Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 4785963" data-attributes="member: 177">Yes, JJ Abrams.&nbsp; Creator of such deep and layered film gems as &quot;Armageddon&quot; and &quot;Cloverfield&quot;.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue&nbsp; &nbsp; :p"&nbsp; data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />How many questions on &quot;Lost&quot; have gotten answers such that you felt the guy had a grand plan from the start?&nbsp; This is a legit question - I've only seen the first two seasons, and people didn't know diddly-squat at that point, and it didn't look like he had any real intention of revealing anything any time soon.So, I really don't expect any grand scheme that makes sense of the move.&nbsp; They gave us a typical American &quot;wrapped up with a bow&quot; ending, because it is an action flick and you don't leave threads hanging on action flicks. This is movie-franchise Star Trek, where they can make major changes without worrying about it, as there won't be enough screen-time to actually display much about the impact of those changes.&nbsp; It is easy to blow up a planet if the only impact we'll see is on a single character who really doesn't show much emotion.&nbsp; And remember, this is coming from someone who *liked* the movie.&nbsp; It was fun, but I see no coherent signs that it's a masterpiece of planned depth.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 4785963, member: 177"] Yes, JJ Abrams. Creator of such deep and layered film gems as "Armageddon" and "Cloverfield". :p How many questions on "Lost" have gotten answers such that you felt the guy had a grand plan from the start? This is a legit question - I've only seen the first two seasons, and people didn't know diddly-squat at that point, and it didn't look like he had any real intention of revealing anything any time soon. So, I really don't expect any grand scheme that makes sense of the move. They gave us a typical American "wrapped up with a bow" ending, because it is an action flick and you don't leave threads hanging on action flicks. This is movie-franchise Star Trek, where they can make major changes without worrying about it, as there won't be enough screen-time to actually display much about the impact of those changes. It is easy to blow up a planet if the only impact we'll see is on a single character who really doesn't show much emotion. And remember, this is coming from someone who *liked* the movie. It was fun, but I see no coherent signs that it's a masterpiece of planned depth. [/QUOTE]

Verification