> I don't understand these internet people who go "LOST NEVER ANSWERS ANY QUESTIONS IT'S GAY ETC"

Some of us manage a little better than that. But thanks for trying to see things from all sides. :o)

> Do any of them actually watch Lost?

Yep. Though we die a little more inside each time...

Still, I'll happily sit in my minority - through tedious flashbacks and all - but I can't walk away without noting that every single 'provided answer' you've listed needs to be followed by either a 'how?' or a 'why?' or possibly both. Which isn't providing answers so much as making the question more elaborate.

How to create a cult drama: "This person was trampled to death" (weeks later) "By a giant goat".

"Um...that's not an answer. Where the fuck did the giant goat come from?" (weeks later) "The spaceship brought it."

"What spaceship?" (weeks later) "The one that kid created with the brain powers he got from that ancient machine"

And so on.

Still, okay, there's stuff I DO enjoy about Lost, and I exaggerate for the comic effect I've always complained about. (Listen closely for the sound of me attempting to smother my own hypocrisy.) But not all Lost criticism can be dismissed as you did.

Well, how should they placate you? Broadcast the last episode now instead of at the end, just incase people are finding it a bit too frustrating, which is nothing more than a sign that they're doing their job well? I mean, it's taken JK Rowling about a zillion years to write all these fucking Harry Potter books and nobody ever complains about that. Comparitively, Lost is going to be over in no time at all. I think they've pretty definitively proven that they're not just making things up as you say, haven't they?

> How to create a cult drama: "This person was trampled to death" (weeks later) "By a giant goat".

I know nothing about Lost. But that was hilarious.

> Well, how should they placate you?

Decent characterisation, inventive dialogue, affecting emotional journeys and smart humour? :o)

Since when did I say they were 'making things up'? I don't think any of the answers listed ARE answers - but neither was I someone who was demanding answers already. I think you're confusing me with the block capital brigade!

For the record - and not for the first time - I'm happy to believe there's 'a plan'. Not as specific as all that - somethign we know just by the way they're casting the show, creating characters and losing them to suit actors' availability - but stuff that joins things together. Not one answer but several. Doesn't mean it'll be wholly satisfying.

But when I suggest such a thing, some Lost fans start listing - as you did - a whole stack of 'answers' that HAVE been satisfying. Proof that the finale will work. Only they're not answers, they're deeper questions. Which I've never questioned the dramatic need for. I just don't think they prove the show-runners will arrive at a successful, fulfilling conclusion.

And the only way to know that is when the thing ends. Until then, you're getting enough entertainment each week and I'm not. You don't have to agree with the citicisms, but to dismiss them as uneducated and moronic is a bit lazy. Defend a show you love. But don't lump every cirtic together just because you disagree.

I don't mind the mystery of Lost. But I see no proof that the outcome will satisfy. And in the meantime we're getting - IMHO - some pretty bland characters to spend a long time time with. Though I will say they're killing off the dullest first - which is a horror movie staple I applaud. :o)

How can they placate me? Put it this way - if there was no mystery, I wouldn't be watching. The characters aren't worth my time. If they were trapped on a regular island going through their own tired little soap operas, we'd all have switched off by now. Placate me by entertaining me - with character, or with mini-solutions, or with with enough fun that nobody minds the shallowness. The last two of which Prison Break manages just fine.

Really not starting to try an argument. But if I dismissed, say, Dwarf VII and VIII criticisms that fast any article would lose credibility. And the follow-up post suggests that, in fact, that IS how you view the critics - stupid, reactionary, no understanding of structure and just plain wrong.

P.S. LOST NEVER ANSWERS ANY QUESTIONS. But that's not, actually, it's major problem.

> Well, how should they placate you?

"Decent characterisation, inventive dialogue, affecting emotional journeys and smart humour? :o)"

Well, I get all those things from Lost! I got all of them from the Nikki and Paolo episode.

"Since when did I say they were 'making things up'? I don't think any of the answers listed ARE answers - but neither was I someone who was demanding answers already. I think you're confusing me with the block capital brigade!"

Well, let me briefly address the block capital brigade with some questions and their answers.

Where do The Others live?
The Others live in proper houses on the island.

Can Desmond time travel and see the future?
Desmond can time travel and see the future.

What's the hatch?
It contains a computer which monitors an electromagnetic buildup underneath the island.

Are the flight passengers connected in some way?
Claire and Jack are siblings, amongst other examples.

The Others brainwash captives with reverse messages stating "only the stupid are trapped by space and time"

Is it possible to leave the island?
The Others had a submarine to come and go as they pleased but Lockes blown it up.

Have other people come to the island?
There's a fucking great pirate ship in the jungle, and a crashed plane full of drugs. So, yes.

