The British Fantasy Society Forum

Fantasy => TV and Film => Topic started by: Owen on October 07, 2008, 09:38:48 pm

Title: LOST
Post by: Owen on October 07, 2008, 09:38:48 pm
Righty-Oh... I watched the first season back when it came out and loved it. It seemed like a more intelligent kind of show that treated the audience with a little respect and didn't feel the need to explain everything immediately.

Then I started watching season two, and about a third of the way into it I realised that absolutely nothing had happened in about seven episodes so I gave up and although I've been tempted to venture back into the world of Jack and Co. the bad taste that S2 left has stopped me.

However...

I recently got BT Vision, which has the first 3 seasons available on demand, so I have started to watch it again, struggling through the second season. I'm about 20 episodes in and, other than the arrival of 'Henry Gale' the rest just feels like filler to me. The introduction of the second group, which should have had a monumental effect on the series, whimpered out rather quickly. Anna Lucia has stopped being a threatening or even interesting and Mr Echo has spent the last god knows how long building something.

I am almost through the season and, so far, it seems like I could have skipped the entire thing and moved onto season three as, no doubt, the entire season will be condensed into a 1 minute montage that fully explains it.

Does it get any better of have I wasted what amounts to virtually an entire day watching something that is bobbins?
Title: Re: LOST
Post by: Peter Coleborn on October 07, 2008, 10:22:40 pm

I'm afraid that Lost rather lost me
Or I lost interest in it

It's another example of repeating the easy stuff in order to match an initial success. A friend of mine likened this sort of thing to flogging a dead horse -- although to me that phrase conjures up more disturbing images.
Title: Re: LOST
Post by: Jen on October 08, 2008, 07:12:11 am
Season 3 was a bit here and there, IIRC, but Season 4 was ace (so long as you ignored the eppies that focussed on Jack and Kate, cos, YAWN!)  There was lots of time hopping and fab jaw dropping moments and the season finale... gosh...  :o  Am looking forward to S5 just to see where they're going to take it...   ;D 
Title: Re: LOST
Post by: Owen on October 08, 2008, 07:53:29 am
That seems to be the reason that most people continue to watch the show - to see how they resolve it. Most freely admit that it hasn't been as good since S1, but feel like they deserve to know what is actually going on. It's like they invested so much with the first year that they're willing to put up with any amount of dross to get the answer.
Title: Re: LOST
Post by: Rolnikov on October 08, 2008, 11:29:39 am
That seems to be the reason that most people continue to watch the show - to see how they resolve it. Most freely admit that it hasn't been as good since S1, but feel like they deserve to know what is actually going on. It's like they invested so much with the first year that they're willing to put up with any amount of dross to get the answer.

I couldn't disagree more - I mean, some people might see things the way you say, but bear in mind you're in the middle of the programme's one and only dip. The problem it had at that point was that there wasn't much new to reveal in the flashbacks. It had a dip, but it didn't have a Heroes-style meltdown.

But once you get past the six-episode pod at the beginning of season three, Lost goes from strength to strength, not only equalling but surpassing those early episodes again and again. At risk of spoilers, I won't point you to any particular articles or episodes, but Matt Rousch at TV Guide, for example, has been raving about it for the last year.

In the UK I think Lost has always been handicapped - part of the fun are the discoveries you make while watching it. But here, newspapers and magazines think nothing of giving those things away in advance. I remember reading a feature in the Radio Times when the programme first launched here, and how shocked I was that it set out everyone's backgrounds and backstories - effectively destroying all the suspense from the flashbacks in season one.
Title: Re: LOST
Post by: David A. Riley on October 08, 2008, 11:37:52 am
I try to avoid reading reviews and articles beforehand about films and TV programs, because I have had my enjoyment of them tarnished, if not exacrlt spoiled, by having too much revealed beforehand. I absolutely hate that kind of thing.

Though, saying that, I'm afraid I have never got into watching LOST. That's something I will one day catch up on via DVD.

David
Title: Re: LOST
Post by: Owen on October 08, 2008, 08:45:01 pm
That seems to be the reason that most people continue to watch the show - to see how they resolve it. Most freely admit that it hasn't been as good since S1, but feel like they deserve to know what is actually going on. It's like they invested so much with the first year that they're willing to put up with any amount of dross to get the answer.

