# Lost: They Had A Plan (or, Not So Much)



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

http://boingboing.net/2013/09/18/early-lost-writers-guide-is.html
http://www.blastr.com/2013-9-18/8-things-we-learned-lost’s-original-2004-show-bible

The original Lost writers' bible has gone online, and apparently "We knew how it would end from the beginning" means as little as some of us suspected. The excerpts at these links are interesting; I look forward to reading the whole thing this weekend.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> http://boingboing.net/2013/09/18/early-lost-writers-guide-is.html
> http://www.blastr.com/2013-9-18/8-things-we-learned-lost’s-original-2004-show-bible
> 
> The original Lost writers' bible has gone online, and apparently "We knew how it would end from the beginning" means as little as some of us suspected. The excerpts at these links are interesting; I look forward to reading the whole thing this weekend.


Do we know this is legit, and not some hoax?


----------



## wouldworker (Sep 7, 2004)

"No - we're not gonna tell where that polar bear came from." They filmed the pilot before they had even decided what the show would be about or how any of its elements would fit into a broader story arc. The pilot was nothing more than a high-concept movie - "A plane crashes on an island and mysterious things happen to the survivors."


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

I think the writers have back peddled on this a bit. I think they have now said they knew how it would end, but not how it would get there. At least I remember reading that somewhere.


----------



## Fahtrim (Apr 12, 2004)

People won't let it go. Lost was a fun ride like a roller coaster, but it was just that a ride like a roller coaster. It didn't go anywhere, but was a lot of fun along the way.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Steveknj said:


> I think the writers have back peddled on this a bit. I think they have now said they knew how it would end, but not how it would get there. At least I remember reading that somewhere.


It turns out all they meant by that was the framing shots of Jack's eye. Nothing more.

It just sounded a lot more...comprehensive than it actually was.

And don't get me wrong...it was a great show, one of the best. It just had, for me, a profoundly unsatisfying ending, because, for me, it completely ignored a lot of the implicit promise of the show as it unfolded. Not to mention the pretty explicit promise of "We knew from the beginning how it was going to end."


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

It seems like the show wouldn't have been nearly as good if they had stuck to that original outline. Instead, you had a fluid story that was always evolving. I can see why some people are upset because the producers kept on insisting that the whole thing was mapped out from the beginning. It doesn't bother me, though. All that matters is the end product, and in my mind, Lost remains one of the greatest stories ever told on television.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Fahtrim said:


> People won't let it go. Lost was a fun ride like a roller coaster, but it was just that a ride like a roller coaster. It didn't go anywhere, but was a lot of fun along the way.


People won't let it go, in the same way that the original Star Trek is still talked about. It had a core, almost cult like following. It's a series ripe with mysteries that can be discussed over and over. And there was lots of controversy by fans on the ending. So yes, it's going to be one of those series that will probably be discussed for years.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> It turns out all they meant by that was the framing shots of Jack's eye. Nothing more.
> 
> It just sounded a lot more...comprehensive than it actually was.
> 
> And don't get me wrong...it was a great show, one of the best. It just had, for me, a profoundly unsatisfying ending, because, for me, it completely ignored a lot of the implicit promise of the show as it unfolded. Not to mention the pretty explicit promise of "We knew from the beginning how it was going to end."


We definitely agree on this. If they took the last season in a different direction, I probably would have liked it better (although, in context to the whole season, the ending fit, but that last season just felt like a different show altogether.


----------



## BradJW (Jun 9, 2008)

the thing I liked about Lost was that it wasn't a bunch of self-contained episodes. I liked the continuing storyline. There have been lots of shows since that told a long continuous story where is was important to watch every episode (Breaking Bad comes to mind; another would be DayBreak). 
Were there any shows before Lost that really didn't have self-contained episodes?

Nowadays, those are the shows I seek out - the ones I prefer.


----------



## Fofer (Oct 29, 2000)

BradJW said:


> Nowadays, those are the shows I seek out - the ones I prefer.


Have you watched "House of Cards" or "Orange is the New Black" on Netflix?

