(Untitled)

[helianthus16]

One way of looking at Lost: an exposition of every possible cliffhanger (including the original, with Jack's stunt) at every possible moment, from commercials, to ends of episodes, to the interludes between seasons

Comments

[helianthus16]

You know, Sayid was pretty hardcore in that episode, too. "The saddle is rigged for someone shorter than Pirate Russian. ERGO, FIGHT SCENE AT WHICH I WILL EXCEL."

[into_seafoam]

I thought the episode was good, and I actually don't think it would have worked if they hadn't killed those two off.

My favorite line of the entire episode was Sawyer's: "Who the hell is Nikki?"

[helianthus16]

What precisely wouldn't have worked? I don't disagree, they've always been rather superfluous characters.

I liked the whole "This spider attracts males from all over the place!" "Do you suppose that means we'll see that spider again, Man of Science? Also, aren't those Monarch Butterflies in that cage? I thought you had _new_ species."

Also, the "Yes, I know about Trajectories!" Makes me wonder if he just made her a map to get her to go away, except that he acted like he was really enjoying her company.

Maybe he was a junior high science teacher actor.

[into_seafoam]

I think it wouldn't have worked for me because the nature of the episode is enjoyable because you never have to deal with those characters again. Whenever you introduce new characters there's always going to be this reaction, you know. Like how nobody really liked the Taillies and how everyone wants Julliet to die. I try to have an open mind for these additions (and in fact Desmond, who really is one of these additions, is one mf my favorite characters). But if this episode led me to believe that now Nikki and Paulo were going to be new A Team or even B Team members, I would have been annoyed with it. Instead, they were seemingly dead through the whole thing and when we found out they weren't dead, they were BURIED ANYWAY. Which is just so gruesome and cool, I think

[helianthus16]

I disagree with the notion that good story lines are a matter of making and breaking assumptions; and I really disagree with the ones where assumptions never end up being accurate. If you're just screwing with your audience you're not doing anything useful, or fun. You end up trying to spend all your time misleading your audience instead of telling a story.

Good story lines are made when the storyteller believes in the story; when it matters to the author, then the author has a chance to make it matter to the audience. Surprises are just one element of story.

In fact, the more I think about it, the more I abhor the notion of defining stories in terms of challenged assumptions. Because, really, the easiest way to challenge assumptions is to devolve into arbitrary happenings.

It's one of those circumstances where, if you're telling a good story, you don't need to be thinking about which assumptions are being challenged where, you can remain focused on the story. Do you think (I'm going to assume you've seen The Sixth Sense)