I Was Lost But Now I'm Found
AT THE RISK of setting major bad precedent, in the comments section of the previous post on the NYTimes article on J.J. Abrams, a commenter named Chris had this to say:
I call bull. They have changed Lost so many times it is now a confusing mess, too many questions left unanswered and to say they always knew what they were going to do, is crap.
I answered him and tried to contextualize a bit what the article was going for -- but Chris was not appeased.
Saying "knowing the goal posts but being able to move them" is a copout. They have zigged too many times for me to believe them anymore. One example, 'Ben' was supposed to be a 3 eps role. Now he has spent two seasons as the main bad guy? I agree the flashforwards were a brilliant idea, but I know for a fact that was not planned at the beginning, therefore changing many storylines. I think I'm pissed off because I loved Lost so much I feel cheated.
I found Chris' comment interesting on a few levels -- and started answering, and at some point the comment became so long that I thought, "hey, free post!" So don't feel singled out here, Chris. Thanks for sparking.
Chris, you have me at a disadvantage here because I don't really know anything about you.
But based on your take on this I'm going to make the bold prediction that you're not a working television writer.
This blog, and just about everything in it, is written from that perspective.
So while I understand the fan point of view that might think that being able to "move the goalposts" is a cop out, the primary audience I'm talking to understands that it's actually an on-the-job necessity. The only way around it would be to know at the outset that you were guaranteed 48, or 88, or 102 episodes and out. And the business just doesn't work that way.
And your point about Ben, in fact, is the thing that delineates most clearly the wide gulf between the way a writer needs to approach a show, and the way a viewer approaches a show.
See, to a writer working on LOST, seeing those first dailies come back on Ben had to have been the most satisfying, electrifying experience imaginable. Because so often it goes the other way. You cast someone for a key role, and they don't really deliver -- a combo of they messed up and you messed up, or maybe it was just one of those things beyond everyone's control. Anyway, when that happens, often you have to junk the whole plot. Which is why threads get dropped and friends disappear on shows.
But sometimes, a great actor steps up and surprises you.
On The West Wing, Janel Moloney had such chemistry with Bradley Whitford, that what was supposed to be a minor role was bumped up - and an actress that was supposed to be a major part of the show got shuffled out.
And when they saw those dailies come back on Ben, I bet they whooped -- and chattered their way back to the story room full of high-wire excitement. "Oh My God," they said. "How do we write more for this guy?" "What if, what if..."
See, Drama TV is a quirkly little art form. The only thing I can think to compare it to is writing a story in serial form for print, which doesn't happen very much anymore. That's how Charles Dickens wrote most of his books, which is why his stories have such well-drawn and memorable minor characters.
Before I seriously turned to writing, while I was still in high school, in fact, Rolling Stone Magazine serialized an early Draft of Tom Wolfe's Bonfire of The Vanities. I read it chapter to chapter, and then immediately devoured the book when it came out in Hardcover. The differences between the two forms were illuminating and incredibly interesting, both from the point of view of the art, and from the point of view of the craft. It upended the usual process of a reader reading a book in its finished form. Because the finished Bonfire was quite a bit different than the serialized, publish as you go version.
And yet in another way, it wasn't that different at all. Wolfe knew where he was going, if not precisely how he was going to get there.
In metaphorical terms, it's that thing that drives women crazy sometimes when the guy in the front seat next to them insists they're not lost. In his mind, they're not, because he knows the direction they're going in, and roughly where they are, and where they need to be. And the woman's POV is "do you know exactly where you are RIGHT NOW? No? Then we are LOST."
(Gentle readers, I'll stipulate the stuff about this being gender stereotyping, ok? I got to watch about 25 years of this from the back seat, and have experienced roughly another five or ten from the driver's seat. I'll agree that I'm stereotyping, if you agree that we're just gonna let this one slide by and not get bogged down in a sidebar, k?)
Now, Chris -- you're the woman in this scenario.
(I think I just heard about 40 thousand Hillary Clintonistas snap their pencils in half. heh heh. I am such a bad, bad man.)
