205 replies to this topic

[goldglv17]

tabes, that was my initial reaction to David as well.

Spoiler

Starting to really get behind my theory that Jacob is the evil/dark and Locke/Smoky/MIB is the good/light

Who's got two thumbs and apparently can't predict the future of TV shows at all? This guy.

[tabes]

Goodbye, Lost. I will miss you.

[DW]

[Nigel'sStillConfused]

My initial take:

Spoiler

Eh.

Way better than final episode of The Sopranos, but then again, so was the test pattern.

Very well acted and some very touching moments. Touching moments, however, that are largely a function of quality acting, not the writing.

In large measure, in my view, its a mash-up of pseudo-religioso freshman college theology survey babble, is very manipulative and uses a lot of cheap tricks and beat-you-over-the-head symbolism. The final scene with his father and cast members is about as dedicated a task to mechanically eliciting an emotion from the audience. Use of dogs and babies particularly unsubtle technique, as is the "walk into the light. " Six degrees removed from GHOST.

However, I had been enjoying the "somewhere in time" moments where the characters met up and re-connected. I thought that worked really well UNTIL they laid on the schmaltz extra thick and schmaltzy in final scene.

Dragged Jack's death out so long and so obviously that it bordered on a death scene in an opera. When it comes to killing off a character you've grown to care about, often less is more. Not to beat a dead and tired horse, but compare Jack's sacrifice and death to Jason Miller as Father Karras in The Exorcist. Or Morgan Freeman in Unforgiven.


"We are all connected" is (to me) (1) a true statement; (2) an important maxim to make the world a better place; but (3) artistically speaking, dull, hackneyed, and simplistic.


I keep hearing that the writers wanted to "Leave room for interpretation". In this case, though I think that translates into "writers did not want to make difficult choices." At end of the day they have hedged their bets, and will play coy, mainly because I think they didn't want to commit. As I've written before, I've no problem with ambiguous and challenging endings, but you still need to make a choice. I think, to their credit, they tried to do that with Jack, but they handled it clumsily.

Has relegated a number of plotlines to throwaways. These particularly include Ben Linus's massacring an entire village of people, and the whole friggin' Dharma project.

Also, I'm pretty sure I've seen this before. Anyone here ever see the film JACOB'S LADDER? Think I also saw this in THE SIXTH SENSE and

All that said, I enjoyed the episode as far as this sort of thing goes. Kept my interest by in large. Just don't think this was groundbreaking TV. I think it had the potential to be. Some of the episodes 1st Season were astonishingly good ("Walkabout" particularly memorable and packed a real punch.) Truth be told, though obviously a different sort of exercise, I liked CLOVERFIELD more.

But, hey, we got a big win for the Metsies tonight! (Had to stop my DVR of LOST late in the game to watch the A-Rod/K-Rod battle).

[goldglv17]

God damn you Josh, I purposely came here tonight to talk about the episode, even bookmarked this thread so I could specifically come here to discuss the episode and not spoil the result of the Mets game which I just sat down to watch.

While I know the intelligence level of this phenomenal series finale offends you, I thought it was the best "Much anticipated" series finales of any show I can remember.

LA Law, St. Elsewhere, Cheers, Seinfeld, Sopranos, Lost. All of these I was disappointed in their finales till Lost. Yes they went heavy on the schmaltz in some of the memory restored moments, but you k now what...I must be a simpleton because I want some schmaltz. I invested 6 years into these characters, 3 of the (Ben, Sawyer, Locke) are in my top-5 all-time TV characters, and dammit if they wanted to tug at my heart strings a bit, then by all means tug away. Sorry it wasn't Meadow trying to parallel park for 10 minutes while fat guy ordered onion rings for the table. Instead they managed to give us an ending thyat so many people speculated might be the ending, but still surprised us.

[Nigel'sStillConfused]

i love cookies you Josh, I purposely came here tonight to talk about the episode, even bookmarked this thread so I could specifically come here to discuss the episode and not spoil the result of the Mets game which I just sat down to watch.

While I know the intelligence level of this phenomenal series finale offends you, I thought it was the best "Much anticipated" series finales of any show I can remember.

LA Law, St. Elsewhere, Cheers, Seinfeld, Sopranos, Lost. All of these I was disappointed in their finales till Lost. Yes they went heavy on the schmaltz in some of the memory restored moments, but you k now what...I must be a simpleton because I want some schmaltz. I invested 6 years into these characters, 3 of the (Ben, Sawyer, Locke) are in my top-5 all-time TV characters, and dammit if they wanted to tug at my heart strings a bit, then by all means tug away. Sorry it wasn't Meadow trying to parallel park for 10 minutes while fat guy ordered onion rings for the table. Instead they managed to give us an ending thyat so many people speculated might be the ending, but still surprised us.