I've heard that about these two. And specifically about how Netflix's development model (committing to and making the entire season at once) allows for this sort of patient, more elaborate, character-driven storytelling, as opposed the traditional "pilot" on "broadcast TV" model.

"Six Feet Under" was another one I appreciated that seemed to follow a similar formula and pace. The first three seasons, and the last 5-6 episodes of the final season, offered some of my favorite televised drama.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Very interesting read. As JJ Abrams and Damon Lindelof state, the vision, the plan, the architectural drawings, are only good until you start the building. Then reality rears its ugly face.

I'm not going to debate the show. We've spent countless electrons on that. I will discuss this document versus the show.

A few things they discuss:

* The island is huge, and they never show the entire island from above. I believe they stuck with this.

* There are layers of history. While our survivors may find something that dates back to WWII, they may also find something that dates back to ancient times. This also became integral to the story.

* The Dharma concept was there from day zero.

* The Others were there from day zero.

* They intended to have all the survivors, except for the main 14, disappear within a few episodes. To who knows where?

In the character summaries, not a single word about Locke being handicapped, or Hurley winning the lotto.

* COCOONS? You gotta read this part for yourself (pg 23 of PDF). Let's be thankful it stayed on the page and not on the screen.

One thing that strikes me is the flashbacks. They became an integral part of the show, yet are only briefly mentioned. In this briefing, they refer to "FLASHBACKS (as established in the Pilot)", and that's it. They say they can be a story device. They ended up being one of the defining features of the show.

Clearly, between the Pilot (and this briefing), and the actual season being written, the writer's room fleshed out some serious conceptual futures. That led to the (arguably) greatest drama in the history of broadcast TV.


----------



## gchance (Dec 6, 2002)

BradJW said:


> Were there any shows before Lost that really didn't have self-contained episodes?
> 
> Nowadays, those are the shows I seek out - the ones I prefer.


One of the earliest I can remember was Babylon 5, although the first season didn't have a whole lot of arc stuff. That first season was mostly standalone episodes for character development, and the arc started to wind up about 3/4 into the first season. In case of Babylon 5, the major arc WAS plotted ahead of time, and had to make course corrections as cast changes came about. It was a grand experiment that almost didn't work, what with cast changes and actually being cancelled in the 4th season when the arc was actually planned for 5.

I do wonder though, how everyone would feel differently, had we not had the Internet. Think back to the 60s, 70s, 80s, the most anyone had was an occasional cast interview in TV Guide. I don't remember reading or hearing interviews from showrunners. Hell, we didn't even know the term. Would people feel differently about Lost, if all we had were the episodes to watch as they aired?

Greg


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Reading about the characters, we had always heard that the original plan was to kill Jack off in the pilot. According to this document, that wasn't the case.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

gchance said:


> One of the earliest I can remember was Babylon 5, although the first season didn't have a whole lot of arc stuff. That first season was mostly standalone episodes for character development, and the arc started to wind up about 3/4 into the first season. In case of Babylon 5, the major arc WAS plotted ahead of time, and had to make course corrections as cast changes came about. It was a grand experiment that almost didn't work, what with cast changes and actually being cancelled in the 4th season when the arc was actually planned for 5.


I disagree with your comment that the early seasons "didn't have a lot of arc stuff". There are plenty of events in the later seasons that connect back to events in the early seasons. You may not have recognized those things as "arc stuff" when you watched Season 1 or 2; nevertheless, the setup for the later events is there.

With a show like Babylon 5, it doesn't make sense to divide what happens in episodes as "only character development" vs. "arc stuff (i.e. plot)"; the two are intertwined, as they are in other character-driven stories (e.g. George R.R. Martin's _A Song of Ice and Fire_).


----------



## javabird (Oct 13, 2006)

Steveknj said:


> Do we know this is legit, and not some hoax?


Good point - there were a lot of hoaxes that popped up during the airing of the show. I think I give this some credibility because of the source (Cory Doctorow).


