There are a variety of elements of the show that are completely implausible, leading the viewer to exclaim WTF. I'm not even talking about things like "how can black smoke pull people down holes" but just other stuff that doesn't make sense. I think these are different than the "unanswered mysteries", which have their own thread. I've provided some examples below. Please feel free to add to them.

The point of this thread, if you are interested, is to speculate about whether these questions are:

a) the result of the show being a television show, i.e. dramatic licence
b) logical inconsistency on the part of the writers and creators
c) connected to the central 'mystery' of Mystery Island

Examples:

1. People don't talk to each other about anything particularly important. Or else their conversations are extremely brief and pretty dumb. Such as:
- did you hear that whispering?
- was that your kid running around in the jungle?
- what do you think the monster is?
- how about them polar bears?
- who do you figure that Ethan guy was?
- where do you think Desmond is now? Where is that other guy? How did they get on/off the island.

Don't you think it's strange that hundreds of people who are aware that all of this is fictional and have no stake in the issue (i.e. the users of this board) will spend a lot of their time trying to figure this out while the characters, who have everything at stake and nothing but time on their hands, seem to be rather uninterested in these questions. Are we really supposed to swallow that? Or are they all being psychologically manipulated.

2. No-one has lost weight.

3. People (except AL) seem relatively comfortable wandering around and even golfing in a jungle full of bears, people-eating monsters, kidnappers.

4. Locke was able to not walk but run after being in a wheel chair for four years (and don't give me that bs about electro-stimulation; I broke my leg and was non-weight bearing for only three months and lost almost all of the muscle in there even though I was using electro-stimulation and going through extensive physio. Two years later it's still not back to normal).

etc. etc.

Are these, and many others, mysteries, mistakes or just part of TV?

Don't forget the tail section of a 747 falling from 3.000 feet at hundreds of mph hitting the ocean surface and just bounce and float like if it was a cork.
That was lame and ridiculous.

Fantastic points.

Add:

"Um...Mr. bunker dweller...where do you get all the food from? Do they air drop this stuff to you? Is there a factory on the other side of the Black Rock?"

Last night...nobody NOBODY rushed to Shannon to see if she was dead or not..they just sat there looking at AL lose her marbles...

Great show...awesome plot points...somtimes things that just don't make sense. Makes for great TV and better discussion dontcha think??

The list of these kinds of omissions is quite long, and it's getting so tiring that they don't talk about this stuff more. Maybe they are just in denial. If you go back to the pilot episode (maybe it was episode 3), Sawyer says they should talk about the "monster" while they are sitting around the campfire. But do they? Dunno..if they did, it didn't show. You get the idea nobody wanted to talk about it.

Still, it's extremely frustrating when it's obvious they should talk about something and then don't. Either they are really dumb, or they are in denial/shock. I can't honestly blame it on the writers, because these things must be obvious to them as well.

Here's a good one that I found in another thread:

One other thing I'm wondering is when Ana lucia talks to Jack in the airport bar, isn't she wearing a dress? But then when they come out of the water, she's in full rambina gear. Why would she change into rabina gear just to be on an airplane?

Edit: debunked below

AL wasn't wearing a dress. She was wearing a brown leather jacket, a white shirt, and jeans, which I'm pretty sure is what she's wearing when she washes up on the beach. I think that one's a case of someone's overactive imagination.

Yeah. You're right. I wonder why that post made me remember her in a dress.

I don't think any of us have even an inkling of how we'd react to being stranded on a tropical island, never mind stranded on this particular island. I know I'd be doing everything in my power to avoid talking about any of the odd goings on. I'd be trying to find something mundane (like golf) to take my mind off of the sheer terror I must feel every night. And I, for one, would rather talk about anything else in the world than the details of the monster or other terrifying topics.