First, and most importantly, I hope EVERYONE sees the Jimmy Kimmel LOST special that aired afterwards. Hilarious.

Sorry EJ - did not mean to give away end of the Mets game - assume everyone was like me and glancing over at their GameTracker and pausing their DVRs at particularly tense moments while their significant others angrily stared at them and quietly contemplated stabbing them in the throat with an ice pick.

Look, I recognize that this sort of a thing is an inherently subjective exercise. I also don't think there's anything wrong with sentimentality or caring about characters, but I don't think sentimentality is synonymous with schmaltz by any means. And, to be clear, I don't think the episode was guilty of that - I found much of it genuinely affecting and well executed, but had a problem with how they handled the end because I found it very mechanical and resorting to what I personally see as cheap tricks to generate a desired emotional response from the audience. I don't mean to suggest that audience members who had a connection or reaction to it are simply pawns of the writers or don't realize when its happening - the acting is too good for that sort of thing.

Its (again speaking only for myself) an intangible sort of thing. I wind up comparing it to both film and book of Lord of the Rings (particularly Frodo and Sam's bond, and their relationship with Gollum, who is a tragic figure similar in some ways to

Spoiler

Ben or Sayeed

, or the resolution of Luke Skywalker's relationship with his father. In both LOTR and Star Wars, they deliberately draw their theme from classical mythology - there is certainly a good argument to be made that the LOST writers tried to reach beyond that sort of classical (but formulaic) plotting.

I also should be clear that its not that the intelligence level of the show insults me - the writers are clearly very bright and talented and well read. My problem has been (for the past few seasons) that the show seemed to deliberately and self-consciously tries to tout its intellectual chops as having something tremendously important to say about philosophy and the human condition. Personally - I found that it couldn't succeed in that endeavor - not from a lack of intellect, but a lack of focus (which, granted, is hard to do on a multiple plot line story with many characters and the writers and producers having no idea how long ABC would renew the series.)

I know that they were very heavily influenced by Stephen King's work, with The Stand and The Dark Tower opus particular inspirations for them. So I had high expectations - which personally weren't met. On the other hand, to be fair, it may just be the case that for me, this sort of thing works better on the page than on film. Loved the book IT. Pretty much thought the TV mini series was mediocre. Same for THE STAND, and THE LANGOLIERS, both of which were pretty faithful to the book. Maybe its just the absence of interior monologue that is what accounts for my own taste on these things.

For what its worth, I think the Sopranos often fell into the same trap much of the time, becoming overly focused on its own weightiness and modern Shakespearan drama. (on the whole, though some of the individual episodes of the Sopranos are some of the finest hours of TV I've ever seen, I would def see that even with a final season that left me disappointed in some key respects, I think as a whole LOST was a more successful endeavor that, thankfully, did not see itself as at war with its audience and intentionally try and drive them up a wall. Whatever my my own grumblings about the show are, on the whole I found it more fun and engrossing than the Sopranos, and I don't think the writers wanted to jerk the audience around the way Chase often did (well before the awful finale) - they just were in a rush to tie up a bunch o' stuff )

Interesting that you mentioned Cheers because that was actually one of my favorite series finales ever - I thought it hit just the right notes. (But I'll also say that Cheers is one of my favorite shows of all time that can pretty much do no wrong ). I also thought it was one of the most intelligent shows ever written, but never strained to do it.

Again, watch the Jimmy Kimmel wrap up. Great stuff.

[ZachTavlin]

Again, watch the Jimmy Kimmel wrap up. Great stuff.

Spoiler

See, I thought the finale itself (at least the last few scenes) ran like a Jimmy Kimmel wrap up.

I'm sorry, but everyone hugging and holding hands with their love interest from the past six seasons isn't a strong ending (though it may not disappoint LOST fans per se). The scene with Jack and Christian was predictable and didn't offer us anything interesting or new: it was like a shallow interpretation of the show itself from an uncreative fan who just finished watching Season 1.

I didn't have a problem with the way they ran flashbacks throughout the episode. In fact, I thought it was the most rewarding aspect of the finale. But, as Josh pointed out, the writers were very obviously hedging their bets and didn't appear to take any risks whatsoever. One weakness throughout LOST's history was its inability to be final, and thus powerful, in its treatment of well-liked characters: characters die and are quickly reincarnated in other plotlines or in other forms. It's great for fans but it's also bad storytelling. The finale may have made fans feel good but it couldn't escape the momentum of its own bathos.