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

gchance said:


> ... I do wonder though, how everyone would feel differently, had we not had the Internet. Think back to the 60s, 70s, 80s, the most anyone had was an occasional cast interview in TV Guide. I don't remember reading or hearing interviews from showrunners. Hell, we didn't even know the term. Would people feel differently about Lost, if all we had were the episodes to watch as they aired?
> 
> Greg


Great question!
I would say that the internet (and this forum specifically) added a LOT to my enjoyment of LOST. Easter eggs were pointed out, subtle details that might have been missed were discussed, and interesting theories were debated. This was all new to me back then, so it enhanced the whole viewing experience for me.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

Fahtrim said:


> People won't let it go. Lost was a fun ride like a roller coaster, but it was just that a ride like a roller coaster. It didn't go anywhere, but was a lot of fun along the way.


And just like a rollercoaster ride, after the last big drop there was a sudden stop, and a slow roll back to the starting position. In other words the ride was over way before you could get off.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

murgatroyd said:


> I disagree with your comment that the early seasons "didn't have a lot of arc stuff". There are plenty of events in the later seasons that connect back to events in the early seasons. You may not have recognized those things as "arc stuff" when you watched Season 1 or 2; nevertheless, the setup for the later events is there.


Yes, this is key. A lot of the stand-alone episodes don't stand so much alone on a second watching years later. For all his (many) flaws, JMS was brilliant at big-picture thinking, from the beginning. And having the experience of what JMS meant when he said things like "I knew how it ended from the beginning" gave Lindelof's statement a lot more weight than "Jack's eyes close."

Lost was a great show. If it had been what it pretended to be for most of the middle seasons, it might have been the greatest show ever.


----------



## gchance (Dec 6, 2002)

OK guys, I'll take it back... yes, there were a lot of arc things happening in the first season, but they were pretty small until Babylon Squared. Like the mention in every other episode of the Battle of the Line, and the hole in Sinclair's mind. THAT annoyed the hell out of me as it unfolded, but looking back later it was important.

So now Damon Lindelof has something to say about that show bible.



> [But] by the time we started breaking the first two episodes, it was already very clear to everyone in the room that the document that we had written to get the show picked up was going to be completely and totally null and void.


Greg


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

getreal said:


> Great question!
> I would say that the internet (and this forum specifically) added a LOT to my enjoyment of LOST. Easter eggs were pointed out, subtle details that might have been missed were discussed, and interesting theories were debated. This was all new to me back then, so it enhanced the whole viewing experience for me.


I discovered TCF during Lost--a friend kept coming to work with all this info I had missed after it aired. He gave me the link and I have ended up enjoying all my shows a lot more since, but especially Lost. (And GoT) Thanks, guys. :up:


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

gweempose said:


> *It seems like the show wouldn't have been nearly as good if they had stuck to that original outline. Instead, you had a fluid story that was always evolving.* I can see why some people are upset because the producers kept on insisting that the whole thing was mapped out from the beginning. It doesn't bother me, though. All that matters is the end product, and in my mind, Lost remains one of the greatest stories ever told on television.


While watching LOST, I always felt like it would be best if they had plotted out the whole show from Day 1 and then just filled in the minor details as they went. So when it started to become obvious that the show wasn't fully planned, I was disappointed. I felt the same way about Battlestar Galactica when it clearly went off the rails.

But listening to the Official Breaking Bad podcasts recently, it's helped me realize how fluid the storytelling is on TV shows. Vince Gilligan is one of the best serialized TV writers ever, and even he constantly talks about how important is is to keep your mind open to various possibilities. Even with this final season of Breaking Bad, the writers took a lot longer to "break" the season than they thought they would. I think Vince said they took about 4 weeks per episode just to break the story, and that didn't even include the actual writing of the episode scripts. Most shows, especially on broadcast, don't have that kind of time and can't be that detailed in the plotting of the stories. But to think that any TV show can decide on Day 1 how the plot will develop and what will happen is completely naive to how TV shows are actually made. It would be a major mistake for a creator to write a show and plan it all out and think that his vision is the best that could possibly be and not be open to new ideas and new directions that are pitched to him in the writer's room.


