Big questions left unanswered

[Ryan8bit]

I also want to say that the burning desire to have every question answered, every mystery explained, having everything resolved and tied up nice and neat with a pretty bow on top is more and more becoming something that I find only arrogant, we-know-better-than-the-people-creating-art nerds seem to be whining about.

Project much?

I think he's got a point considering they tolds us two years ago that not all the mystery would be answered flat out. It was even discussed in this forum when they said it. So I don't understand why when they did exactly what they said, folks are surprised by it and upset as if they never knew.

I think there's a pretty big difference between "not all mysteries will be answered" and "hardly any mysteries will be answered, mysteries will be exponentially presented towards the end, and the show will end on a total non-sequitur."

Delta1 is right that doubleohfive is exaggerating a bit much. Especially when those saying it all makes sense (arrogant) are arguing about it on a message board (nerds) and they are upset about people having different opinions (whining).

 

[Delta1]

Not everyone pays attention to what the writers say outside the medium of their TV show. The quality of their work must be evaluated by itself, not by what the writers say they were trying to do. Nerds study what is external to a work of art...they play ARGs, read interviews with the writers, buy licensed fiction and video games, watch bonus features, listen to commentaries, etc. Non-nerds just watch the TV show and react to it. When the non-nerd points out something that seems to fall short, the nerd trots out something the writer said in an AV Club interview, or a video from ComicCon, or a theory they made up and insist is the one correct inference that is blindingly obvious to anyone who watched the show and paid attention.

The arrogance, though, is in dismissing every criticism with the same counterclaim: It doesn't matter. You're just a nerd who needs everything explained. What you're asking is irrelevant. I hope I don't need to explain how inimical that is to discourse.

The whining comes from the arrogant nerds who can't stand someone poking a hole in their one true fan theory, or who feel insulted that someone is casting a critical eye on their TV show.

Speaking of the AV Club:

Fundamentally, Lost is a mystery show.

Don't want to lose my nerd cred.

 

[exodus]

Not everyone pays attention to what the writers say outside the medium of their TV show.

We certainly are quick to blame them even when what they say comes to fruition even though they told us, aren't we?


In part I can empathize with 005, seeing as he actually works behind the scenes in television.
I'd be a little on edge too listening to folks that have little to no idea what these writters do, complain & piss all over their work after they've gone out of their way to explain what to expect in the finale. Then when you try to reason with them , they blantently ignore all of it. So yes, that is arrogance.
Generally speaking, of course.
I think he's earned the right to talk the talk because he also walks the walk.

I'm sorry if that offends, It isn't meant too but as I said I can empathize.

 

[startrekwatcher]

I also want to say that the burning desire to have every question answered, every mystery explained, having everything resolved and tied up nice and neat with a pretty bow on top is more and more becoming something that I find only arrogant, we-know-better-than-the-people-creating-art nerds seem to be whining about.

I never said the writers weren't entitled to a vision for their creation. I have said though that as a viewer I also have an entitlement to judge whether what they creatively did worked for me or not.

In fact my motto has always been "Let the writers write". I never tried to get ahead of them and figure stuff out like so many internet fans do. I did my best to not envision scenarios hence no theorizing or speculating on my part. I tried to not go into an episode with expectations hence no spoilers, no reading Lindelof/Cuse interviews or watching their podcasts until after the series was over on Sunday, no watching trailers showing scenes that ruin the surprise or that might lead me to expect an entirely different type of episode than the one we actually saw. I never knew who would be the focus of an episode, which threads would be taken up. I stayed out of the LOST forum for years until recently when I found discussing LOST was more interesting than what I was watching each week this season--a sure sign to me that LOST wasn't as compelling as in the past is when I didn't mind entering a thread not caring if there were spoilers or theories.

Ultimately it was the writers that made me think there was going to be more complete satisfying answers than what we got. Looking at seasons 3-5 who wouldn't think more of that was coming and that the groundwork done there wouldn't be taken that last mile...I guess those who read interviews from Cuse/Lindelof before this season started where they said that.

But I find it interesting that now the writers are acting surprised that fans weren't expecting more and repeating like they are stuck in a feedback loop that it was always about the characters when 1) you can't look at S3-5 and tell me that Mythology wasn't the main focus and 2) the writers in interviews I've since read given in seasons 4 and 5 say the same thing--they explicitly said it was all story and plot with character moments squeezed in when possible.