What's the black gas thing for?
That black gas thing can smash people to death if it's in the mood

I think the fact that all of these answers do imply further, deeper answers is fine. Fine! If, as I say, we're about halfway through the overall story, that's exactly what should be happening. The mystery going completely bananas before the finale wraps everything up.

"For the record - and not for the first time - I'm happy to believe there's 'a plan'. Not as specific as all that - somethign we know just by the way they're casting the show, creating characters and losing them to suit actors' availability - but stuff that joins things together. Not one answer but several. Doesn't mean it'll be wholly satisfying."

Well, there's not been that many examples of people coming and going, but I imagine it's not impossible to write around. The order in which certain parts of the story is told perhaps is influenced by the actors availability, but not the story itself, I don't think. Why do you think there'll be several answers? It seems to be that things are planned out in a fairly detailed way. That other island was on the maps Sayid looked at in the first series, amongst countless other examples of me being right.

"But when I suggest such a thing, some Lost fans start listing - as you did - a whole stack of 'answers' that HAVE been satisfying. Proof that the finale will work. Only they're not answers, they're deeper questions. Which I've never questioned the dramatic need for. I just don't think they prove the show-runners will arrive at a successful, fulfilling conclusion."

Well, it's a question of your trust and faith in the show - the answers provided so far have kept me enthralled, I think the show is now the best it's ever been, and I think the finale is going to be great.

"And the only way to know that is when the thing ends. Until then, you're getting enough entertainment each week and I'm not. You don't have to agree with the citicisms, but to dismiss them as uneducated and moronic is a bit lazy. Defend a show you love. But don't lump every cirtic together just because you disagree."

Well yes. I'm getting plenty of entertainment, and I'm sorry you're not. I think that "the answers raise further questions" is pretty much a moronic criticism though, and so far it's the only one you've levelled at the show. If you don't like the characters, the relationships, the soap opera stuff, why not say so?

"The characters aren't worth my time. If they were trapped on a regular island going through their own tired little soap operas, we'd all have switched off by now."

Ah, that's better. Well, frankly, I really like the tired little soap operas. I think it's nice that pretty much every aspect of life on the beach is being explored, and I always feel warm in my heart when they do those slow-mo music bits at the end with everyone patting eachother on the back and eating guava. Isn't John Locke worth your time? Isn't Sawyer worth your time? Or Hurley? If I could spend the rest of my life with these men, I would gladly do it.

"I don't mind the mystery of Lost. But I see no proof that the outcome will satisfy. And in the meantime we're getting - IMHO - some pretty bland characters to spend a long time time with. Though I will say they're killing off the dullest first - which is a horror movie staple I applaud. :o)"

Well, I apologise for assuming that you did mind the mystery of Lost. I was clearly misled by the post in which you criticised it. Wouldn't it be more fun to speculate about the nature of the ending, rather than simply whether or not it will be shit? It's impossible to know, I simply think I will like it because I've liked everything else on the programme ever ever ever.

"Placate me by entertaining me - with character, or with mini-solutions, or with with enough fun that nobody minds the shallowness. The last two of which Prison Break manages just fine."

If you weren't entertained with the episode where Hurley got the VW going again, your heart must be made of shredded wheat, man. Mini-solutions? You mean, answers to some of the questions, but not others? But not the full solution to the islands mystery, just kind of, tidbits? *groans, points back towards the top of this very post*

"Really not starting to try an argument. But if I dismissed, say, Dwarf VII and VIII criticisms that fast any article would lose credibility. And the follow-up post suggests that, in fact, that IS how you view the critics - stupid, reactionary, no understanding of structure and just plain wrong."

Oh don't worry about starting an argument, I don't take anything personally. And don't be offended by the tone of this post, I'm a sarky tit. I just like a nice spirited debate on the internet. And you could post as many ill-informed sweary Red Dwarf criticisms as you like, it's not a show I really give a fig about. I think Barringtons good in it, though.

I view many of the critics as stupid and reactionary and just plain wrong, yes. Many of them are. You should go on Aint It Cool talkbacks, it's like walking into a room full of caged, hungry, horny monkeys going crazy. I don't think you're stupid, but if your problem is specifically with the characters and "soap opera" plots, you probably shouldn't head up your criticism of the show with not-mentioning-them and having a pop at the element of the show you later admit is the only reason you're watching. A girl could get a bit confused at such behaviour, Sir.

> Where do The Others live?
> The Others live in proper houses on the island.

"How and why?"

I don't think I ever wondered where they lived. Who they were, maybe - what they're up to, sure. But whetehr they live in tents, huts or houses? Meh.

> Can Desmond time travel and see the future?
> Desmond can time travel and see the future.

Again, don't think I ever had that question - what with Desmond's 'enigmatic predictions' being somewhat of a giveaway. I think my question was '"How and why?"