[goldglv17]

I disagree about lazy writing (at this point I am abandoning the spoiler tags). I think they managed to create a purgatory world, which was something most fans (myself included) dismissed around season 3 for being too obvious. However by creating this they managed not to insult us as being too simplistic.

Here's the best recap I have read as of yet.

http://www.42inchtel...ly-perfect.html

[Nigel'sStillConfused]

Spoiler

See, I thought the finale itself (at least the last few scenes) ran like a Jimmy Kimmel wrap up.

I'm sorry, but everyone hugging and holding hands with their love interest from the past six seasons isn't a strong ending (though it may not disappoint LOST fans per se). The scene with Jack and Christian was predictable and didn't offer us anything interesting or new: it was like a shallow interpretation of the show itself from an uncreative fan who just finished watching Season 1.

I didn't have a problem with the way they ran flashbacks throughout the episode. In fact, I thought it was the most rewarding aspect of the finale. But, as Josh pointed out, the writers were very obviously hedging their bets and didn't appear to take any risks whatsoever. One weakness throughout LOST's history was its inability to be final, and thus powerful, in its treatment of well-liked characters: characters die and are quickly reincarnated in other plotlines or in other forms. It's great for fans but it's also bad storytelling. The finale may have made fans feel good but it couldn't escape the momentum of its own bathos.

Spoiler

I didn't mind the concept of Jack and Christian meeting up - it was predictable but was also appropriate. My main issue with it was that it was too expository, and used shortcuts to extract the emotional response from the audience it was looking for. (Also, and again probably highlighting my dysfunctional cynicism more than anything, I thought Jack staggering through the bamboo forest was waaay too drawn out - started reminding me of the following scene from SEINFELD concerning The English Patient:



I didn't mind the concept of characters dying and then being reincarnated in other plotlines or forms. You can't be a fan of The Dark Tower and not embrace that - it is not a spoiler for those who haven't read it to point out that the concept of parallel worlds and the impermance of time is absolutely central to that series, and has been so since King wrote The Gunslinger back in the early 1980s. Its a function of execution. When its handled right, it packs tremendous punch. When its not, it gives off the impression of some sort of deux ex machina shortcut.

In the finale, I think LOST demonstrated both aspects. The scenes where the characters find each other I thought were brilliantly written and genuinely affecting. (Juliet and Sawyer at the candy machine was phenomenal - as was the Charlie and Clara connection). It works and touches on very deep emotions without straining for it. Same with Jin and Sun - I didn't find any of their reunion at odds with their death a few weeks earlier - and that's an example where the mystery and ambiguity seems to work wonderfully.

For me, the final scene in the church seemed 180 degrees from that, with Jack's death icing on the cake. That's what I found frustrating because it was so clear to me that the writers had the ability to handle it so much more deftly - they had just done so 20 mins earlier! It seemed totally disjointed to me. I keep wondering whether or not that's really the ending they wrote, or if instead Lindolf and Cuse had written something more in line with the earlier material and some network suit demanded a re-write.

(And that is why I always keep coming back to the episode "WALKABOUT" - its about one of the best hours of television in any genre I've ever seen - everything about it - from the writing to the acting to the editing hit every mark perfectly, and takes the audience right where it needs to go.)

For some reason, one film that I've been thinking of in terms of contrast is Pulp Fiction. Like LOST, its a pop culture genre film, it juggles time around alot, has lots of characters, and also explores themes of faith, redemption, vengeance. It also has a ton of ambiguity, both in terms of plot points (what's in the suitcase? Why was Vince in Amsterdam? What's the bandaid doing on the back of Marcus's head?) and characters (Samuel Jackson is about as complex an antihero as I've ever seen, and all of the characters are both attractive and repellent). Its probably not a fair comparison to LOST, but for whatever reason it's sticking with me.

At the end of the day, I think doing any sort of mass market show that tries to address "The Big Questions" is inherently challenging and will never satisfy anyone. Despite my dissatisfaction with the final season and aspects of the finale (and I think the finale was much better than many of the other episodes in Season 6), LOST has been more succesful than most and certainly deserves major commendations for its efforts. I would certainly be interested to see how Lidolf/Abrams/Cuse would tackle something like Dark Tower or some of Neal Stephenson's work like SNOW CRASH.

[tabes]

I disagree about lazy writing (at this point I am abandoning the spoiler tags). I think they managed to create a purgatory world, which was something most fans (myself included) dismissed around season 3 for being too obvious. However by creating this they managed not to insult us as being too simplistic.