Anyhoo, the great, high wire act of TV is that unlike film where it's all done and in the can, and posted and release dates picked out and whatever, whatever -- most TV is on the air at the same time as later chapters are being made. It makes for a radically different level of engagement, and it requires a radically different type of writer. You have to be someone who can let go of what was in your head if you see something that's better. You have to know how far you're deviating off the beam, and when to bring it back. The LOST writers have been more candid then most about when and how they got off the beam. (Pablo and whats-her-name?) And in our shark-jumping age, the coolest thing is seeing people through the work, find the rhythm again and bring it back.
Hopefully HEROES gets to do something similar. I've said before that my favorite part of the BSG podcasts is how freely Ronald Moore cops to when a mistake was made in the writing.
TV series are invented beasts, made as you go along by craftspeople, all who you hope are working at the top of their game. But it's also a machine, and that rolling, 25 or 50 million dollar machine makes compromises along the way. The best shows seize on their happy accidents, and hopefully find a way to bury and overcome their shortcomings.
In a way, Chris, what you've stumbled into here is the other side of what I was talking about a long time ago when I talked about how what happens in the room has to stay in the room, and how writer/creators need to stay out of fan forums, no matter how tempting it is to go there. (And no matter how many times you may slip and do it anyway. I was raised Catholic, so hell -- you confess and say a novena and vow to do better next time.)
Just as the fan reaction to stories and to shows should be pure -- and overlord writers shouldn't wade in there and try to tamp opinion or blunt it by "sharing their knowledge," fans who take craft points they don't understand and use them to justify why they didn't like something can seem foolish, if they're not careful. Just because someone says they have evidence that we never walked on the moon or that men walked with dinosaurs doesn't make them, well, credible.
In a way, we were all a little bit better off when it wasn't so easy to see the man behind the curtain. Which is exactly the implication of what Abrams was saying in the Times article.
The moment in that article where I reeled back and realized, "wow, so much really HAS changed" was when Abrams was talking about Star Wars. I haven't thought about it this way, but yeah, back then we really did wait three whole years to find out if Darth Vader was telling the truth about being Luke's father. That boggles the mind now, in the era of 24/7 spoiler sites, where I can have instant access to Lindsay Lohan's dental records if I want them. No wonder the complexity has amped up.
And yet, and yet, and yet -- all this knowledge doesn't lead to happiness. You knowing that Ben was supposed to be in 3 episodes didn't make you like the show more - it in fact did the opposite.
That's why those who manage the information flow about projects like masters -- and Abrams is definitely in that realm -- have my undying admiration.
Of course, you're free to think that LOST sucks, and you're free to say it here. Just don't be surprised if people like me disagree with you. It's not that we don't respect your opinion. It's just that we look at it in a very different way. You think LOST is lost -- and we know that getting a little lost is just how you find your way to the final destination in your head.
23 rumbles:
I agree with most of what you said. The main sticking point for me is, right from the beginning, Abrams,Lindelof and Cuse kept assuring us they knew what they were doing, had everything mapped out, have faith, stick with us, etc. etc. I understand when minor foibles happen, drunk driving arrests, actors hating being on the show, that require changes but don't tell me you have the whole thing planned out and then make radical changes.Then I do lose faith, and don't trust and have to decide whether to invest another 3 seasons in a show only to be disappointed in the end.
No, I am not a writer but I have watched thousands of hours of tv over the years, and I work in the tv business, so I am not naive.
I am going to watch the rest of Lost, because I have invested so much time, and to see if they really can answer all the questions.
It all depends on how you define "everything" mapped out, and "radical changes."
To map "everything" out in the actual meaning of the word everything would take, well, call it 6 months X 5 years.
Your take reminds me of that old Stephen Wright joke: "I have a map of the United States. Actual size. In the corner it says 1 mile equals 1 mile. I spent last summer folding it."
Excellent post, but when it comes to the specific example of Lost, I'm with Chris.
As a TV writer, I watched Lost from the beginning with half my brain dialed in to the craft, and the other half dialed in to the sheer thrill of the ride.
But at some point near the end of that first season both halves came together in the realization that all the cool business being set up was never going pay off in a satisfying way. There were just too many dropped threads, too many mysteries answered not with meaningful revelations, but with even more perplexing mysteries.
