LOST - Smoke monster's name finally revealed. Oh, and Cuse & Lindelof openly shit on you. - Page 5

Quote:

Originally Posted by fuzzy dunlop 

Quote:

 

Perhaps, but I don't need a hired gun like Fury to confirm that Lindelof and Cuse didn't know Locke was going to end up being the smoke monster.  

 

Me neither, although I do like Fury as a writer plenty.  My stance is that it doesn't matter if they knew deep in their hearts when writing the pilot that Locke would be the smoke monster and there would be ghosts on the island that wouldn't affect the story in any way or that the skeletons in the cave would end up being unnamed characters that we wouldn't meet until the last act of the story.   Those elements feel tossed off and retconned, so I consider it bad writing either way.  I actually think it's worse if they did know where this stuff would be going. 

But let's not kid ourselves, they didn't.  I mean, sure, we could never prove in a court of law that they didn't know the smoke monster was an immortal shapeshifting spirit whose escape from the island would...something bad..., but just look at how it is portrayed.  The mechanical ticking sounds, the siren-call, being thwarted by a sci-fi force field, it seems fairly obvious that it was originally conceived of as a more technological than mystical construct.

You can say all you want that the show was about people attempting to rationalize the inexplicable and latching onto insignificant details, blowing them up into mythical importance and failing to realize that the answers to burning questions are always going to feel random and underwhelming, but...let's just say for the sake of argument that I was writing a sprawling but sloppy scifi/fantasy epic, throwing in any crazy twist I could come up with for their own sake and teasing out mysteries pretty much at random, with no regard for internal logic or thematic concerns.  My story would sort of become about all that stuff by default once I failed to pay off or explain the elements I had introduced in a coherent way, wouldn't it?

It's not that I think that line is totally untrue, mind you.  The show did sort of end up being about all that stuff, because despite what the writers may or may not have thought while making the pilot, the show is ultimately what is in it.  But there's a question of whether they came by it honestly; did they make a story about frustrating dead ends and unsatisfying, arbitrary answers because there was an important thematic point to be made there, or did that thematic point have to be made because they were stuck with a story full of frustrating dead ends and unsatisfying, arbitrary answers?

I imagine that some people will respond with "why does it even matter?"  To which I can only shrug and say it does to me.  It may seem strange to demand honesty of any kind from purveyors of fiction, but I do.  For example, I may not have liked a lot of things David Chase had to say about human nature and the current state of the country, but I never doubted that he was presenting them from a place of genuine cynicism or indignation.  I would have a very different opinion of the show if I suspected The Sopranos eschewed a Scarface-style bloodbath ending because Chase realized late in the game that he just didn't know how to write a convincing mob war storyline. 

The very first thing we see the smoke monster do is kill one of the pilots of Oceanic flight.  Yet, later on we find out it's an immortal being whose purpose is to trick the crashed humans into killing Jacob.  How does it make any sense at all, that MIB would decide to terrorize the losties if his aim was to convince them he is not a monster, and that he just wants to be released?  Obviously it doesn't make sense.  And it proves they didn't know or even care what smokey was until much later.

And I agree with Shwartz it absolutely matters, because fiction should make sense, especially in a show that is largely about the audience being invested in intriguing puzzle like mysteries.  Unfortunately, a lot of the pieces to the puzzle don't fit together, and consequently, it just doesn't make sense.

Check out Stephen King's (very short) novella "The Colorado Kid" for an example of a story that, while frustrating in certain respects, basically plays fair with its audience and actually has something to say about the whole "it's the mystery that counts, not the answers" idea. 

I've always found Fury's comments interesting as well... he even goes so far as to specifically refute Lindelof's response to his criticisms.  Lindelof came back and said something to the effect of, "Hey, we talked about how Locke's dad was a bad guy and implied that Hurley was a lottery winner way before their flashback episodes."  To which Fury replied that that stuff was put in via inserts after those eps had been filmed.  Priceless.

I posted the Fury comments because I thought it was an interesting, unbiased view of the writing process and development of the story. He doesn't appear to have an axe to grind and has nothing to gain by saying that the story was planned out from the get go.

 I never understood TPTB's staunch opposition to the criticism that they were making it up as they went along. I believe that all fiction writers make up stuff as they go along to varying degrees.

I hope that we will one day see Brian K. Vaughn's inside scoop to the behind the scenes of LOST. There's a guy that can pen an epic, multi-faceted story and stick the landing. I read one news piece where it said that Damon and Carlton took him to a meeting to reveal the "bible" of the show. I want to hear his take on that.  Anyone know why he left?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schwartz 

But let's not kid ourselves, they didn't.  I mean, sure, we could never prove in a court of law that they didn't know the smoke monster was an immortal shapeshifting spirit whose escape from the island would...something bad..., but just look at how it is portrayed.  The mechanical ticking sounds, the siren-call, being thwarted by a sci-fi force field, it seems fairly obvious that it was originally conceived of as a more technological than mystical construct.