I chalk the weight loss up to not wanting to torment the actors. I'm sure the wheelchair situation will be adequately explained (but hopefully not for a long, long time... I am annoyed that they are going to reveal what Kate did this early. It makes me nervous,,,)

i just wrote about this on another thread. i totally agree that no ones talks about anything on this island. i mean especially with Jack, how do you not tell everyone that the guy in a hole on a deserted island that we crashed into, pushing a button every 108 minutes to save the world, he knows!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hi - there's a box atop this page that screams at that I haven't posted a message anywhere on this webiste yet.
So I choose here to drop my first talkings.

okay.
I feel this idea all over.
To address any of these real valid conversation ommisions, wouldn't we get a Lost-Seinfield Morph?
"so anyway.. what's WITH these polar bears?... I mean... the term "POLAR" spoken to modify the word 'BEAR' suggestes that these things should be at one of the Earth's two poles... am I right? ... Am I just not seeing one of the Earth's two poles around here?... anyone??"

I think we are stupid

why haven't they told anyone else about the hatch yet? I would be pissed if I found out that these few other people were sleeping in a bed, taking showers, eating food, washing their clothes, etc. while I was still "roughing it on the island.

Why has Sayed never gone back to the cord he found coming out of the water, or why hasn't he told anyone about it?

What is Claire's baby eating? I don't see her breast feeding.

Mr. Eko killed two of the others pretty easily. Why didn't him and Jin jump them when they walked by. And, why are they so afraid of them when they have been able to kill three of them already?

Here's an example of the typical Lost conversational style, from "The Other 48 Days," when Ana-Lucia comes back from killing Goodwin, these things have just happened:

1) she found out Goodwin was an Other and she was wrong about Nathan
2) she found out why they are taking certain people and not others
3) she found out that Goodwin says the kids are safe
4) Goodwin tried to kill her
5) she killed Goodwin

Anyway, she gets back from all this, doesn't say anything, and someone finally asks what happened. All she says is: "we'll be safe here now." End of conversation, end of scene.

I guess the argument could be made that it would be boring to watch her tell them what happened, but on the other hand their reactions could be very entertaining if written and acted well. And we get the typical Lost phenomena of no-one telling anyone else what is going on.

It's not unusual for people who went through a traumatic experience, to hold informations back
Some people won't even talk at all
So it's not illogical that the characrters do not share their knowledge
It is highly frustrating for the viewers, but if we were stranded on an island after a plane crash, chances are high that we wouldn't share much more info
especially if the island was as weird as Craphole Island

Now for something completely different ;D

Polar bears :
slimkendall, there are polar bears in a Zoo somewhere close to where you live
You can look hard, but i doubt you'll find any earth poles nearby :) (and actually it would only be the North Pole, since polar bears are not found in the southern hemisphere
It was never said that the bears were naturally found on the island.

And btw, the term "polar" does not strictly mean that they are found around poles. This word is used to describe a cold weather animal
It's like "Champagne", you can find champagne made in California, but Champagne is actually the name of a French Region where champagne was invented. Still not all champagne is French, (although in that case, it a trademark infrigement issue :) )

Weight loss
Would upset viewers prefer that the actors became thinner and thinner over the episodes to please them ?
At that rate, we could even say that it is not logical that Josh was not really shot in the shoulder, because since his wound his fake, it is not real as far as his character goes ...

---

Remember they are on a strange island, where disabled men can walk again, where you have hallucinations, and where other strange stuff occur
The issues that make you go "WTF" are the same issues that will have you say : "why does my neighbour get all the money and beautiful women ?"

And back for just a sec on their not sharing their informations

All the characters do not share informations, even with their loved ones, on a day to day basis
I won't get back on the Daddy issues, but that's part of the game too

- Jack has a hard time assessing his own emotions (discussion with his father by the pool)
- Kate does not trust anybody
- Locke prefers talking through riddles
- Charlie : drug addict
- Sun : hid the fact she spoke english
etc

Locke made a point : "we're not alone on the island"
Hurley wanted answers when he faced Danielle

But the fact is that they are not used to sharing what they know and what they feel
The only time where background information was really share, was with Hurley and Charlie on the beach
Charlie's answer, not believing Hurley is all the more valid an answer to the main "wtf" question
They are still withdrawn within themselves, and they are not ready either to tell someone else, or even to believe someone else
this issue was also adressed when Sawyer asked Sayid about the whispers

And all of this is very logical and consistent with people who went through a traumatic experiment. And it's even more consistent since these people are not willing to "share" even in normal situations

If they shared informations, and managed to find answers, that would be what would have me go WTF

The main issue is that they first discover who they are, before they even think about where they are and what surrounds them
And this has been perfectly rendered so far

Don't forget the tail section of a 747 falling from 3.000 feet at hundreds of mph hitting the ocean surface and just bounce and float like if it was a cork.
That was lame and ridiculous.