Here's the best recap I have read as of yet.

http://www.42inchtel...ly-perfect.html

I agree. And not only that, but in creating a "purgatory world" they could have taken the easy way out and said they were dead since the airplane crash- instead they went the route that everything that happened on the island happened, the purgatory is only after they died, whenever they died- on the island (boone, shannon, sayid, Jack at the end), or after Jack died (Kate, Sawyer, Hurley, etc). They chose not to take the easy way out.

The show from the beginning has been about needing to live together, to stop being alone and trust/love the people they're with. The finale, and the ending, wrapped that up using the same themes. It would have been weird if they suddenly went away from what the show was about all along.

They didn't take risks? It was a show about characters who happen to be on a freaky island that had one person who lived for thousands of years and another person who had become black smoke. It eventually involved time travel, and a light in the ground. It had continuous discussions about free will vs. no choice where very few shows even attempt a deep discussion like this. It ended with a major characters death, followed by a purgatory theme in which all of the main characters were dead and "moving on" together. All the while they kept the focus on the characters, knowing that people would be outraged because they didn't answer things like who built a statue or why there was a map drawn on a door. To say they didn't take risks simply because it's not the kind of risks you specifically would have done if you were writing the show limits what the show accomplished, I think. In a land of a bunch of same old same old shows (how many freakin' doctor shows can we have??), I think in the grand scheme of things the producers and this show took tremendous risks.

*shrug* As Nigel said, it's "an inherently subjective exercise." For myself, I loved it- I loved the series, I loved the finale, and I'm going to miss watching this every week.

[Nigel'sStillConfused]

I disagree about lazy writing (at this point I am abandoning the spoiler tags). I think they managed to create a purgatory world, which was something most fans (myself included) dismissed around season 3 for being too obvious. However by creating this they managed not to insult us as being too simplistic.

Here's the best recap I have read as of yet.

http://www.42inchtel...ly-perfect.html

Spoiler tags be damned....

That is a good recap - agree with many of their observations. This is another one I liked alot (which is pretty laudatory about the show) - http://marquee.blogs...e-for-the-ages/

Cuse and Lindelof have been adamant in their interviews that it wasn't about purgatory. That's difficult to reconcile with the show's resolution, although perhaps what they were referring to was purgatory in the classical Roman Catholic sense which, as I understand it (and, not being Catholic or having studied the concept, apologize in advance if I bungle) invoves expiating sins by those who die in God's grace but are nevertheless imperfect for acceptance into the Heavenly Kingdom. Which would make sense here given that many of the characters would be hard to characterize as dying in God's grace and were just imperfect souls. (Sayeed, Ben, Sawyer, and possibly Kate as particularly robust examples)

Purgatory seems to be more of a process than an actual place in the afterlife, but I think Dante's Divine Comedy may have morphed the idea more into the "way station idea".

As they said on the Kimmel special - in terms of LOST's religious/spiritual tips of the cap, it obviously depends on where the viewer comes from (or their perspective on comparative religion) and the writers pretty much alluded to every belief system in history, its an open grab bag. I would, however, guess that various strains of Eastern philosophy or religions may gibe with the storyline best, because there certainly is a thread of dharma-karma-nirvana that is very discernable (and would explain the Dharma Project's nomenclature.)

[tabes]

Spoiler tags be damned....

That is a good recap - agree with many of their observations. This is another one I liked alot (which is pretty laudatory about the show) - http://marquee.blogs...e-for-the-ages/

Cuse and Lindelof have been adamant in their interviews that it wasn't about purgatory. That's difficult to reconcile with the show's resolution, although perhaps what they were referring to was purgatory in the classical Roman Catholic sense which, as I understand it (and, not being Catholic or having studied the concept, apologize in advance if I bungle) invoves expiating sins by those who die in God's grace but are nevertheless imperfect for acceptance into the Heavenly Kingdom. Which would make sense here given that many of the characters would be hard to characterize as dying in God's grace and were just imperfect souls. (Sayeed, Ben, Sawyer, and possibly Kate as particularly robust examples)

Purgatory seems to be more of a process than an actual place in the afterlife, but I think Dante's Divine Comedy may have morphed the idea more into the "way station idea".

As they said on the Kimmel special - in terms of LOST's religious/spiritual tips of the cap, it obviously depends on where the viewer comes from (or their perspective on comparative religion) and the writers pretty much alluded to every belief system in history, its an open grab bag. I would, however, guess that various strains of Eastern philosophy or religions may gibe with the storyline best, because there certainly is a thread of dharma-karma-nirvana that is very discernable (and would explain the Dharma Project's nomenclature.)