I couldn't disagree more - I mean, some people might see things the way you say, but bear in mind you're in the middle of the programme's one and only dip. The problem it had at that point was that there wasn't much new to reveal in the flashbacks. It had a dip, but it didn't have a Heroes-style meltdown.

But once you get past the six-episode pod at the beginning of season three, Lost goes from strength to strength, not only equalling but surpassing those early episodes again and again. At risk of spoilers, I won't point you to any particular articles or episodes, but Matt Rousch at TV Guide, for example, has been raving about it for the last year.

In the UK I think Lost has always been handicapped - part of the fun are the discoveries you make while watching it. But here, newspapers and magazines think nothing of giving those things away in advance. I remember reading a feature in the Radio Times when the programme first launched here, and how shocked I was that it set out everyone's backgrounds and backstories - effectively destroying all the suspense from the flashbacks in season one.

So I shouldn't simply give up? It's just that S2 seems littered with bad writing and plotting (I am getting a bit sick of episodes revolving around a character in flashback only for that person to die at the end of the episode - SO WHAT WAS THE POINT OF THE EPISODE!?!, or simply treading water until the next revelation
- OOOOH... Sawyer's got all of the guns, I wonder what they're going to do with that? Oh, right, he's going to give them to anyone that asks nicely...).

I shall no doubt continue to watch it though - after all it's free.
Title: Re: LOST
Post by: Rolnikov on October 08, 2008, 10:34:14 pm
If you enjoyed season one at all, I'd definitely continue. In particular, the "game-changer" at the end of season three makes season four unmissable. And from season three on there are fewer episodes per season, so each of them really has to count (apart from one really dumb season three episode featuring the actor who was the Persian god-king in 300).

US programmes generally go on so long that you really have to want to watch them... At the moment I'm enjoying Chuck, but at the back of my mind I'm thinking, do I really want to watch another 100 or so episodes of this?
Title: Re: LOST
Post by: Owen on October 09, 2008, 11:49:24 am
Just about to watch the S2 finale - it had better be a doozy!!!

I am soooo late getting into stuff like this. I still haven't watched more than a couple of episodes of HEROES yet, although from what I hear it stuffers from Lost-syndrome as well.
Title: Re: LOST
Post by: Alasdair5000 on October 22, 2008, 01:43:46 pm
Chances are quite a lot of Season 3, specifically the first six episodes are REALLY going to irritate you.

Stick with it.

Because there's one episode, Stranger in a Strange Land, I think that lands not long after that which is really rather astonishing.  Worth your time:)
Title: Re: LOST
Post by: Peter Coleborn on October 22, 2008, 05:59:42 pm
I don't think I understand this advice: stick with it for 1,2,3,4... episodes, or ignore the rotten season 2, etc, etc, because it gets better, especially the penultimate episode... I just don't think I have enough hours in my life to waste watching dross. I gave up on Lost, Robin Hood, Merlin, Bonekickers, Primeval, Jericho, Deadwood, and others I've forgotten. I'm fast losing interest in Heroes.

And when they manage to make an outstanding show -- Carnivale -- they dump it. Go figure.
Title: Re: LOST
Post by: David A. Riley on October 22, 2008, 06:51:39 pm
Quote
I gave up on Lost, Robin Hood, Merlin, Bonekickers, Primeval, Jericho, Deadwood, and others I've forgotten. I'm fast losing interest in Heroes.
Read a good book instead.

Me, the only genre-orientated programs I currently enjoy are Dexter, Reaper, Pushing Daisies and The Sarah Connor Chronicles. The rest...

David
Title: Re: LOST
Post by: Alasdair5000 on October 22, 2008, 09:34:26 pm
I don't think I understand this advice: stick with it for 1,2,3,4... episodes, or ignore the rotten season 2, etc, etc, because it gets better, especially the penultimate episode... I just don't think I have enough hours in my life to waste watching dross. I gave up on Lost, Robin Hood, Merlin, Bonekickers, Primeval, Jericho, Deadwood, and others I've forgotten. I'm fast losing interest in Heroes.

And when they manage to make an outstanding show -- Carnivale -- they dump it. Go figure.

   I take your point and I actually bailed on Lost back in the first season when one of them found a cable that clearly led somewhere nearby with a working telecommunications system and...didn't mention it for 64 episodes.