I think you missed a 0 in there. Flight 815 was 30k feet in the air when it broke apart, nobody should have survived.

Maybe they are having all these conversations and we are just not seeing it? This isn't 24. We arnt seeing every second of every person on the island.

Why is nobody going to the bathroom? How come only 2 people have taken showers on the island (Kate in the hatch and Sun in that little alcove washing up when Michael runs in)

The truth of the matter is that this is a TV show. We have to take some leeway in whats going on here. It is also the STORY of whats going on there. Some things do make good TV, and some things dont. What we are seeing is a concentration on what makes good TV. All in all they do a really good job at making this show believeable but come on. If they did show everything that would go into a situation we would have a hour show that showed only 15 minutes of the island every Wednesday night. Tell me how well THATS gonna bring in the ratings.

Once again my advice to everyone is to watch and enjoy Lost, try and figure out the mysterys and suspend a little disbelief. If you cant do that then for God sakes go watch some TV show that isnt gonna drive you buggy.

Nice post, Oggie. I agree 100%. It's a testament to the quality of the show that fans have to read into every single little detail, and wonder why they're not seeing every other little detail they think they should be seeing, or want to see.

Personally, I can live without the scenes where Hurley goes to the toilet. But that's just me.

One of my points in creating this thread was to offer people a place where they could speculate about whether certain plot points are either:

a) inconsistencies related to the television format
b) elements of the mystery
c) goofs

The non-weight loss, if treated as a television format issue (not wanting attractive actors to appear as skeletons by the middle of season 1) is not a problem and can be discarded. However, if the central mystery is that they are all being more broadly manipulated in some way it can be considered as a plot element.

I think the same goes for the lack of meaningful conversation. It is probably for dramatic effect, but as tarf suggests, perhaps it is more meaningful: these people in particular are all the type of people to hide things and maybe that's why they are on the island in the first place.

Probably the plane crash was for TV: they needed to get on the island somehow. Even if reality would dictate that they all should be dead, that wouldn't leave much of a show. On the other hand, perhaps the implausibility suggests that it is not real and that is part of the central mystery of the show.

So the basic idea here is that people can use the thread as a resource. Lots of times you'll come across a theory that emerge from some WTF idea, like that numerous people have worn bandages around their legs, etc. People spend a great deal of time researching this and writing them up and probably waiting for responses like "wow, that is totally cool, you DIDN'T waste your time" but instead get comments like "you are obviously nuts". And then they feel sad. This thread will allow people to post their WTF observations, engage in speculation about whether they are goofs, TV issues, or real mysteries, and then decide if they are worth full-fledged theorizing about.

I'm just trying to make life easier and more efficient for all the nut-jobs out there. Nut-jobs can be our greatest resource. I don't want them to feel sad.

Suspension of disbelief is one thing, seeing a plane crash into the sea at hundreds of mph like if it was a piece of cork is quite another.

Another WTF for the list.
Jack didn't have strong antibiotics only days ago, now he has ofloxacin to treat a septic Sawyer!!

I just listened to the commentary podcast and Javi answered some of these very issues. How timely.

The reason we don't see the characters have these extended conversations about things the audience already knows is that it would be time consuming and lead to 'information overload'. Michael says "He got shot when they took my kid'. All he needs to say at that particular point in time. We have to fill in the blanks ourselves. For instance they did talk about the polar bear and the Pilot obviously because people who weren't there knew about them even though we didn't 'see' them talking about it.

The character side of the show is about messiness. All of the characters have violence in their background in some form or the other. They all have people in their lives with whom they have issues but since those people are not on the island..the losties take it out on each other.

