In which we discover, that tv's "great" Lost, to be honest, sucks.

I enjoyed the two hour pilot and thought it would be a great show (or at least, a fun, guilty pleasure).

But since then we have been treated to:

- clunky, cliched camera angles (this was evident, even in the premiere) that would be booed out of the worst horror movie.

- Annoying, useless uses of flashbacks. At first this seemed an intriguing premise. But it now has become apparent that the show is running in place and has no concept or ability to create narrative drive. Get to the point! Sustained suspense can be a great thing but not when it becomes apparent that you are simply clueless on how to develop plot points.

and, of course, the last episode.

- in which our intrepid group is wandering through a forest and, gosh, just *happens* to drop a flashlight on the (I assume) only steel door on the island. But, no, my friend, this is why we call it "Creative Writing." To come up with such devices! Well, no, my friend "Creative" would imply some lick of originality, something the writers of this show, apparently dont have. What you have created is what we call, in polite terms, "deus ex machina," (look it up!) and that my friends *aint* creative. If you want to see good writing watch Arrested Development, Desperate Housewives, The Soprano's or Six Feet Under.

Now, feel free to flame away. But consider a couple of things:

--- Do NOT say don't watch. For two reasons: 1) I have begun watching the show for pure personal pleasure at how overrated it is. The fact that it was nominated for a Golden Globe says more about the awards then about the show. In fact, my friends and I have a game now, where we guess when the flashbacks will happen and how long they will last. That we are usually right, aint because we are "creative."
2)Also this argument will make you as boring and tired as your hackneyed show.

--- I loooove guilty pleasures. I watch many, such as General Hospital, the O.C. and other "trashy" television. But I know its trash. Thinking Lost is great television is like sleeping with a drugged out whore/prostitute and thinking she would make a great wife.

Not about not liking it. Opinion is opinion and nothing will change that. But the way the show is written, plotted, and paced is on par with the other shows you mentioned (Arrested Development, Sopranos, 6 Ft. Under), all of which I also love.

The only thing I will say about Lost is that it has the potential to have a very horrid twist, like say they're all dead or something.

But the character development on lost just amazes me every week, if only because it is so slowly leaked and in some intriguing ways.

To each their own.

but its absurd to compare Lost to the Sopranos. The argument is so
ridiculous to be beneath my even responding.

The only problem with a simple, "horrible," twist (aside from the fact that its the lowest common denominator in the creative arts) is that, if it is to be well-reasoned, it must be thought out well in advance. The creator's claim this, but, as yet, I have seen nothing that would support such a claim. Although, apparently Lost fans will swallow whatever is put down their throat.

I see nothing "creative" about using flashbacks week after week. Not when the story is not moving forward (look up "story"). I see you ignored my point about the flashlight.

I have no quarrel with you (or any lost fan, per se) but am annoyed by two factors.

1) I have to constantly listen to them tell me its the best show on television. Trust me, its not. Yes, trust me, it's *not*.
2) I continually have to watch far superior quality programs, past and present, struggle, so that over-produced, overhyped, lame-ass, lacking creativity shows like Lost can swim and swallow up their place once cancelled.

I truly wish you no ill will and hope you enjoy your show.

p.s. As a Creative Writing/Literature major I was raised from a child at the knee to support statements with specific examples, which I did, and you did not. You may not agree with my statements but they were supported with evidence (camera angles, contrived storytelling, etc.) Yours did not give any specific examples. Although, I will give you the character development since, in theory anyway, that's what the flashbacks are for. But the rest were all general statements not addressing in any substantial way my topics.

The comparison to The Sopranos is, and shall, remain absurd.

If it is a fantasy/sci fi show and one accepts that premise of such then the "coincidence" of the flashlight is no more or less acceptable than any of the other occurences on the island. The show no doubt requires suspesion of disbelief. If your quarrel is that a "good" show can't involve fantasy or suspension of disbelief because under that premise anything is possible then that is a fair claim but then I submit you wouldn't consider any show in said genre "good" or quality. If I am wrong please site examples.

