By Andrew Dignan
After sitting passively behind a computer for nearly a season, what a relief is it to see John Locke back to the way we fondly remember him--as a wide-eyed, knife-wielding, face-smeared madman.Wednesday’s episode, “Further Instructions,” reunites us with the remaining Lost cast members (omitted from the last two weeks’ episodes) and finds the show less in mythology-mode and more focusing on Locke's propulsive descent into madness and redemption. It’s no coincidence that Terry O’Quinn spends much the episode looking like he’s stepped off the set of Apocalypse Now. Having survived last season’s hatch explosion, Locke returns to camp alone; a changed man, temporarily rendered mute and once again willing to let the island “speak to him.”
Forming an uneasy and weakly-articulated alliance with Charlie (Dominic Monaghan)--who pointedly reminds him that last time they met John pummeled him for threatening Claire’s (Emilie de Ravin) baby--Locke builds a “sweat lodge,” a small, poorly-insulated sauna meant to induce hallucinations and spiritually guide its inhabitant. Locke, who we’ve already seen run afoul of the mob, conned out of a kidney by his father, and confined to a wheelchair due to an as yet unexplained ailment, continues to be full of surprises in his previous life. This week's flashback shows him running guns and picking produce for a sketchy-looking hippy commune/cult. The island’s resident Yoda has already shown himself an expert in knife-throwing, tracking boar, detoxing from heroin and possessing a grad-student’s appreciation for philosophy and faith: it should come as no surprise that the man’s spent a fair amount of time with people who know a thing or two about growing pot and who have probably been on their fair share of “vision quests.”
While on his spiritual journey in the “sweat lodge,” Locke receives a visit from old friend and island martyr Boone (Ian Somerhalder), who returns from the dead to absolve John for the role he played in his death (“the island needed a sacrifice”) and to lead him through a psychotropic, Tony Scott-esque dream. With the camera shutter fluttering around him, Locke is wheeled through an airport--just like the last time he saw Boone alive, his legs fail him--where all the island’s residents are ready to board a plane, in some cases their roles playfully re-contextualized: Charlie and Claire a happy couple, Hurley (Jorge Garcia) an airline agent, Ben Linus (Michael Emerson) a wand-waving TSA agent, etc. Locke frantically searches out who it is he needs to save (for Jack and company, he’s told by Boone, “can't help them, at least not yet”), ultimately learning it’s Mr. Eko (Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje). The dream ends with a startling and abrupt vision of a certain, familiar ursine that literally propels Locke out of the lodge and into the daylight.
Yes, they’re finally bringing back the polar bears. Hinted at in the season premiere (“it only took the bears two hours”), “Further Instructions” gives us our first bona-fide bear appearance since one cornered Walt (Malcolm David Kelley) in a tree trunk back in Season One. Although never wholly successful from a visual stand-point, for me the polar bears have always represented the edge of the cliff that Lost so brazenly walks along week to week, reminding me that I'll willingly overlook most anything in return for a truly stunning surprise. I suspect there will never be a fully satisfactory resolution as to what a bunch of arctic creatures are doing on a tropical island, but my pulse definitely quickened once I realized we’d be going on a bear hunt.
Locke believes Eko has been taken by the bear back to its den and, armed with an aerosol spray can and an open flame, he intends to get him back. Covered in mud, carrying a torch, and venturing into a subterranean layer (whether intentional or not, this scene couldn’t help but mirror Schwarzenegger in Predator), Locke finds piles of bones and, tellingly, a Dharma Initiative T-shirt amidst the carnage before coming across a barely-conscious Eko. After rescuing Eko from the animal’s clutches (this scene is something of a misfire as logistics and budgetary restraints requires the sequence, with Locke battling a disembodied bear head, to be filmed in tight close-up and chopped to bits), Locke and Charlie drag the badly injured Eko back to camp, but not before Locke has another vision where he’s reassured that he will rescue Jack (Matthew Fox), Kate (Evangeline Lilly), and Sawyer (Josh Holloway) from “The Others” because “he is a hunter.”
This latest statement ties into Locke’s backstory, a largely under-developed affair involving the aforementioned commune and a young man, Eddie (War of the Worlds’ Justin Chatwin), brought under John’s wing. This story-line admittedly threw me off (considering John’s track record with protégés, I saw this kid as a goner for sure), but only because no one could predict the turn of events that actually do transpire: Eddie is a cop, sent undercover to bring the commune down, although it remains unclear as to whether he even knows what they’re up to. To that end, the local law enforcement’s got to be a little bummed that they sent this kid undercover for six weeks and all he could dig up was a bunch of marijuana farmers.