Whenever I read a quote from them denying, it was always something similar to "the island is not purgatory, the characters are not dead, they are real", etc. And they were right, weren't lying right- the ending last night stated that they didn't die at the beginning, at the plane crash. Everything that happened did happen, "Whatever happened, happened". It was only after their lives ended, on the island or off afterwards, that they entered this "limbo" they created in order to be with the ones they loved. So technically they didn't lie- they didn't die in the crash, the island wasn't purgatory. Besides, I always said, if the island was purgatory what could they say? Could they really say in the first season "yes, you guessed the final answer. But please keep watching, even though you now have no reason to watch since you in effect read the final page of the book!" I wouldn't have blamed them for lying in order to keep people watching.

[ZachTavlin]

Spoiler

I didn't mind the concept of Jack and Christian meeting up - it was predictable but was also appropriate. My main issue with it was that it was too expository, and used shortcuts to extract the emotional response from the audience it was looking for. (Also, and again probably highlighting my dysfunctional cynicism more than anything, I thought Jack staggering through the bamboo forest was waaay too drawn out - started reminding me of the following scene from SEINFELD concerning The English Patient:



I didn't mind the concept of characters dying and then being reincarnated in other plotlines or forms. You can't be a fan of The Dark Tower and not embrace that - it is not a spoiler for those who haven't read it to point out that the concept of parallel worlds and the impermance of time is absolutely central to that series, and has been so since King wrote The Gunslinger back in the early 1980s. Its a function of execution. When its handled right, it packs tremendous punch. When its not, it gives off the impression of some sort of deux ex machina shortcut.

In the finale, I think LOST demonstrated both aspects. The scenes where the characters find each other I thought were brilliantly written and genuinely affecting. (Juliet and Sawyer at the candy machine was phenomenal - as was the Charlie and Clara connection). It works and touches on very deep emotions without straining for it. Same with Jin and Sun - I didn't find any of their reunion at odds with their death a few weeks earlier - and that's an example where the mystery and ambiguity seems to work wonderfully.

For me, the final scene in the church seemed 180 degrees from that, with Jack's death icing on the cake. That's what I found frustrating because it was so clear to me that the writers had the ability to handle it so much more deftly - they had just done so 20 mins earlier! It seemed totally disjointed to me. I keep wondering whether or not that's really the ending they wrote, or if instead Lindolf and Cuse had written something more in line with the earlier material and some network suit demanded a re-write.

(And that is why I always keep coming back to the episode "WALKABOUT" - its about one of the best hours of television in any genre I've ever seen - everything about it - from the writing to the acting to the editing hit every mark perfectly, and takes the audience right where it needs to go.)

For some reason, one film that I've been thinking of in terms of contrast is Pulp Fiction. Like LOST, its a pop culture genre film, it juggles time around alot, has lots of characters, and also explores themes of faith, redemption, vengeance. It also has a ton of ambiguity, both in terms of plot points (what's in the suitcase? Why was Vince in Amsterdam? What's the bandaid doing on the back of Marcus's head?) and characters (Samuel Jackson is about as complex an antihero as I've ever seen, and all of the characters are both attractive and repellent). Its probably not a fair comparison to LOST, but for whatever reason it's sticking with me.

At the end of the day, I think doing any sort of mass market show that tries to address "The Big Questions" is inherently challenging and will never satisfy anyone. Despite my dissatisfaction with the final season and aspects of the finale (and I think the finale was much better than many of the other episodes in Season 6), LOST has been more succesful than most and certainly deserves major commendations for its efforts. I would certainly be interested to see how Lidolf/Abrams/Cuse would tackle something like Dark Tower or some of Neal Stephenson's work like SNOW CRASH.

My criticism has little to do with the concepts used in the finale. I don't have a problem with the fact that Jack and Christian met up, or that characters are reincarnated qua reincarnated characters.

My point is that some of these scenes developed in a way that betrayed the (probably intended) recurring pathos. Great art is sad in some way, and the best moments are sad moments (agree with you re: Sawyer and Juliet). But what gives substance to these moments? It is the ephemeral, the fleeting, the different. It involves death-as-annihilation. LOST fans often want to impose some transcendental ego/structure on top of this story rather than articulate a series of differing subjects at the mercy of time and pure event.

I like that this was about the characters (as opposed to the paper thin "mythology"), but the resolution almost eliminated the infinite variation - the flux or Shakespearean 'overhearing' - in the characters themselves. Interpreting television or cinema is itself a creation of something radically new, something that did not exist before but was always the basis or condition of the text-in-motion.

