Sojourn

xhonzi said:

I keep hearing from the finale-lovers that we finale-haters "must not have understood it." I think I understood it fine.  

<snip>

I also reject this idea that finale-lovers keep telling me: "It was never about the mysteries, it was just about the characters."

Just to clarify, I didn't say either of those things. :-)

1) I'm simply pointing out that there are plenty of layers and concepts I didn't think about at first, that have dawned on me since the finale, that have made me appreciate it a lot more than I did right after the fact. 

2) I don't think this is a fair point to make, either, though ignoring the importance of the character story and focusing only on plot and mythology isn't fair, either (I'm not saying you're doing this, I'm issuing this as a broader statement). 

Another interesting recap, with another nicely-articulated point:

By bookending the series around a man opening up his eyes to the unknown and closing them as a man who learned what it meant to truly live, "Lost" encapsulated its' primary thematic concern: what it means to live and learn through other people. They lived together, and none of them died alone. Not in the end. Perfect.

I wouldn't disagree with this point of view, and it does speak to the character story, not just the mythological one. It makes me think of something Damon and Carlton said a while back, which was that over time, the (fictional) mythology they've created and shared will fade away, and the character tale is what will remain. I don't think they meant that the mythology wasn't important, but that they were speaking to what makes humanly-resonant storytelling -- characters we care about, changing over time. It made sense, though it felt weird at first, to have the finale so character-centric rather than mythology-expounding, though I still have plenty of mythology questions I'd like to have answered in some way. Maybe when Damon and Carlton break their radio silence, we can have an awesome Q&A about them. 

Take care, 
Sojourn

Wow, there sure has been a of of hating going on in here. :-) 

I, for one, quite like the finale. It was not what I expected it to be, nor did I so definitively like it right after I saw it, but the more and more I reflect on it, the more it grows on me. I keep pulling back more layers, and realizing how many aspects of the show they incorporated into the end. 

A forum post a friend sent to me (here, by "John Harker") touched on something I've been thinking about, which is that the finale felt strange because of the overall lack of mythological explanations. But I loved its point about "Everything on the island, happened. That was the factual events of Lost. The sideways was simply the close of our character's karmic cycle". 

An article that really piqued my interest (and speaks to some of the points discussed over the last few pages of this thread) was one that was reportedly written by one of the show's writers. It's a good read, and talks about the mythology and philosophies of the show as a whole, as well as how the ending plays into the meaning of the series as a whole. You can read it here. 

The conceit that the writers created, basing it off these religious philosophies, was that as a group, the Lostaways subconsciously created this "sideways" world where they exist in purgatory until they are "awakened" and find one another. Once they all find one another, they can then move on and move forward. In essence, this is the show's concept of the afterlife. According to the show, everyone creates their own "Sideways" purgatory with their "soulmates" throughout their lives and exist there until they all move on together. That's a beautiful notion. Even if you aren't religious or even spirtual, the idea that we live AND die together is deeply profound and moving.

Got to run at the moment, but thought I'd throw these into the mix for now. 

Take care,
Sojourn 

I think we're back in business, baby. "Ab Aeterno", and now this? I keep getting more and more pumped for this season as we keep going (with a few hitches along the way, of course -- but overall, and especially with the recent slew of amazingness, I'm loving it).

P.S. I'm bummed that I wasn't able to respond to this thread from my iPad. Forum formatters, why do you spite me?! . . . :-(

I really, really liked this episode. Even though there are plenty of details to be filled in, I feel like I have a better sense of the major themes and reasons now. And it was awesome to see the MIB (in non-Locke form) again. 

Thanks for the spoiler warning -- I just went ahead and skipped that, since I'm about to start watching BSG in the near future. I have the first two seasons, I just need to get around to starting with the Miniseries . . .

I'm glad Widmore is back -- I told you they hadn't forgotten about him! (Well, maybe I didn't exactly say that, but . . .)

Also, what are you meaning "EIG" to stand for, v_f_p?

I was just thinking back to Season 3, when Ben was telling Jack and co. that the Others were the good guys -- and our response was "yeah, right". 

It'll be really interesting to go back when the series is over and look at those scenes, knowing what the sides really were. 

Also -- where do you think Widmore fits in with all of this?

TheBoost said:

TV's Frink said:

You guys never mentioned that LOST is a wrestling show.

 Now that you mention it, I think everyone who goes to ZombieLocke's side should have to wear a black t-shirt with "mIb" on it, and get new entrance music.

"Here . . . comes . . . the Man In Blaaaaaaaack . . ."

//WillSmith

Though it is The Island -- maybe they've gotten over their shock and are feeling like it's not completely out of the range of reason for someone to come back from the dead, since so many other amazing things have happened. Also, again, he's been reasonable with many of them so far -- just because he's someone else doesn't mean he's bad (at least in their eyes). 