It is a completely different animal from the Sopranos so a direct comparison is inaccurate. But the quality of writing on Lost in the context of a fantasy/sci fi show is to me just as good as that on the Sopranos in the context of a gangster/mob show.

If your quibble with Lost were the acting I would not be having this discussion because I think it is the one area that the show is lacking. Although not featuring the worst acting on TV it's also not up to the level of the other shows you mentioned and that is where those shows pull away from this one in terms of quality. Arrested Development/Sopranos, etc. are well written AND well acted. I merely think that Lost is well written.

As a creative writing/journalism major myself I was also taught about things like allegory, metaphor, and analogy, which is why I find the show well written since it employs all of those devices and does so well. Your ONE example of the flashlight was hardly an example because you don't explain WHY that incident is any more or less egregious than say Tony Soprano killing his cousin BEFORE they come to arrest Johnny Sac (or for that matter that they arrest Johnny Sac when Tony just HAPPENS to be over there).

What cancelled or overlooked shows would you regard as better than Lost? I'm not denying that there are some or many but considering the crap that takes up most tv time slots that is pretty much a straw man argument since if you are claiming that dreck like the Apprentice or the 8 millionth version of CSI or Law and Order are MORE deserving of a time slot than Lost is then....well then there's no talking to you.

I dont watch reality tv. sorry. I saw your comment at the end and it made me smile. For the record, I have never seen a CSI (any of them) but have watched Law and Order (esp. SVU) and find them entertaining but not in any "great" way.

Now, for your specific questions:

I am confused as to your point in the first question. It is me, no doubt, and probably from the drugs I'm taking (prescription - please don't call the cops). But if I understand your question correctly you are asking me what type of show Lost is, as well as genre shows that I think have worked well.

It's hard to say what type of show that Lost is. I don't think one has been given enough information. I will assume, at least at this point, that it is a "realistic fantasy" for lack of a better term. That still doesn't excuse the flashlight incident. A writer must, "play fair," with his audience and that is an example of what not to do.

Sadly, I can think of two ways that, imo, would have been better. And would have kept in it the constraints of a "fantasy". One was have someone rush through the trees (Lost does love its chase scences - one of the most tiresome of all the plot points - and you call yourself a writer, tsk, tsk) and trip over the door. That would keep in the context of being more believable and related to the show (monster, chase sequences, et.al).

The other is to have someone (Ethan; Jack - maybe his father) start to hear a voice from their past (Lost does love its flasbacks - tsk tsk; see above) and trace it to the steel door. To me this would be a far more intriguing way to discover the door. And it also keeps it within the framework of fantasy (ghostly voice) while keeping it real (having to search through a dark forest; voice is actually from the past).

As far as genre shows I admire: right now (because I'm having some difficulties right now) I can only think of: Buffy; Angel and the Prisoner (Lost could learn a lot from studying the Prisoner).

Buffy is a perfect way to have done things. A great metaphor (hell= high school/college/growing up) while layering the characters throughout the run. Cordelia is a fine example. She was a stock character at first but developed in a fascinating way. All the characters were like that. The sad thing is one of the Angel writers moved over to the Lost team. I think he may have been the one to write the flashback episode. Somewhere, Joss Whedon is hanging his head in shame.

We are halfway through the season and I have seen no character "development" (other than, arguably, Jack). I know more *about* the characters but I still dont care about them. It is obvious I am supposed to care because of their *types* - rebel girl; unhappy pregnant woman; korean woman being subserviant(sp?); unhappy child, yada yada yada. You say there has been a lot of character development but I haven't seen it. And no, the cripple(is that what you are supposed to call them, I honestly dont know) walking again doesn't count. Unfair, I suppose. But in writing we call that the "backstory"

I agree that it is difficult to compare the Sopranos or any other show I mentioned in my previous post. I will compare them to the three I just mentioned. Prisoner and Buffy blow it away. Angel is better as well (but I always thought that show muddy, and somewhat unfocused).