The flashback ends without any real closure as, when given the chance to murder the young man who betrayed him, Locke is unable to pull the trigger; Eddie walks away and we never learn what happens from there. Last week I complained about the contortions required to thematically connect Sun’s flashback to the present-day story, and that goes double for this episode. I’m the first to complain at the cause-and-effect nature of the flashback as motivator on this show, but as overly simplistic as they may be, at least it means the flashbacks have a point. Here we have an even flimsier through-line of Locke anguished over his perceived passivity and questioning whether he has the fortitude to make difficult choices, and somehow that requires half as much plot as The Departed? Locke’s timeline also seems to be spinning off its axis. How did John get from raising a hunting rifle at an undercover cop to working for a box company while confined to a wheelchair? Are we to assume Locke spent some time in jail for his role in the pot farm and, if so, can we all look forward to the episode down the road where Locke catches a shank in the showers that leads to his paralysis? If this highly unlikely series of events does come to pass, it’ll be doubly ironic as co-star Harold Perrineau played a wheelchair-confined convict on Oz.
Of course, Locke wasn’t the focus of the entire episode. After wandering across the island for a couple of days, Hurley returns, injecting some much needed levity back into the show. Giving voice to fanboy skepticism (regarding Desmond’s self-destruct key: “that’s sort of convenient”), Hurley is often the only one on the island willing to ask the burning questions like, how exactly did Desmond (Henry Ian Cusick) survive the hatch explosion (“dude, are you like The Incredible Hulk now?”) and how is it he ended up naked? The show has a tendency to take itself way too seriously and is far too willing to overlook obvious plot holes and character machinations, yet I know as long as Hurley is around someone will keep the show grounded. Andrew Johnston was right: Hurley really is the coolest guy on the island.
Desmond may not turn green and shred his pants anytime soon (although that would certainly explain the nude thing), but that doesn’t mean he hasn’t been given a Marvel-like gift as a result of surviving the hatch. When told that Jack, Kate and Sawyer have been kidnapped, Desmond is confident that Locke will rescue them because, after all, he made a great speech about it. The problem is Locke had made no such speech and does not make one until the final moments of the episode. Either Desmond’s developed an ability to see into the future or someone’s been skipping ahead in their scripts (later on in the episode when Locke does deliver his rousing “let’s go get ‘em” sermon, Desmond appears to be out of ear-shot: perhaps he doesn’t even need to witness the future to be aware of it).
Now in the third episode of the new season, Lost appears to be hitting its stride, nicely alternating mythology episodes (with heaping mouthfuls of exposition from “The Others”) with quickly paced stand-alone episodes like this one. The episode, however, does reveal what I fear is a colossal misjudgment on the producers' part, one that happens so discretely I suspect it will take a few more episodes for most viewers to catch onto it. Upon returning to camp with Eko and Charlie, Locke is greeted by Claire, as well as the previously unseen Nikki and Paulo (played by new cast members Kiele Sanchez and Rodrigo Santoro respectively) who become very animated in the conversation.
It’s been known for some time that the show would be adding new actors to its regular roster; the question remained how a show this insulated would accomplish such a feat (Elizabeth Mitchell’s character was perfectly integrated into the cast of “The Others” a couple weeks back). And yet, it's obvious that Lost plans to incorporate Sanchez and Santoro in the most perfunctory, unimaginative, and audience-insulting manner possible--it's as if they’ve won a contest to show up for an episode as Claire’s previously unseen best friends. These new additions to the cast represent a scary future for the show where any random background character can be raised up to the level of featured player whenever they’re in need of fresh blood. But why should we care about these people? Two characters who didn’t step up to help build Michael’s boat or man the hatch or assist Jack with his medical work or watch Aaron for Claire or console Hurley at Libby’s (Cynthia Watros) funeral. The addition last year of the “tailies” found a truly inspired method of expanding the cast, giving us new characters to become attached to while still placing them on an equal footing with our old favorites. But what are we to think of these two people who never bothered to stand up and be accounted for in the previous 69 days?
Are we going to care when we’re inevitable subjected to Nikki and Paulo’s flashbacks, and, more importantly, has the show earned the right to us caring about them? If you believe Locke (and the show’s writers) that all of these people are connected and nothing here happens by chance, then surely one of these characters would have had some impact on our cast before this point. And yet, there they were for the first time, chirping up like they’d been there all along. I’m not one who believes in expressions like “jumping the shark,” but let’s just say this is a dangerous precedent that bears keeping an eye on.