I'm not in the tv business--I assume you are in some capacity--but it seems those tied to the business in some way always get defensive and take up for the creator's artistic integrity and chide those who dare criticize it instead of eating it up. I loooooved LOST. As I've repeatedly said it was the best series of the decade and had a profound influence in ushering in a complete new style of storytelling--lots of questions, answers years coming, highly interconnected nonlinear collision storytelling, expansive cast, multiple cliffhangers every week, easter eggs/subtle clues buried in a season, objective storytelling, But it wasn't without issues in this season. And I think the worse thing that one can do to a creator is to soft pedal the truth or not be honest with them about their work. Even they themselves openly discuss that they make all sorts of bad decisions and it was what help them grow as writers.

Personally, the LOST finale was perfect. The story is complete.

I'm sorry but I have always evaluated a series or episode as a Whole not based on one or two isolated scenes. One excellent scene such as the final act in the church or the Juliet/Sawyer reunion doesn't cause me to suddenly have amnesia and forget the absence of tension in the first 2 hours of the show or the anti-climatic final big battle between Jack and MIB(Heroes fans for years have lamented about the half-assed Sylar/Peter showdowns and this was just as bad and lacking), the big reveal of the Light and Mystery of the island being so underwhelming--a Plug--really? seriously?, the way the writers built up this big huge deal with Des stopping MIB and it comes down to pulling out a plug or the idiocy displayed by newly minted Protector Jack just letting him go down there and pull it out which was what MIB wanted all along leading to the possible destruction of the world etc etc.

No this series finale wasn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination. If you want to see how a series finale should be done watch TNG' "All Good Things..." to see a sentimental sendoff of a family of characters that asked larger questions, DS9's flawed but very good "What You Leave Behind" which was epic storytelling at its best with its heart on its sleeve or BSG's "Daybreak" a series finale where the character moments were more satisfying and plentiful and actually made you forget entirely about the half-assed unsatisfying way Moore wrapped up the series' mythology and you got a tension filled final battle between two forces at odds.

 

[Delta1]

Not everyone pays attention to what the writers say outside the medium of their TV show.

We certainly are quick to blame them even when what they say comes to fruition even though they told us, aren't we?

I don't understand. If they do something bad, but they tell us before they do it, then they can't be criticized for it? Is this standard unique to Lost, or can we apply it to other fields of human endeavor?

FWIW, I have tried to avoid direct criticism of the showrunners. They delivered five(ish) seasons of a great show. In my more excited moments, I may have described it as the definitive genre series of the decade. But it was marred by a disappointing ending. I can't pretend that didn't happen just because the writers said, "Hey, guys, we're writing a disappointing ending, so be ready for it."

 

[exodus]

^^ There are plenty they don't like "All Good Things.." or "What You Leave Behind" and find them less than stellar. DS9's story wasn't half as intricate as LOST was and as you said, that was even flawed. Besides, what you named are complete science fiction, so the ends were based in real world concepts like LOST was anyway.

 

[exodus]

Not everyone pays attention to what the writers say outside the medium of their TV show.

We certainly are quick to blame them even when what they say comes to fruition even though they told us, aren't we?

I don't understand. If they do something bad, but they tell us before they do it, then they can't be criticized for it? Is this standard unique to Lost, or can we apply it to other fields of human endeavor?

FWIW, I have tried to avoid direct criticism of the showrunners. They delivered five(ish) seasons of a great show. In my more excited moments, I may have described it as the definitive genre series of the decade. But it was marred by a disappointing ending. I can't pretend that didn't happen just because the writers said, "Hey, guys, we're writing a disappointing ending, so be ready for it."

So you assume their plan the whole time was to disappoint us or do something bad?

I take it as, what we leave unanswered wasn't the main focus to begin with but rather how the characters end the story is or we wouldn't have spent more time on the flashbacks/forwards/sideways more than the mysteries itself. Just like Trek spends more time on the cast than the idea of space. No ending in Trek is ever about space but rather the conclusion to the story of the characters.

 

[startrekwatcher]

So you assume their plan the whole time was to disappoint us or do something bad?

I take it as, what we leave unanswered wasn't the main focus to begin with but rather how the characters end the story is or we wouldn't have spent more time on the flashbacks/forwards/sideways more than the mysteries itself. Just like Trek spends more time on the cast than the idea of space.

I'm so tired of people repeating the tired refrain that it was all about the characters. The Mythology was as important, if not more so than the characters. There were a lot of times where the story was pure plot and the characters were simply being moved about like chess pieces or reacting. Deaths were plot points not given the big emotional fanfare--the only real exception being Charlie's which worked so well in part because it was given the focus it should have--counter this to John Locke's.

S4/5 were heavy on exposition or giving us a timeline or exploring the history of the island. Yo go back and try to do review of those years and you'll find yourself mainly writing up a synopsis of what happened.