 

 

You had a lot in there...

First, I fully agree that numerous storylines were written as they went along. The problem comes in when other people try to use that as an insult, since it shows ignorance at how a serial television show HAS TO WORK. No sane person can plot out 100 hours of show before you've even been picked up for episode 2. I don't despise the serial portion of THE X-FILES because it wasn't meticulously plotted out, I despise it because it contradicted itself, never made sense, and seemed unsure of where it was going from -one episode to the next-. I don't find people making those criticisms of LOST to have support for their argument.

I've said before that I think a LOST rewatch make it clear that they knew -very- early on that the Smoke Monster was an intelligent entity that was using John Locke. But I don't pretend that they knew exactly how that would play out multiple seasons down the line. If I had to bet, my money would be on them deciding that Locke would die and Smokey would take his skin sometime between seasons 3 & 4. In serial TV, you seem to need to have about 1 season ahead plotted out, with a vague idea of what comes after that. Then you hire a continuity person (or 8) to make sure you don't contradict yourself. :)

As for whether they knew they were making mythology a theme, I'd say the strongest evidence that they did is how early and often it shows up. One of our very first mysteries was John Locke. Our early impression of him is that he's a bigger-than-life bonafide survivalist stud dropped in to save these schmucks. Finding out that he's really a pretender - a beaten down man (both physically and mentally) playacting the man he always wanted to be, is the first time we had our big image of what the show meant turned into a mirage. In season two, we had our image of The Others as a massive army of superhuman mountain men revealed to be a fiction much grander than the reality. And so on. You can argue whether there was a bigger commentary at play or whether you like it, but it seems hard not to accept that the running theme was an intentional writing style.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nabster 

How does it make any sense at all, that MIB would decide to terrorize the losties if his aim was to convince them he is not a monster, and that he just wants to be released?  Obviously it doesn't make sense.  And it proves they didn't know or even care what smokey was until much later.

Smokey never wanted to be their friend. He wanted to use who he could, and kill or convince others to kill the rest. A good example is Eko. When he defiantly refuses to be subservient to his 'brother', Smokey kills him. Regardless of when you think they knew each plot point, I don't see where you're finding an inconsistency. If you have to go all the way back to a throwaway character from an episode written by someone else before the showrunners were even onboard (in both cases, I refer to the pilot), I'd say you're reaching.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TonyB79 

I've always found Fury's comments interesting as well... he even goes so far as to specifically refute Lindelof's response to his criticisms.  Lindelof came back and said something to the effect of, "Hey, we talked about how Locke's dad was a bad guy and implied that Hurley was a lottery winner way before their flashback episodes."  To which Fury replied that that stuff was put in via inserts after those eps had been filmed.  Priceless.

 

His departure from the show certainly sounds acrimonious. That last Fury bit you mentioned is him being intentionally deceptive. The guy has to know that that is how you film serial stories. Or at least, it's how every serial show whose process I've heard about was written and filmed. Adding in those small connective scenes is a big part of what a showrunner does. Multiple episodes are being written by different people at the same time, they can't possibly know they need to foreshadow an episode they aren't writing and haven't read. Episodes and scenes are filmed out of order constantly - for example, for budget reasons, they tried to film all their Australia scenes for each entire season at the same time. Implying that linking those stories together after they are written or filmed is "cheating" is intellectually dishonest.

All that matters is what was delivered to the screen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TonyB79 

I've always found Fury's comments interesting as well... he even goes so far as to specifically refute Lindelof's response to his criticisms.  Lindelof came back and said something to the effect of, "Hey, we talked about how Locke's dad was a bad guy and implied that Hurley was a lottery winner way before their flashback episodes."  To which Fury replied that that stuff was put in via inserts after those eps had been filmed.  Priceless.

 

That response is a dodge even if Fury is lying through his teeth, though.  When you introduce a bald guy who survived a plane crash as a character, you don't necessarily need to know exactly who and what his background is (although if you do, great).  When you introduce a thousand year-old cloud of sentient, shape-shifting smoke as a character, you do need to know what the fuck his deal is.

Backstory is not the same thing as mythology.  And if anybody on planet Earth should understand that distinction, it's people who wrote for Lost.