> What's the hatch?
> It contains a computer which monitors an electromagnetic buildup underneath the island.

'"How and why?" An ACTUAL answer is 'it contains X, built by Y for the purposes of Z, and is now doing A because of B'.

I don't mind there not BEING an answer yet - however milked it's getting - so much as the fact that some fans insist that these things count as answers.

> Are the flight passengers connected in some way?
> Claire and Jack are siblings, amongst other examples.

Um...I don't care?

And most of the others come down to 'that wasn't actually a question I had'. (But then I never watched Buffy season one and asked 'Where does Xander llve?', either, so I may be in a minority.) And certainly they just throw up more '"How and why?" stuff.

But, I say again, my problem was with the review, really. Listing 'answers' only works if they're answers, rather than just knock-ons to more questions. By which I mean: ner ner, your review is reactionary, ill thought out, and wrong. Or something.

Why do I think there'll be several answers? Because there are too many questions. I've used this example before, but if you stop The Sixth Sense at the half-way point, then give people a year to figure out the twist, they'll manage it. Not everyone, but enough to spead it across the net. Because well-constructed mysteries have their solutions built in from the start. There evidence IS there.

The way Lost works, it needs the questions to stay open until the end, AND for nobody to guess ahead of time. The best way to do that is to have evidence of several things running through your series - that way people don't know which evidence belongs to which trail.

If this was all track-backable to a single fact or event, we'd be guessing by now. Unless the answer either a) isn't actually seeded from the start, or b) e're not going to explain a pile of stuff. Which leaves the 'several bits with different clues' theory.

As to the 'grand plan' - the truth behind it, sure, okay. But ep by ep, character by character? Not a chance. This is like JMS's grand plan for Babylon 5. The big pieces, sure, but not the episodes, and not the entire how and when.

When they brought Ana Lucia in, for example, they knew they needed characters from the tail. But the specifics? Unlikely. I'd struggle to point to them now, but I recall interviews about the character being created BECAUSE of the actor's interest and availability - albeit only for a year.

None of which is a criticism. But just because the writers know pretty well where they're going, doesn't mean they're not discovering stuff along the way. One destination, but a hundred routes with side-streets. Ditching characters that are tiresome and unpopular. You have to - you're a network TV show. You HAVE to capitulate a little if they demand. And if they, for example, insisted that a character be booted off, they'd cope.

Knowing that there's something at x spot on the island doesn't mean you know exactly when you'll reveal it, or who'll discover it. Nor is that a bad thing - it allows a growing show to play to its strengths. Finding what actors are popular, and what they do best, what audiences respond to. It's just the mechanics of TV.

> I think that "the answers raise further questions" is pretty much a moronic criticism though

Only as moronic as claiming them AS answers, rather than story beats heading TOWARDS answers. You posted them as a defense of the show, a response to criticism. Why not just say 'we've had no answers and it matter not one bit' and leave it at that?

> I think it's nice that pretty much every aspect of life on the beach is being explored

I didn't say I wouldn't want real lives explored, just that it's not being done especially well. I think Paul Abbott has been spot-on about this. The Lakes and Hollyoaks both look at the lives of the young, but one's done with insight, the other's done with cliché. One set of characters exist in the world, the others only exist on TV.

> and I always feel warm in my heart when they do those slow-mo music bits at the end with everyone patting each other on the back and eating guava.

Whereas I just want to throw up at the manipulation...

> Well, I apologise for assuming that you did mind the mystery of Lost. I was clearly misled by the post in which you criticised it.

My mistake. I've posted the other stuff on NtS before - figured it didn't need repeating...so only repeated it later.

Although I say again - the first post criticsed the review's examples. The script/bad joke regarding the show's storytelling was attempting to show lack of answers, not necessarily that the lack was in itself bad. More that, even if its going anywhere, it's kinda ridiculous to claim the small discoveries as answers, as resolutions.

You know what episode I liked? Walkabout. Answered a question you didn't remember you were asking - a wiggling toe shot at the episode's start. And it made intelligent use of the flashbacks, tied them to current purpose. Rather than just providing the shocking revelation that - hey! - it turns out the bitchy brat had a sad adolescence. Well paint me all the colours of total lack of surprise.

If every week had nailed things the way that ep did, I'd be fine. But from where I was watching it was a rare exception, an early fluke. And it meant I kept watching in hopes of a quality that never sustained, just appeared in small blips.

> Wouldn't it be more fun to speculate about the nature of the ending, rather than simply whether or not it will be shit?

But I've been doing that for three years and it's getting boring. especially as it would require me to keep watching a show I've REALLY tried to like for a long time. I think two and a half series are enough. The mystery kept me going long after the rest put me off, but even that's on the way out. God bless Virgin, frankly - it made me go cold turkey, and I'm glad for it.