This is all to say that, at its best, LOST evades the traditional model of stasis and conformity to types. It is a recasting of contingency. The (very) end of the series was not as emotionally powerful as it could have been because it was obvious. It was reminiscent of something else, not opaquely 'violent' or sad.

[Nigel'sStillConfused]

I agree. And not only that, but in creating a "purgatory world" they could have taken the easy way out and said they were dead since the airplane crash- instead they went the route that everything that happened on the island happened, the purgatory is only after they died, whenever they died- on the island (boone, shannon, sayid, Jack at the end), or after Jack died (Kate, Sawyer, Hurley, etc). They chose not to take the easy way out.

The show from the beginning has been about needing to live together, to stop being alone and trust/love the people they're with. The finale, and the ending, wrapped that up using the same themes. It would have been weird if they suddenly went away from what the show was about all along.

They didn't take risks? It was a show about characters who happen to be on a freaky island that had one person who lived for thousands of years and another person who had become black smoke. It eventually involved time travel, and a light in the ground. It had continuous discussions about free will vs. no choice where very few shows even attempt a deep discussion like this. It ended with a major characters death, followed by a purgatory theme in which all of the main characters were dead and "moving on" together. All the while they kept the focus on the characters, knowing that people would be outraged because they didn't answer things like who built a statue or why there was a map drawn on a door. To say they didn't take risks simply because it's not the kind of risks you specifically would have done if you were writing the show limits what the show accomplished, I think. In a land of a bunch of same old same old shows (how many freakin' doctor shows can we have??), I think in the grand scheme of things the producers and this show took tremendous risks.

*shrug* As Nigel said, it's "an inherently subjective exercise." For myself, I loved it- I loved the series, I loved the finale, and I'm going to miss watching this every week.

I do agree that the show is at its best when its focus is on the characters and the impact of this weird, supernatural situation on these people. What's always characterized the best science fiction, fantasy, or horror writing is a combination of building a world that you can get immersed in, and making the focus ultimately about people, with plot mechanics framing the insights into the characters or, in some cases (like H.G. Well's work, or Neal Stephenson) commenting on society or societal issues more broadly. Which is why I found Season 6 schizophrenic - I thought the sideways flash material much more effective and involving than moving the ball forward on the Island. But, all things considered, for much of the finale I think they harmonzed it well )

In terms of risk taking, I draw a distinction between ambition and risk-taking (though the line isn't a neat divide). I think many of the things that you identify above frame the writer and producers ambitions. I also agree that trying to get a major sci fi type series up and running, especially one as complex as LOST, is, business wise, not risk-free. (In one interview Abrams or Lindelof said that they kind of conned everyone in season 1 thinking the show was Robinson Crusoe with a few mysterious twists, and then dragged the audience along to hardcore sci-fi geekdom without their neccessarily having realized it or signed on for it). In terms of my own reference to "not taking risks" I mean it strictly in terms of decisions made about certain plot and character lines, possibly because the writers may have gotten at time lost in their own maze, so they sometimes pull their punches. (i.e. - being devastated by Jin and Sun's death is mitigated by them coming back in some other form or parallel world).

In addition, I think their dabbling in lots of religion or philosophy without committing to a particular view of the human condition can (and did) lead to trying to cover all bets, and thus results in an ending that, while I think its crowd pleasing and emotional, doesn't really conclude with an emphatic thump that it had the ability to do, particular when compared with some of the material that inspired them, be it THE STAND, LOTR, STAR WARS series, Greek/Norse mythology or epics, or even graphic novel WATCHMEN.

[Nigel'sStillConfused]

My criticism has little to do with the concepts used in the finale. I don't have a problem with the fact that Jack and Christian met up, or that characters are reincarnated qua reincarnated characters.

My point is that some of these scenes developed in a way that betrayed the (probably intended) recurring pathos. Great art is sad in some way, and the best moments are sad moments (agree with you re: Sawyer and Juliet). But what gives substance to these moments? It is the ephemeral, the fleeting, the different. It involves death-as-annihilation. LOST fans often want to impose some transcendental ego/structure on top of this story rather than articulate a series of differing subjects at the mercy of time and pure event.

I like that this was about the characters (as opposed to the paper thin "mythology"), but the resolution almost eliminated the infinite variation - the flux or Shakespearean 'overhearing' - in the characters themselves. Interpreting television or cinema is itself a creation of something radically new, something that did not exist before but was always the basis or condition of the text-in-motion.