I agree with a lot of the criticism, but despite it all when "Lost rewind" comes on ABC each weekend I find myself compelled to watch. Whether or not I think the stories make sense in the long run or are resolved in Season 6, rewatching early season episodes still draw me in. Seasons1- 4 are entertaining and compelling TV. Seasons 5 & 6 haven't ruined that experience for me. If Lost is Lindelof & Cuse's long con, well then consider me caught in the trap. I still love the show.

A rewatch for me showed an awful lot more foreshadowing than many give the show credit for. It was a good time, even if Jack's Tattoo still sucks. :)

I still haven't rewatched the final season yet, since I'm convinced the sideways stories will alternately bore and annoy me. I'll eventually try them though, in hopes that there's more meat there than my memory recalls.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Farsight 

Smokey never wanted to be their friend. He wanted to use who he could, and kill or convince others to kill the rest. A good example is Eko. When he defiantly refuses to be subservient to his 'brother', Smokey kills him. Regardless of when you think they knew each plot point, I don't see where you're finding an inconsistency. If you have to go all the way back to a throwaway character from an episode written by someone else before the showrunners were even onboard (in both cases, I refer to the pilot), I'd say you're reaching.

Maybe, he didn't want to play tag or drink tea with them, but he sure as hell wanted the losties to be on his side in the final season.  And I don't think Eko is a good example of anything, because his death felt random and arbitrary, I think we can chalk that up to the actor wanting out, rather than a narrative choice or plan.  

And I also don't need to go to the beginning of the show; Smokey's actions throughout the whole show don't make much sense to me.  He constantly terrorized the Losties for 5 seasons, and then turned around and tried to recruit them to his cause, and convince them he's not a monster, and that he just wanted release.  And how can he possibly be surprised everyone he recruits/infects/convinces or whatever, betrays him, after he spent all his time scaring and killing the losties?  They cheaply pay lip service to these obvious conundrum by showing us MIB hates outsiders, which also makes no sense, considering his desire for the outside world, and the potential new visitors give him in murdering Jacob.  So why the hell is he killing and scaring the hell out of losties with no discernible pattern or logic?

And then there's his convoluted, nonsensical plan to get Ben to kill Jacob.  Yeesh.

If I were to watch the show again, I couldn't just let it go, and enjoy the show, this shit is important to the shows central conflict, and to MIB as a character.  The creators are the ones who made this into a puzzle like show, only to say "Fuck the pieces fitting together!"  Unfortunately, the pieces simply don't fit together and add up to coherent logical narrative, yet the creators pretended they would, and then condescendingly told the same fans, "they don't get it."  And I felt just as the narrative felt random and illogical at times, the characters suffered accordingly.  The final season kinda ruined the show for me.  I certainly don't think I could re-watch it, without being pissed off.  Which is too bad, because, the acting, writing, and score created this powerful sense of longing, sadness, and isolation; in parts the show was simply fantastic, it moved me, which is not something I can say about any other show.  It's too bad, they fucked it all up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Farsight 

A rewatch for me showed an awful lot more foreshadowing than many give the show credit for. It was a good time, even if Jack's Tattoo still sucks. :)

 

I still haven't rewatched the final season yet, since I'm convinced the sideways stories will alternately bore and annoy me. I'll eventually try them though, in hopes that there's more meat there than my memory recalls.

I highly recommend watching the DVDs while also catching up with M.Morse's Lost rewatch column. He is so insightful - really wrestling with the philosophical meat of the show- and manages to pick up on and highlight how much of themes do resonate from the very beginning. Morse is so fascinated with the show that he is writing a book on Lost based on his CHUD column that I will be first in line to buy. In fact, I credit following Morse's column with my overall more favorable outlook on the show. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nabster 


Maybe, he didn't want to play tag or drink tea with them, but he sure as hell wanted the losties to be on his side in the final season.  And I don't think Eko is a good example of anything, because his death felt random and arbitrary, I think we can chalk that up to the actor wanting out, rather than a narrative choice or plan.  

 

 

Eko could've been written off the show in 100 different ways. Hell, they could've just let the polar bear kill him. They chose to have him die in a specific way. Even if you're looking at the series from the perspective of, "the glass is half-empty, dirty and cracked", it's not honest to think the actor wanting to leave caused them to frantically throw darts to see how he'd go.

Smokey tried to manipulate through fear and lies (visions of dead loved ones). That starts early in season 1 and carries through the majority of the show. The only difference is that instead of trying to befriend them as "The Island", or as "Christian" or as "Locke", he finally tried as himself. 

Plus, he actually got them enough on his side to execute the vast majority of his plans. Claire and Sayid helped him eliminate his biggest foe, and the rest stuck around him long enough to nearly kill themselves with a bomb. He may have wanted to escape, but he also wanted all of them dead.