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Lost Thursdays: Season Three, Ep. 3: "Further Instructions"
Labels:
Andrew Dignan,
Lost,
Lost: Season 3,
TV Recap
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
41 comments:
Regarding the introduction of "important" cast members who are really only there to get killed in place of the lead actors: Lost has actually been doing this since the end of Season One, when they introduced Daniel Roebuck's character (a schoolteacher, if I remember correctly) with great fanfare, as if he were a major new addition to the cast, then killed him off the following week. It's a cheap trick, but it's a mainstay of television; even something as supposedly sophisticated as The Sopranos does it. (How many previously unmentioned but beloved and important relatives have been introduced and then summarily killed, often by Tony? Though to be fair, the Godfather movies did this, too; remember Don Altobello in G III?)
All in all, this was still a superior episode -- as illogical, super-melodramatic and needlessly silly as always, but gripping. I think the series is at its best when it's in dream logic mode, and it was definitely in that mode this week. One is constantly aware that they're digging themselves deeper and deeper into a hole by adding more characters, more plot and (most problematically) more flashbacks. But the atmosphere is the real star here. Watching Lost is like having a dream or nightmare each week with the same recurring characters; sometimes it's frightening or moving, most of the time it's just sort of confusing and pointless, but it does weave a spell.
Also, regarding Elizabeth Mitchell's character being "perfectly integrated" into The Others last week -- the introduction of new characters has been a lot more smoothly handled on the other side of the island, but then, The Others have an advantage in that we don't see them all the time. Our gang is often seen in broad daylight, which gives us time to wonder why we haven't gotten to know certain people loitering in the background behind Jack, Kate, etc., or to wonder if the "new" character who's suddenly become important was in the background before, or imported from Los Angeles just so he or she can get eaten by a bear, blown up with dynamite, etc.
Someone on the writing staff dropped the ball...compare the introduction of new characters in this episode to the way Ana Lucia (sorely missed by only me, apparently) was introduced last year.
Simon: I miss Ana Lucia, too. She was unlikable, and that's why I liked her. That, and the fact that she looked great sweaty.
Also, why didn't Hurley reveal to the gang that Michael had betrayed Jack & co.?
Because one of the singular stupidities of Lost is that nobody ever reveals pertinent information when it's needed. This is sort of the sci-fi allegory version of that old sitcom gimmick, the misunderstanding based on omitted information -- where, say, Jack Tripper on overhears Chrissy, who's taken in a stray kitten, talking about how she's not ready for this, and she's going to have to get rid of it, and Jack mistakenly assumes she's talking about having an abortion.
Why do we assume that Hurley doesn't (or won't) reveal Michael's betrayal? We only saw him interact with the rest of the castaways for like 30 seconds. Why do we assume that after the thunky, solid-hollow Lost downbeat, he didn' turn to Charlie and start gabbing about what a shmuck Michael was? After all, Michael's off the show - I'm not sure I want them to waste valuable seconds with belabored exposition about story we the audienc already know. I feel that a lot (not all) of the "the castaways don't share info" stuff could be easily chalked up to "it happened offscreen."
I agree that the characters refusal to share information with each other is a singular stupidity of Lost, but do we know that Hurley didn't share the information about Michael? We only caught a snippet of what he was telling Locke and Charlie, since there was no need to waste time rehashing exposition we already had (I know, not that that's ever stopped the writers before).
Great back and forth going already; I love it.
Matt: It may be too early to tell but I perceive many big differences between Roebuck's short-lived characters ("Dude... you've got some Arzt on your shoulder") and these two noobs. First of all, Arzt was introduced after like 30 days with a very specific skill-set that was required for that episode. He also, I believe (my memory's getting hazy at this point), was subject of Hurley's ridicule who constantly goofed on his name and his "that's convenient" qualifications to handle dynamite. This guy was set-up to be an outsider and remained one. He certainly wasn’t chastising Hurley for not telling them information quick enough. Finally, he's a stumpy-looking character whose name was slipped into the guest actor's credit block, signaling less prominence than the main cast. Here we have 2 models (both genders) on an island where available, attractive young women are in shrinking supply whose names have been added to the opening credit crawl. Now all of a sudden we're supposed to watch Hurley rap with random Brazilian surfer-dude and Claire ask for sex advice from Nikki and not call “bullshit!”