So yes for me all of a sudden so abruptly changing gears back to characters and halting so radically the momentum they had got going back in season 3 when they knew the end date and discovered a newfound sense of narrative purpose and carried through to the final moment of "The Incident" in season 5--did in fact feel out of left field and not consistent with what came before.

Yes I know in your traditional series that the characters are what is important and usually when a series ends that the final season is all about nostalgia and sentimentality but for LOST I think it was far more important to wrap up the plot arcs and not focus so heavily on characters--many of which had not been the focus for years or who ultimately had pretty poor character arcs this season ie Kate, Sayid or Claire for example.

A lot of the cameos didn't work the way they did on TNG's AGT because a lot of the LOST characters they brought back were nothing more than plot devices to begin with.

At the very least they could have done a better job balancing the plot/mythology with the character stuff if they were determined to make character such a centerpiece this year.

 

[exodus]

So you assume their plan the whole time was to disappoint us or do something bad?

I take it as, what we leave unanswered wasn't the main focus to begin with but rather how the characters end the story is or we wouldn't have spent more time on the flashbacks/forwards/sideways more than the mysteries itself. Just like Trek spends more time on the cast than the idea of space.

I'm so tired of people repeating the tired refrain that it was all about the characters. The Mythology was as important, if not more so than the characters. There were a lot of times where the story was pure plot and the characters were simply being moved about like chess pieces or reacting. Deaths were plot points not given the big emotional fanfare--the only real exception being Charlie's which worked so well in part because it was given the focus it should have--counter this to John Locke's.

S4/5 were heavy on exposition or giving us a timeline or exploring the history of the island. Yo go back and try to do review of those years and you'll find yourself mainly writing up a synopsis of what happened.

So yes for me all of a sudden so abruptly changing gears back to characters and halting so radically the momentum they had got going back in season 3 when they knew the end date and discovered a newfound sense of narrative purpose and carried through to the final moment of "The Incident" in season 5--did in fact feel out of left field and not consistent with what came before.

Yes I know in your traditional series that the characters are what is important and usually when a series ends that the final season is all about nostalgia and sentimentality but for LOST I think it was far more important to wrap up the plot arcs and not focus so heavily on characters--many of which had not been the focus for years or who ultimately had pretty poor character arcs this season ie Kate, Sayid or Claire for example.

A lot of the cameos didn't work the way they did on TNG's AGT because a lot of the LOST characters they brought back were nothing more than plot devices to begin with.

At the very least they could have done a better job balancing the plot/mythology with the character stuff if they were determined to make character such a centerpiece this year.

I said it was my take on it.
Sorry you don't like that either.
Seems like the issue is coming from a failure in communication.

 

[Delta1]

So you assume their plan the whole time was to disappoint us or do something bad?

Straw man, but I'll address it. The disappointment was the effect. I have no idea what their plan was, other than through protestations by the finale's apologists that they told us exactly what they were going to do and they were telling the truth. What they did was a disappointment, so....

Leaving the scarecrow behind, let me ask you again: If someone does something bad, but they told you ahead of time what they were doing, are they therefore immune from criticism? If so, is this standard unique to Lost, or is it applicable to other forms of human endeavor?

 

[Delta1]

I'm so tired of people repeating the tired refrain that it was all about the characters.

If it makes you feel any better, Cuse said the show was fundamentally a mystery. That sounds like plot-based storytelling to me. It takes some real eisegesis to interpret that in a character-centric matter.

Deaths were plot points not given the big emotional fanfare--the only real exception being Charlie's which worked so well in part because it was given the focus it should have--counter this to John Locke's.

I'd add Boone to the character-building deaths, since it brought out something raw and dogged in Jack. Alex's death was primarily to move the Ben-Widmore plot forward, but it did give Michael Emerson some nice stuff to work with. Juliet's death had the odd effect of destroying Lafleur's character and removing all charm from Sawyer. I guess that's valid character development, but the character never recovered. I disagree on John Locke, though. I thought his death was a good end to his arc--suicide would have been better--and it evoked a great reaction from Jack.

 

[exodus]

So you assume their plan the whole time was to disappoint us or do something bad?

Straw man, but I'll address it. The disappointment was the effect. I have no idea what their plan was, other than through protestations by the finale's apologists that they told us exactly what they were going to do and they were telling the truth. What they did was a disappointment, so....

Leaving the scarecrow behind, let me ask you again: If someone does something bad, but they told you ahead of time what they were doing, are they therefore immune from criticism? If so, is this standard unique to Lost, or is it applicable to other forms of human endeavor?