The writers admit to throwing in piles of red-herrings - including the fact that, actually, some stuff simply will not be explained - so nope, I'm not finding the speculation fun any longer.

Oh, on the subject of the writers - when we began they claimed that they were aiming at 12-ish season runs, so had to add a load of stuff to pad out the story. Ignoring 'grand plan' stuff, this really does show why so many of the flashbacks are so dire...

> If you weren't entertained with the episode where Hurley got the VW going again, your heart must be made of shredded wheat, man.

I may be behind - I lost the show with the Virgin/Sky problems. But it's not that I was NEVER entertained. It's just too rare. And, more importantly, I've been entertained much better by other shows. It's not worth my wading through another six blah-blah flashbacks to get to something that doesn't make me want to throw things at the screen.

> Mini-solutions? You mean, answers to some of the questions, but not others? But not the full solution to the islands mystery, just kind of, tidbits? *groans, points back towards the top of this very post*

Sorry, but again that was ONE possible, not a demand. Lost is like Koch's Snowflake - more questions from each answer. Increasing rather than reducing. It's expanding into more questions, not focussing down to a point.

Narrowing-down is something a show can do - and Prison Break DOES manage. With that, episodes solve a small mystery, but leave the large one slightly closer. But unlike your examples, the question is answered, it doesn't create a pair of new ones.

> I view many of the critics as stupid and reactionary and just plain wrong, yes. Many of them are. You should go on Aint It Cool talkbacks, it's like walking into a room full of caged, hungry, horny monkeys going crazy.

Indeed. frightening stuff.

> I don't think you're stupid, but if your problem is specifically with the characters and "soap opera" plots, you probably shouldn't head up your criticism of the show with not-mentioning-them and having a pop at the element of the show you later admit is the only reason you're watching. A girl could get a bit confused at such behaviour, Sir.

Final time: that post was a crit of the style, tone, examples and content in the review. Compared to my problems with that, my issues with Lost are tiny. ;o)

> Where do The Others live?
> The Others live in proper houses on the island.

"How and why?"

How? They probably put a key in the door and proceed from there. Why? I imagine it's nicer than sleeping in a tree.

"I don't think I ever wondered where they lived. "

Really? You didn't wonder where the mysterious unseen people were from? I did.

"Who they were, maybe - what they're up to, sure. But whetehr they live in tents, huts or houses? Meh."

Well, you know a bit more about them now, don't you? You thought the reveal of Brookside Close just the far side of the jungle was "meh"?

> Can Desmond time travel and see the future?
> Desmond can time travel and see the future.

"Again, don't think I ever had that question - what with Desmond's 'enigmatic predictions' being somewhat of a giveaway. I think my question was '"How and why?""

I didn't have that question either, but it being answered made me question the sort of questions I should be asking. Which I thought was an interesting move, refreshing my interest in the programme.

> What's the hatch?
> It contains a computer which monitors an electromagnetic buildup underneath the island.

'"How and why?" An ACTUAL answer is 'it contains X, built by Y for the purposes of Z, and is now doing A because of B'.

What's inside a jack in the box?
Is it, a - a model clown on a spring, or b - a model clown on a spring for the purposes of springing out and sometimes it makes a noise too and it's meant to scare children?

THEY'RE BOTH ANSWERS. They're both THE RIGHT ANSWER. A "completely full explanation" and an "answer" aren't the same thing!

"I don't mind there not BEING an answer yet - however milked it's getting - so much as the fact that some fans insist that these things count as answers."

GUBUUHHHHHHHBOOO. So we're both criticising different kinds of criticism? Is this why this is so confusing? I'm not sure I even know what your actual opinion of the show is anymore.

> Are the flight passengers connected in some way?
> Claire and Jack are siblings, amongst other examples.

"Um...I don't care?"

Um, really? You must realise that if you've got any investment in the show, the revelations about the various pre-flight 815 interactions between the characters makes for interesting viewing. Do you not care for any particular reason other than you're sick of the show?

"And most of the others come down to 'that wasn't actually a question I had'. (But then I never watched Buffy season one and asked 'Where does Xander llve?', either, so I may be in a minority.) And certainly they just throw up more '"How and why?" stuff."

Well I think it was fairly safe to assume that Xander lived in a house, given that he wasn't a mysterious group of people on a desert island thought to be deserted. That's the kind of situation where it's generally safer to assume people don't live in houses. But look! They do! Isn't that interesting?

"But, I say again, my problem was with the review, really. Listing 'answers' only works if they're answers, rather than just knock-ons to more questions. By which I mean: ner ner, your review is reactionary, ill thought out, and wrong. Or something."