And so the craft side of me began to study the show not as an unfolding story, but as an exercise in building a never-ending series of "Holy shit!" moments. Coming at it from that angle, everything clicked. It felt like, yeah, I've been in that writing room. Where each season is its own beast, where, sure, you have an idea what kind of season finale all those "Holy shit!" moments are careening toward, but in no way are you thinking in terms of any kind of grand series finale years down the road.
Which is fine for most shows. But, as Chris points out, Lost made a lot of promises about what it would deliver -- through the nature of its storytelling, through the way it encourages viewers to identify with these characters who are looking for the Big Answers. Now, you can argue that the creators had some Big Answers socked away in a drawer right from the very start, but I doubt it. I'm guessing each season has been a matter of trying to top the mind-blowing awesomeness of everything that's come before, and that all these "Holy shit!" moments will one day culminate not in a conclusion that satisfies all those questions going all the way back to the first episode, but in the biggest pile of "Holy shit!" television has ever seen.
A lot of people mistook Lost for sci-fi, but right from the beginning, it took mysticism as its paradigm. Lost was always suited to appeal to people who can rhyme of a list of 10 events in their life which they are firmly convinced can only be explained through supernatural causes, when in fact coincidence suffices.
I find mysticism boring, inane, and stupid, as do many sci-fi fans, so I think dissappointment was inevitable.
Alias is a better example of a show where later plot twists were clearly not planned for, since coherency was at least attempted. I don't care how much writers plan things out initially, but I can certainly see the difference in quality between the obviously planned plot arcs on Buffy and the elaborate rationalizations on Alias. My problem with this retconning approach is simply that a good plot twist reveals a truth about the world, an explanation for events that is more elegant or appealing, whereas the retconned approach tends to rely on a forced reinterpretation intended to impress with its complexity.
The best plot twists for me don't need to be explained much - they immediately and automatically transform my understanding of the story. I don't care how writers make that happen - planned or not - and I think if Lost delivered that no one would be complaining about how they pulled it off.
I'm going to chime in because this post and ensuing discussion has so much TV series yummy goodness. But I feel at a little disadvantage since I only began watching Lost this summer. I had nothing against the show persay, but sometimes life and schedules conspire to not let you watch a show, and once its not 'on the list', it becomes very difficult to parachute in halfway(especially in Lost's case). But thank goodness for DVD box sets, and I managed to get through the first 2 seasons this summer.
And my first conclusion after watching them through was that I'm not sure if I could've stuck with it on a weekly/bi-weekly basis. Blasting through it like a short novel...lots of fun. Waiting to see what happens next when a lot of episodes just lay there? Not sure I would've still been there.
But enough about me...Denis makes a lot of sense and tells it like it is...and I also understand Chris' position and resentment as a 'hardcore fan'. One comment I have is be that the definition of 'having it all mapped out' in Lost or pretty much any serialized series needs to be taken on a very simplistic level. I'd actually reduce it down to the creators might have had a notion of the ultimate destination of the series, but c'mon, there HAS to be lots of unplanned sidetrips along the way. And I have to agree with Richie's Bro that a lot of Lost's storytelling seems to be driven by 'Holy Shit!' moments, much like another series that utilized that method to much success (and then not so much), 'The X Files'.
So let's say the Lost creators have/had a destination in mind (like X Files destination was, say, Mulder finds his sister)...but that might have been a 2 or 3 season plan for X Files, and that show ended up running NINE years, so obviously the route to that destination is going to change...or deviate...or worse, be stretched out.
I'm going to hazard a guess that there was some plan and destination for Lost when it began, but it might have been a 2-3year plan max (because nobody knows starting out how long you're going to be on air)...then it becomes a hit, and they are going to need at least 5 years out of the plan, so things have to change on the fly.
And in the same way the writers of X Files used to use a mind-blowing "Holy Shit!" teaser to drive so many of their episodes, perhaps the Lost writers are utilizing some of that same methodology.
That's how it can go. No harm. No foul.