I already answered the question.
My reply isn't going to change asking it again.
Plus I already told you I my pov was that they weren't doing anything bad as a premeditation.
Another way of putting it is: if someone tells you something and you ignore it, is that their fault?

 

[Hober Mallow]

So Aaron was never special, according to Lindelof and Cuse.

Cuse: "What are the polar bears?"

Lindelof: What are the polar bears, or, "What's the story with Aaron?" And we go, okay, the story with Aaron is that a psychic told Claire that he was special, but then subsequently, in an Eko episode, we revealed that the psychic was a fraud. So people are like, "Why is Aaron special?" and we're like, "But, that wasn't true. That guy was a liar." "Well, why did The Others abduct him?" Well, the Others revealed that they abducted him because he was a baby born on the island, and they wanted to see if there was anything they could glean scientifically to solve their fertility issues.

And so there it is in the show, in black and white, but people still say, "So why is Aaron special?!" or, "What are you going to reveal about him?" Aaron became emotionally special, because Kate ended up having to raise him and she ended up returning to the island to bring Claire back home. So that's why he's special. But if you're looking for the answer to, "What are his superpowers?" or "When will he finally deploy his laser eyes?", the answer is… the finale. He deploys his laser eyes in the finale.

Okay... then why was the psychic so completely adament about not letting anyone else raise Aaron? Why did he care? Are we supposed to assume on top of being a fraud he was completely effing crazy as well?

 

[RoJoHen]

Yeah, that's pretty much bullshit if you ask me. Maybe they used that as a recon to make us think Aaron wasn't actually special, but if that's true, they shouldn't have made the psychic so believable the first time around.

 

[Ryan8bit]

My own personal answer is this:

The psychic truly is a psychic, and somehow he has tapped into the light source. Hurley and Miles got powers of speaking to or hearing the dead, others with powers of immortality or increased age, so a psychic doesn't seem that far removed.

So being that he was psychic, he really did sense some things, although maybe not explicit things. He may have been tapped into fate, or the way the universe corrects itself, and that is what made him send Claire on her way.

When he was talking with Eko, he was lying because he was upset over the whole incident with his wife and daughter. Somehow he may have known that his daughter drowning and coming back to life was a bad omen (much like it was with Sayid), and he didn't want any attention drawn to that. The best way to get Eko off his back was to lie to him. Plus, he may have also sensed that Eko also had a destiny on the island, and was again guiding him along on his fate.

An alternative theory:

Malkin really is a fraud of sorts, although more accurately could be called a puppet. He could be controlled by some of those who work for Jacob, or other agents of fate. He looks to certain resources to pull off his cons and comes upon this person, who gives him the information that he needs, as well as a bribe to tell Claire to go on the flight. This agent of fate may also have brought about Charlotte Malkin falling into the creek and "dying" as an attempt to draw in Eko to his fate.

 

[Hober Mallow]

Yeah, that's pretty much bullshit if you ask me. Maybe they used that as a recon to make us think Aaron wasn't actually special, but if that's true, they shouldn't have made the psychic so believable the first time around.

The way I read the original episode -- the way I still read it -- is that he was a fraud, which is why he acted so shocked when he read Claire. He was a fraud who had a real vision, and it scared the hell out of him. So he gaqve claire his money back and kicked her out.

It was later, after soul-searching, that he decided he had to act on this vision. That's why he was so adament Claire keep the baby and he hatched his plan.

So, basically he was like Whoopi Goldberg in the movie "Ghost."

It also explains his line when Claire asks him how psychic powers work, and he laughed said he didn't know.

As for why he had the vision, who knows. Maybe he was a pawn in Jacob's plan to get Claire to the island.

 

[RoJoHen]

Yeah, that's pretty much bullshit if you ask me. Maybe they used that as a recon to make us think Aaron wasn't actually special, but if that's true, they shouldn't have made the psychic so believable the first time around.

The way I read the original episode -- the way I still read it -- is that he was a fraud, which is why he acted so shocked when he read Claire. He was a fraud who had a real vision, and it scared the hell out of him. So he gaqve claire his money back and kicked her out.

It was later, after soul-searching, that he decided he had to act on this vision. That's why he was so adament Claire keep the baby and he hatched his plan.

So, basically he was like Whoopi Goldberg in the movie "Ghost."

It also explains his line when Claire asks him how psychic powers work, and he laughed said he didn't know.

As for why he had the vision, who knows. Maybe he was a pawn in Jacob's plan to get Claire to the island.

I don't disagree with any of this, but the fact remains that his vision of Claire and Aaron was real.