I agree with your signature elfdream. Completely.

I just listened to the commentary podcast and Javi answered some of these very issues. How timely.

The reason we don't see the characters have these extended conversations about things the audience already knows is that it would be time consuming and lead to 'information overload'.

I can buy that ... most of the time. But:

Michael says "He got shot when they took my kid'. All he needs to say at that particular point in time. We have to fill in the blanks ourselves.

What Michael said wouldn't have explained to Sayid why Walt may or may not be running around out in the jungle, perhaps nearby. So I still think it is downright weird that Michael doesn't know that there has been Walt sightings. Unless, I suppose, Sayid didn't see Walt and is convinced that Shannon had lost it.

As for the plane crash, my opinion is that the plane crash wasn't real, and that there is a lot of memory implantaion going on here. I explain my pet meta-theory and basic rationale here: http://www.thefuselage.com/Threaded/showthread.php?t=9108&page=69. It obviously overlaps with a lot of others out there.

But obviously there is a great deal of debate about this. Not my theory, but rather whether the crash happened or not.

Thanks for the link addictedtolying, we are on the same page I think.
I replied to you there.

There is another thing though.
Remember Danielle's transmission. Sayid calculated the time it had been playing based upon the numbers between the messages. He came to the conclusion that it had been playing for 16 years or so. Ok, let's go to Sam Toomey. His wife told Hurley that Sam and Leonard were posted at some listening station on something when they one day suddenly heard the numbers being broadcasted. This fits in with Sayids calculation, since this was 16 years ago or so.

Now, when Sayid told Danielle it had been broadcasting for 16 years she asks: "Has it really been that long?" Not something like: "Really? What year is it now?" We know that Danielle changed the Numbers message to her own, and this means that she theoretically could have been on the island for a lot shorter time period. This is just stupid.

Danielle on the other hand perhaps is a little crazy, but somehow I can't believe that it's not unintentional. The whole not asking questions and not sharing is also a way for the writers to keep us from knowing what's going on.

And by the way, I'm pretty sure there will be FB's that take place on the island sooner or later.

I just listened to the commentary podcast and Javi answered some of these very issues. How timely.

The reason we don't see the characters have these extended conversations about things the audience already knows is that it would be time consuming and lead to 'information overload'. Michael says "He got shot when they took my kid'. All he needs to say at that particular point in time. We have to fill in the blanks ourselves. For instance they did talk about the polar bear and the Pilot obviously because people who weren't there knew about them even though we didn't 'see' them talking about it.

This helps to explain why, to me, the dialogue in this show is so awful. The communication between the characters is being truncated and manipulated in a very artificial manner, and it makes it hard for me to see the characters as anything more than the writers in disguise. Instead of writing natural, realistic dialogue befitting of the characters, they are having the characters say what they want the audience to hear and not say what they don't want the audience to hear. It's so forced and artificial. I wish the writers would just stay true to the characters and write them how they believe they would really act and talk, not how they want them to for plot or viewer perception reasons.

This helps to explain why, to me, the dialogue in this show is so awful. The communication between the characters is being truncated and manipulated in a very artificial manner, and it makes it hard for me to see the characters as anything more than the writers in disguise. Instead of writing natural, realistic dialogue befitting of the characters, they are having the characters say what they want the audience to hear and not say what they don't want the audience to hear. It's so forced and artificial. I wish the writers would just stay true to the characters and write them how they believe they would really act and talk, not how they want them to for plot or viewer perception reasons.

Writing for televisin must be an interesting job. They have an hour a week to move a story forward without going back and covering material that has already been gone over AND they have to keep the audience in mind. They can't really write for the sake of writing..they have to write for the sake of it 'being seen' and not really 'heard'. I don't know if I could do it.

Re: realistic writing -

First off, I don't think it's so bad. And I think the acting is occasionally pretty good. No question, it's hammy, but I think it's haute fromage. (Exception: Michelle Rodriguez has left her teeth marks all over Hawaii.)