Great post. If people want 'proof' that Lost makes sense and isn't mystery jibberjabber that goes in aimless directions, I've written a lot about my understanding of Lost on my blog. When you get into the show, it makes as much sense as anything else. You want answers? Watch the show. And I don't mean simply 'tune in'. I mean WATCH it. Yes, it's a complex show, but giving up on it isn't the show's fault. Abrams chimed in on this topic before, and he's right.
And when I say 'proof', I simply mean a display of how it's entirely possible to understand the story. Things in the show that may seem 'random' to you are usually expected and make sense to those who have their head wrapped around the show. On my blog, I've written a bunch about the show's mysteries once season 3 ended, and you can see how on-track I was during season 4. Heck, season 3 and 4 were blatantly revealing and, in certain circumstances, I felt like they were simply spilling out answers.
And remember, 'answers' on Lost aren't in the form of someone walking onscreen and saying exactly what you want to hear. It's not a game show, people.
Hmmm. That's a little condescending, don't you think, Carlo? I do 'watch' the show, and I don't think it's too 'complex' for me, and I have 'wrapped my head around' it. My frustration is not that I don't get it, it's that I do get it, and followed along since day one, and yes there have been answers to some questions, but there is still that nagging doubt that they will wrap it up to my satisfaction. I'm not alone in this either, you can have a look at www.televisionwithoutpity.com and read other dedicated 'watchers' who are equally frustrated.
There's nothing to be frustrated about, though. If you 'get' the story, then have fun along the ride. See the signposts, experience the setups and payoffs, and have fun. If you are frustrated, it's likely because you don't feel a sense of closure to certain aspects of the story, and I can tell you almost everything from the first 2-3 seasons have been payed off in different ways. Many mysteries are being unfolded slowly, and it's already clear what they mean, but what the actual mystery is HOW they're going to make the characters discover it. It's clear what the smoke monster is to a certain degree if you analyze its behavior.
A lot of people I know are frustrated with the show because they comply to some radical theory, and when the show doesn't cater to that theory, they feel like they are being lead on. Some people actually still think the island is heaven and that everyone is dead, and I can't imagine anything that happens in the show makes sense to these people.
For example, when Faraday talks about how TIME acts on the island, people who subscribe to theories that were crafted off-the-whim in season 1 think that the writers are 'fooling' them.
But hey, if you're frustrated, you're simply on the wrong track. There's nothing 'frustrating' about the show if you've got a grasp of what's going on, and what to expect. When something happens that's weird on the show, you should be able to piece it together with other puzzle pieces.
But if puzzles frustrate you, that's the source of your frustration right there. The mystery genre isn't for everyone. It's as simple as that, and the writers aren't at fault for making a complex mystery story.
Season 2 of LOST is the only one that disappointed me, but I feel that happened a lot because the characters got annoying to me and the plot felt jilted and erratic. By the end of S2, things felt somewhat back on track then S4 just blew me away. I feel S4 competes with S1 as for the best season of LOST.
Sorry that I'm not providing reasons or examples. I feel like I suffered through S2 and got a great payoff with S4.
Then again, I don't keep up with the fan chatter, look for clues or get too into it. I just like the story and the characters. All the fan stuff is just added eccentricities to me to try drawing in people inclined to be fans.
Yeah, lost forums can get kind of annoying simply because most of them are the type who write fan-fiction and essays on their 'theories' (aka guesses). I haven't visited a lost forum since season 2.
It's still fun to look into things a bit closer than usual, though, like reading some of the notes on the hatch door. Lost's mythology is told in such an interesting way. :)
Heck, by reading some of the text on that hatch door map, you learn that the name dharma gave the smoke monster is 'cerberus', which is a huge 'tell' on its own. of course, we learn this through dialogue in season 4, but knowing the smoke monster's name as early as the middle of season 2 made every encounter with the monster make so much more sense. It's all about context, and putting everything in its correct context makes the puzzle piece itself together.
So, when I saw the smoke monster in season 4 kill the soldiers, I knew exactly what was going on, and the way ben 'summoned' it wasn't a big surprise either.