I also disagree with your Sopranos analogy, as they do this "trick" better than any show on television. I remember back in season 3 when Gigi was running the Aprile crew and how much it annoyed me that this random character had been foisted upon us. Until I went back and re-watched season 2 and saw he had spent a whole season floating around in the background before they gave him something important to do. Bobby Baccala? Eugene? Carlo? Vito? All the same M.O. It may not be 100% perfectly integrated, but there is almost an apprenticeship to being a wiseguy on the show that I really respect. It shows a lot of foresight (or at the very least a willingness of both the show and "the family" to promote from within). And besides, NJ is filled with mobsters; how many attractive young women can they pull out of their hats on an empty island?
Perhaps I'm jumping to conclusions, and allowing the opening credits to dictate too much. Maybe they'll pull a Reed Diamond on The Shield and kill these 2 off at the first chance they get, but think of it like this: because of their "introduction" this week, how can one not automatically assume they're "others" as irrational as that probably is. Sure as far as the writers are concerned these two characters have been along for the ride (can't wait for them to be digitally inserted into group shots and flight 815 flashbacks once the show goes into syndication!), but the last time some random new person showed up volunteering to get fire wood like he was one of the gang, it was Ethan. Also, and I could be totally wrong about this, but I don't believe the new characters appear in Locke's dream (and if they do they're certainly not referred to). If the show were really serious about this stupid stunt, wouldn't they have had Boone and Locke worry about saving poor Nikki and Paulo?
Now... that protracted rant aside, I actually liked this episode quite a bit and I hope that came through in my piece. I didn't get into it as much as I'd like, but Locke's fever dream I thought was quite evocative both visually, as well as what I assume are a lot of small personality bits buried in the character's subconscious. I can't recall a similar such sequence so willing to play with form and place viewers on edge for several minutes at a time on television.
But mostly I'm glad "crazy" Locke is back. What made the first season so compulsively watchable was the personality clash between "island leaders" Locke and Jack, with each trying to do what was best for the tribe and diametrically opposed directions. But the whole hatch nonsense was like a sedative, not just for the character but for O'Quinn as well. Now that he's done being a couch potato maybe he'll go back to stirring things up at the camp.
But I still hated that flashback. Running handguns (legally) for pot farmers? A 12-year-old undercover cop? All that for the facile concept of "farmer vs. hunter?" You're killing me guys.
I haven't seen a younger narc since Jonathan Taylor Thomas played one on Veronica Mars.
I really like your blog. If you post more Lost stuff I might look at your blog alot.
Good recap, Andrew. Regarding Desmond's prescience, it appears that the explosion of the hatch has given him some sorta psychic or time-travelling powers, which could be an unfortunate development if not handled well. If he can see the future, and it is bad, but doesn't do something about it in order to ratchet up the tension, won't that simply add to the choir of voices who, like Matt, are annoyed by the way character's arbitrarily withhold vital information so as to prolongue storylines in a most artificial manner?
As for the rest:
*Don't like the inclusion of new Losties, for reasons already cited.
*Definitely DO miss Ms. Rodriguez's Ana Lucia. Smart, strong, sexy. What's not to like?
*Definitely also like Ms. Mitchell, and not just for the way she was introduced on the show. See Ana Lucia above.
*Hope Mr. Eko recovers soon. He's sorely needed
*Hope and pray Hurley gets another show devoted to his character sooner rather than later.
*When I grow up, I wanna be Terry O'Quin..
Harry:
I do a weekly column on Lost written in the wee hours of the morning that goes up every Thursday. I don't know if there are any other Lost-centric pieces on tap from other contributors but I'll be here same Lost-time, same Lost-place till Matt gets tired of reading 'em.
Andrew: I'm not tired of them yet.
Regarding the whole introducing-new-people-at-the-last-minute thing, I don't lose any sleep over it, because it's a TV thing. And I agree with BWC and Tosy and Cosh that we don't need to see characters rehashing what already happened. But it doesn't have to be either/or -- either rehash everything that happened or say nothing. They could do it Old Movie style and have Character A exit the jungle after nearly getting eaten by a polar bear, running into Character B, and saying, "Dude, I almost got eaten by a polar bear," whereupon we cut to the next location. What chaps my hide is when characters have just emerged from incredible trauma and/or a situation the other castaways need to know about, and then spend the first few 30 seconds of their encounter apologizing to each other about some relationship bullshit that happened last week, or exchanging lovey-dovey talk, or otherwise not attending to the first order of business, which is survival.