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

Not to mention the things you just can't control, like actors leaving the show, which may necessitate big changes in story mid-stream.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Fahtrim said:


> People won't let it go. Lost was a fun ride like a roller coaster, but it was just that a ride like a roller coaster. It didn't go anywhere, but was a lot of fun along the way.


It was fun for the first couple of seasons, but then the roller coaster went off the rails and nobody had a clue what was going on. I've never seen a series that had to have so many recap episodes just so the viewer could try and sort out the mess they made. The writers would introduce crap and then simply drop it from the storyline.

It started off great and really got my interest so I stuck around for the long haul. The last couple of seasons were such a bungled mess that it was hard to understand what was happening. The ending was such a major disappointment that it totally pissed me off. It made me wish I had never wasted my time watching the show for the entire series.


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jan 19, 2005)

mr.unnatural said:


> It was fun for the first couple of seasons, but then the roller coaster went off the rails and nobody had a clue what was going on. I've never seen a series that had to have so many recap episodes just so the viewer could try and sort out the mess they made. The writers would introduce crap and then simply drop it from the storyline.
> 
> It started off great and really got my interest so I stuck around for the long haul. The last couple of seasons were such a bungled mess that it was hard to understand what was happening. The ending was such a major disappointment that it totally pissed me off. It made me wish I had never wasted my time watching the show for the entire series.


I really liked Lost, A LOT, but I have to admit, if they hadn't done the "last week's episode" just before the "this week's episode" I would have been totally confused. The "last week's episode" had those comments at the bottom explaining things, pointing out Easter Eggs, connections and in general untangling the mess. Many people hated thise comments, but I liked them a lot, for clarity.

On the DVD, was there an option to include them? I always assumed that if you bought the DVDs, you could turn them on and off at will.


----------



## philw1776 (Jan 19, 2002)

The problem with Lost, one of the best TV series ever, is that by introducing and telling the stories of Jake & his bro in detail in Season 6 they made 90% of what transpired the 1st 5 seasons irrelevant or greatly diminished. Why it's still great is the soap opera of the characters' lives and interactions. Oh, and Kate.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

They didn't have a plan, so what? I liked the show for what it was, not because someone said that they knew where they were going with the show.


----------



## gchance (Dec 6, 2002)

mr.unnatural said:


> I've never seen a series that had to have so many recap episodes just so the viewer could try and sort out the mess they made.


How was that the show's fault? Honestly, that was the network's fault, for looking at the audience the way Ronald D. Moore does: that they're morons that have to have everything told to them over and over.

That's probably thing I always loved (and still love) about Lost: it treats the audience as intelligent human beings and doesn't coddle. Sadly, ABC couldn't handle that. None of the networks can, that's why cable is winning at this point.

Greg


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Steveknj said:


> Reading about the characters, we had always heard that the original plan was to kill Jack off in the pilot. According to this document, that wasn't the case.


Bear in mind that this was written after they had finished the pilot.

Apparently, the network forced them to change their mind on that plan before filming began.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

gchance said:


> How was that the show's fault? Honestly, that was the network's fault, for looking at the audience the way Ronald D. Moore does: that they're morons that have to have everything told to them over and over.


You pretty much just described the vast majority of the viewing public.  Obviously the network must have felt that the show was so confusing to the average viewer that they had to be told what was going on because there was no way anyone could figure it out on their own.



> That's probably thing I always loved (and still love) about Lost: it treats the audience as intelligent human beings and doesn't coddle. Sadly, ABC couldn't handle that. None of the networks can, that's why cable is winning at this point.
> 
> Greg


How does it treat the audience as anything but confused? Some of the smartest people I know watched that show and most of them were scratching their heads trying to figure out what the writers were trying to portray while in their drug-induced stupor. I've seen the writers and they look like some serious throwbacks to the sixties.

One of the best shows ever? Definitely not. One of the most disappointing, perhaps. Don't get me wrong because I got sucked into watching the show just like everyone else and enjoyed it immensely, at least up to a point. It's like the writers just said f*@k it and decided to just start making ***** up just to confuse everyone. The storyline got so disjointed and out of whack I almost gave up on it. I hung in right up to the last episode. Unfortunately, instead of feeling closure and satisfaction for a show well done all I could think was that there went five years of TV watching I'll never get back.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

mr.unnatural said:


> I've seen the writers and they look like some serious throwbacks to the sixties.


