The first thread is getting long so I'm going to institute a new system. we'll start a new thread for each episode.

And speaking of episodes, my latest collectin of Key Points is now availabe. You can read it here:

Key Points from "Walkabout"

So here are a couple questions I've got:

-- Locke is big on "destiny" and judging by his island happiness, he appears to believe the plane crash is fulfilling his destiny. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Will his newfound power and status go to his head?

-- How long before Jack has a leadership blowout? So far he's been content to oversee things, but that has to wear thin. I give it 2 episodes before he says "I never wanted this!"

-- What if Rose is right and the passengers in the rear of the plane are alive?

First off, just have to say that the show continues to be cracking good stuff. It pushes the envelope that separates quality from camp, but so far hasn't burst the seal.

Responding to your comments:

It's never a good sign when people start believing that they are the object of miraculous events and on the path to a glorious destiny. Locke has been played ominously from the beginning. I expect to see him preparing a big batch of Koolaid in some future episode.

Jack's fall from grace has been set up/telegraphed from the moment he pocketed that little bottle of airline hooch. I was braced for a by-the-numbers backstory explanation of this, but after Locke's remarkable backstory revelation, I have higher expectations.

I've held an expectation from day 1 that the back of the plane was going to remain unfound for as long as the writers found it convenient. Let's say this thing is a success and goes 4-5 years. For the struggle for survival to be meaningful, characters are going to have to die, and after 4-5 seasons the death toll will mount, along with the boredom with the remaining character dynamics. That would be a good time to find the other half of the plane, and its survivors. Viola! Fresh characters, stories and relationships.

Everything in this episode remains consistent with the 'monster-from-the-id' theory.

I don't have much time for a lot of my own material/observations right now. Will come back later.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Deep Cover:
Let's say this thing is a success and goes 4-5 years.

---

This is one of the things about this show's premise that keeps me watching. Based on the drama shows I've watched over the years, 4-5 seasons of good eps is about the limit. But 4-5 years of being stranded on any island seems a stretch. I know, each ep is only about 1 day in the lives of the castaways so a season would cover only 20+ days. Then 4-5 years works out to 80-100+ days - plausible enough.

I think some TV execs should start looking for ideas that only span 1 season but would truly qualify as "must see" TV. Yeah, I know, there's money in syndication. However, the list of shows that I watch keeps dwindling every year due to lack of quality and interesting topics.

I couldn't agree more, Peg. I know this is a pipe dream, but I've always wanted to see a show creator put together 4-5 solid years of great episodes, then end it on a high note. No retooling the cast. No bringing in new plotlines. Just 5 years of a coherent, intriguing storyline.

And I want show creators to have every episode planned in advance. It drives me nuts to read interviews with the likes of Chris Carter where the so-called "genius" creator is still conceptualizing ideas half-way through the season. That's ridiculous.

One of the things I really enjoyed about "Buffy" is that episodes in the sixth season could trace their roots back to specific episodes (and even specific moments) in the first season. It was well thought and well executed.

DC: I agree regarding expectations for Jack's revelation. The Locke backstory was completely out of the blue, so I can only wonder what they're going to cook up for the show's apparent star. Of course, my expectations have been dashed before (by the Red Sox, by the "X-files ... there's an unfortunate trend here).

Interesting point about the "tail" survivors, too. The writers could easily whip that storyline out in a couple years and breath a lot of life into the proceedings.

quote:

---

Originally posted by trustno1:
I know this is a pipe dream, but I've always wanted to see a show creator put together 4-5 solid years of great episodes, then end it on a high note. No retooling the cast. ...

---

This was one of the reasons I enjoyed "Babylon 5" even though it was more B movie quality. The main hitch I see in your dream is "no retooling the cast". This can't be helped sometimes - contract not long enough or broken, maybe even a death. However, in such cases I'd try a new actor playing that character - even though the audience may kick and scream at first. We humans are supposedly adaptable. (How many Dr. Whos were there anyway.)



[This message has been edited by pegasus_x (edited 10-16-2004).]

If only Chris Carter had such vision ---

J. Michael Straczynski's comments on the departure of a major character from "Babylon 5" after the first season

"I've been asked, several times, what happens if something happens to me, or one of the cast members, during the five year arc, since this is a fully-worked-out novel. Generally, I blow off the question with humor. But the truth is, obviously, I've taken every possible step to make sure that no one is disappointed. In my case, I've made sure the story is available somewhere.