Second, the dialogue is a bit unrealistic but it reminds me of when my wife and I went to see Spartan (the 2004 movie starring Val Kilmer). She found the writing in that movie to be unrealistic. I pointed out that it was written by David Mamet, one of America's most prominent playwrights. Plays are often characterized by less realistic dialogue because the writer is operating under a greater set of constraints than in other media. Meanwhile the audience, clearly aware that what they are seeing isn't real, is prepared to suspend their disbelief to a greater extent. I think that the creators of this show are operating under a greater set of constraints than under normal shows and are relying upon the viewers to suspend their disbelief.

But this presents a paradox for the attentive viewer. Because the show is a mystery the viewers are not sure where they are supposed to be suspending their disbelief and what they are supposed to be identifying as a clue!

Another WTF for the list.
Jack didn't have strong antibiotics only days ago, now he has ofloxacin to treat a septic Sawyer!!
A few days ago he didn't have antibiotics
Then he found the hatch

I think we don't expect the writers to show us in detail each and every bottle, pill and other medicine they have found in Desmond's medicine cabinet, just for the sake of a few viewers who will go WTF just because it is not been outragously emphasized

In TV shows and movies, some things must be assumed

And back on your orignial post, Lost is not based on common sense and logic, strange things happen
I agree that there is room for interrogations on certain matters, but so far, all the inconsistencies are a bit like bringing forward all the WTFs of "Alice in Wonderland"
Come on, how can the cat take his head off of his body ...

Some things happen, the man of science will see inconsistencies and WTFs, the man of faith will see miracles
Your post actually sums up part of the show
It shows how hard it is for viewers to deal with unexplained, illogical, and possibily impossible events. This issue will be faced by Jack when he will have to admit some things can't be explained, and it will be faced by Locke when he sees that some of the "miracles" can actually be explained

It's all Man of faith vs Man of science


Personally, I can live without the scenes where Hurley goes to the toilet. But that's just me.

Actually we had that scene. Well not the scene per se, but he was gathering leaves for an obvious purpose due to excess fruit eating

And back on your orignial post, Lost is not based on common sense and logic, strange things happen
<snip>
I agree that there is room for interrogations on certain matters, but so far, all the inconsistencies are a bit like bringing forward all the WTFs of "Alice in Wonderland"
<snip>
Some things happen, the man of science will see inconsistencies and WTFs, the man of faith will see miracles
<snip>
It's all Man of faith vs Man of science

I'm fine with all that. The themes of philosophy-religion-science-society-individual are all strong, making this show the most ideationally rich show on television. The only point that I want to make is that the WTFs can be identified here so that those that are unimportant can be discarded from further discussion. I don't want to bring them forward, by creating a gripe thread. Instead, I want to offer the possibility to have the relevant from the irrelevant ones separated from each other.

I also think that there is room for another 'man' (or woman): the 'person of art' who is willing to look beyond the themes of the show to examine the show itself as an art form.

I wish the writers would just stay true to the characters and write them how they believe they would really act and talk, not how they want them to for plot or viewer perception reasons.
No, that's the way you would EXPECT people to talk and act on such an island
The writers have made a pretty good job at describing the relationships and behaviours or normal Huamn Beings under such circumstances
Don't expect that people going through a plane crash, people who have a troubled past, lots of secrets, and who face many dangers, unknown threats, and who have lost hopes of getting rescued, act like we would do at the shopping mall on a saturday afternoon

It's not that the writers want the characters to say whatever they want us to hear
Here what you are wishing for, is that the writers make the characters talk and act the way YOU want them to act

Some 40+ people who would go through the same ordeal, on the same island and under the same circumstances, would certainely act and talk the way it is shown in Lost
Actually, over the lack of food, drugs, water, there would have been many conspiracies and lots of fights, and people would certainely have begun to kill each other

There is only one Sawyer, staching things and trying to get a good "income" out of what he scavenged. In real life, there would have been many Sawyers, and people could have killed one another over a tarp or a piece of debris
The situation would have grown very tense, and groups would have been formed, and those groups would have started to fight each other

What is shown on Lost, and what is considered to be inconsistencies, or poor writing, or "they show us what they want to show us" is only a very mild insight of what it would really be like if people were left to their own devices