They are ANSWERS. They are not FULL AND FRANK EXPLANATIONS. Because they are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

I should perhaps have made clear in the review that it was a deliberately glib response to moronic internet criticism of the show. I didn't go into too much depth of analysis because it's something everything already has their own opinion on, and most of them are better informed than me. I've hardly seen any of Season 2, for example. I thought that was fairly obvious, but perhaps it wasn't. I'll be more careful next time.

"Why do I think there'll be several answers? Because there are too many questions. I've used this example before, but if you stop The Sixth Sense at the half-way point, then give people a year to figure out the twist, they'll manage it. Not everyone, but enough to spead it across the net. Because well-constructed mysteries have their solutions built in from the start. There evidence IS there."

I thought you meant several potential answers to the "overall" question rather than there'll be more than one answer because there's more than one question. I do expect most questions to have their own, unique answers, which will form part of the "overall solution".

If you stop the Sixth Sense halfway through and give people two minutes to figure out the twist they probably will because it's a stupid piece of turd film. It's a stretched out tale of the unexpected with a climax that only shocked so many people because they weren't expecing there to be a big twist at the end, at the time I recall it was a pretty rare thing in cinema.

To use the fact that people can't work out the twist in advance seems to me a bit of a daft criticism. I'm sure various aspects of the show will make sense, and show themselves to have been "clues" of sorts, in retrospect. The layered, circular nature of the programme is already becoming apparent. And it's not as if there isn't a huge amount of precedent for completely unpredictable endings to mysteries. It's a sign of a good one if you only realise the trail of clues AFTERWARDS, not when you're bloody watching it.

"The way Lost works, it needs the questions to stay open until the end, AND for nobody to guess ahead of time. The best way to do that is to have evidence of several things running through your series - that way people don't know which evidence belongs to which trail."

Yes, I agree. It does it rather well, I feel. But surely the amount of questions is becoming narrower, as the series progresses? We certainly know a lot more about the others and the hatches than we did. I think it's pretty obvious that things that happen in scenes with THE OTHERS belong to that trail, things that happen in the hatch belong to THAT TRAIL. There's clear evidence that the series is slowly narrowing towards a point, in my opinion. Which is the most important thing to maintain in a series of this nature. It's not just a load of mad things happening - polar bears! evil gasses! like the first series, anymore. That's the kind of scattershot evidence that your post reminded me of, and it's really been part of the show for a while.

"If this was all track-backable to a single fact or event, we'd be guessing by now. Unless the answer either a) isn't actually seeded from the start, or b) e're not going to explain a pile of stuff. Which leaves the 'several bits with different clues' theory."

Again, IT'S NOT BAD JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN'T GUESS WHAT IT IS YET. And the "several bits with different clues" theory is about as good a theory as it's name suggests. Why are you so intent on predicting the writers? If you like the show, trust them. The fact that a mystery still has you frustrated after two and a half years seems like a good sign to me. If it genuinely was your "a load of random bollocks red herrings" theory, I doubt you'd still be watching.

"As to the 'grand plan' - the truth behind it, sure, okay. But ep by ep, character by character? Not a chance. This is like JMS's grand plan for Babylon 5. The big pieces, sure, but not the episodes, and not the entire how and when."

Erm, that's exactly what I said, isn't it? That they've got a grand plan, and they work the episodes around the availability of the actors? I wasn't trying to suggest that there was a script for the "Hurley finds a van" episode four years ago. But I'm sure they know why Desmond can time travel, rather than having about five different options and speckling clues towards all of them over the script, which is what you seem to be suggesting.

"When they brought Ana Lucia in, for example, they knew they needed characters from the tail. But the specifics? Unlikely. I'd struggle to point to them now, but I recall interviews about the character being created BECAUSE of the actor's interest and availability - albeit only for a year."

Yeah, they probably the knew the various dramatic purposes that needed to be solved by those characters, and wrote the story around the availability of cast etc. Like er, I said. And that was quite early in the run of the series - they'll have a lot less wiggle room in the later seasons. For example, the return of Michael is something that's already plotted out, and it'll be pretty difficult to somehow use another character for whatever purpose his return was meant to serve. But some people from the tail section? I don't believe it's important to the mystery of the show, or indicative of any vagueness on the writers part, that it didn't matter what those characters looked like in particular. The really, REALLY important characters have been in it from the start, as far as I can see, and that's not likely to change.

"None of which is a criticism."

D'oh!

"But just because the writers know pretty well where they're going, doesn't mean they're not discovering stuff along the way. One destination, but a hundred routes with side-streets. Ditching characters that are tiresome and unpopular. You have to - you're a network TV show. You HAVE to capitulate a little if they demand. And if they, for example, insisted that a character be booted off, they'd cope.

