Re: 4th Season Lost - The Other Woman - 5 star poll - SPOILERS AHOY

Neil Harrington sent the following on 3/8/2008 6:13 PM:
> tdciago wrote:
>> On Mar 8, 7:20?am, "Neil Harrington" <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> So how does *that* enhance your understanding of the show?
>> For one thing, it tells me that we're going to see a big "shake-up" on
>> the island.  Literally.  And it will involve Annie, which will
>> probably explain a good deal of Ben's behavior.
>>
>>> I don't give a flying fargle what "the producers have already said."
>>> If it's im****tant or has any relevance to the story, it should be in
>>> the show itself as we all see it on TV. Having the producers explain
>>> or elaborate on the story outside of the show itself is as bad as it
>>> would be for an author to write a book and then spend a lot of time
>>> explaining it orally to the readers.
>> They're breaking new ground here.  "Lost" is a true multimedia
>> experience.  This kind of thing is likely going to be the future of
>> television.  You may not like it, but it's already happening.
> 
> I doubt that very much, but then I don't watch that much TV anyway.
People I 
> know who *do* watch a lot of network TV don't look elsewhere for such 
> information. Where is it "already happening" other than with Lost?
> 
> They may well be "breaking new ground here" as you say, but I'll be 
> surprised if anything they build on it will be commercially successful.
It's 
> an interesting idea I'll admit. But of course ornithopters were an 
> interesting idea too.

Radio was great in its day.  Then TV came along and added another layer 
of entertainment.  Now the Web and Usenet and a whole host of other 
online outlets are making TV better still.  Heck, even back in the 
heyday of radio, there was a lot of cross-promoting going on.  I'm 
reminded of the scene in A Christmas Story in which Ralph gets his 
Little Orphan Annie Secret Society decoder pin.  (Yeah, I had to look it 
up to be sure to get it right.)

In any case, it's an ongoing thing, and those who are resistant to 
change are going to be left disgruntled and left out in the end, just as 
the radio diehards were left out when they refused to break down and buy 
a TV set.

>> It isn't mandatory that viewers know what the producers have said
>> about the show, but it helps to know that there's something planned
>> that involves Annie (or someone else), because then we're less likely
>> to assume that it's all gobbledegook without a plan.  The people who
>> seem most annoyed with the show are the ones who stubbornly insist,
>> "If it's im****tant, it should be *on* the show!  I'm not going to look
>> anywhere else.  This is too much work."
> 
> It. is. a. TV. show. Most people watch TV shows on TV and that's the end
of 
> it. The expectation that they "look anywhere else" for relevant
information 
> about the show is unreasonable. It's like a publisher putting only part
of a 
> news story in a newspaper and other im****tant parts in a magazine, a few

> flyers and a radio broadcast, and expecting readers to track them all
down 
> and assemble the story himself.

The online outlets are merely expanding on the territory that used to be 
covered by fan magazines and fan clubs and the like.  And again, this 
supplementary material complements the show, but it's not necessary in 
order to "get" the show.  If it were necessary, I would be more 
sympathetic to your complaints and criticisms.

>> Those are the people who are
>> giving up on "Lost" before everything is played out.  Maybe we're just
>> so used to instantaneous gratification nowadays that it's impossible
>> to have patience anymore.
> 
> You seem to have missed the points of the criticisms here. It isn't a
matter 
> of "instantaneous gratification" vs. "having patience." If you really 
> haven't been paying attention, which appears to be the case, would you
like 
> me to copy and paste some of the criticisms in here so you can peruse
them 
> more carefully this time?
> 
>>> When was he last seen doing that? I haven't noticed the doll in any
>>> recent episode.
>> Already answered by RWG.
>>
>>> No, not yet anyway. It may develop into some more gobbledegook but
>>> we'll have to wait and see. Fair is fair.
>> So wait and see, then, without throwing darts.
> 
> That's what I said, isn't it? You're the one who said I would probably
call 
> it gobbledegook. I never suggested that I would, and I haven't "throw[n
any] 
> darts" at the Annie thing at all.
> 
>>> Maybe you shouldn't even suggest that. I suspect a lot of erstwhile
>>> viewers have already taken a timeout from the show -- and made it a
>>> permanent one. Remember, the complaints you see here are just from a
>>> few of us ?who are still watching.
>> I don't care if you stop watching the show.  In fact, it would be
>> preferable to the repetitive negativity in your posts, which are
>> saying the same thing over and over.
> 
> But reading my posts of course is, and has always been, your option. Are
you 
> using some odd sort of newsreader that compels you to read every single
post 
> in a newsgroup whether you want to or not? I read only a fraction of the

> threads in this or any other newsgroup. If a subject title looks
interesting 
> I'll take a look at it, post if there seems a reason to, and otherwise
not.
> 
> 
>> You've gone beyond constructive
>> criticism, and now you're just making yourself look like a grumpy old
>> whiner. If you're going to watch something on TV, you may as well
>> enjoy it.  It certainly doesn't seem as if you're still enjoying
>> "Lost."  Why continue to do something that irritates you?
> 
> You've confused enjoying the show with being a dedicated, intensely
loyal 
> and often defensive fanboy of the show.

There's a false dichotomy in there somewhere.

> You are obviously the latter; I am 
> obviously not, but I do enjoy the show.

I'm glad to hear that.  Up until now, my brief exposure to your 
contributions here has suggested that your enjoyment comes primarily 
from criticizing the show, rather than from genuinely appreciating what 
it does right.  Whatever rocks your raft, of course...

> It's the only series I watch 
> regularly on TV, and I expect to keep watching it at least until it
becomes 
> excessively silly.
> 
> And I enjoy this newsgroup as well, including these sorts of
discussions, 
> arguments, comparing notes, exchanging views and opinions, etc. When the

> producers do something that seems really silly or stupid, I (along with
some 
> others here) enjoy discussing and commenting on it. Since the quality of
the 
> show is IMO not what it was in the first two seasons, it sometimes
happens 
> that poking fun at it is as satisfying as watching it, and occasionally
more 
> so.

If and when your main enjoyment of it (or of anything else, for that 
matter) comes from tearing it down, perhaps it will be time to walk away.

-- 
Jim Gysin
Waukesha, WI