This is the mindset that allowed Hurley to do penance for stealing food from the hatch by destroying it, or the castaways to while away their time playing golf mere days (according to the first season chronology) after the plane crash. Just because it's a fantasy doesn't mean the characters aren't obligated to behave the way humans would actually behave if the were trapped on a mysterious island full of crazy sci-fi apparitions and creepy Lord of the Flies cultists while never being entirely sure (a) if they'll ever be rescued and (b) where their next meal is coming from.
Dan: When I grow up, I want to be Terry O'Quinn, too. The old Terry O'Quinn. Not the one with the bad Greg Brady wig.
A structural note: I believe this is the first actual FLASHBACK to end in something approaching a cliffhanger, unless I'm completely forgetting something. I'm not sure if this is a way to string out the flashbacks even more, or what, but it's a change of some sort.
I think the introduction of new Losties this way is just something we're gonna have to deal with...snd I have to say I don't see much to complain about. I mean, there are 40-some-odd survivors now, maybe 15 of which have had speaking parts--that leaves us with at least 25 people who haven't had face time but who the characters we follow will have been dealing with the whole time. Given how the screen time is distributed, there's no reason not to believe that Hurley or whomever might be good friends with someone we haven't met yet. It's just a question of how well the writers handle it--and yeah, these introductions could probably have been handled better.
I agree that The Sopranos handles this incredibly well via the gradual promotion of extras, though this sometimes causes continuity errors (such as the issue of whether or not it was Vito who Joe Giannascoli was playing in his first appearance).
So far BSG has been pretty good with this, though they have plenty of wiggle room given the number of survivors in the fleet (even after the 13K reduction in their ranks between seasons) and their distribution over a large number of ships.
If there's one thing this show doesn't need it's new characters. Their introduction in this episode was poorly handled, but just how miscalculated the addition of these new Losties is won't be clear until a few more episodes. I found the scene to be one of the most absurd occurances to occur on the Island so far. It's very hard not to dislike them at this point.
If they remain primarily as background to the already established characters for the time being . Viewers can't be expected to believe that these people who haven't even mentioned in the previous two seasons are suddenly of equal significance and tight with the main group. Maybe they should have just given the Frogurt guy a bigger role instead.
I don't understand why everyone is so up in arms about the new cast members and how they were added. Rose was an example of a seemingly inocuous character that disappeared for almost a whole season and then got her own storyline.
The fact is, I welcome the new characters as there is always the bruning question of: what the hell are the rest of those that are not in "the clique" as Arzt put it, doing??? And now, most of the cast is away.
Jack, Kate and Sawyer are off being captives. Jin, Sun and Sayid are off on the rescue.
Whose left? Locke, Ecko, Hurley, Charlie and Kate? That's not an army. And I don't imagine Jin and gang are getting back any time soon. So,I welcome the new additions. And I have no problem with how they were introduced. I remember there being a lot of talk about the woman who lost her life jumping into the ocean to make a daring rescue in the first season. It's ridiculous to have a show with 45 characters and it's ridiculous to assume we will never wonder about them. There have been others who have had a line here and there, remember the golfing episode? The dude with the glasses? Where has he gone? It's good for the show.
I think now that the show has been so successful a force in the new medium of interactive online gmaing and really pushed the threshold of television and what it means that so many people have taken a proprietary interest in it. People want answers sooner then even the first season would allow. People want less mysticism and yet, so much of it has been that. Then there are those who bemoan seemingly frivolous backstories. Kate and the airplane? What did that tell us? That she wanted the plane. Okie doke. Last night's backstory said a LOT about Locke. This man gets more and more depressing as the show goes on. He really wishes he were something he is not and that is the beauty of what we saw last night. I think it would have been great had he shot the kid, but out of character.
He's a farmer, who WISHES he were a hunter. Nice.
All will be revealed. I have faith in the creators. We are halfway to the point where they said everything will set us up for the 17 in '07. I am looking forward to it.
Now, what I do have a complaint about is the length of last night's ep. Clocking in at 41 minutes, that's pretty damned short for a drama. And, what was more frustrating was, to make room for the 2 extra minutes of commercials, the show came back on at :42 minutes in and broke for another commercial at :47. That's not good.