Carlton Cuse & Damon Lindelof? Really?











mr.unnatural said:


> One of the best shows ever? Definitely not. One of the most disappointing, perhaps.


Sounds like YMMV. I feel 180.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

I think it was both. One of the best, and one of the most disappointing.

It's too bad that what was for me the most important and interesting parts of the show, was for them just filler.


----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

wprager said:


> And just like a rollercoaster ride, after the last big drop there was a sudden stop, and a slow roll back to the starting position. In other words the ride was over way before you could get off.


I don't ever want to ride the rollercoaster where you can get off before the ride is over


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I think it was both. One of the best, and one of the most disappointing.
> 
> It's too bad that what was for me the most important and interesting parts of the show, was for them just filler.


I agree. It started out as one of the best and then just went south towards the end. What ticked me off the most was that they would introduce a situation and then drop it from the storyline. IIRC, they introduced the smoke monster in the first season and then forgot about it until the final episodes. The ending reminded me of the miniseries they did for Stephen King's "It." It was scary at the beginning and then it was reduced to a stupid monster movie.



astrohip said:


> Carlton Cuse & Damon Lindelof? Really?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This show probably caused more controversy than any other show I've ever seen. You either loved it or you hated it or both. In the end, it just pissed me off.
As for the writers, they did a special about Lost where they interviewed the writers and they both looked like they just came out of a Hangover sequel. They looked nothing like the picture above.


----------



## gchance (Dec 6, 2002)

mr.unnatural said:


> How does it treat the audience as anything but confused? Some of the smartest people I know watched that show and most of them were scratching their heads trying to figure out what the writers were trying to portray while in their drug-induced stupor. I've seen the writers and they look like some serious throwbacks to the sixties.


You seem more upset that there are those of us who understood what was going on and you didn't. I'm sorry you feel like you threw away 5 years, perhaps you should have bailed earlier.

Greg


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

mr.unnatural said:


> What ticked me off the most was that they would introduce a situation and then drop it from the storyline. IIRC, they introduced the smoke monster in the first season and then forgot about it until the final episodes.


Just a WAG, but I would bet every single season had multiple appearances of Smoky.


----------



## JMikeD (Jun 10, 2002)

astrohip said:


> Just a WAG, but I would bet every single season had multiple appearances of Smoky.


I just finished a re-watch of the entire series, and yes, Smokey showed up in all the seasons.

I enjoyed the series much more the second time around, when I could watch multiple episodes several days a week. I read the appropriate entries in the _Finding Lost_ books for each episode, also.

This time around, the ending didn't bother me at all.


----------



## philw1776 (Jan 19, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I think it was both. One of the best, and one of the most disappointing.
> 
> It's too bad that what was for me *the most important and interesting parts of the show, was for them just filler*.


Yes
That's why I have never re-watched the show I once loved. No point to it.


----------



## Freshman JS (Nov 8, 2002)

philw1776 said:


> The problem with Lost, one of the best TV series ever, is that by introducing and telling the stories of Jake & his bro in detail in Season 6 they made 90% of what transpired the 1st 5 seasons irrelevant or greatly diminished. Why it's still great is the soap opera of the characters' lives and interactions. Oh, and Kate.


how did that make anything that happened in the 1st 5 seasons irrelevant?


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Freshman JS said:


> how did that make anything that happened in the 1st 5 seasons irrelevant?


Because basically ALL that happened before had little to do with the two brothers' battle. It just felt that all the Dharma stuff, the Others, the stuff with Whitmore, were pretty meaningless in the bigger picture of the brothers' chess game. It was like five years of interesting plot lines were completely meaningless. I loved the ride for those 5 years, but the 6th year I could have done without.


----------



## philw1776 (Jan 19, 2002)

Freshman JS said:


> how did that make anything that happened in the 1st 5 seasons irrelevant?


