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

Jim Gysin wrote:
> 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.

That is true, The Shadow being a good example of this. The Shadow first 
appeared on radio as a kind of mystery announcer (not an actual series 
character), and actually served as the promotion for a new Street & Smith 
pulp magazine in which The Shadow also appeared, and in an equivalent
role. 
The Shadow didn't become a series character in the magazine until a few 
issues later, and not on radio until a few years later. But The Shadow in 
the magazine was quite a different character than the one on radio -- they

really had little in common with each other apart from the name. The 
cross-promotion didn't make any actual connection between them.


> 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,

It's not being "resistant to change" to expect more coherence in the
story. 
Change is good as long as it serves a useful purpose. Otherwise it's just 
like inventing ornithopters.


> just
> as the radio diehards were left out when they refused to break down
> and buy a TV set.

Who did? Everyone I knew in the early '50s wanted TV as soon as there were

stations near enough to supply programming. No one was "resistant to
change" 
about radio vs. TV.

>
>>> 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,

I enjoy that too, of course. I enjoy watching it when it's on TV , and
when 
it's not on TV I enjoy criticizing it. In that way it provides me with
much 
enjoyment one way or the other.

Making fun of TV entertainment has been a more or less traditional thing
for 
years, even on TV itself. Think of MST3K -- or even better, Elvira.


> 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.

I think this is about the seventh time someone has suggested I just stop 
watching the program. This seems backwards to me. I frequently criticize
the 
program but have never suggested other people stop watching it. Why do all

these loyal fans of the thing suggest that I stop watching it? I don't
care 
what they watch or don't watch.