   That being said, I think there's been a conflict at the heart of it for a long, long time between an occasionally horrific soap opera about plane crash survivors on an island and an overall plot which, for mainstream TV, is actually very odd and very ambitious.  That's made for some really interesting hours of TV if not consistent seasons.
Title: Re: LOST
Post by: Guy on October 24, 2008, 12:26:27 pm
I've consistently enjoyed it for precisely those ambitious reasons.  No, it's not been perfect but it has been enjoyable and exciting consistently enough that I for one am looking forward to Season 5 and the rest. 

It has never bored me and that's more than be said for a lot of America shows...
Title: Re: LOST
Post by: Owen on October 26, 2008, 06:46:25 pm
Well, I'm 7 episodes into season 3 aaaaaand... not a lot's happened.

Bugger all has really happened, and - yet again - we have an episode dedicated to a character (in this case Echo) only for the guy to die at the end of it. So that's Anna Lucia, annoying blonde chick and Echo that have all had their backstories delved into only for them to cark it at the end. It's as if to say; 'here y'are... a few tidbits to peak your interest and make you like the character a bit more... and now they're dead. Oh, well, never mind'.

It's refreshing to see a show where 'no one is safe' but it's getting a bit much. Does ANYTHING that we learned about Echo impact on the series AT ALL? I doubt it, so it was a waste of 45 minutes, really.
Title: Re: LOST
Post by: Rolnikov on October 26, 2008, 07:30:09 pm
Well, you're past the pod now, which is where a lot of people got stuck (though I have to say I thoroughly enjoyed them).

But like Peter says, you shouldn't force yourself to watch something you're not enjoying!

The stories of the characters can be an end in themselves, just like the action adventures on the island. The mysteries and clues are there to add a bit of spice to the drama, but if you don't enjoy the actual meal there's little point watching!
 
I thought Echo's story was very powerful... Would the programme really have been better if his character had never been in it? And of course his history did explain some important things from the very earliest episodes, and in his death we got our first really good look at the black smoke.
Title: Re: LOST
Post by: Owen on October 30, 2008, 07:52:10 am
It's not that I am not enjoying the show (which, I admit, is a little bit odd for someone that has mini-rants about it here). It's well acted and the production values are high. I think a lot of it has to with the fact that I am watching it in quick bursts of 5-6 episodes over the course of a few days, at which point it become apparent that not a lot's happened.

I liked the character of Echo - I thought he was the most interesting person in there, but after his death it did kinds scream 'PLOT DEVICE!!!'. He was there to evolve the character of Locke; to get the bald old guy 'back on the path'. As soon as that happened they got rid of him, which was a shame. Locke needed to go through a crisis of faith to make his story more dramatic, and they did the job well, but his back story and the whole building of the church (which went on for aaaaaages only to then be ignored as soon as Echo had something to do) seems somewhat redundant after his ass-whupping by Mr Smokey.

It's still suffering the same plague as season 2; a really slow start before picking up. Hopefully S3 will pick up pace a little quicker, but I will continue to watch as it now has an end in sight and the producers might (just might) actually have an end in sight and planned out, rather than the cynical 'just making it up as they go along' thing.

As for the stories of the characters being an end to themselves, I've got to disagree. A brilliant plot without good characters makes for a bad story, but brilliant characters with a bad plot makes the same. Lost could have both, but seems obsessed with squeezing the story out drip by drip and leaving it to the characters to make up for it.

I like lost, I really do, but it frustrates me!
Title: Re: LOST
Post by: Jen on January 28, 2009, 12:32:51 pm
Aaaaaaaaaand it's back!  Oh yes indeedy!  Season five has now started on Sky One and it had a completely wonderful start. 

** Possible spoilers if you don't have Sky or haven't found means to watch it elsewhere... **

Now we find out where they moved the island to.  Kind of!  And was Sun showing distinct tones of evil-ness in the eppy 2 when she was being all innocent conversational with Kate?   :o  And ooh, her at the end with the black eyes and the 70 hours deadline... wasn't she in one of the earlier season episodes.  One of the Desmond-centric ones wasn't it?  And should we know thingy at the butcher's shop?  Her introduction implied we should.  Ignore Jack and Kate, they still suck the life out of any scene but badass Sayid can kill you with his dishwasher.   ;) 

So is the mysterious whispering anything to do with the time hopping shenanigans?  And who the heck were the soldier dudes with?  They were English so possible Widmore connection?  And Daniel!  Dude!  So many questions!  How is he knowing all these things?!  And that little construction worker bit! 

