Quote:
Originally Posted by jthig32
I would have to respectfully say that you have no idea what you're talking about if you think Lost appealed to the lowest common denominator. Lost was about as ambitious a network tv series as you will ever see. People bailed on the show in droves after the first season as they realized that it demanded more from them than the typical procedural drama.
The reality is that from the beginning it was a science fiction/fantasy show. The central character was a freaking island for god's sake. If you don't like what it turned in to, fine, but don't be one of these people that mistakes "something they didn't like" for "something that wasn't good".
The show itself did not become less intellectual. I simply found that I enjoyed it more when I wasn't obsessing over every single detail and connected event, especially once it became painfully obvious that 90% of these "details" were basically Easter eggs, rather than actual plot points. I still watched it with my thinking cap on, and tried to connect dots, but I wasn't interested in spending the next week breaking it down to the granular level. If that's what you enjoyed, fine, but I will always contend that the people that did that missed the overall point of the show.
|
*shakes head*
Let's dissect this.
Quote:
|
People bailed on the show in droves after the first season as they realized that it demanded more from them than the typical procedural drama.
|
Wrong. Audience went up in year 2. Dropped in year 3 but it was an overall weaker TV year, relative rank still increased. Wiki it. People didn't start bailing until Season 4. "Coincidentally", this is when the show started taking tangental liberties with the plot - like freakin' time travel.
Quote:
|
The reality is that from the beginning it was a science fiction/fantasy show. The central character was a freaking island for god's sake. If you don't like what it turned in to, fine, but don't be one of these people that mistakes "something they didn't like" for "something that wasn't good".
|
Right, I get that it wasn't real. I think even the lowest common denominator got that. It was a TV show after all. The burden of expectation is not on the scientific plausibility of the show jthig - you misunderstand. The key to any good story is
RESOLUTION. I don't care if the explanation makes sense within the confines of today's physics, but it should at least have a clear cut rationale. That was the failure of LOST.
Quote:
|
I simply found that I enjoyed it more when I wasn't obsessing over every single detail and connected event, especially once it became painfully obvious that 90% of these "details" were basically Easter eggs, rather than actual plot points.
|
This I agree on. And therein lies the heart of my disappointment. I am not satisfied with Easter Eggs. I want to be able to find deeper,
subtle meaning in my media, whether that be a book, a movie or a TV show. There are plenty of TV shows about characters. This was a show that advertised itself in Season 1 as something more. You enjoyed it more when the details stopped mattering. I prefer detail and complexity. To each his own.
Quote:
|
If that's what you enjoyed, fine, but I will always contend that the people that did that missed the overall point of the show.
|
Pray tell, what
was the overall point of the show?
LOST was indeed ambitious, I don't deny that. But that ambition went unfulfilled. I would have to respectfully say that you have no idea what you're talking about if you don't think LOST subordinated its artistic credibility to the greater purpose of appealing to a bigger audience (a point, which I should note, it failed at as reflected in its declining ratings). The show had incredible potential and peaked too early, then became an unwieldy behemoth of subplots and cross references that needed to be unwound in a hurry because it was no longer economically feasible to continue shooting. It's a shame, really.