Knowing that there's something at x spot on the island doesn't mean you know exactly when you'll reveal it, or who'll discover it. Nor is that a bad thing - it allows a growing show to play to its strengths. Finding what actors are popular, and what they do best, what audiences respond to. It's just the mechanics of TV."

I'm not quite sure why I'm getting the how-telly-works speech, because I didn't really claim that EVERYTHING ABOUT LOST IS SET IN STONE FOREVER. I merely meant that the explanation the show will eventually provide is fairly set in stone, and not as variable as you suggest. Of course actors etc will come and go, but I don't expect Locke or Jack or Kate or Sawyer or Hurley to be killed off before it was the writers intentions to do so, do you? And of *course* there's plenty of wiggle room in a mystery that will eventually take over 100 hours of television to reveal itself. What are we arguing about it?

> I think that "the answers raise further questions" is pretty much a moronic criticism though

"Only as moronic as claiming them AS answers, rather than story beats heading TOWARDS answers. You posted them as a defense of the show, a response to criticism. Why not just say 'we've had no answers and it matter not one bit' and leave it at that?"

Is this whole thing based on a semantic quibble? They *ARE* answers. They're *NOT* full, detailed explanations with working diagrams and a powerpoint presentation. I don't want to say "we've had no answers and it matters not one bit" because it WOULD matter if there had been NO answers but there HAVE. So I'd rather say what I actually did say instead, and be RIGHT. It was a defence of the show, a response to criticism and also *RIGHT*.

> I think it's nice that pretty much every aspect of life on the beach is being explored

"I didn't say I wouldn't want real lives explored, just that it's not being done especially well. I think Paul Abbott has been spot-on about this. The Lakes and Hollyoaks both look at the lives of the young, but one's done with insight, the other's done with cliché. One set of characters exist in the world, the others only exist on TV."

Well, this is a completely different debate, isn't it? If you want to list examples etc and get into that debate, that's fine. It can be our second date.

Paul Abbott is bang on about the difference between The Lakes and Hollyoaks, but it's got fuck all to do with some people living on a magical desert island. It's easy enough to call something shit and not go into any detail about it, I do it all the time too. Like I say, if you want to go on to debate about the actual drama in the show, it'll give me something to do when I'm hungover on Sunay.

> Well, I apologise for assuming that you did mind the mystery of Lost. I was clearly misled by the post in which you criticised it.

"My mistake. I've posted the other stuff on NtS before - figured it didn't need repeating...so only repeated it later."

Apologies - I'm still sort of new around these parts, certainly haven't participated in any conversations about Lost.

"Although I say again - the first post criticsed the review's examples. The script/bad joke regarding the show's storytelling was attempting to show lack of answers, not necessarily that the lack was in itself bad. More that, even if its going anywhere, it's kinda ridiculous to claim the small discoveries as answers, as resolutions."

As answers, not resolutions.

"You know what episode I liked? Walkabout. Answered a question you didn't remember you were asking - a wiggling toe shot at the episode's start. And it made intelligent use of the flashbacks, tied them to current purpose. Rather than just providing the shocking revelation that - hey! - it turns out the bitchy brat had a sad adolescence. Well paint me all the colours of total lack of surprise."

I don't remember asking "Can Desmond travel in time?", "Is there two islands?", "Is Lockes fake-Dad tied up in that room over there" but I've received the thrilling answers to all these questions (generally "yes") over the past few weeks. And Locke and Desmonds episodes have made much stronger ties between the flashbacks and the current events on the island, as far as I can tell. If you like Walkabout, you might go for this newest Nikki and Paolo episode - it's a good little thriller, and as a one-shot mystery, unfolds in a fashion that'll be much more appealing to you I think.

> Wouldn't it be more fun to speculate about the nature of the ending, rather than simply whether or not it will be shit?

"But I've been doing that for three years and it's getting boring. especially as it would require me to keep watching a show I've REALLY tried to like for a long time. I think two and a half series are enough. The mystery kept me going long after the rest put me off, but even that's on the way out. God bless Virgin, frankly - it made me go cold turkey, and I'm glad for it."

Dude, seriously, are you still watching it? The last 5 or 6 episodes have been the best unbroken run of episodes since S1, and have totally changed my conception of what the shows about. Your criticisms astound me.

"The writers admit to throwing in piles of red-herrings - including the fact that, actually, some stuff simply will not be explained - so nope, I'm not finding the speculation fun any longer."

The red-herrings are stuff like, when Hurley picks up the script from Nikkis TV show and says something like "woah, one of the good guys on this tv show turns out to be a bad guy in season 4". Stuff to fuel internet speculation. Aren't a few red-herrings kind of a genre staple anyway? I don't believe I'm not going to find out why John Locke can walk, for example. If there's a few red-herrings along the way to me finding out, I'm not going to really mind. Again, I think I'm just far more forgiving of the show than you, on account of enjoying it.

