As enthusiastic as I am about this series, when things don't quite come together, at least in my point of view, I'm not afraid to say so. This is not one of my favorites. In fact, I think it might have been the worst episode of the series to date. Just in case I was off my rocker, I talked to the fans that I recruited over the summer. None of them liked it either. I guess it goes to show...even a strong series will occasionally have its low points.

Here's my review for Lost 2.2: "Adrift":

http://www.entil2001.com/series/lost/season2/lost2-2.html

Overall, this episode was something of a disappointment. By focusing on Michael, arguably one of the weakest characters on the series, a lot of the depth in the current drama was sapped away. Also, there was little advancement in terms of the hatch; even if more information was provided, context is still lacking. It simply felt as though the writers weren’t sure how to get through this part of the story.

I agree it was a tread-water episode, what with all the fold-backs in time.
But I disagree strongly. I found it to be an entralling installment.

same here. You can't expect every show to be better than the last. It was good enough :)

I agree it was a tread-water episode...

Pun intended?

As far as people who like or dislike this episode, I believe the room is equally divided. The Lost crew I talk to around the water cooler all loved this episode. I did as well. Michael's story isn't as "intriguing" as the other characters but there is emotional depth to it, which I believe complimented "adrift".

I think the writers just didn't know what to do after MoSMoF because they had so many hours pass. The Hatch story HAD to go back in time so we could see what happened to the rafters.

Although, when the rafters finally got to shore it was daylight, and I doubt Jack and Desmond stood staring at eachother for hours. So are they going to have to turn back the clock AGAIN to show us what happened in the Hatch in the meantime??

Overall, I thought it was a good episode. I just found the flashbacks to be less interesting than the actual time stuff.

I dont understand this at all. Why is everyone's main complaint that the hatch story didnt advance at all? Have you not heard the 35 times the writers have said how this episode was going to work? I knew it was going to end with Jack holding a gun and saying "you" as far as the hatch story goes for about 2 months now.

Why is this even a complaint? It's been well known for a while how the hatch story would "progress" in this episode. I have seen like 60 people complain that they didnt get to see anymore of the story, but I mean, it was a well known fact that this episode took place at the exact same time as the first one. So wtf?

Michael is my least favorite character. I would prefer many other characters to be presented in the first episodes, but that would leave a huge chunk of the story dangling as there is only *one* person who isnt in the second season yet - Walt.

And who is closest to him?

This episode wasnt the best one at all, but it certainly opened up new possibilites with the emblem on the shark, the knowledge that Desmond isn't some master genius down there organizing things, and some much better lit shots of the hatch. If you dont like the character, you probably wont like the flashbacks.

But as far as the story on the island, we saw that last week. These two episodes are side by side timeline-wise, so what was missing??

I like Michael's character...I think the problem is that we haven't seen very much of his backstory and don't know much about his life and his art. I think there is an interesting character there, separate from his role as Walt's father, but we haven't seen it yet.

Unfortunately, the flashbacks this week presented information about the relationship between Michael/Walt/Susan that we already knew about...a few nuances were added, but nothing major was revealed. The backstory seemed like just a device to show the parallel between the time Michael lost Walt to Susan and losing him to the Others.

I like Michael's character...I think the problem is that we haven't seen very much of his backstory and don't know much about his life and his art. I think there is an interesting character there, separate from his role as Walt's father, but we haven't seen it yet.

Unfortunately, the flashbacks this week presented information about the relationship between Michael/Walt/Susan that we already knew about...a few nuances were added, but nothing major was revealed. The backstory seemed like just a device to show the parallel between the time Michael lost Walt to Susan and losing him to the Others.

Yeah, that is true. I guess in the end we didnt really get any major reveals from Michael like we do in other episodes. Good point.

I dont understand this at all. Why is everyone's main complaint that the hatch story didnt advance at all? Have you not heard the 35 times the writers have said how this episode was going to work? I knew it was going to end with Jack holding a gun and saying "you" as far as the hatch story goes for about 2 months now.

Why is this even a complaint? It's been well known for a while how the hatch story would "progress" in this episode. I have seen like 60 people complain that they didnt get to see anymore of the story, but I mean, it was a well known fact that this episode took place at the exact same time as the first one. So wtf?



Um...not everyone, including myself, reads the spoilers, man. So it may have been "known" for awhile...but...see what I'm saying here?

Um...not everyone, including myself, reads the spoilers, man. So it may have been "known" for awhile...but...see what I'm saying here?

I actually didnt either until about 2 weeks before the first episode. I'm referring to comments the writers/producers had made at conventions and in interviews leading up to the premiere. I hate spoilers with a passion unless its a promo on tv or an interview with the creators.