See prior post


----------



## Johnny Dancing (Sep 3, 2000)

I loved Lost. One of my favorite shows ever and I enjoyed every minute of the ride. I plan on buying the deluxe BD set one day when I am not busy and will watch it over 3 or 4 months. Not sure when that will be but I look forward to a re-watch over a short period of time.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Johnny Dancing said:


> I loved Lost. One of my favorite shows ever and I enjoyed every minute of the ride. I plan on buying the deluxe BD set one day when I am not busy and will watch it over 3 or 4 months. Not sure when that will be but I look forward to a re-watch over a short period of time.


I've been saying that for years now, and I've started twice and never got past halfway through S1. It's not that I don't want to rewatch, but I just don't have the time. Even in the summer, I find things to watch and with Netflix, I have been exploring series that I never had time for before (or in channels I didn't sub to).


----------



## Johnny Dancing (Sep 3, 2000)

Steveknj said:


> I've been saying that for years now, and I've started twice and never got past halfway through S1. It's not that I don't want to rewatch, but I just don't have the time. Even in the summer, I find things to watch and with Netflix, I have been exploring series that I never had time for before (or in channels I didn't sub to).


While summering at the beach house would be the perfect time. 

The problem now is I use my empty time on vacation to work. Damn Interwebs.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

gchance said:


> You seem more upset that there are those of us who understood what was going on and you didn't. I'm sorry you feel like you threw away 5 years, perhaps you should have bailed earlier.
> 
> Greg


If you understood everything that was going on from the very beginning right up to the last episode then you're a very special person indeed. Most of the people I talked to ended up getting lost (pun intended ) somewhere around the 4th season, IIRC.

For me, most shows that are really well done have always stuck with me to where I can usually recall most of the episodes at a later point in time, or at least the key facts about the storyline and the characters. Lost is but a fading memory and I can't even recall most of what I saw on that show. I just remember what a disappointment it turned out to be because I had such high hopes for it to be much better.

Again, YMMV.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

mr.unnatural said:


> If you understood everything that was going on from the very beginning right up to the last episode then you're a very special person indeed. Most of the people I talked to ended up getting lost (pun intended ) somewhere around the 4th season, IIRC.
> 
> For me, most shows that are really well done have always stuck with me to where I can usually recall most of the episodes at a later point in time, or at least the key facts about the storyline and the characters. Lost is but a fading memory and I can't even recall most of what I saw on that show. I just remember what a disappointment it turned out to be because I had such high hopes for it to be much better.
> 
> Again, YMMV.


I think I honestly understood the majority of what was explained on the show. Where it went terribly wrong is when ALL that stuff I had figured out over the years. The purpose of Dharma, why The Others were there, even why Jack felt he had to go back, was quickly washed away with that scene at the end of S5 where Jacob and the MIB were talking. At that scene NONE of made any more sense.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Exactly.  I wouldn't have had a problem if the storyline was coherent. Problem was, you'd get to a point where you thought you had things figured out and the writers would say, "Let's do this and really screw with their heads." I'd be watching and then go "WTF? What just happened?" I think they were running out of rational ideas and had to find creative ways to get the audience coming back just to see what was going on. 

It left me far less than satisfied to find out I was watching a show about dead people and that everything they experienced wasn't real. The show was basically a 5-year dream sequence that had no real direction or purpose other than to generate ratings. I felt a bit betrayed in the end. I think they would have been better off leaving things open and let the audience draw their own conclusions rather than the lame ending they conjured up.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

mr.unnatural said:


> Exactly.  I wouldn't have had a problem if the storyline was coherent. Problem was, you'd get to a point where you thought you had things figured out and the writers would say, "Let's do this and really screw with their heads." I'd be watching and then go "WTF? What just happened?" I think they were running out of rational ideas and had to find creative ways to get the audience coming back just to see what was going on.
> 
> *It left me far less than satisfied to find out I was watching a show about dead people and that everything they experienced wasn't real.* The show was basically a 5-year dream sequence that had no real direction or purpose other than to generate ratings. I felt a bit betrayed in the end. I think they would have been better off leaving things open and let the audience draw their own conclusions rather than the lame ending they conjured up.