"Oh, on the subject of the writers - when we began they claimed that they were aiming at 12-ish season runs, so had to add a load of stuff to pad out the story. Ignoring 'grand plan' stuff, this really does show why so many of the flashbacks are so dire..."

Were they aiming at 12 season runs? I never knew that. If they did pad out Season 1, I didn't really notice. I thought it was good, like.

"I may be behind - I lost the show with the Virgin/Sky problems. But it's not that I was NEVER entertained. It's just too rare. And, more importantly, I've been entertained much better by other shows. It's not worth my wading through another six blah-blah flashbacks to get to something that doesn't make me want to throw things at the screen."

Ah, if you are behind, that's probably the problem. I was a bit pissed at the show after the first batch of S3 episodes, but the last batch have really just repeatedly knocked it out of the ballpark.

"Sorry, but again that was ONE possible, not a demand. Lost is like Koch's Snowflake - more questions from each answer. Increasing rather than reducing. It's expanding into more questions, not focussing down to a point."

Well, in that my primary question when Lost started was "what the bloody hell is going on", I do have more questions now, yes. But only because they are more specific questions, and they're only more specific questions because of the answers that I've recieved and the more I know about the show. Effectively you're using the fact that Lost is a rich topic for discussion as a stick to beat it with.

"Narrowing-down is something a show can do - and Prison Break DOES manage. With that, episodes solve a small mystery, but leave the large one slightly closer. But unlike your examples, the question is answered, it doesn't create a pair of new ones."

Never seen Prison Break, soz. Is it good then?

> I'm not sure I even know what your actual opinion of the show is anymore.

My opinion is slightly more complex than 'great' or 'rubbish'. So not every point I make is a one-sided criticism, which may be what's throwing you off.

> You must realise that if you've got any investment in the show, the revelations about the various pre-flight 815 interactions between the characters makes for interesting viewing.

I MUST realise this? Immediately? I must realise that it DOES make for interesting viewing? It's not about opinion at all? I can't be anoyed when x show's up in the flashback for y, no matter how contrived it all feels, no matter how little emotional weight the whole thing has for me, investment or not?

I guess that's it in a nutshell. Posting a list of satisfying things is like posting a list of jokes from a show to convince someone else who saw it that it WAS funny.

> Do you not care for any particular reason other than you're sick of the show?

WEAK, UNINVOLVING CHARACTERS AND DIALOGUE. As, for some reason, I have to keep saying.

You did notice me saying my problem was with the review, though, right?

> If you stop the Sixth Sense halfway through and give people two minutes to figure out the twist they probably will because it's a stupid piece of turd film.

And now we're in AICN territory. Brilliant. Incapable of acknowledging any of the craft of that screenplay whatsoever. Genius. It's this kind of briliant, thoughtful, layered criticism that your review so throughly reflects.

> To use the fact that people can't work out the twist in advance seems to me a bit of a daft criticism.

Inevitably. Because that's obviously exactly what I said. There was no nuance whatsoever.

> IT'S NOT BAD JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN'T GUESS WHAT IT IS YET.

Not what I said. Again. I BELIEVE IT WILL BE DISAPPOINTING because THE NECESSITIES OF STRUCTURE ARE BUILT A CERTAIN WAY. And providing a list of 'answers' isn't actually refuting THAT point - as opposed to the one you've maganed to condense - as you seem to believe.

> If you like the show, trust them. The fact that a mystery still has you frustrated after two and a half years seems like a good sign to me.

Are you even bothering to read these things properly? The mystery itself is fine enough, it works as a hook and keeps you coming back. I've acknowledged that. My problems are the same as I keep saying: The characters and drama are too weak to sustain when the mystery isn't moving along; and that I don't have any faith in a satisfactory conclusion, because I've yet to see any reason to have.

>If it genuinely was your "a load of random bollocks red herrings" theory, I doubt you'd still be watching.

Again, if you think that's what I've said, I may as well start posting on AICN. When did I even USE a word like 'random'?

> But I'm sure they know why Desmond can time travel, rather than having about five different options and speckling clues towards all of them over the script, which is what you seem to be suggesting.

Nope, it wasn't. At all. But at this point that's not especially surprising.

> Paul Abbott is bang on about the difference between The Lakes and Hollyoaks

That was my example, not his. His point was that Lost pisses away its advantage by utterly failing to provide more than plywood characters. The human side simply isn't interesting or affecting enough often enough. (Note I never say 'never', almost as if I know contrary examples can always be provided because it has occurred on occasion.) It fails - for many of us - as a human drama, but keeps insisting it is one anyway.

Sure, this was said at the end of seires two, and the involvement of Drew Godard, among others, is helping. But, for some of us, six eps into series three - 50 episodes - was enough.

