, but I did love the first episode where he ran out of the woods and saved quite a few peoples' asses.

~ Yeah, Locke is the most 'interesting'. He even apologized for being wrong in his 'vision' of his/their destiny. Now, a cripple (still don't know how THAT happened!) who carries around a trunk of knives, even if it was for an outback outting, is a bit...unique. I suspect there's still more to find out about him, relevent to the island, before he's offed. --- Besides, the actor has been noted for being 'long-running' in other series, like Millennium. Now THERE was a weird series, though randomly episodic (but, with a story 'arc.')

LLAP
J:D

Just on the day I mention Mama Cass of the Mamas and the Papas on this board, I find out that Denny Doherty, my favorite singer from the same group--who lives here in the Toronto area--died yesterday, which was my birthday!

Ashley:

~ You make it sound like you felt a kind of 'kinship' with them (or, at least him.) Understandable, since I've enough deep-nostalgia for several singers/groups of yesteryear to feel the 'loss' of those I've never met who, sooner or later, go to that great Stage-In-The-Sky.

~ However, you're not talkin' "Lincoln-Kennedy" stuff here, are you?

LLAP
J:D

I'd rather give that credit to others.

JMS was doing this with Babylon 5 BEFORE Lucas did the 3 Star Wars prequels. B5 is a great but somewhat overlooked series. He had a 5 year story in mind and was able to do it in 5 years. Too bad he couldn't get the follow on series to catch on (in no small part due to meddling tv execs)

This influenced some of the current and later Star Trek series, but more with overarching themes that would run for a full season (or more), and the occasional 2-3 parters.

This has lead to the current crop of episodic series such as 24, Lost, Battlestar Galactica, Heroes, etc. While I don't think this style is needed for all series, it gets a little tiresome that the characters of more dramatic series don't go thru some level of change/developmen.

M-Brown:

~ I'm familiar with the background on B-5 and JMS' intentions with a 5-year 'arc' plan (akin to Rodenberry's ST generalized idea about a '5-yr mission'). I thought it was a great idea (especially since, contra ST some aliens in B-5 were NOT 'humanoid'.) I also thought that with such a far-time plan, it would go the way of SPACE: ABOVE AND BEYOND and FIREFLY; all due to 'suits' using the shows as pawns for turf-fighting. Such obviously occurred.

~ However, I wasn't aware of the 'time' placement of both SW and B-5. You say that Lucas got his idea of making a multi-movie story from the TV-series of B-5? Could you elaborate?

LLAP
J:D

B-5 & JMS- at least JMS WAS able to achieve his 5 year plan for B5, with minimum of mucking around. Not so with some of the follow on series (read up on some of the garbage he had to deal with in Crusade...). Compare this with SAB&B and F, which didn't last a year.

Uh, Lucas was inspired by the old 40s/50 'Chapterfilms' series in movie theaters. You may know them as cliffhangers. A lot of the concepts in SW was picked up from the old Flash Gordon/Buck Rogers stuff.

The original Star Wars movies are all pretty much stand alone movies. Yes, some things continued, but they were standalone.

There have been attempts at doing 'cliffhanger'-style shows on TV. Most have failed, except for maybe Soap Operas. Even 'novella' style shows haven't gone well on American tv, do to, apparently, being daily rather then weekly. [novellas are popular on hispanic tv, and have clear storylines with begining, middle, and and ending, with episodes each weekday. A series will usually run about 6-8 months, and end]

ST:DS9 was running around the time of B-5. (there are claims that a lot of the ideas of DS9 were ripped off from B-5, considering that JMS showed Paramount his ideas...). You started to see 2-3 parters in DS9, and overarching ideas like the Dominion War. These ideas of overarching themes continued in Voyager and Enterprise.

There are several new series which tied episodes closer together. Not just Lost, but the new Battlestar Galactica, etc. While BG does give relavent flashbacks at the begining of each episode, you miss out on a lot of stuff if you haven't watched previous shows. SG-1 and SG:Atlantis has been doing the same things to a degree, and much more in recent sessions.

M-B:

~ Yes, I was aware of Lucas' being influenced by the 'cliffhanger' serials, but you seemed to imply that B-5 itself had an influence; guess you merely meant that there was merely a confluence.

~ Was wondering a bit (I was a fan of DS-9 for a while) about the multi-part story-style change in the later seasons. Thanx. Yeah, word probably does travel FTL in Hollywood. --- Never interested in Voyager after the Holo'Doc' turned into just another character; he was supposed to have been 'unique', but, they blew that. (Gotta admit, A+ for effort when they later added in 7-of-9, but...a Borg-Babe emulating Data just wasn't enough, story-wise.)

~ Yes, caught the new B-G's beginnings a while back and have been waiting for the DVD's to be rental.

LLAP
J:D

Its kind of a "A" lead to "B" which lead to "C", as well as a sort of "A" and "B" inspired/influenced "C".

The only real affect I've seen on SF TV by Lucas has been in making SF look more viable to Hollywood. SW lead to stuff like ST:TMP (it was being planned as a new tv series, which got scrapped) and BG being done as a movie. Some of its special affects would later influence things.

After most of the post-SW SF TV shows of the 80s died out, SF on tv was pretty much dead, until ST:TNG came around. B5 followed, and added the ideal of yearly arches and a definite ending in mind, which influenced DS9 and Voyager and Andromeda, and the new SG-1/SG Atlantis, etc. Some SF TV shows were more heavily into the idea of arches, others not.