It's true about concidences. But it's like that old saw in writing. When you know the rules then you can break them. Until you show everyone that you know how to do it the right way you cant do it any other way. A good example is the book (and movie) Mystic River.. There were concidences in that film but everything else (writing, directing, acting, etc) was so wonderful that you didn't notice them until the movie was over. You simply believe that its the fate of real life. Sorry but when someone drops a flashlight and finds a steel door, on a massive island, I groan out loud. And Lost fails on most counts: medicore camera angles (death for a show that wants to build its premise around action/fantasy) and writing (its cliched, contrived and offers absolutely nothing new). The production values strike me as good (ABC has obviously spent a *lot* of money to look good) and the acting is acceptable. The acting doesn't really bother me but I don't really, in general, expect much from tv actors (I mean, I watch General Hospital for gods sake) However, If you are hanging your hat on viewers watching because they expect some "magnificent twist" at the end, then, buddy, you've got some serious problems.

I think I have addressed the whole metaphor, etc. question. Again, with memory problems (aint life a bitch, <sigh>) I can't remember if I have seen the episode of Sopranos and forgotten it. Therefore, I would not like to comment specifically upon it in this case. However, I would direct you to my comments above.

Better shows on (Off the top of my head)
Everwood
Arrested Development
there are probably more I cant think of

Screwed shows:
Sports Night (ABC *fucked* that one over)
Nothing Sacred (another ABC show...hmmm)
Freeks and Geeks
My So Called Life
again, there are probably more than I can remember.

Well, anyway, it's fun debating with you. Respond if you desire, as it's always more interesting to speak to someone on an intellectual level, rather than the tradional and tired, "you suck" comments

Best

p.s. I wanted to be a journalist when I was a kid, before I decided to move into the Creative Arts field. Writing, obviously, has always been in my blood. Good luck!!

For me I put Lost in this context when comparing it to other shows (disclaimer: I am in no way comparing the quality or artistic accomplishment of any tv show to any of the following writers. Merely drawing analogies):

2 of my favorite writers are Camus and Kafka. However, I don't read either one for their character development or their decriptions and turns of phrases (although neither are any slouches in those areas). I don't read them to get an accurate description of either how it feels to kill in self defense or to wake up one day as a bug. I read them because the questions their situations raise and the analogies and metaphors that they speak to in my mind raise interesting quandaries which make me think about things on other levels and turn things over in my own mind. I no more believe that they would happen to drop the flashlight on that metal piece than that a man could wake up and be a bug. But those individual things in the context of a bigger description and story and philosophical question work for me.

To me something like the Sopranos works more like a Henry James novel in that it is rich in descriptive textures and tone and character development. I can watch the Sopranos and never once think about it philosophically or morally (although I could if I wanted to, since it is that good a show). Instead like some of the best descriptive literature, I simply immerse myself in the lives and words of those characters.

To me Lost simply presents situations that make me think about how I or how those archetypal characters would react in that situation and how their actions would impact the others on the island. I think what is great about the writing is that you see how they are reacting in that situation, interspersed with how they were prior to the crash and it forces the viewer to alter or reckon with their perceptions. The flashlight, and even whatever is under that metal piece is almost irellevant to the bigger picture to me.

Is the show flawless? No way. But even if you don't think the show is as great as it is made out to be by the people whose praise of said show annoys you, I would hope you could admit that it's still better than a good 75% of what is currently on TV. I also loved all those shows you mentioned which unfortunately didn't catch on. I lament their loss as well. And I actually do enjoy Law and Order (in the same way I can enjoy some pulpy fiction and literature).