But, again, I'm being led down this road because you asked. My point was, initially, only really about the lousy critical technique.

> I don't remember asking "Can Desmond travel in time?", "Is there two islands?", "Is Lockes fake-Dad tied up in that room over there" but I've received the thrilling answers to all these questions

Semantics? Yeesh. If you didn't have the question, they're not answers - they are, as I said, developments. People don't complain about Lost because developments aren't happening, as you seem to be suggesting. They complain because those developments don't satisfy. And they don't satsfy us because they don't reply to what we were asking, and don't provide solution.

Do I have to dig out the definition?

Answer:
A spoken or written reply, as to a question.
A correct reply.
A solution, as to a problem.
A correct solution.

So, either you don't know what the word means, or you're deliberately misunderstanding the point in order to make the critics of your much-loved show seem unreasonable or uninformed.

No solutions is fine, as apparently I have to keep saying. So long as faith is being maintained in the journey. And for some, it ain't. But not one person would bemoan the lack of solution if a) the character stuff was better, or b) the developments satisfied.

THAT'S the criticism, as I see it.

> > "But I've been doing that for three years and it's getting boring. especially as it would require me to keep watching a show I've REALLY tried to like for a long time. I think two and a half series are enough. The mystery kept me going long after the rest put me off, but even that's on the way out. God bless Virgin, frankly - it made me go cold turkey, and I'm glad for it."

> Dude, seriously, are you still watching it?

I think if there's any proof that you're utterly unable to read my posts properly, it's this bit here. Clearly I'm not. That wasn't obvious from the words I used?

> Were they aiming at 12 season runs? I never knew that. If they did pad out Season 1, I didn't really notice. I thought it was good, like.

My apologies - I missed a word out there. Should have been "12-ish episode season runs". Half-size seasons.

> Effectively you're using the fact that Lost is a rich topic for discussion as a stick to beat it with.

No, I'm really, really not.

> Never seen Prison Break, soz. Is it good then?

I start an episode with 'ooh, what's that?', and by episode's end I get told - sometimes you get there first, mostly you don't. A small answer. Not a Koch's Snowflake in sight. Satisfying, frankly. And they manage an overall arc right along with it.

Plus they KNOW their characters are lightweights, so don't pretend otherwise. I choose to read their use of flashbacks to previous life - rarely done, and rarely over 30 seconds, because how else can they be interesting with 2D people? - as a satire of Lost. Wrongly, but for my own amusement. :-)

In fact, their one big flashback ep was awfully flat and disappointing - because they didn't have the characters or the dramatic strength to back it up. The difference being, they learned from it, Lost hasn't.

Which is why I like and prefer PB. What I'm NOT saying is "MY SHOW IS TEH GRATEIST AND YOURS IS RUBISH." So try not to read it that way.

And, given that this will go on until one of us quits, that's my last word on the subject. Post another line-by-line dissection by all means - take as much stuff the wrong way as you can, add some unreasonable assumptions, a bit of condescension, and top it off with a couple of insults safe in the knowledge that I shan't retaliate. :-)

Love and hugs.

Wait a minute... Biffovision has been shown already? Shows how much attention I've been paying to his blog recently! I was never really that keen on the humour of Digitiser - probably some lingering resentment from when I read a letter in Official Sega Magazine complaining about how they'd awarded Sonic 3 a disappointing score - so it wasn't until I started reading his consistently great column in Edge that I really began to find him funny.

As for Lost, due to only intermittent access to Sky One recently (first we had to transfer the account from one person to another, then there was the whole Sky/NTL/Virgin thing), I've only seen one episode of season 3 - the first one with Desmond's time-travelling/flashbacks. From what I've read in interviews, I do think that the makers definitely intend to resolve the whole thing in a satisfying way without dragging it out for too many seasons. But now, I'll probably end up not watching any more until the whole thing's complete.

Have you seen every episode of Lost, Michael? I'm only asking as I've been sticking with the show since day one and it's the reason why I have a little negativity towards it. It's all reminiscent of The X-Files which was definitely a case of MAKING IT UP AS IT GOES ALONG, to the point where people lost interest as it limped towards it finale.

Season two, for example, introduced a bunch of characters and then systematically killed all of them off (one wonders if that was in the 'grand plan'). Looking back, a pile of those episodes seem completely irrelevant and a waste of time. Having that in mind when you watch a new episode does hamper my enjoyment somewhat. "Where is this going?" "Is this important to the big story?" "What happened to the bloody polar bear?"

That said, the recent Desmond episode has hooked me in again at a point when I was about to give up. And Evangeline Lilly is always worth watching.

> from the frequently hilarious Digitiser ceefax pages

It was teletext. Ceefax is the name only for the BBC's teletext pages.