I'm not sure how the current crop of episodic shows (24, the new BG, Lost, etc), which seem to all come about the same time came up with the idea. But to me, its more of a continuation of the multi-part stories and season themes/arches of the recent SF shows the the Star Wars movies.

M-Brown:

~ Yes, as you imply, so much is continually 'the same'; as had been said so often about so much: 'formulaic.' Such is, usually, but not necessarily always (depends on the 'formula'!)...boring.
When you can predict each next scene (if not script-line), well...

~ 'Novelty' or Surprise is a necessary ingredient to a 'next' story one thinks worthwhile in time-spending; obviously impossible to do in a TV series, in any 'fundamental' sense, and merely difficult in a book or screenplay.

~ Interesting, though, that such doesn't seem to apply to music (or musicals!). One has 'faves' that one can listen to (or watch) forever. Wonder why?

LLAP
J:D

I am watching Lost last night and Sawyer is by a tree reading a book and you can see the title if you look closely ..................................

.................The Fountainhead !!


Gotta love that !

Think again. I view this as on the order of the mention of the book in the film Dirty Dancing.

Aw really ??

I was so happy to see it ,

Well, Sawyer is the stereotype of the selfish person, though he is presented as having some good impulses.

All in all, he is a likable character, but you can't get around the fact that his "selfishness" is presented as evil. Just look at his past, and at how self-centered he is--in the bad way!

Whoever put the book into the scene is a fan of Ayn Rand, I would assume, I do not believe it was random. How they show Sawyer and his selfishness-I agree with your point but that scene leads me to believe that he could be a hero at one point.

It was not random, but why do you suppose the writer chose Sawyer and not some other character? To me it's all too obvious. The book was referenced in exactly the same way in Dirty Dancing.

Of course Sawyer will turn out to be a hero, but unless it is indicated then that he used Rand as inspiration, or he is shown still reading Rand, or that somehow Rand is not repudiated in some way, I will continue to think the only intention was to make a subtle point against the book.

I understand your point about why they choose Sawyer but I really cannot make that assumption that it will be shown in a bad light for sure.

I cannot remember the dirty dancing thing and do not wish to see the movie again-once was enough. Could you tell me the details of how the book was shown please ?

I would guess that Sawyer found the book with the other items he found so why then is the book shown in a bad light? Only because Sawyer is bad therefore what he reads is bad ?

Thanks

I agree with Marc, and also don't think the reference is anything like the horrible and totally overt "Dirty Dancing" smear-job.

I also don't agree that Sawyer is "selfish" in a bad way (it is just that his psychology is self-destructive, much like Dominque, and that's an issue apart from selfishness).





RCR

Of course it's more subtle than the movie--I agree. In fact, I could hardly make out the book's title on my screen, suggesting that the reference was very incidental. And it is always possible that someone who likes Rand handed the actor that book as a prop just to give it publicity (unwisely I think). I am just saying what my best guess is. Consider:


Also remember that modern TV goes for the short-range effect. In sitcoms, it is considered funny nowadays to have a character brag about some virtue and immediately have him contradict it in action. John Cleese complained about this in North American comedy, the practice of always going for the cheap, immediate payoff, and not for jokes that are more subtle and that depend on context and nuances of character. Similarly, the short-range significance of Sawyer is that he is almost pyschopathically self-centred. That is the "tag" on him that substitutes for serious meaning in this show, and that (I think) is the reason why Rand's book is shown.

Modern TV writers need and use "tags" a lot. Obviously, the accepted "tag" for AR is wacko advocate of heedless selfishness.

We'll see how this plays out in the show. And if it never comes up again, I think it supports my interpretation. But I would really like to be worng!

Ashley:

~ Worthwhile points. Never thought of your angle about 'tags', nor, unfortunately, had I caught Cleese's commentings about different 'culture'-perspectives on visual-humor.

~ However, though Sawyer is obviously a Narcissist (what con-man isn't?) he's clearly a 'torn' one who has a bit of awareness and turmoil about his accepted 'values' and thereby is a person whom one wonders if he will redeem himself to improvement (or do a contrary, as an unexpected 'sympathetic' character did), or, just stay a random-factor. --- That he had a Rand novel is really expectable: he clearly is an omnivorously-eclectic reader. His next book could've been by Dr. Seuss. Still, like Lord of the Flies, there is obviously an 'intent' on which book he's got in whichever episode.

LLAP
J:D

~ Well, finished watching the end of the '3rd Season'. It's reviews nwst, I think it's still as 'fascinating' as when I started watching this addictive (for me) story. So many subjects implicitly brought up, some explicitly handled whilst others still left hanging; some mysteries solved whilst others starting up; the changing agendas of each character affecting the 'plot' (well, 'story-line' anyways), yet ALL coherently (so far) consistent throughout; I'm impressed with the latter, ergo, am waiting for the next Season's episodes re Locke, Jack, Juliet, Sawyer, Kate, Ben, etc.

~ Finally, we now know what happened with Locke...except for his living through Ben's shooting him. I fear 'Jacob' will be an X-FILES supernatural element therein. Ah, well...I'm hooked anyway.

LLAP
J:D