This is all to say that, at its best, LOST evades the traditional model of stasis and conformity to types. It is a recasting of contingency. The (very) end of the series was not as emotionally powerful as it could have been because it was obvious. It was reminiscent of something else, not opaquely 'violent' or sad.

I have to be honest and tell you that I'm not following much of your critique above. (sorry - but the terminology is losing me in large measures . ) I think what you're trying to say is that you think the reincarnation elements of the show are problematic because you believe that they in large measure operate to generate a desired emotional response from the audience. But I can;t be sure - sorry.

Your comments re: flux and Shakespearean overhearing are def going past me. I think you are paralleling my comment that some of this sort of material may (for some like me) be more effective in a novel because of interior monologue or omniscient narrator - 2 key factors that have always made me like S. King's books way more than the film adaptations for the most part. (Esp books like the Shining or Salem's Lot - whereas the film STAND BY ME is equal to the novella (for me) in no small part because of Richard Dreyfus's narration).

[Nigel'sStillConfused]

Whenever I read a quote from them denying, it was always something similar to "the island is not purgatory, the characters are not dead, they are real", etc. And they were right, weren't lying right- the ending last night stated that they didn't die at the beginning, at the plane crash. Everything that happened did happen, "Whatever happened, happened". It was only after their lives ended, on the island or off afterwards, that they entered this "limbo" they created in order to be with the ones they loved. So technically they didn't lie- they didn't die in the crash, the island wasn't purgatory. Besides, I always said, if the island was purgatory what could they say? Could they really say in the first season "yes, you guessed the final answer. But please keep watching, even though you now have no reason to watch since you in effect read the final page of the book!" I wouldn't have blamed them for lying in order to keep people watching.

Fair question, but I think it depends on what one likes about the series. If its all about solving the puzzle, than yes, I think they couldn't have said that.

But I'm not sure that it was fully neccessary (at least in that aspect of the show) to make that murky - because it risks turning the exercise into a twist Twilight Zone type of ending ("we all live in a zoo......."). Once again looking at Stephen King's longer works as a counterpoint - that usually isn't how he handles it. Usually abouut midpoint or 3/4 through, the reader (or audience) understands the major plot mechanisms and thus the emphasis turns to resolution both in terms of plot and character.

IT, THE STAND, SALEM'S LOT, THE MIST, INSOMNIA, DESPARATION I think are all pretty fair to compare to LOST (and I think every single one of those books heavily influenced LOST) - each of them still has a few tricks up their sleeves at the end, but none decides that the "final answer" has to await the book's conclusion - he gets the architecture in place (even when its really abstract and tricky stuff - like in ROSE MADDER) and then turns his attention to working through a resolution with the characters given the supernatural scenario.

[ZachTavlin]

I have to be honest and tell you that I'm not following much of your critique above. (sorry - but the terminology is losing me in large measures . ) I think what you're trying to say is that you think the reincarnation elements of the show are problematic because you believe that they in large measure operate to generate a desired emotional response from the audience. But I can;t be sure - sorry.

Your comments re: flux and Shakespearean overhearing are def going past me. I think you are paralleling my comment that some of this sort of material may (for some like me) be more effective in a novel because of interior monologue or omniscient narrator - 2 key factors that have always made me like S. King's books way more than the film adaptations for the most part. (Esp books like the Shining or Salem's Lot - whereas the film STAND BY ME is equal to the novella (for me) in no small part because of Richard Dreyfus's narration).

Sorry, let me see if I can put it another way.

My first point is to establish my view that no one "concept" is problematic (that is, 'reincarnation' as such), but that concepts or devices themselves are (what Deleuze and Guattari might call) artistic territories: they 'mark' character instances and events and pick them out as extra-dimensional to the surface of the text. This may be too jargon-ridden, but all cinematic devices do what Heidegger said signs do: they provide a clearing in the consciousness of the viewer.

These processes are to remain invisible to the viewer if they are to work. Why is this important then? Because LOST has long operated (often successfully) on a plane of infinite variation. What works is what is purely new. The characters may be ego-driven but they find themselves dominated by the event (the singular event, which recurs but is always different). They elude the present because they are always becoming other. Think about the Lewis Carroll references. The island is a world created out of nonsense, and the characters are constantly different at all points from what they were or who they'll be ("Alice becomes larger than she was and yet not as large as she will be").

