As much as I love the show, I have to admit that I also grew frustrated with it in Season Two. But I suppose one thing to consider is that even though we’ve been watching it for two years now, in the show’s chronology, it’s only been 67 days. So I guess they’ve found out a lot of info for that relatively short amount of time.
However, I still find the cliffhangers on, say, TWIN PEAKS to be more satisfying. Those “obtuse” endings actually were pieces of the puzzle. LOST just keeps giving us more new puzzles without solving most of the old ones.
I love Twin Peaks, but that show’s mythology seemed less concerned with giving you answers that weren’t heavily open to interpretation. Lost seems a little less so, in my opinion, but I can see where a bunch of you guys are coming from since you can look at the show’s last season as taking 24 episodes to tell the tale of the hatch and little else. I felt like enough happened to keep my interest and even with the shift in tone from the first season (along with more uneven episodes) and the fact that there are still so many questions left unanswered I’m still content with the program’s direction.
I enjoy LOST’s mysteries and slow reveals, not only in terms of the Dharma Initiative but also (and more importantly) the characters themselves. That’s the primary reason I watch the show. I just think Season One was so relentless in maintaining suspense because at the time they were making it, they weren’t sure how long they’d have to parce out the big answers. Season Two felt like they had settled into a more longterm arc, and more than a few episodes in the middle felt like they were just spinning their wheels.
I guess the biggest thorn in my paw during Season Two was the whole Michael and Walt subplot. I hope their ship disintegrated when it hit the electromagnetic shield protecting the island and they sank to the bottom of the ocean, never to be seen again.
I said there was a problem with the show? The problem is with the audience.
The show did get slack at parts in season 2, but the main problem is that your average American audience member is looking for plot plot plot, which isn’t the only thing that can be or should be done in the medium. Even moreso than cinema, TV has the opportunity to really focus on character because of the length of time available.
The thing is that most people view movies and TV shows as extensions of campfire stories, the “and then this happened… and then this happened…” genre. The truth is that ciname and TV can be as much about character or tone or atmosphere as literature, plus it can also be about visual things beyond plot.
If season 2 was not enough plot and mythology for some of you guys, you’re gonna hate season 3. Since the show runner has already said that this season will be more character driven.
Originally Posted by Litmus Configuration Fine by me. That’s another ingredient that I felt was underdeveloped in Season Two.
I agree. I missed that more so than the need for the mythology to be explained/answered/propelled forward. I hope they can do that but maintain the pace of season one. It was much better viewing.
But simply, the consecutive scheduling should help more than anything.
Originally Posted by devincf I said there was a problem with the show? The problem is with the audience. The show did get slack at parts in season 2, but the main problem is that your average American audience member is looking for plot plot plot, which isn’t the only thing that can be or should be done in the medium. Even moreso than cinema, TV has the opportunity to really focus on character because of the length of time available. The thing is that most people view movies and TV shows as extensions of campfire stories, the “and then this happened… and then this happened…” genre. The truth is that ciname and TV can be as much about character or tone or atmosphere as literature, plus it can also be about visual things beyond plot.
My mistake, sorry I misunderstood. I thought you were making a crack about the show. sorry about that.
And I absolutely agree with you. It’s why I like the show so much. If it was based around uninteresting/underdeveloped characters then noone would give a fuck about what happened to them on the island.
Originally Posted by Litmus Configuration Fine by me. That’s another ingredient that I felt was underdeveloped in Season Two.
There were actually some great character driven episodes that I loved in Season 2. Charlie’s and Sawyer’s episodes come to mind right off the bat(The baptism one for charlie, and sawyer’s pimping of the arsenal)
Originally Posted by The Prankster The thing is, I would actually argue that S2 was more plot-heavy than S1.
I was thinking the same thing. The big plot points in S1 either didn’t progress very far (Ethan, the monster, the cable) or turned out to just be introductions for stuff that was fleshed out in S2 (the Hatch, the raft/Others).
The last eight episodes of the season were balls-out awesome. I kind of figured Henry was the mastermind. He was a lot more creepy and subtle than any of the Others we’d been exposed to. The Lost world is hell of small, though. Of course, maybe that’s part of the overall mythology the creators are working towards.
Originally Posted by Litmus Configuration …I guess the biggest thorn in my paw during Season Two was the whole Michael and Walt subplot. I hope their ship disintegrated when it hit the electromagnetic shield protecting the island and they sank to the bottom of the ocean, never to be seen again.
Well, if internet speculation is to be believed, it sounds as if something along those lines might come to pass. Not really a spoiler, but swipe if rumors that come true ruin your day: I saw somewhere on lostpedia, I believe, that Harold Perrineau is not on next season’s cast list, while Malcolm David Kelley is. So if an early episode of next season lists Perrineau as a Guest Star, you can count on his character getting taken out of the picture.
In more casting news (I’m probably being over-sensitive to spoilers, but it can’t hurt right?):
Quote:
ABC is slowly letting little details about the coming season of “Lost” out into the public arena, for the most part couching things in the broadest of terms so as not to give too much away. And so it is with the description for the season’s second episode, which airs Wednesday, Oct. 11, except for this: “Ian Somerhalder guest stars as Boone,” the network copy says. Shannon, however, died in the November 2005 episode “Abandoned,” severing Boone’s closest link to the remaining plane-crash survivors on the island. Somerhalder’s reappearance suggests he somehow figured in one of the other islanders’ pasts as well. The Oct. 11 episode, called “Further Instructions,” will also reveal what happened to Locke (Terry O’Quinn), Desmond (Henry Ian Cusick) and Eko (Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje) when the hatch collapsed in last season’s finale, and will find Hurley (Jorge Garcia) returning to camp after being released by the Others.
Originally Posted by Brian Wehman And so it is with the description for the season’s second episode, which airs Wednesday, Oct. 11, except for this: “Ian Somerhalder guest stars as Boone,” the network copy says. Shannon, however, died in the November 2005 episode “Abandoned,” severing Boone’s closest link to the remaining plane-crash survivors on the island. Somerhalder’s reappearance suggests he somehow figured in one of the other islanders’ pasts as well.
About that guest casting: I think he’ll show up in a dream or vision of Locke’s, not in a flashback.