Why am I not getting 'Lost'?

[Templetroll]

Is it just me? Have I truly become so realistic, so rational that watching anything besides programs on Discovery or National Geographic isn't fun anymore?
The reason I'm asking myself (and everyone who reads this) is that recently a friend of mine gave me his taped copies of Lost. He told me that it was the best TV series ever and I'd love it. Well I don't, never have I seen a more engineered piece of mass-marketed media hype on my television screen. Everything in it feels like a railroaded session of D&D by a bad GM.

I mean a polar bear? The fact alone that they put it in the series feels like a strained effort to heighten the mystery. The filming techniques, music and dialog are giving away so much clues to what's going to happen that my girlfriend had to angrily ask me to stop spoiling it all. The foreshadowing alone is ruining almost every surprise there is. And the interactions between the survivors is so unrealistic you can almost see where the writers decided "Wouldn't it be cool/interesting/mysterous/etc to... (fill in the blanks)".

Am I alone in this? Because everyone I ask and everywhere I look on the Internet, Lost is praised into the heavens for single-handedly reviving peoples interest in TV-series. Am I not getting it?

Most television programming is not engineered well, if at all. That you can recognize filming techniques, music and dialogue laden with clues means the writers have succeeded in their efforts to (fill in the blanks) in order to add cool/interesting/mysterious to the show.

 

[devilbat]

I have a friend who I would go see a movie with every week, until he started disecting every scene of every movie. Going great lengths to tell me why this and that were unbelievable, and far to simple for his great intellect.

I now have a new friend, that is able to turn it off to enjoy a little mindless entertainment.

Just like me.

 

[Tetsubo]

I have a friend who I would go see a movie with every week, until he started disecting every scene of every movie. Going great lengths to tell me why this and that were unbelievable, and far to simple for his great intellect.

I now have a new friend, that is able to turn it off to enjoy a little mindless entertainment.

Just like me.

If the creators of a film are depending on me to provide their success, they are delusional. Much like a military commander expecting his enenmy to act in a stupid and easily defeated manner. I want to see craftsmanship on my screen. Whether it is a movie theater or my television. I often don't enjoy films or shows because the creators are sloppy or inept or just lazy. I want a complete package. I want internal consistancy. I want skill.

That said, I haven't watched Lost. Other than a few crime dramas I don't watch any network television any longer.* For the reasons I mention above. I still enjoy movies though. I've found that the focus on the single object of crafting a film tightens up the creators abilities. As an example of a film creator that got it right: Kill Bill. Which I view as a perfect film.

*Yes, I know that crime dramas can fall victim to the same issues that the original poster mentioned. I watch crime dramas to fulfill my desire for justice. I can't find it in reality, so I turn to fantasy.

 

[Vocenoctum]

I am actually with you. I don't get the appeal either. I thought that maybe it was just my sensibilities were not in tune with the rest of the Lost Fans.

I watched a bit at first, but it never grabbed my interest, so I didn't go back.

In general, I can suspend disbelief quite a bit, but when something irks me, the niggling little details start jumping out even more. I didn't watch enough Lost to overanalyze it, but it's happened with other stuff I didn't enjoy. (say, SW3:RotS...)

 

[KenM]

I never seen LOST, but I know what people mean when something happens in TV or a book, movie, ect. that makes you question your suspension of disbelif.
For example (puts on flame proof suit) take the Lord of the Rings novels, and the prequel, The Hobbit. In those books, the Author has the main character(s) escape ceritin death at the last moment by having giant eagles come down and rescue them. So why did'nt they just use the eagle to fly over to Mt. Doom and throw the bad ring inside? No place is it menetioned in those books why the eagles are not used in this way. Its mentioned in another JRRT story. But because the Author presents an easier way for people to do accomplish the main goal, and an explanion is not given in the story (just an implied explantion), my disbelif is gone and the whole story is ruined for me.

 

[Lhorgrim]

I enjoy "Lost", and I'm looking forward to next season.

That being said, I think that there is a payoff issue with any type of "plot twist" style drama. You have to be interested enough in the final outcome to stay with all the ups and downs and twists. If the story doesn't appeal to you, it's not likely that you'll put in the effort to "hear the final verse".

I'm that way with several types of media. I gave up on Robert Jordan, because the payoff just isn't worth it to me anymore. :\ I watched "The Blair Witch Project" to the end of the credits, and waited til they turned on the house lights, because I was waiting for the definitive answer about what was really going on in those woods. I was ... disappointed with the payoff such as it was.

If the idea doesn't grab you, there really isn't any reason to watch the show. I don't particularly enjoy professional womens basketball. It would be a waste of my time to watch, because no payoff will ever be worth it to me. I'm watching "Lost" because I enjoy some of the characters, and I want the payoff at the end.

I hope I'm not...disappointed

 

[Templetroll]

I never seen LOST, but I know what people mean when something happens in TV or a book, movie, ect. that makes you question your suspension of disbelif.
For example (puts on flame proof suit) take the Lord of the Rings novels, and the prequel, The Hobbit. In those books, the Author has the main character(s) escape ceritin death at the last moment by having giant eagles come down and rescue them. So why did'nt they just use the eagle to fly over to Mt. Doom and throw the bad ring inside? No place is it menetioned in those books why the eagles are not used in this way. Its mentioned in another JRRT story. But because the Author presents an easier way for people to do accomplish the main goal, and an explanion is not given in the story (just an implied explantion), my disbelif is gone and the whole story is ruined for me.

No flames. The eagles were not a taxi service and would not risk themselves early on. When things are going wild, eagles can fly in for a rescue without attracting too much attention until it is too late. Flying in on eagleback to go to the one place the Ring can be destroyed without the distraction the size of Mt Doom blowing up is a bad idea.

Sneaky small guys going in while major forces are distracted by armies and large battles is a good idea.

 

[KenM]

No flames. The eagles were not a taxi service ....

Lets see, when Gandalf was captive on top of Isengaurd, he talks to a butterfly thatt flies off. The next thing you know the same butterfly shows up WITH AN EAGLE to pick him up. Sounds like a taxi service to me. It just seems too me that JRRT used the eagles when it was convent for Him to write the characters out of a tight spot. He did not see the impact it had on the overall effect of the story. All he needed was a line or 2 saying it would not work, and I would have accepted it, but the explaination has to be in the same story, not when he he is writting another story set in the same world to explin his own mistake. I think it was another story, or it might have been a essay or something. Not sure.

 

[JoeBlank]

I'm certainly not looking to start a flame war, and I trust that the OP expects a few comebacks since he is noting that he finds some problems with a popular series, but . . .

Does anyone else see the irony in the OP sharing his name with a character in the Shannara series, which many readers find derivative, predicable and trite?

 

[Rackhir]

I'm certainly not looking to start a flame war, and I trust that the OP expects a few comebacks since he is noting that he finds some problems with a popular series, but . . .

Does anyone else see the irony in the OP sharing his name with a character in the Shannara series, which many readers find derivative, predicable and trite?

Oh come on. The first book wasn't predictable. It was plagurized from LotR, not a trilogy I recall anyone ever considering predictable. But that's neither here nor there.

As Far as Lost goes. Well to be perfectly honest I'm not entirely sure why I like the series. Your complaints are certainly valid, but for some reason I just find I can put my disbelief into suspension and sit back and enjoy the quirky characters and the "Big Mystery" plot.

Did you like/ever watch Twin Peaks? I'd be curious as to the correlation between people who did/didn't like that and those who like/don't like Lost. I suspect that most people who like Lost also like/would like Twin Peaks.