Brain 'splodes...   ;D   :-*
Title: Re: LOST
Post by: Mike Chinn on January 28, 2009, 04:14:12 pm
I've never seen a single episode (or even so much as an entire minute) or Lost, and nothing I've seen or heard about it makes me think I've missed anything! ???

Sorry...
Title: Re: LOST
Post by: Rolnikov on January 28, 2009, 04:47:32 pm
That's what I thought, Jen - was she the one who noticed that Desmond was on his second go-round and chatted to him about it?

I thought the soldiers were just regular Dharma guards, but I might have been wrong.

Great idea about the whispering. I hadn't thought of that.

A brilliant start to the new season!
Title: Re: LOST
Post by: Jen on January 28, 2009, 08:04:43 pm
Quote
was she the one who noticed that Desmond was on his second go-round and chatted to him about it?

::does quick bit of web fu...::  Ah yes, Finola Flanagan, season three, had the jewellery shop where he was going to buy the engagement ring for Penny and insisted that actually, first time round, he'd changed his mind and never bought it.  And there was a thing with a guy with red shoes who got killed by falling rubble or something, and she used it to illustrate how you can't use foreknowledge to change events because they'll find a way to happen anyway.  Which tied into the 101 ways Des tried to save Charlie from dying on the island thing... 

But is she Daniel's mysterious mother?  Seeing as she has a passing understanding of the whole Lost time-shenanigans malarkey... :o
Title: Re: LOST
Post by: Mike Chinn on January 29, 2009, 04:28:34 pm
Quote
was she the one who noticed that Desmond was on his second go-round and chatted to him about it?

::does quick bit of web fu...::  Ah yes, Finola Flanagan, season three, had the jewellery shop where he was going to buy the engagement ring for Penny and insisted that actually, first time round, he'd changed his mind and never bought it.  And there was a thing with a guy with red shoes who got killed by falling rubble or something, and she used it to illustrate how you can't use foreknowledge to change events because they'll find a way to happen anyway.  Which tied into the 101 ways Des tried to save Charlie from dying on the island thing... 

But is she Daniel's mysterious mother?  Seeing as she has a passing understanding of the whole Lost time-shenanigans malarkey... :o

Oh
My
God...
Title: Re: LOST
Post by: Rolnikov on January 29, 2009, 04:40:52 pm
You wait, Mike, I'll write a review for Prism saying how great it is and then that will be The Official Opinion Of The British Fantasy Society.  ;D
Title: Re: LOST
Post by: Jen on January 29, 2009, 08:47:57 pm
Oh
My
God...

What?   ;D   :-*
Title: Re: LOST
Post by: Jen on February 02, 2009, 11:31:07 am
Ooh, episode three then... awesomeness or what!  :o  (Mike, close your ears!)   ;)

So that was the Widmore connection then!   ;D  And what do we reckon - does the blond soldier chick grow up to become Daniel's mum?  And just what is going on with the immortal Richard Alpert and his magical eyeliner?!   :D   

But the 'John Locke is destined to lead' stuff from last season makes a new kind of sense now - especially Richard's statement that he was supposed to be a scientist, as time hopping shenanigans show that he'd have associated Locke with the scientists that visited them in the fifties.

Ooh, and is that the last of the red shirts gone now?  (Excepting random Others)

And 'Others 101'!   ;D    And a big awwww to Penny and Desmond! 
Title: Re: LOST
Post by: Peter Coleborn on February 02, 2009, 01:51:03 pm
If I may iterate a previous posting: Oh my God...
Doesn't it all sound absurb?
I suspect the clue is in the title: the programme makers are so lost, they have no idea how to end the series.
Title: Re: LOST
Post by: Jen on February 02, 2009, 03:29:58 pm
But darlin', that's why it's so much fun!   ;D
Title: Re: LOST
Post by: Rolnikov on February 02, 2009, 06:05:52 pm
Peter, if recent episodes have shown anything, it's that all the times you thought the writers were a bit lost before, they absolutely weren't - it's all adding up. :) Plus, they brought Brian K. Vaughn on board last year, and his experience of plotting an ongoing story (from his comics work) has really been evident since then.

Jen, these episodes have been great, but I'd been hoping we might see them back in Black Rock times - maybe next week...
Title: Re: LOST
Post by: Jen on February 02, 2009, 07:58:12 pm
Ooh yes, and find out just how the ship crashed into the middle of the island in the first place...