Also, while we as the audience have the context of everything else that's happening to every character, the characters themselves do not -- other than knowing that Locke is back and seems to be different, how are they supposed to know that he's considered "evil incarnate"? He's actually been somewhat charming and reasonable in many of his conversations with the characters now aligning (or considering aligning) themselves with him. 

doubleofive said:

The on-Island stuff is OK, but the flash-sideways stuff brings up too many new questions/storylines that they have no time to resolve them all.  I'm very eager to see how it all ends without disappointing us all.

That's why I'm feeling more and more like they're related more tightly than we think. My current theories are:

1) It's all one timeline, we're just looking at two different sections of it (like in Ji Yeon, with the simultaneous flash-forward/flash-backs. They all go back to the island in 2007, and end up where they are now, but they just took a different path to get there. As Eloise pointed out to Desmond, the universe has a way of course-correcting. 

2) The two timelines complete each other. This thinking came from this excellent blog post, which references quantum entanglement:

"Quantum entanglement, also called the quantum non-local connection, is a property of a quantum mechanical state of a system of two or more objects in which the quantum states of the constituting objects are linked together so that one object can no longer be adequately described without full mention of its counterpart -- even if the individual objects are spatially separated in a spacelike manner." 

Intriguing. 

3) After last night's episode, I'm wondering whether The Man In Black is going to force the integration/crossover of the timelines. When he was offering Sayyid the opportunity to get back what he wanted -- was he offering to bridge the timelines and restore Sayyid to his "current" state in the new 2004 timeline?

Thoughts?

Jay said:

 

If Walt's meaning in all this isn't cleared up in season 6, I'll consider that a pretty big hole.

 

I won't disagree with you there. There are a few other things, like Libby's story, that I wish they had done more to tie up by now. But they've also said that there are a lot of older cast members that may show up this season, so I'm excited to see what come of that. 

Interesting points all around. As always, we won't really know until we've seen it, so I guess we'll have to wait -- and we'll all still probably have different opinions and interpretations of it afterwards. 

And Ewan McGregor was good -- I quite liked Liam Neeson, as well. :-)

Oops, I just did that, didn't I? ;-)

I guess all we've got is their word, but the writers have been consistent in their claim that they know where they're going, and it doesn't seem all that far-fetched to me. Something specific they've said is that there were some moments in Season 1 that, after the show is over, will make it clear that they knew where they were going with the story (I think the Adam and Eve bodies are supposed to be one of them). I guess we won't really know until the show is over. 

xhonzi said:

Those that have been solved have been underwhelming (the numbers, the four toed statue). 

Have those been solved, though? We've learned a lot more about them (though I'm not sure about the numbers), but the writers have always said that the show's big questions wouldn't be answered until the final season anyway, and that the end of Season 5 was the first time we'd have a clearer idea as to where it's all been going. For example, with the statue -- we've finally seen it in its entirety, but we don't know who built it, what it stands for, why it has four toes, etc. 

I have faith, as the writers have done an exemplary job thusfar of steadily weaving together all of the myriad storylines on the show, and still maintaining momentum toward their ultimate end. They've always said it's a story with a defined beginning, middle, and end, so the way they've been telling it -- and what the last season is going to be -- is what they've been planning all along. Even if we don't like it, at least it will be what it was meant to be -- and since I've enjoyed the ride so much so far, I'm not expecting tit to be ruined now. 

EDIT: Beat me to it, Yoda Is Your Father! :-)

Well, Season 3 was when they were caught up in negotiations with ABC, where they were trying to figure out an end date for the show (and therefore how much longer they'd have to tell the story). Once they established that (an amazing feat, too -- most shows would be left to spin out episodes until their ratings started declining), they got on track, and every episode was not only the next hour of the story, but one less hour left in the series. Everything felt different after that . . .

. . . but yeah, that's why the beginning of Season 3 felt a little padded, but everything from mid-season on has been crazy foot-to-the-gas-pedal delivery. Man, do I love this show . . . 

Me me me! :-)

I had really been hoping to go back and rewatch from the beginning of the series before Season 6 started, but life got too busy. I'm hoping to do all of Season 5, though. 

Anybody else doing a rewatch?

Take care,
Sojourn 

Ripplin said:

Yep, Audacity is the man.

Haha! Very true, and hilariously put.

Take care,
Sojourn

Savage said:

I don't think the size of the Falcon needs to be changed.  It's large enough to be noticed, but not small enough to miss - post-RotJ dimensions be damned! :)

I also don't think it's necessary to add any 'engine glow' power down,etc. to tell the viewer "LOOK HERE!!!"  One of the nice things about the shot is that you don't necessarily see the Falcon right away.  When you finally notice it for the first time, you get that sense of "oh, there they are," and "I can see why the Empire wouldn't even notice them, since I didn't."  An engine glow would stick out and draw the viewer's attention to the Falcon too quickly.