It seems based on your post that you don't as much hate lost as you do think it is wildly overpraised. Which is fair criticism, but doesn't make it a bad show. It sounds like you've seen most of the episodes of Lost. I would submit that if you truly thought it was that bad that you wouldn't have continued watching past say episode two. I know you said don't tell you just to NOT watch it and I won't do that. Something tells me despite the protestations that you will continue to watch anyway. :)

Thanks for the discussion. I enjoy this type of talk as well versus the "It's great!" vs. "No it sucks!" arguments.

This one isn't going to be long because I'm running out of steam. Plus, ever so slightly, we may be getting closer.

your points:

- I have never read Kafka (I know, I know but there are *so* many books). You seem intelligent and articulate, so I well head to the library. Camus rocks! (I know no other way to say it). Plus, he was an unhappy, depressed little guy. I admire that.

- Good points first 1/3. James is one of my favorite authors (Portrait of A Lady, one of my favorite books). The whole flashlight thing may just be a problem with me. I don't know how it is for you but I rarely read books on an "enjoyment," level anymore. I am always picking them apart to see how their done (style, character description, etc). It's an annoying habit but I can't shut it off. The same happens with all aspects of writing (tv; film; etc). I wish I could stop it, but I can't.
I can't believe that I'm the only person that groaned when that flashlight hit the door, though. Although,I like my ideas esp. the one about the voice under the door (I'm going to have to work that into a short story somehow - see, watching Lost paid off) it could have been done numerous other ways.

You said it could be the island. Fine, but I want to see something that shows that. Give me some hint dont just spring it on me. Ironically, I remember reading a story about the creator. He said they only intoduced the "monster" in the pilot because they would use him later and didnt want people to think they were cheating <my words>. Why couldn't he have done that with everything else? The only answer to me is lazy writing! A good writer *always* finds a *good* way. If *I*, the bitter, jaded, critic, who merely likes to "jeer" at those attaining success can come up with 2 possibilities of the top of my head. Couldn't those wonderful writers have come up with many more?

whew, I'm offically out of steam. I agree with pretty much everything else (unless I've disputed it here) except the "watching" it comment. I've answered that in another post and I'm too lazy/tired to retype it. Lost fans have been keeping me busy.

Best.

"p.s. As a Creative Writing/Literature major I was raised from a child at the knee to support statements with specific examples, which I did, and you did not. You may not agree with my statements but they were supported with evidence (camera angles, contrived storytelling, etc.) Yours did not give any specific examples. Although, I will give you the character development since, in theory anyway, that's what the flashbacks are for. But the rest were all general statements not addressing in any substantial way my topics."

This reminds me of that scene in Dead Poet's Society where Robin Williams reads them an essay that gives a formula for great literature. The point is, there is no formula for great literature, just like there is no formula for great television, or movies, or whatever. I think it's a somewhat specious argument to say that "camera angles" make or break great television. I could say that I learned in my screenwriting class 10 years ago that the "rule" is that you get two contrivances, and since Lost follows that rule, then it's great storytelling. There are no rules. It's all subject to personal opinion. No one has to give you "specific examples" of why they like something.

I think you are missing the point.

I was basing my whole opinion on criticism. I wrote a critical "piece." The same as I would for any other paper (limited to time and energy, given chat, obviously). To say it is then wrong to expect the same given in return is, simply, not true.

In fact, I go out of my way to tell people to withhold back the typical, "you suck" comments. So I'm not really sure what you mean. How can I ask to debate someone in a critical manner and then not expect them to uphold to those same standards?

I address the comments regarding "contrivances" later in the thread (I can't see it know because I'm typing and offscreen).

Best.

I guess that I just question the need to debate television critically at all, when it's all based on public opinion. Just because something sucks doesn't mean it can't be popular (see: Current occupant of White House). For whatever personal reasons, people like it. The way you state it is "This is CLEARLY a bad show, based on x, y, and z, and I am the person who can say that because of my educational background and experience." That's where, in my opinion, you run into trouble.

