Lost: The Sixth and Final Season-"The End" (Part 3)

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showpost.php?p=5478220&postcount=824

 

That makes sense, thank you.

 

One thing not mentioned here, is the similarity between LOST and the old serials, where the ending was often the hero facing some danger where escape was impossible.

The next episode starts with that same scene, but this time there's something different, something that makes escape possible. Some found it cheesy...lazy writing. Anyone can write an impossible scene and then give the character some "out" that doesn't make sense. It's the art of tying things together that draws accolades....that's good writing.

These old serials ended, more often than not, with these "cliffhangers"...they were meant to keep you coming back.

LOST did the exact same thing with their mysteries and innuendos, and in tying it all we found out the writers had painted themselves into a corner, because they left too much unexplained.

Sure a little mystery is good but in this case, it was done because there was no way to plug the hole...a problem BP is facing in reality....and so they cheated.

And for those who feel the show wouldn't be remembered without leaving those things unanswered, I offer the movie The Usual Suspects as an example of an endearing mystery that DID give us answers...without hurting it's appeal.

There's nothing wrong with leaving some questions unanswered....think Pulp Fiction's briefcase with the 'bright' contents for instance...because that's done a fair bit. There's even a term for it; a MacGuffin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacGuffin

But LOST has too many things they are trying to pass off as MacGuffins, and those of us who suspected they couldn't pull off tying it altogether aren't letting them get away with it.

 

You do realize that you are comparing 2 hour movies with a 120 hour series, right? There is a *big* difference in how you must approach capturing and retaining the viewer's attention.

And I would disagree that the writers painted themselves into a corner. However, I do think they screwed themselves when they said they would end it after 6 seasons of X episodes each. They should have left some flexibility in the number of episodes per season, or ensuring an option for a 7th season if they felt they needed it.

 

Sure they're different, but giving away the answers, showing the viewers how smart the writers are by tying it together...that doesn't hurt the appeal. While one is a movie and the other is a tv series, it's still a valid comparison.

In fact, if they had done it like the Usual Suspects, it would have people re-watching it just to see the show while watching for the clues.

Instead, people like me will just watch the last episode again, possibly, and that's it.

So what you are saying is, they didn't leave themselves any options, but that's NOT painting themselves into a corner?

 

I don't get The Usual Suspects as an example of a movie which gave answers, unless what you really mean is that you wish Lost had a twist ending. The Usual Suspects didn't so much answer questions as negate them.

 

People are rewatching Lost. The hardcore amongst us rewatch all of the previous seasons in between the current and next season. Why? Because there are clues. Read about the loop theories. Go back and watch the whole series again. It really is quite amazing...

There is a difference between painting yourself into a corner, and running out of time to paint. There are questions they could have answered more explicitly (or at all), but it would not have altered the overall story. There are some questions that they left semi-ambiguous for the sole reason of giving people a chance to interpret what they saw. They leave just enough clues for you to see what they want you to see, so long as you are willing to go looking for it.

 

Is the "loop theory" the idea that everything 'started over' at the end, i.e., Jack closed his eyes...the show ends...then we see the original plane crash over credits, meaning we're actually back at episode one and the characters are going to relive the whole thing?

Just want to be sure I understand.

 

Can you please point me to a source for your comment that people are rewatching it...seems kind of vague, and it implies that you have some facts to prove that it's being watched, right now, after the series is over.

Secondly, I watched all five season before this one started, like I watched all four seasons before five started. Why? I was looking for clues, just like you. And, your point is consistant with what many of us are saying...we watched for clues to solve the mysteries, not to just see "characters".

There;s not much point in looking for clues if the writers can't tie it together.

You're splitting hairs...you supported my point with your comments and now you're backpeddling.

Running out of time, painting yourself in the corner....either way they screwed up.

 

If I understand it correctly, it's more than that.

It suggests that the scenes we have seen haven't come from the same timeline, they have been consecutive excerpts of the same story extracted from different iterations/loops.

It explains, for example, why scenes apparently cut from day to night or vice versa.

 

Man, I've got to come up with something like this; a show completely unexplainable, but "out-there" enough ...ie, sci-fi or fantasy...that people will spend time trying to find deeper meaning. How I'll sell it so that such loyalty is ever-present I don't know...perhaps by pretending there is an explanation when there isn't, and providing deep character studies that allow the viewers to become emotionally attached to the cast?

Seriously, LOST might have started a whole new concept in scripts; just throw a bunch of conflicts together and explain only what ya can, while calling the omissions "art".

 

Kinda.

ABC confirmed that the wreckage in the closing credits was entirely the doing of ABC, and not the writers. Ignore the wreckage...

The basics behind loop theory is that the same events have happened over, and over, and over, and over again, but each time, something is changed. There is an end goal, and things must happen a certain way to achieve that goal. If not, it repeats in a big do over.

See my post on page 50 (or 51, 52) on Part 2 of this thread where I give my thoughts on why this is confirmation of the loop theory. I've also read (but not yet confirmed) that the plane shown flying at the end cannot be the Ajira flight due to the design of the wings. If so, this would be further confirmation.