"The trouble, of course, is that unlike writing a novel, where the characters exist only on a sheet of paper, actors and writers are some discussion on the best of days). They can get sick, they can get into contract disputes, they can be hit by meteors, they can decide to buy a house in Cambridge and raise hedgehogs under an assumed name. There are, in short, always unpredictables in any such endeavor.

"Consequently, in drafting the story for Babylon 5, I made sure to compensate for any possible changes. For lack of a better term, there is a "trap door" built into the storyline for every character. Obviously, you don't want to lose anyone, but in every case any such change momentarily shifts the story about ten degrees to one side for a little bit, and then you're back on track again."

exerpt from http://www.midwinter.com/lurk/misc/sinclair-leave.html

(Let's hope the writer(s) of "Lost" have a fall-back position.)

Peg Very interesting stuff. Thanks for posting that.

JMS raises points I never even considered (my pipe dream was lacking detail), but I could see producers working to create a "Law & Order" type system where the plot carries the story rather than the characters. Of course, that's the very reason why I gave up on "L&O" years ago. Sure, it's an interesting show, but there have been so many plotlines and so many "ripped from the headlines" twists that I just didn't care anymore. Since there were no characters to really become attached to, I just drifted away.

Alas, there seems to be no magic bullet

Wish I hadn't been so damn busy this past week. I'd have loved to get in on these discussions more.

Some brief comments on the mapped out story arc subject.

What I've seen of "Lost" so far suggests to me that there is an outline of a universe. It remains to be seen whether the outline is detailed, or whether the ambiguity masks a lack of conviction about the exact nature of the dilemma.

OTOH, what we've seen suggests that there are very detailed character outlines. Dickens used to invent the characters first, then fill in the story around the characters. You could do worse than follow that example.

I suspect that might actually be the method at work here. Normally, in a prime time drama, you only get the character-focus episodes after the writers have exhausted their first tranche of ideas derived from the show's setting and theme. The opposite is taking place here. The possibilities of the setting and theme are being placed on hold, while we establish the characters first.

Well, these are brief comments for me, anyway. Looking forward to tonight.

quote:

---

Originally posted by trustno1:
... I gave up on "L&O" years ago. Sure, it's an interesting show, but there have been so many plotlines and so many "ripped from the headlines" twists that I just didn't care anymore. Since there were no characters to really become attached to, I just drifted away.

---

Yeah. I gave up on "L&O" also and never latched onto any of its spin-offs for similar reasons - and I do like cop shows and courtroom dramas. But characters are equally as important as stories. That's one reason I'm seeing "NYPD Blue" out to its end.

Two reasons I saw TXF out were its 2 engaging characters and the stubborn hope that CC just ... might ... pull the provebial rabbit out of a hat.

I am getting very hopeful about "Lost". It has that whole group of survivors to work through, to keep the interest going. Although Scully and Mulder were so interesting it wasn't fair to expect just 2 characters to carry the burden for the long haul. CC had a good "5 year" idea but I suspect he allowed himself to be over-extended and over-ruled by pressure from the execs and the overwhelming success of the show. Actually, success killed TXF.

Just a preemptive strike here. The last three Red Sox games have sent me into a near coma. Given that tonight is the vaunted (dreaded?) Game 7, I will likely be late with this week's Key Points from "Lost."

If you don't hear from me in a week, contact my wife to find out where to send flowers

I thought you guys might be interested in this one. TV Guide has assembled six possible explanations for the weird things happening on "Lost" (most aren't serious, but a few have legs to stand on). You can read more about it here.

I liked the 'Gilligan's Island' one.

Let's see... what other whacked-out ideas can I come up with on the spur-of-the-moment?

1) they are contestants on a post-modern reality show. Survivors in a winner-take-all contest.

2) they aren't survivors. They are prisoners in some out of the way penal colony.

3) it's someone's fantasy. He's playing with model airplanes and such and all this is in his mind. He's moving pieces around like it's a toy.

4) it's some experiment. The island is a lab.

5) it's an update of 'Lord of the Flies'.

See, amazing what 2 minutes can do.