Seriously, at this point in the discussion we're just grasping for additional things to change and/or kill some time to discuss them (which isn't necessarily a bad thing)  But, since these suggestions are coming so late to the party, they must not be all that necessary to fix in the first place.  Discuss at will, but keep the big picture in mind. It's easy to get bogged down in the minutia and the end product suffers from it, rather than benefitting.  I think Ady's covered all the minor annoyances, anyway! :)

Agreed. I only brought it up because if a size change was going to be made, I think it would make it even harder for the audience to find the Falcon. Hence, weighing the dramatic impact over the importance of exact dimensions.

Take care,
Sojourn

vaderios said:

Sojourn said:If it's too small, though, while it may be technically physically correct, it may be harder for the audience to see it (I remember the first time I saw the film, it wasn't immediately obvious to me what had happened). To us, the Falcon on the back of the SD is not only visible, but too big, because we know where to look. Those seeing it for the first time will not.

 

 

That brings a good question. Shouldnt the SD have some visible lights in the dark areas of the ship?

a good idea is to put smoke or an engine turned down just the eye locate it ( i have no problem with that)

-Angel

Not necessarily; the SDs don't generally have a lot of lights on their exteriors, since it's not necessary to light up the dark areas because no one's walking around out there. ;-) Seriously, though, if the SD wouldn't have that light in other scenes, should we be adding it here? The idea of a light on the Falcon (the engine light in the back powering down, or something like that), though, is a neat one.

Take care,
Sojourn

ChainsawAsh said:

I always thought the Falcon should be MUCH smaller than it is when it's attached to the Star Destroyer.  It makes the SD seem too small to me.

If it's too small, though, while it may be technically physically correct, it may be harder for the audience to see it (I remember the first time I saw the film, it wasn't immediately obvious to me what had happened). To us, the Falcon on the back of the SD is not only visible, but too big, because we know where to look. Those seeing it for the first time will not.

I'm not saying that it shouldn't be changed, I'm just saying that we shouldn't abandon watchability and dramatic effect for nit-picking technical correctness. Ady has always been exceptionally good about this, so I'm not worried; I just felt it was a point worth making.

And Cloud City in the trailer looks beautiful, Adywan. :-)

Take care,
Sojourn

Ripplin said:

Janskeet said:

adywan said:

the German HD broadcasts, along with the SKYHD ones were transmitted in 1080p so the source used is true HD

Good, we don't have to wait for Lucas's lazy ass to get the blu-ray out.

I would think that official Blu-Ray releases from LFL would look way better than anything shown on TV thus far, especially if they were done right. ;)

 

Despite everyone's varying opinions on his editing choices in the films themselves, Lucas's Star Wars DVD releases were looked to as a standard in both DVD package/menu design and media quality. I think some of them even won some awards. When Lucasfilm puts the time into releasing a proper package, they do an excellent job.

Also, just watched the new clip, and there's some great stuff in there. I'm not sure if it's just me, but Obi-Wan's ghost looks a little jittery in places, almost as though he's either playing at a different framerate than the rest of the scene, or that his head and body are from different sources, and slightly out of sync with one another. I haven't gone and looked at it frame by frame (though I can go back, rewatch, and get more specific if you want), but that was the impression as I watched it. There was a similar jittery-ness in the opening Cloud City shot's clouds (though that aside, seeing it in motion is great, and it looks fantastic), though I know it's still a temp shot.

Hope this helps; thanks again for all the fine work you have and are putting into all of this.

Take care,
Sojourn

HotRod said:

G E Predator said:

Is this better?

*new poster design*

No!!

I was away from the thread for a few days, but have now caught up. My little donation has been sent (let me know if there's a problem, Ady); I hope it's helpful!

Also, the 365 Days book is awesome -- I bought it a year or two ago for myself, and it's great. It's even cooler that it's by John Knoll, especially for some of the stuff you'll want to look to it for, Ady.

Take care,
Sojourn

focuspuller said:

I see nothing wrong with asking for donations (within reason), or offering clips (exclusive or otherwise), I do however think that combinig the two is dangerous, for you, and this project. If someone wanted to make a case against a project like this, this would be one of the ways of doing so.

I greatly support and respect this project, so I speak bluntly, but I mean no offense. I just think you should cover your bases and be careful to a degree.

I understand what you're saying, but I think the difference here is that whatever he's giving to the donators will eventually be released to everyone, for free. It's not like he's giving away a special deleted scene, or an alternate edit of the project, or something like that, which contains copyrighted material not owned by him, that only the donators would get (which could lead to the argument that they were buying the footage). He's just showing it to the donators early. I've seen other fan projects do this before; Ryan Vs. Dorkman 2 is a notable and successful example.

Take care,
Sojourn

I just logged in to PayPal, and noticed that there are different options for making the donation; is it okay if I donate in American dollars, or should I donate in Pounds to make it easier for you, Ady? And I should just use the Hotmail e-mail address you have listed in your signature as the "To" address, correct? I'm also planning on counting it as "Services/Other", unless you think it should be done differently.

I'm making tyhis a public post, as opposed to a PM, to clarify the process for anyone else who's making a donation, and doesn't know their way around PayPal all that well. :-)

Thanks,
Sojourn