Nice blog. Looking forward to more.
sparkylulu (although Matt and Andrew Johnston have made much the same points so let's just direct this towards the group): I can now re-read my post and the responses it generated and at least acknowledge that I may be making a mountain out of a mole hill. Most of my gripes with Lost are, in hindsight, concessions to it being a show on network television. Flashbacks are cheaper to film than island stuff and allow the casting director to bring in new actors to work. The special effects are chintzy because they're expensive and the show doesn't have a lot of time for post. As you pointed out, the commercial breaks are really getting bad this season, a side-effect of its own success. And of course, after killing off Boone, Shannon, Libby and Ana Lucia in the past two season the show needs "hot" young actors to make the show more appealing to desired demoes (Rousseau's still wandering around the island; why else would they keep her as well as Bernanrd and Rose on the side-lines? Because this isn’t CBS, that’s why)
I think I make these knee-jerk reactions because so much of the show feels "more" and "better" than most everything else on TV and when it's forced to lower itself to the level of the rest of the network it's like the air is being let out of the balloon. I really have been spoiled by HBO. (On a weird side note, this past week's episode of Studio 60 had Amanda Peet's insufferable TV exec trying to dissuade a young writer from going to HBO, explaining how great network TV is and how they can do anything the pay networks can. I'd like to offer exhibit A in the case against.)
The other problem is the much contested scene w/ Paulo and Nikki is it's hands down the worst written scene in the history of the show. Just clumsy and rushed, with no real finesse or thought in how to introduce two new regulars into the mix. Once my annoyance with the scene (which I take comfort in reading that it’s shared by many) subsided I did think of a way they could handle these 2 new characters. They could do a variation on the "Other 48 Days" where we see Nikki and Paulo as the head of their own little clique on the island that doesn't really socialize with Jack and the gang except when absolutely necessary. They could bring back all the actors whose parts were killed off and we could see their clique trying to angle for control now that Jack, Sawyer and Kate are gone. I know it all sounds very high school, but at least it would explain a few things.
True, they could have done a full ep on them, but I think we would have all said, "been there, seen that".Perhaps the scene could have just been 2 minutes longer....oh, wait, extra commericals......
Lost is pissing me off this season.And I was sooooo looking forward to it.....
It was a much needed respite from a disastrous year and I really wanted much more from it than this.
I am (once again) betrayed.
www.lizzielulu.com
Dignan--
Do we know for sure that the flashbacks are cheaper to film than island stuff? If the flashbacks are also filmed in Hawaii, then the cost is probably close to even (though runing electricity out to the remote areas where they shoot obviously costs something), but when the flashbacks require locations that can only be found on the mainland, I'd imagine transportation costs could jack up the budget. It's possible that the extra costs would be limited to a round-trip first-class ticket to LA for the flashback subject (esp since the show has an LA office and Lindelhof and Cruise supervise the production from offices on Disney's Burbank lot), but I could see the costs pretty much coming out even given the logisitcs of trans-pacific production.
Also, I think the extra act break at :47 is something that ABC asked Abrams to incorporate on Alias, which first involved strategic staggering of commercials in the Sun 9-10 timeslot rather than the need to squeeze in more ads (though that's now what it's being used for). I plan to check and see if other ABC dramas such as Grey's and Despos do it. :41 is about typical for an hourlong UPN/WB/CW show even if it's short by ABC standards, but the episode didn't necessarily seem extra-brief to me (although my viewing experience was compromised by an uncommon number of interruptions, which surely compromised by perception).
I love LOST and reading the comments here. Just a couple of my thoughts.... 1.All Hurley needed to say to anyone was something like, "You won't believe what Michael did!" We know what Michael did; I just want to know that the losties in camp know too.
2. Last season when Charley came back from being in the hatch when it exploded, other that being somewhat deaf, he hardly had any reaction at all. Was he also suffering from amnesia???
3. This has been bugging me for ages...was there any meaning to the fact that the 23rd psalm was quoted incorrectly, by a "priest" no less. The correct wording is..."walk thru the valley of the shadow of death...". It was quoted on the show as..."walk thru the shadow of the valley of death...?
Any comments??
While I enjoyed the flashback in this episode more than most--hamfisted as ever, but O'Quinn's majestic portrayal of Locke's willed, end-of-tether optimism in the face of inevitably deflating self-revelations remains a draw, and it's always nice to see Chris Mulkey pop up--the rest of my comments would be a series of yups to the listed complaints.