The relationships and acts of the lostaways would have been even worse if they were real people.
Under such circumstances, and after 48 days on such an island, people would have merely reverted to basic animal instincts

I think many viewers would expect them to come together and say "ok here is what we know, let's work together and figure it out"
well that's not the way it's done when you go through such ordeals as the lostaways. People will withdraw inside their shell and only think about themselves.
We are fooled by the recent displays of global kindness and help, such as during Katrina or the tsunami in asia, but when people are left to their own devices without hope, in fear, and in the unknown, things get very ugly

the writers have tried to show us the tip of the iceberg, and we interpret this as a cop out, but trust me when i tell you that things would be much much worse if the situation was real
And the way the characters act and talk is just as far as a TV network would allow it to be shown.
Bottomline is : survivors of a crash, with no hope of rescue, and facing many dangers would not come together and share, they would turn against one another in the blink of an eye



Now, when Sayid told Danielle it had been broadcasting for 16 years she asks: "Has it really been that long?" Not something like: "Really? What year is it now?" We know that Danielle changed the Numbers message to her own, and this means that she theoretically could have been on the island for a lot shorter time period. This is just stupid.


No it's not stupid, it's very real and heartfelt
Danielle perfectly knows how long she's been on the island, she isn't surprised at all that it's been this long
She knows that it is the year 2004 and she can do the maths and know it's been 16 years

But time didn't matter much to her, since she was alone. The years slipped by whithout her noticing

Her reaction is just the reaction any of us already had, or will have, when they realise that a long time has passed

Let me take an example :
You meet your highschool buddies 20 years after you completed high school
And then one of your buddy tells you about his kids, and he says ; my older son is 16
All of a sudden you realise that it's been 20 years since you last saw your buddy
You're not going to tell him "really, what year is it now ?", you will only tell him "Woaaa, has it really been that long ?"

Danielle's reaction was perfectly accurate, and many of us already made at least once that kind of remark when we realise how time has slipped by us
usually we make that same kind of "has it been that long" when we meet someone we haven't seen for a long time
We perfectly know how long it has been since we last saw them, we perfectly know what year we are in. But then time begins to really mean something, and we need some confirmation that it has really been that long, because even if we know it's been 16 years, it almost seems like it was yesterday

Suspension of disbelief is one thing, seeing a plane crash into the sea at hundreds of mph like if it was a piece of cork is quite another.

Another WTF for the list.
Jack didn't have strong antibiotics only days ago, now he has ofloxacin to treat a septic Sawyer!!

You can thank the hatch for that. If you think about Jack's character. What is one of the first things he would do once all the buisness of the numbers and stuff wound down????

He would take full inventory of all medical supplies available. Hell, we saw him doing that and setting up a doctors office in season 1? Wouldnt just make sense that he would do the same thing upon location of the hatch?

If you want a real WTF moment? Why hasnt he wondered whats going on with the special medication that Desmond was pumping into his arm? Is that just normal medicine that he was taking?

If you want a real WTF moment? Why hasnt he wondered whats going on with the special medication that Desmond was pumping into his arm? Is that just normal medicine that he was taking?
He may have wondered about it, but when he had a chance to do so, Desmond was gone
And what use would that be since Desmond probably doesn't know what is the drugs
he knows he has to take it, just the way he knows he has to push the buttons

And anyway, how would Jack know what that drug is. He may wonder what it is when he gets the chance to lay his hands on some analysis equipment
But until then, as a doctor, he knows better than to experiment or mess around with a drug he's never heard of

If i were to speculate, i'd say that there is "nothing" inside those Dharma drug bottles. Nothing except water
I think it is a placebo
This assumes that the hatch is an experiment, to see how long someone who perform an action without knowing it's purpose
Possibly nothing happens if the countdown reaches 0
Jack thinks that way, he doesn't believe the island will go BOOM if they don't enter the numbers in time
And if that's what he believes, he may also have guessed that the Dharma drugs does nothing at all

I don't think we need to worry that nobody wondered about that drug
first of all, Jack must have searched for meds the first chance he had. And he must have put those drugs away carefully.
Actually he may be the only one except Desmond to know about those bottles with the numbers on them
What would be troubling is that he wondered about those drugs at all, because it would mean he has the intention of using them, or testing them

Noone really knew about the guns, so noone really wondered about them
Jack put them away, and maybe didn't even expect to have to use them
It was only when they faced Ethan's threat that he told about those guns

I think it will be the same with those drugs, nobody will hear from them until they are the "last chance" they have

Can you guys say.......


