On Feb 29, 12:18 pm, "broug...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
" <broug...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Feb 29, 2:12 pm, "Craig Franck" <craig.fra...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Steven L." wrote
>
> > > Captain Infinity wrote:
> > >> I'm not going to actually call it because it seems too soon, but it
feels
> > >> like
> > >> when future conversations roll around to "When did LOST jump the
shark?"
> > >> the
> > >> episode "The Constant" may be the one most people will point to.
Why?
> > >> Because
> > >> last nights episode took a stark turn into another dimension. Up
to now,
> > >> LOST
> > >> has been mysterious, spooky, and on-the-verge of Sci-Fi but just
dipping
> > >> its
> > >> toes, but "The Constant" plunges it firmly into the SF genre.
>
> > > Well, at some point "Lost" had to "plunge firmly" into SOME
overarching
> > > explanation of all these bizarre phenomena.
>
> > > You're right, up till now, "Lost" has been able to keep dancing on
the
> > > edge of tantalizing us with clues and no explanations.
>
> > > But we are now two-thirds of the way through the series, which is
planned
> > > to end in two more relatively short seasons. And so the series has
to
> > > start giving us definitive answers, and laying the groundwork for a
> > > comprehensive conclusion to the whole thing.
>
> > I feel the OP has a very good point: it's too much.
>
> > You combine:
>
> > 1) Vast global conspiracy
> > 2) Mind control experiments
> > 3) Psychic phenomena
> > 4) Alternate past, present, and futures
> > 5) Time travel
>
> > and you can explain absolutely anything.
>
> > > "Lost" simply cannot continue to keep raising questions with no
definitive
> > > answers--it has to end in 2010.
>
> > I wonder by what standard "definitive answers" could possibly
> > be judged by. They should be limiting possible explanations,
> > not multiplying them exponentially.
>
> > The only plausible explanation is the one obvious from the first
> > episode: they are all dead, and reality has broken down and can
> > no longer weave a coherent narrative. Each character drives part
> > of the narrative and events do not necessarily have anything to
> > do with one another. It's simply a Philip K Dick-esque "reality
> > breakdown."
>
> > --
> > Craig Franck
> > craig.fra...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Cortland, NY
>
> the producers have said they are not dead.
>
> Penni
Maybe they're taking a line from Clinton and redefining 'Dead' to meet
they're own agenda.
|