I could say, as a major in psychology and a former film student, that this is an excellent show, because it taps into everyone's desire to believe we can overcome difficult circumstances, and our voyeuristic need to peek into the lives of other people. People are fascinated by what lies beneath the surface, and the show addresses that perfectly. The narrative stream is somewhat original, and each show has an unanticipated surprise. This is why it is the best show on television and extremely popular. Plus there was that whole scene in the pilot when the guy got sucked into the engine, and who doesn't love that?

you sure seem to miss the point.

At no point did I say that you made a "you suck," comment. Although, to be fair, it is unclear if you were saying I said that you said that or if you just meant it in the sense that it wasnt (mary, mother of god, did sentence make any sense to you???) whew...moving on. Thank god, for commas!

A couple more things:

At no point did I say television has to be debated. Or movies. Or, as a writer, books (stop all book criticism, please!), Seriously, though, I love to debate and I *love* to write critical positions (we'll call it that rather than criticism). It may be odd, but I get satisfaction from that. And it exercises a different part of my brain than I use in creative writing.

Believe it ot not, my literature degree, with my ability to analyze, has helped me in every facet of my life, besides writing. From politics to jobs.


At no point did I try to use my "educational" experience to say that it mattered with regard to the show (I spoke of my being a writer but that is a different thing entirely) to say I knew more. What I said was, I am well-versed in literary criticism, which requires solid support and evidence. In fact, in that *same* post, I say you may *not* agree with my conclusion but I have provided my evidence.

*That* is the essence of literary (or any type of) criticism. From dictionary.com:

The practice of analyzing, classifying, interpreting, or evaluating literary or other artistic works.
# A critical article or essay; a critique.

Certainly, the "artistic" merits of television are debateably. But they are made (most/some/few/whatever) with this purpose in mind. Regardless, I have no desire to debate with you that its the "best" show on television.

I do, however, wish it a long and successful run, for you. I do so now how frustrating it can be to lose a valued show.

Best.
p.s. the engine suck up was cool!

number of plotlines, character types, and production styles that can be used.

For a TV show to work today, it must use clever combinations of otherwise "been there, done that" material.

Many who make TV shows fail to grasp the simple concept that by simply repackacing the same stuff that they'll win an audience. Unless you like Pierce Brosnan James Bond movies, their assertion couldn't be farther from the truth.

especially with regard to the camera angles. I just use it as another example of the show's lack of originality.

The only true example of a bad camera angle (imo) was in the pilot when the man was bending over the water and the blood (or water, I cant remember) dripped into the puddle, you looked into the puddle, can you see where I am going with this?

In tv it is difficult to do anything with camera angles, esp. in comedies. what the hell can you do with a static camera? But in a show that prides itself on suspense they need to find a way not so obviously repetitive (the above mentioned, running through forests, etc).

In short, that's what we, as writers must do. As someone once said there are only a limited number of plots in the world (I dont remember the number but for some reason 36 is sticking in my head).

It is the job of us writers to make everything "seem" new.

EDIT: There is *no* excuse for the steel door/flashlight scene

n/t

But I think you are right. Cheese galore.

BTW: Is it a dinosaur?

Also, if you like these discussions, go to the ever-snarky "Lost" forums at Television Without Pity. Almost no politics whatsoever in their forums!

Criticism is easy, creation is tough. I've even heard that frustrated creators can become bitter critics. But that's surely not the case here.

I do find "Lost" more interesting than most TV drama, but I really don't take it so seriously.

Please, DO continue to watch the show. Jeering at somebody else's success obviously fills a need.

I get what you're saying, but it's a little too close to the 'well, you couldn't do it, so don't criticize' argument. That always makes me think of Hitler saying 'Well, could you invade Poland? Huh? Then shaddup!

Not that I've seen this particular show, mind - I have no particular dog in that fight.