Andrew: "And of course, after killing off Boone, Shannon, Libby and Ana Lucia in the past two season the show needs "hot" young actors to make the show more appealing to desired demoes (Rousseau's still wandering around the island; why else would they keep her as well as Bernanrd and Rose on the side-lines? Because this isn’t CBS, that’s why)"
I realize you meant "hot" in terms of popularity, but in its sexual connotation has the show had a hotter moment than Locke's intense appraisal of Rousseau's, um, scars, way back in season 1? If any pair could make geezer sex fashionable to the kiddies, it's O'Quinn and Furlan.
OK, you guys? This is pretty much totally, OK, completely off topic. But, Andrew, when you wrote "some much needed levity," in reference to what Hurly injected into the show (which BTW, is really the only purely pleasurable moments I recall from my Lost days), it reminded me immediately of Howard Stern's "recreation" of the Clarence Thomas hearings where, I guess in a take off on some real life news anouncer reporting on the hearings, he kept saying, "providing some much needed levity .. ."
I know The House Next Door is probably no place for a Howard Stern critique, and I'd understand if this post didn't get posted. And I'm no Howard Stern apologist. But I am dying to know if anyone remembers that sketch where Stern, also playing Thomas, keeps saying, "why, there's a pubic hair on the sole of my shoe." It was, to me, one of the funniet things ever.
I did just post a relevant (I hope) post at the very bottom of the very last current piece on the film Infamous , so, please don't ban me.
nspector: I can't wait to read it. Thanks for posting!
Thanks, Matt. But I better pick up the pace if I hope to have a chance to stay in the race. I had no idea a week was such a long time . . .
PS--If you think The House Next Door is no place for a Howard Stern critique, don't tell that to contributor Sean Burns, who has, I believe, memorized every syllable spoken on that program.
There was one moment that drew a hearty "Oh fuck" from me. That was catching a glimpse of Henry Gale/Ben, during Locke's ayuasca trip, doing his thing with a metal detector for Ocenanic. Wha'?
Help me out here: In the season premier, didn't Elizabeth call the man (her husband?) seen in the house with her, "Ben"? Now Henry is a "Ben" also? Is my recollection correct?
A plant-based hallucinagen and weed, in one episode. Duuude, that shit rocks.
Matt, I swear, before I wrote that I thought should I do a search to make sure no one's written anything about Howard Stern on here? But I valiantly fought my typically over-cautious nature.
Hm. Mr. Burns must have quite the potty mouth. So do I, but at least I get to blame Deadwood.
Andrew, the averaqe hour lon clocks in between 43 and 45 minutes. Go to ITunes and take a look see. Sadly, NYPD Blue clocks in at almost 48 minutes on average. So, for Lost to run 41 means that, in 15 years 7 full minutes of commercials have been added.
But, the 2 minutes taken away for more ad buys indicate that we are getting ripped off. Unless the episode just came in short.
That break at :47 was uneccessary, ill timed, and destroyed almost all the pacing for me.
A sure sign of bad things to come.....
Okay, I'm just going to repost my comment as though it wasn't written by someone who had just woken up from a nap in the hot sun....
Andrew, the average hour long clocks in between 43 and 45 minutes. Go to Itunes and take a looksee. Sadly, NYPD Blue clocks in at almost 48 minutes (on average). So, for Lost to run 41, that means in 15 years, 7 full minutes of commercials have been added.
But, the 2 minutes taken away for more ad buys indicate that we are getting ripped off. (Unless the episode just came in short.)
That break at :47 was unnecessary, ill timed, and destroyed almost all the pacing for me.
A sure sign of bad things to come.....
Sparkylulu:
i´ve been thinking that same thing you write, how the shows have been getting shorter.
I watch my shows without commercials and you can see the whole lenght of show in timer, so i have noticed that my favourites from early 90´s (due south etc...) are many minutes longer than Lost´s and others of present.
That got me thinking that how much have changed the way shows are written when you have you know 6-7 minutes less to work on... And if you count the opening credit sequence, it´s less...
Sidenote --- > ER has dropped the opening credit sequence so they must need more time...
Sidenote ---> L.A. Law just started reruns, it must have the longest credit sequence, 2 mins. or something... 20 years and so much have changed...
I used to like the fact that, in the mid-90's some opening themes had given way to more show time. But, I think what has been happening lately is a disgrace.
I'm not asking for the 48 mins back. But, how can you tell a story with any depth and keep interest if you keep chopping the shows up?
I think the programmers are all scared of YouTube and iTunes and are expecting the entire world to make those the new media...I really think this is a canard. Or a red Herring or whatever. Truth is, if you build it they will come. As in, make the product worthwhile and people WILL watch it.