WTF are you talking about? Are you sure you're talking about LOST? Who was dead?


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

Is there a site that has LOST FAQs? I would love to read more about:

1. What was the Island?
2. Where was the Island?
3. What was the smoke?
4. What was the 4-toed statue?


That kind of thing.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

The only beefs I have with Lost are the Niki/Paolo episode and the horrible job Allison Janney did with her Latin (actually I kinda hated that whole episode and wasn't that crazy about Ricardo's backstory, either). OK, and John and Yoko took up way too much time (double the dialog just because he didn't like to speak English). 

Anyhow, lots of minor beefs, but no issue with the major ones.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

DevdogAZ said:


> WTF are you talking about? Are you sure you're talking about LOST? Who was dead?


Must be a troll. I didn't think you could get an account here if you still thought they were all dead.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

wprager said:


> Must be a troll. I didn't think you could get an account here if you still thought they were all dead.


Well, they were at one point. In LA, in the last season.

I guess if you knew that and didn't think about it too much, you could get confused...


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Well, they were at one point. In LA, in the last season.
> 
> I guess if you knew that and didn't think about it too much, you could get confused...


Yes, the "not" Purgatory.


----------



## philw1776 (Jan 19, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> I think I honestly understood the majority of what was explained on the show. Where it went terribly wrong is when ALL that stuff I had figured out over the years. The purpose of Dharma, why The Others were there, even why Jack felt he had to go back, was quickly washed away with that scene at the end of S5 where Jacob and the MIB were talking. At that scene NONE of made any more sense.


Yes. The writers made the previous years' developments mostly irrelevant with Season 6. That's why my Blu-Ray discs sit unopened.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

scandia101 said:


> They didn't have a plan, so what? I liked the show for what it was, not because someone said that they knew where they were going with the show.


Nobody should ever have a plan that voids real life events.

If they had followed some sort of plan, the character of Ben would have been gone in a couple of episodes, instead of being one of the best things about the show in the last 4 years.

-smak-


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

mr.unnatural said:


> a show about dead people and that everything they experienced wasn't real. The show was basically a 5-year dream sequence


They were alive the entire time they were alive. And everything they did was real, not a dream. They were dead in the Flash-Sideways, but alive the rest of the time. Island, flashback, flashforward.


----------



## javabird (Oct 13, 2006)

The plan was for Ben to go early in the season. There was such an overwhelming fan response to Ben, they decided to keep him around.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

DevdogAZ said:


> WTF are you talking about? Are you sure you're talking about LOST? Who was dead?


From the Lost Wikipedia for season six:



> The series finale reveals that the flash-sideways timeline is actually a form of limbo, where some of the survivors and other characters from the island are reunited after having died because their time on the island had been the most important part of their existence. In the end, the survivors are all reunited in a church where they "move on" together.


I took the ending to imply that everyone on the island was actually dead and that there were no survivors. I may have drawn the wrong conclusion, but my wife reached the same one that I did. By the end of the series I was "Lost." The thread title says it all. 



uncdrew said:


> Is there a site that has LOST FAQs? I would love to read more about:
> 
> 1. What was the Island?
> 2. Where was the Island?
> ...


Try google. There are tons of website that talk about Lost and the things you listed, as well as just about every other spect of the show.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

mr.unnatural said:


> From the Lost Wikipedia for season six:
> 
> I took the ending to imply that everyone on the island was actually dead and that there were no survivors. I may have drawn the wrong conclusion, but my wife reached the same one that I did. By the end of the series I was "Lost."


I think Hurley and Ben were NOT dead and were the caretakers of the Island. Everyone else was dead.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Steveknj said:


> I think Hurley and Ben were NOT dead and were the caretakers of the Island. Everyone else was dead.


