Lost 5/2/07 "The Brig" (spoilers)

[Mark CMG]

Oh, yes. And how much do we know about the slave ship and the pillar Locke's dad was tied to?

 

[el-remmen]

Yes, but what specifically has been proven incorrect? Not knowing or being able to figure out the explanation for something is not the same as having proven some explanation to be false. And, don't get me wrong. I am not saying they have adequately explained everything (or anything) or that everything will have a proper explanation. Don't cast me as a Lost-science apologist but I am looking for the specifics of something they have explained and the refutation thereof.

Hey, I didn't say it was my assertion. . . I was just explaining the P.O.V.

 

[Mark CMG]

Hey, I didn't say it was my assertion. . . I was just explaining the P.O.V.

Judging by your post, it is a P.O.V. that you share.

Nevertheless, I think I have been explicit enough at this point to get to the heart of the matter. We do not seem to have actual scienticific explanations for some things, just an alledged assertion from the writers/producers that there are scientific explanations for some things. I'd love to see the exact quotes to see if they have some wiggle room or to see if people have taken what they have said out of context or read more into the statements than is actually there.

 

[Hand of Evil]

Everything is explained by unified field theory.

 

[The Grumpy Celt]

The writers also said the smoke cloud was not some type of nanite-machine-thing, and that is the most "Scientific" explanation of it, all the others I am aware of are pure fantasy. I don't know that the writers are intentionally lying but I suspect they are intentionally being deceptive. They may be accidentally lying as the staff and the show changes over the course of four or five years.

 

[Mark CMG]

The writers also said the smoke cloud was not some type of nanite-machine-thing, and that is the most "Scientific" explanation of it, all the others I am aware of are pure fantasy. I don't know that the writers are intentionally lying but I suspect they are intentionally being deceptive. They may be accidentally lying as the staff and the show changes over the course of four or five years.

You are accusing them of lying for saying that it *wasn't* something? Or you are saying they have given other explanations that are definitely lies?

 

[Arnwyn]

The writers have allegedly said, "there is a scientific explanation for everything."

There is no real scientific explanation for the smoke monster or Desmond's visions as we understand science in the real world.

Thus, I think the OP is saying, that the writers are incorrect in the above statement, and also thusly, someone else's comments about "science fiction" explanations.

That clearer? (unless of course, I am interpreting it wrong as well )

Yep, you've interpreted my POV correctly!



If I feel like wasting my time, I might go hunt for the producers'/writers' exact comments, but the word "everything" has been bandied about enough that that's what I'm going with.

 

[Mark CMG]

Fair enough but I'd hate to think the show is getting a bad rep based on a lot of he said/she said rumors about who said what, when, and in what context. I've been searching around and not finding confirmation for any of the so-called lies and scientific short cuts the writers and producers have been accused of foisting on the viewers. Without a single link to a refuteable scientific explanation supposedly proffered by the writers/producers, I'm getting the feeling that the accusations might be mistaken and unfounded. I'm sure you don't have any personal reason to falsely accuse anyone of lying, so I can only assume you have been working from bad information. Maybe we can just drop the accusations (and requests for links regarding them) until the next time such a report surfaces and the credible evidence is handy to debate or accept on face value?

 

[Cthulhudrew]

The writers also said the smoke cloud was not some type of nanite-machine-thing,

Where did they say this? Genuinely curious. I've seen them dismiss things like the Purgatory/Hell concept, but I haven't ever seen them say the smoke monster isn't a cloud of nanites.

 

[mmu1]

Well, here's some stuff relating to the "scientific explanations", from a Q&A session on the Fuselage website:

http://www.thefuselage.com/Threaded/showthread.php?p=1099

Mr. Fury- New to the board, 2 Questions Please.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Call me pinnerman, I migrated here to take a look based on the suggestions of some of those at LOST-TV.com. I'm a major THEORIST over there.

Q 1) Here's a quote from yourself regarding the nature of the island: "We'll try to root it in real science or real pseudo-science. There will be no mystical reason or an island of monsters."

Here's a more recent quote from JJ Abrams on NPR: "The Twilight Zone aspects to me are going to always be present, but the show is in no way a straight forward Sci Fi show. The fact is I've had a lot of discussions about what straight Sci Fi is, what does that mean exactly. Whether it's, you know, something that is more obviously Science Fiction like, you know, Alien, or comedically Science Fiction like Back to the Future, or more subtly Science Fiction like the stuff David Cronenberg might do. To me, the use of extraordinary circumstances sort of colliding with ordinary people is the most interesting story telling."

To me, these statements are somewhat contradictory. Is this damage control from JJ to keep all the possible theories on the table for us theorists who read your comment and believed that the explanations would not be mystical or supernatural in nature? Is this planned mis-direction or mis-information? Or is this simply unintentional?

Q 2) Have you read any of the theories over at LOST-TV.com?

Thanks.

Re: Mr. Fury- New to the board, 2 Questions Please.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Call me Ishmael, pinnerman --

Okay... You may notice I said "try" -- "We'll TRY to root it in real... pseudo-science..." What does that mean? Well...

I dunno.

Kidding. It means we're approaching the strange elements of this show from the Scully perspective as oppossed to Mulder. (Please don't run with this X-Files analogy -- it's just to illustrate my point.).

In other words, we come from the "there must be some rational, scientific explanation for these things" as opposed to "no, look, Scully, there be monsters here. Accept it." Part of what I said can be attributed to the network's aversion to "genre television." Ironically, the things that sold the show, scared them. So we assurred them that we'll have the simple explanation to go along with everything as we start out.

But I make no promises after that.

And, in answer to your second question, I have not visited that site. I and others on the show try to only frequent this one.

Notice how I said "try" again.

Note that I have no strong feelings on the subject - don't really care how they decide to explain it as long as I'm entertained. (so I'm not posting this to support any particular point of view)

Although I too recall reading statements from the writers/producers - or at least statements that were attributed to them on assorted news sites and blogs - making much stronger claims for the existence of a scientific explanation than the excerpts I was actually able to find, and I think they did end up backpedaling, at least to a certain extent.