pinnerman
11-01-2004, 07:37 PM
Call me pinnerman, I migrated here to take a look based on the suggestions of some of those at LOST-TV.com. I'm a major THEORIST over there.
Q 1) Here's a quote from yourself regarding the nature of the island: "We'll try to root it in real science or real pseudo-science. There will be no mystical reason or an island of monsters."
Here's a more recent quote from JJ Abrams on NPR: "The Twilight Zone aspects to me are going to always be present, but the show is in no way a straight forward Sci Fi show. The fact is I've had a lot of discussions about what straight Sci Fi is, what does that mean exactly. Whether it's, you know, something that is more obviously Science Fiction like, you know, Alien, or comedically Science Fiction like Back to the Future, or more subtly Science Fiction like the stuff David Cronenberg might do. To me, the use of extraordinary circumstances sort of colliding with ordinary people is the most interesting story telling."
To me, these statements are somewhat contradictory. Is this damage control from JJ to keep all the possible theories on the table for us theorists who read your comment and believed that the explanations would not be mystical or supernatural in nature? Is this planned mis-direction or mis-information? Or is this simply unintentional?
Q 2) Have you read any of the theories over at LOST-TV.com?
Thanks.
Q 1) Here's a quote from yourself regarding the nature of the island: "We'll try to root it in real science or real pseudo-science. There will be no mystical reason or an island of monsters."
Here's a more recent quote from JJ Abrams on NPR: "The Twilight Zone aspects to me are going to always be present, but the show is in no way a straight forward Sci Fi show. The fact is I've had a lot of discussions about what straight Sci Fi is, what does that mean exactly. Whether it's, you know, something that is more obviously Science Fiction like, you know, Alien, or comedically Science Fiction like Back to the Future, or more subtly Science Fiction like the stuff David Cronenberg might do. To me, the use of extraordinary circumstances sort of colliding with ordinary people is the most interesting story telling."
To me, these statements are somewhat contradictory. Is this damage control from JJ to keep all the possible theories on the table for us theorists who read your comment and believed that the explanations would not be mystical or supernatural in nature? Is this planned mis-direction or mis-information? Or is this simply unintentional?
Q 2) Have you read any of the theories over at LOST-TV.com?
Thanks.