LMAO

I stood there at the border. No-one noticed. x(

I have short stories and non-fiction essays that have one awards. I have won a writing scholarship to attend the writer's workshop,at Eckerd College, which graduated bestselling author, Dennis Lehane (Mystic River). I"ll take it.

I have served on the staff of two literary magazines and won an award as Outstanding English Major.

Quite simply, with my health troubles and age I will stack my writing up against *anyone*.

But the more interesting aspect you raise is one of criticism. Certainly at times, a critic is often a jaded, unsatisfied person. But not always. To assume that every movie critic in America wants to make films in absurd. They just love movies.

It is the same with myself. As a literature major I am versed in, and enjoy, the field of criticism. I love debating with people in an intelligent manner (which criticism, when praticed correctly, is all about). And I have responded to every post so far with my own reasons. In fact, I am debating with someone now, on an intellectual basis, with both providing supported opinions.

*You* are the first person that I have seen so far take a personal shot at me. Perhaps, you need to shore up on the purpose of appropiate "criticism".

In short: again, I made my point.

EDIT: You're welcome to read post 9 above and see two ideas that I would given the Lost staff (re: flashlight point) had I been on board. Both are better than the one they used.

p.s. I have two poems on the writing thread. your welcome to read them and form your own opinion.

"Lost" is only a TV show. Obviously, you are taking this very seriously. I don't have HBO--haven't watched those shows, although I've heard some are excellent. And I don't watch "bad" shows for fun; I'd rather watch a good show, read, or amuse myself in some other way. So I can't speak from a vast experience with TV drama. I simply find "Lost" interesting, so far.

Are you planning a future in writing for the screen?

I would respond in a few ways:

- although I have written a screenplay (decent; needs work) it is not my primary interest. I prefer short stories.

- I enjoy "criticism". It gives me a break from "other" writing. I ask you to look at the thread. I have (tried to anyway) respond to every post with solid evidence. Such things help me with regard to my other writing. Having these debates also serves to "exercise" my mind. I assure you that I will *not* lose sleep over this debate. after all, it is only a tv show

- my health is very bad right now and I'm struggling quite badly. I haven't written creatively for awhile. focusing on criticism, at least, helps put word on the page.

- Finally, and again, I would invite you to go to the writing thread and read my own work. I'm not really a poet but I would love to her what you have to say. In my opinion, criticism, well-given, with careful thought, is valuable and enlightening.

I wish you the best.

EDIT: To be fair, I am getting pounded from both sides. my goal was to have an open, honest debate (the goal of any good criticism). Did I go overboard? Perhaps! But how far would my desire for open criticism gotten me if I posted a thread that said, "the show Lost sucks" followed by a waving smilie?

Why take it so seriously? It's entertainment! You obviously enjoy the show on some level, or you would've stopped watching it, so it's got to have some sort of suspense, because obviously, you want to find out what's going to happen. If you didn't, you'd be off working on the next great American novel, or something.

I *always* get behind the use of sarcasm. Unless, of course, you actually believe I will write the next "great american novel."
Thanks, but Styron's just fine on his own. I prefer short stories so he doesn't have anything to worry from me.

As for why I watch it: have you never watched Glitter or Showgirls? Something where people were trying for something that they obviously thought was going to turn out much better than it did.

I don't deny that I watch it, or that I won't continue to. I have addressed the matter in other posts. If for no other reason, to find out what's going to happen in the end, not, because I feel any "suspense" in the normal sense of the word but in the way my stomach turns when I see a car wreck or train accident.

I am well aware that is television.
That doesn't mean it has to suck.

Glitter and Showgirls. Neither is what I would consider to be a good movie, but they are just movies. In fact, both are such bad movies as to be absolutely fascinating, but I don't think you can point at one or two things that make them bad.

At any rate, someone needs to write the next great American novel. It might as well be you. :-)

I thought it started strong - and then... fizzled.

Is it just me or is it getting a little hot in here?
:)

but I love LOST.

To each their own, right?