Except Lapidus. Because he's a pilot. And he's awesome.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diva 

 

I highly recommend watching the DVDs while also catching up with M.Morse's Lost rewatch column. He is so insightful - really wrestling with the philosophical meat of the show- and manages to pick up on and highlight how much of themes do resonate from the very beginning. Morse is so fascinated with the show that he is writing a book on Lost based on his CHUD column that I will be first in line to buy. In fact, I credit following Morse's column with my overall more favorable outlook on the show. 

 

Yeah, I dug those columns. I tend to get caught up on connecting plot point dots, where he enjoys examining the underlying themes. It's interesting to see the show from a thoughtful and novel perspective.

If I were to write a book on LOST (do 200 pages worth of forum posts count?), it would be something like, "Questions! and Answers?". I wonder if we'd even touch on the same topics once. I guess that's the main thing I still love about the show: you can have a long conversation about it, and leave a massive number of threads completely untouched.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Farsight 

Eko could've been written off the show in 100 different ways. Hell, they could've just let the polar bear kill him. They chose to have him die in a specific way. Even if you're looking at the series from the perspective of, "the glass is half-empty, dirty and cracked", it's not honest to think the actor wanting to leave caused them to frantically throw darts to see how he'd go.

 

Smokey tried to manipulate through fear and lies (visions of dead loved ones). That starts early in season 1 and carries through the majority of the show. The only difference is that instead of trying to befriend them as "The Island", or as "Christian" or as "Locke", he finally tried as himself. 

Eko's death is one of the improvisations that actually snapped into sharper focus with later developments.  Smokey treating Eko as his own failed "candidate" is a pretty great reveal and bit of symmetry.  Although it doesn't track with your earlier argument that Smokey knew he would end up using Locke as his patsy since at least the 50s.

I remember reading a post somewhere that pointed out the similarities and differences between Eko's story and perhaps Jacob and Barry's....may have been someone else. Either way, it was quite brilliant at the time, but I have since forgotten it.

Smokey had more than one patsy. Locke was the "long con", but Claire and Sayid clearly fell victim to his voice in their ears. Rewatching makes it very clear that Boone was dispatched indirectly by Smokey due to his inability to be as reliable a dupe as Locke (Boone's 'don't tell Shannon' vision was even the first time he or we saw Smokey, making it explicit where that vision came from). Smokey likely also used a vision to try to trick Charlie into drowning Aaron.

For Smokey, there appears to be only two kinds of people: the kind he can control, and the kind who need to die. Getting the people on the island to mistrust and turn on each other and in so doing fulfill his own beliefs about their nature was part of his motivation.

If you want to theorize on what the writers knew when, I'd guess the "get them to do what I want and kill each other" part was what they knew very early on, and "help me kill my brother and escape" came when they set up their end game after season 3... Those motivations aren't contradictory IMO, though.

I don't know when they knew what, it doesn't matter, because it doesn't seam together naturally.

But, I think it was Locke who was supposed to kill Jacob, not Ben.  It seemed like they kinda gave Lockes arc to Ben.  Locke was the one who believed, and then had his faith stripped away, only to have a new believer type take his place in Eko.  They spent all this time on Locke being a believer then becoming disillusioned, it would've been far more believable and powerful if Locke was the one being tricked into killing Jacob. Locke's anger would've made sense. The show-runners bitched about how Eko wanting out completely fucked up their plans, and how they had big plans for the character.  Locke and Eko seemed like two different sides to a coin, not Locke and Ben.

I think they wanted MIB to kill Eko and come back as him to trick Locke into killing Jacob.  Ben always wanted power, his whole anger at Jacob seemed to come quite a bit later, and felt shoe horned in.  Ben being a powerless cry baby that just wanted the islands or Jacob attention was Lockes arc.  The also retconned the scene where Ben took Locke to see Jacob in the cabin, into Ben claiming he was surprised the Island actually made it's presence known, although he sure didn't seem surprised at the time.

I get the explanation for why Smokey killed Eko, that's the easy part, but it never felt organic or part of the plan.  After all the back-story and build up of the character, it was an anticlimactic death with no real pay off.  I guess this is one of the few times you can't blame the show-runners.

I think they did as good as they could. He was just so absent during that season and even his little funeral was rushed.

Incidentally, he had a corpse that he was related to on the island that happened to arrive by plane, so they were able to run with it. Seems like that's a weird caveat of Smokey's inhabitation abilities....that a dead body has to arrive to the island via plane before he can use it. Whoa...comes together pretty nicely. Wish they would've set it in stone some way so the show could've stood on it's own some way.Did Smokey use anyone else's body?

This brings up another question. What was Hawking's end goal in all of this? She was the one that said Locke needed to go back to the island...