Even though we are a TiVo family, are getting a DVR for the kitchen, have TiVo desktop, a video ipod, etc etc, I don't see a time when we don't watch some TV in real time on our television, together,as a family. Who wants to watch everything by themselves? Porn, sure, but Heroes? Lost??
The industry is reacting the same way they did when Millionaire got big numbers: Program nothing but game shows. Of course, when th audience was done with that, the nets had found out that they had cut off their noses to spite their own faces.
Well, there's a difference between youtube where the networks make no money and iTunes where you have to pay for the episodes and the networks do get a cut. Television is adjusting in a more appropriate way to the latter -- having entire episodes on their own sites, for example, albeit with ads, but not the obscene amount of chopping up you're talking about.
But, Sparkylulu, if I understand you correctly -- that in a panicked rush to squeeze in more and more commercials before they go the way of the dinosaur -- the networks are creating such a chopped up disjointed shortened experience that they are in danger of cutting off their noses to spite their faces, I agree. It's unbelievably irritating and satisfaction-sapping and makes one not want to watch at all. Well, this one, anyway. Especially if you're talking about Lost. ;)
I don't know if the nets are totally going the way of the dino. It all depends on how much people want to download their television watching. I like what TiVo has done with the Cnet weekly 20 minute infomercial.I have been watching it everyweek. And, while I like to zap my commercials, if something catches my eye I will watch it.
Trouble is this: If we allow the nets to believe that commercials are no longer viable, then who will pay for the shows? With price tags like 3 mil for Smith (which was exorbitant) or the $80,000 per cast member of Lost, how will the quality (few that it is) be maintained? I know, 80k, are they serious? I, for one, have no problem with salaries like that, though. As history has shown, an actor can toil for years, make very little, hit big on a show like Lost, and then be so typecast afterword, he/she can't get a job. And $80,000 really works out to $20,000 net. Yes, that's a lot, but not really when you count the amount of shows that those cast members are NOT in.....anyway, I digress.
Who will pay for the grand effects on BSG? If aftertisers go away, so will any chance of quality. Get used to home video, since that will be all anyone can afford. Save for subscription TV and who really doesn't regret paying for HBO every month now that all the good shows are gone?
We are approaching a television bubble.It will burst and everything will land someplace. I am hard pressed to believe that the answer lies in your laptop or on your desktop when people are buying 40, 60, 100 inch TV's by the truckload.
TV is a business. The by-product of the business is that you enjoy the end result. But, if there is no capital gains, no one is gonna foot the bill for your faves.
Something's gotta give. I think the network execs, a very fallible bunch, indeed, need to recognize that the answer isn't obvious. It isn't more commercials. It isn't iTunes. The same way car companies freaked out 6 years ago over internet car sales. The same way the dot com industry imploded. Why? Because no one,sorry, NO ONE wants to pay for that content. Charge for YouTube? Gone. Charge for Google? Au revoir.
It will be a very interesting couple of years.
kj - regarding "Ben" in the season premier......
Inside the house at the book group discussion, Juliet and another man whose name isn't know referred to Ben. Later we find out that fake Henry Gale's real name is Ben
Toeknee, thanks. I've been squeezing my head over that one. Now that we've got this digital cable deal going, that should teach me not to delete saved episodes so quickly.
Hey, Matt, what do you know of how Lost's season will run; will the network spare us week after week of damn reruns? That is almost a deal-breaker.
Regarding opening credit sequences, one thing we should all be thankful for is that Lost did not do the dreaded "third season opening sequence remake." It all went downhill for Alias when season 3 opened with a new credit sequence heavy on the hoochie costumes. I was momentarily horrified when Veronica Mars unveiled a new credit sequence with a remix of the opening track. But I think that one will work out okay.
Lost? Same floaty letters. Amen to that, brother.
i was telling my wife about this post and she reminded me of The Simpsons, "The Itchy & Scratchy & Poochie Show" (4F12):
Bart: Hey, Lis, look! They're adding a new character to Itchy & Scratchy! [reads] Poochie the dog?!
Lisa: [unfooled] Adding a new character is often a desperate attempt to boost low ratings.
Roy: Yo, yo! How's it hangin' everybody!
Marge: Morning, Roy!
Homer: Yeah, hi, Roy.
Sparkylulu, hi. I am not a technical person at all, but you now can watch downloaded or streaming video on your 60 inch hd television screen with only the aid of an additional wire.
Post a Comment