Knowledge is power! haha
And as another bit of the whole 'course of show' debate, I thought most of the 'sanctioned' spoilers released were 'fake outs' in the first place. I generally try to avoid spoilers for any show, but for LOST, I stopped trusting any of the ones I had heard by halfway through the first season. More than likely, I probably wouldn't be able to trust them (and possibly feel cheated). I would rather just go along with the ride, enjoy the drama and see where it takes me.
And if I bump into some cool mythology, cool, but that's just one bit of the whole and not nearly as important as the characters and the overall story, to me.
Yeah, the mythos is like the cherry on top. I'm still in shock at how original the characters all are. They may seem slightly stereotyped at first, but that's what the first season was all about.
I mean, look at John Locke. It's not easy making a character like him the fan-favorite. I mean, he's a loser, a loner, gullible, desperate, and you just generally feel sorry for him... but you can't help but love him! Especially when he kicks ass and gets what he wants, cause you know he deserves to be happy.
Uh. heh heh. Carry on...but man, I call Bullshit on one thing and only one thing. It's kind of a Sticksville Town Ordinance.
You never, ever, ever, ever try to settle an argument or back up your case by advising people to go to Television Without Pity.
We might as well start talking about how Mamma Mia really isn't so bad.
Not in my house, bitches.
Mamma Mia really isn't so bad.
Hey punk --
yellow card.
Make that a red card, I haven't even seen Mamma Mia.
HAHAHA
You beat me by seconds saying the exact same thing, McGrath.
TWP...um, yeah.
What's wrong with TWOP?
The amount of discussion on this topic is proof as to the popularity of the show. People talk about it, blog about it, theorize and hunt for clues in the episodes. Great fun. Love the show. Love the characters. Great mythology. The leap to the future was a brilliant idea. And I only have admiration for the writers. We in Canada should be so lucky to have a complex, fun show like LOST.
Agreed. The "it sux" "no it duzzint" stuff is strictly TWOP. It depresses me slightly that you get a flurry of shit here of discussing the plot points of the show -- which can be replicated on a million websites everywhere. Can we, for a moment, TRY to keep the discussion to craft? Pretty please?
The "Lost" creators said something interesting after the end of the third season -- they were surprised at how many people asked them about the underlying mythology of the series. For example, the giant three-toed statue was something that unexpectedly stuck in viewers' minds. That seems a remarkable disconnect. By creating as many itches as possible and refusing to scratch them, they shouldn't be surprised when people feel itchy. Fortunately, the addition of a defined end-point for the series has eased the tension tremendously, as they're confident in the pacing of question-answering.
Also, it's hard to get into the show from a character angle when so many of the characters had only a single arc, and if they didn't get canned or quit (most of the tailies), upon their simple arc's resolution, the characters are killed off rather than given new directions (Jin, Charlie). They aren't allowed to develop secondary stories or gain depth, so we don't care about them much or even what happens to them overmuch. What keeps us coming back is the mystery. The mythology is the ultimate mystery of the series, and so it's hardly surprising that fans become strongly interested in it.
My hunch is that they mapped out the basic mythology and timeline of the island pretty well, sans details, then assembled a list of characters with one-line arcs ("he's a junkie," "he's in love with his stepsister"). The writers know where they're ultimately going, but they've never had more than the foggiest idea of how they'll get there and who will be there. Which, as McGrath points out, is the only sensible way to do it.
I'm torn between thinking the fans are being unreasonable at expecting the writers to have it well mapped out, and thinking the creators are being foolish to create a show whose appeal centers upon its zillions of mysteries and then be surprised that people are annoyed by constant improvisation. The basic structure of "Lost" requires that certain answers pre-exist, or it's all a sack of crap. The more viewers can tell the writers are improvising on the mysteries, the stronger the suspicion that those answers will be slapped together at the last minute, and, likely, be anti-climactic.
Which is why the show improved so very much when the length was guaranteed. Such a great move. Season four was excellent, and I'm excited about seasons five and six. They can plan ahead! Whoo!
Whoop -- reading the NYT article McGrath cited a few posts earlier would have saved me some typing. Sorry for the redundant paragraphs.
Post a Comment