Given that the audience has an active role in the interpretation of LOST, the show is at its best when it changes our field of perception. I don't believe the finale did that, proving that it was more of a homage than an active coda. In LOST, the montage, the close-up and the pathetic moment that serves as a story's climax sensitizes the viewer to things about characters and events that would otherwise go unnoticed. The re-uniting scenes were so touching because they were singular events that seemed not to refer to anything else outside themselves (despite flashing images from previous episodes). The ending was disappointing (to me, at least) because it was nothing but expectation fulfilled. It was designed as a container for everything eternal (and thus, weak) about LOST and its characters.

[Luke]

I must be a simpleton because I want some schmaltz.

I'm still lurking in the televisual manram thread; and now I've found Goldie's epitaph!

[Nigel'sStillConfused]

Sorry, let me see if I can put it another way.

My first point is to establish my view that no one "concept" is problematic (that is, 'reincarnation' as such), but that concepts or devices themselves are (what Deleuze and Guattari might call) artistic territories: they 'mark' character instances and events and pick them out as extra-dimensional to the surface of the text. This may be too jargon-ridden, but all cinematic devices do what Heidegger said signs do: they provide a clearing in the consciousness of the viewer.

These processes are to remain invisible to the viewer if they are to work. Why is this important then? Because LOST has long operated (often successfully) on a plane of infinite variation. What works is what is purely new. The characters may be ego-driven but they find themselves dominated by the event (the singular event, which recurs but is always different). They elude the present because they are always becoming other. Think about the Lewis Carroll references. The island is a world created out of nonsense, and the characters are constantly different at all points from what they were or who they'll be ("Alice becomes larger than she was and yet not as large as she will be").

Given that the audience has an active role in the interpretation of LOST, the show is at its best when it changes our field of perception. I don't believe the finale did that, proving that it was more of a homage than an active coda. In LOST, the montage, the close-up and the pathetic moment that serves as a story's climax sensitizes the viewer to things about characters and events that would otherwise go unnoticed. The re-uniting scenes were so touching because they were singular events that seemed not to refer to anything else outside themselves (despite flashing images from previous episodes). The ending was disappointing (to me, at least) because it was nothing but expectation fulfilled. It was designed as a container for everything eternal (and thus, weak) about LOST and its characters.

Zach, still cannot follow this. Despite my first class education, I got no idea who Deluze or Guattari are, and (I truly mean no offense) the rest of your analysis is totally incomprehensible to me. Totally.

The only part I can sort of de-code is your comment "In LOST, the montage, the close-up and the pathetic moment that serves as a story's climax sensitizes the viewer to things about characters and events that would otherwise go unnoticed." Your point seems to be that through the magic of savvy editing, the writers and producers manipulate otherwise insignificant events to create emotion in viewers that, in hindsight is false. You also seem to be saying that the reason the re-uniting scenes are effective is because they don't demand that the viewer draw on prior developments in the series to feel an emotional impact that seems more genuine and hard hitting than (at least for me) the final scene. (I think the re-uniting between Juliet and Sawyer is truly up there with the great devastating romantic scenes of all time. No joke - its Casablanca-worthy).

If I've got you right on that score, I have to disagree. LOST is effective and impactful emotionally BECAUSE we've gone on a journey with these characters and care about them. That is the hallmark of great fantasy and sci-fi - being able to use the supernatural and fantastic to get to some core emotion about people. Its what made Star Trek great, its what makes Empire Strikes Back terrific, and its what makes Lord Of The Rings a masterpiece of both literature and film.

My issue with lost isn't that its emotionally false - if anything, my disappoinment in many aspects of this season reflects the fact that 8 out of 10 times, it generates a level of emotional depth (and gets real nuance from its actors that I've rarely seen in a drama on network TV sustained for near 7 seasons), so when it doesn't do that or (in my view) turns to some mechanical button-pressing GHOST style, I'm hypercritical because I think the writers have the absolute talent to exceed that.

Bottom line is if LOST hadn't blown me away for the first several seasons, my posts would be a lot shorter. Its because I found myself at the end at a point where I was watching it mainly because I liked the acting alot and "just wanted to see how it ends" that I'm picking on it. But I don't think that its flaws lie in any sort of failure by the writers or producers to limit themselves to singular events, or their efforts to t try to create a massive mythology. Its in execution, not concept or ambition, that I have some issues. But absent what you describe as an "homage" I don't think that what I really like about the finale would have suceeded.

[gak29]

Zach, still cannot follow this. Despite my first class education, I got no idea who Deluze or Guattari are, and (I truly mean no offense) the rest of your analysis is totally incomprehensible to me. Totally.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

YES!!!! OWNED!!!!

SO WORTH DECIDING TO READ THIS THREAD!!!!

Sorry, Zach. Love ya, but that was epic.