 

Yes. This, as well as the constant changing dialog from scenes that we've already watched in earlier episodes that reappear in later episodes. I've also heard (but have not taken the time to confirm) that this is also the case with some of the 'previously on lost' segments, but those may or may not be the work of the writers. I'm not sure.

There are a number of quotes throughout the series further supporting this idea. My personal favorite would be Hurley's "Loop, dude. Loop."

 

For the loop to be valid, wouldn't Jack have to be wearing the same clothes at the end of the show as he was in the beginning?

 

Not necessarily. In the loop theory minor changes can (and do) take place. Only major points that are crucial to the ultimate end game remain unchanged or happen in a different way (for example, someone else might carry out a particular necessary action).

Put another way: you can do whatever you want but Fate finds a way of "course correcting".

 

I really think that's grasping for straws...if they wanted to make it a loop, Jack in the same clothes would confirm it.

 

The full theory (from what I can gather) is far more complex than I've explained it. I'm not sure I agree with it either, but I've found it sufficiently intriguing to keep an open mind.

It would be a very peculiar thing to leave unexplained (given that its actually quite complex in terms of the actions that are alleged to have taken place as a consequence). However, at this point I have to give it credit for at least providing an explanation for a number of things that the show itself utterly and - for me frustratingly - failed to do.

For that reason, if none other, I'm prepared to give it some thought.

For an idea of what it entails go to http://www.timelooptheory.com/the_timeline.html.

I should say that the link I've quoted takes you to a theory (or an iteration of it) that predates Season 6. Off the top of my head I can think of at least one reveal (Richard's) that suggests that the writer's ideas are at least slightly off base.

However, I'd need to give it some far more serious thought to determine just how far off base his ideas are (or indeed, how close he is).

 

And I would agree if that was the only piece of supporting evidence. But taking all of it as a whole, it points to a loop.

Things will always change in the loop. Clothing is inconsequential. It might not even need be Jack waking/dying in the bamboo, if it wasn't how it was supposed to be...

 

I find it hard to believe these time loops are the answer. . . . That's just me. I don't think this was conceived by the creators.

I find it interesting the Guardian's mention of "VALIS". . . I was thinking of "UBIK" and there are aspects of that novel that may have been a bit of an inspiration. In Philip K. Dick's UBIK many major characters don't realize that they are dead. There's a protaganist who crashes into their realities. And thinking of VALIS, I was struck how in a sense Desmond's "awakening" of the character shares some similarity with the disorienting beams of pink light that struck Phil and gave him glimpses of something totally different and over which he obsessively puzzled and scribbled theory after theory. This was in 1974, which may have been the first year that the castaways joined Dharma. . . ? One of his ideas was that it was really still just somewhere near the end of the first century A.D. . . . when the drama on the island between the two brothers was beginning.

I actually prefer that there are so many possible answers to choose from, it's giving me enjoyment to play around with ideas.

 

You would do well to avoid that site. The guy has things wrong on so many levels it is almost funny.

The 'better' theories are found in various incarnations at the 4815162342.com forums.

 

Clothing continuity is important to actually proving it's true....since it's not the same clothing, you deem it unessential.

But you're wondering about the plane's wings?

 

http://www.4815162342.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=60482

It requires registration, but for LOST discussion, you will find no better forum. This thread discusses the various loop clues embedded in the dialog and visuals.

There are a few things that fall into the real of 'stretching it' or simply mistakes, but I think much of it is spot on what the writers wanted us to see/hear.

If nobody wants to register, I'll post some excerpts if anyone asks me to...

 

There's a book out there...I don't wanna give away the title or author for fear of ruining it for those unfamiliar with it... that has an ending based on a loop. The idea isn't new to me, but if it is to you, I can understand your interest.

Because of the way the story ended...Jack in different clothing, Lapidus' plane flying overhead...I don't believe it was a loop.

They ended it explaining that they all needed something from their time on the island, to allow them to "move on" and go to heaven. Jacob hand picked them, because the guardian of the light on this mysterious island does that sort of thing.
Jack saves the island, and the survivors are going to fly home. Much of the cast is shown in a church, awaiting everyone to arrive so that they can all go into the bright light. Jack is the last one, because he can't let go. He's taken longer than the rest to realise he's dead, and they are happy to see him. His father talks to him, drops some mumbo jumbo, everyone smiles and then we see Jack again, that wonderful trick of sticking a pet in a shot where someone is dying, and then we see Jack's eye close as the survivors go home. The End.

Everything else is just conjecture... caused by that mumbo jumbo.

 

Except I don't believe it was Lapidus' plane. What I've read (again, not yet confirmed) was that the Ajira flight had some sort of bend thingy on the tips of the wings, and Oceanic didn't. The flight overhead supposedly does not, and from the angle it is shown, you can't see any identifiable logos of the airline.

The church scene has a shot looking up the center isle, and people are sitting in the pews looking much like they might in an airplane cabin. The church is the same church as the one in the Lamp Post. The one with the pendulum machine that was built to 'find the island'. Big light in church. Big light on island. Caskets with no Christian. No specificis about 'where' they were going. Combine that with the Jack scene.

Even if it isn't the 'real' answer, they certainly wanted to set it up as a contender for people to talk about.


Everything else is just conjecture... caused by that mumbo jumbo.[/QUOTE]