The fact that you say you think this is the case indicates you're not sure, making you just as confused as the rest of us. There are just too many things left open to interpretation to draw solid conclusions. I'm pretty sure the writers intended it to be that way just to stir up controversy.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

mr.unnatural said:


> The fact that you say you think this is the case indicates you're not sure, making you just as confused as the rest of us. There are just too many things left open to interpretation to draw solid conclusions. I'm pretty sure the writers intended it to be that way just to stir up controversy.


Well, no...who was dead and who was alive, and when, was made very clear. You're just wrong on that.

(Speaking as somebody who was terribly disappointed in the last season!)


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

mr.unnatural said:


> I took the ending to imply that everyone on the island was actually dead and that there were no survivors. I may have drawn the wrong conclusion, but my wife reached the same one that I did. By the end of the series I was "Lost." The thread title says it all.


Nope, you got it very wrong. They survived on the island, most of them got off the island and continued their lives. Once they died, whenever and wherever that was, they then went to that silly flash sideways limbo place to wait until all the others got there so they could all move on together. The only time they were dead was in the S6 flash sideways sequences. The other 5.5 seasons they were very much alive.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

mr.unnatural said:


> The fact that you say you think this is the case indicates you're not sure, making you just as confused as the rest of us. There are just too many things left open to interpretation to draw solid conclusions. I'm pretty sure the writers intended it to be that way just to stir up controversy.


I'm agreeing with you. I said I think though, only because I don't remember the last episode too well, only that they were outside the church talking and they never went in. I supposed it could be interpreted two ways: 1) They were dead but just not ready to "move on" with the rest of them, or 2) They were alive, and just paying their respects? I don't recall if they actually talked to any of the "on movers".


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

uncdrew said:


> Is there a site that has LOST FAQs? I would love to read more about:
> 
> 1. What was the Island?
> 2. Where was the Island?
> ...


I like lostpedia for that:

1&2
3
4


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Steveknj said:


> I'm agreeing with you. I said I think though, only because I don't remember the last episode too well, only that they were outside the church talking and they never went in. I supposed it could be interpreted two ways: 1) They were dead but just not ready to "move on" with the rest of them, or 2) They were alive, and just paying their respects? I don't recall if they actually talked to any of the "on movers".


Actually, I'm pretty sure they all eventually went into the church except for Ben. He was on a heavy guilt trip and thought he wasn't worthy enough to join the rest of them. At least that's the way I remember how things went. It was almost as if they were all going to an AA meeting in the final episode.

To be honest, once things started getting wonky (probably when they started jumping through time and the side plots), I think I stopped paying as much attention as I did in the earlier seasons, which just added to the confusion. The plot, if there actually was one (and I still have my doubts), became so obscurred that it became difficult to discern what was real and what wasn't unless you were giving the show your utmost attention to every detail. If some of you are convinced that they all actually lived and eventually left the island then at least you have some closure. I stopped putting so much time and effort into it trying to figure things out long before the last season began.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> Nope, you got it very wrong. They survived on the island, most of them got off the island and continued their lives. Once they died, whenever and wherever that was, they then went to that silly flash sideways limbo place to wait until all the others got there so they could all move on together. The only time they were dead was in the S6 flash sideways sequences. The other 5.5 seasons they were very much alive.


Yep. Everything that happened on the island actually happened. What we thought were flash sideways were actually flash forwards, to events that took place many, many years in the future (and, at the same time, in no time at all, since purgatory/limbo LA takes place out of time altogether), after the various Losties have all died from whatever causes.


----------



## 3D (Oct 9, 2001)

I thought that those interested in this thread might appreciate this article by Damon Lindelof which was originally supposed to be a review of the Breaking Bad finale. Be warned, spoilers for Breaking Bad abound.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/damon-lindelof-breaking-bad-finale-639484


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

Good for him. His twitter feed after the BB finale aired was ridiculous with dooshbags just letting him have it (and, of course, Lindelof's masochistic tendencies led him to RT most of them). 

Look -if you didn't like (or even understand) the finale, or didn't like the way the show handled its final season, fine. Certainly your prerogative. But at some point, you need to get over it, right? (I'm not talking about anyone here in particular, just the type of person who would, immediately after watching the BB finale, send Lindelof a tweet attempting to rub his face in it).


----------