SCIENCE FICTION!!!!!!

Hey, wasn't Star Trek on TV?

Now, "Beam me up Scotty"!!!!!!! Didn't we believe that people could transport themselves through space. That Vulcans were real??? That McCoy was a real doctor???

Come on!!!!!

I have a theory on Desmond and the drugs here: http://www.thefuselage.com/Threaded/showthread.php?t=27101&page=2

Though it is interesting that, when scavenging through the bunker for medicine, as they obviously have done, they haven't mentioned finding anything unusual like this. Did Desmond take this stuff with him?

On the other issue: the Star Trek comparison is a very good one. In that show they were very careful to establish their 'fiction' within the boundaries of what was understood at the time, and then when they needed to move beyond contemporary science they were careful to keep it linked to contemporary science but then wink at the audience. Star Trek has since been a source of inspiration for scientists, particularly at NASA's JPL, because its creators were so careful in that way.

But there are a number of key differences between the two shows. First, because the Star Trek was clearly science fiction, a genre that we were all familiar with, viewers understood where to suspend their disbelief. Further, the unexplained elements of the show (How does the teleporter work? How does a warp drive work?) were not problematized, i.e. the viewer wasn't invited to wonder about them. We may have, but it wasn't the central point of the show. In the case of Lost, the opposite is true on both counts: It is not clear where we are supposed to suspend our disbelief and the mysteries are highly problematized. This has led to some confusion. That's not necessarily bad. In fact, it may be the point of the show?:

New Theory: Lost as Po-Mo (gets a little academic from here on in)
Perhaps our confusion is intended. Perhaps we are being manipulated as much as the characters. This reminds me of The Name of the Rose by Italian semiotist Umberto Eco. This book is, on the surface, a conventional murder thriller set in medieval Europe. But on an entirely different level the book used symbology to manipulate the reader in certain ways. You can read more about this here: http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_papers.html. In that way it is a core text of post-modernist literature.

Lost obviously works on multiple levels. The issue is that I believe the viewer is intentionally confused about what level the show is working on. Perhaps we are the ones that are 'Lost'. It could be that Lost is taking the next and far superior step, after 'Twin Peaks' towards developing a post-modernist genre in television. And, to come full circle, may ultimately be as seminal for this genre, as Star Trek was for science fiction.

You can read more about post-modernism in this excellent summary by Prof. Mary Klages: http://www.colorado.edu/English/ENGL2012Klages/pomo.html I think that those of you who have considered the show as a show will see how the show will fit into this genre. Aside from the ontological and epistemological themes that are clearly central to the show, other themes like the non-linear narrative style, focus on mirror images, fragmented pov, etc. are all classic post-modernist characteristics.

No, that's the way you would EXPECT people to talk and act on such an island

I never gave any examples of how people would really act and talk on the island, but yes, of course my opinions of how the characters would act are subjective and based on my own perceptions, as are everyone else's. When deciding whether the writers have portrayed characters realistically and in or out of character, I can only go by own understanding of humans and my perceptions of who the characters are based on how the writers had previously written them. Is there something wrong with that?


The writers have made a pretty good job at describing the relationships and behaviours or normal Huamn Beings under such circumstances
Don't expect that people going through a plane crash, people who have a troubled past, lots of secrets, and who face many dangers, unknown threats, and who have lost hopes of getting rescued, act like we would do at the shopping mall on a saturday afternoon


I don't expect that.


It's not that the writers want the characters to say whatever they want us to hear
Here what you are wishing for, is that the writers make the characters talk and act the way YOU want them to act


That's an unfounded assumption, totally contradicted by my actual statement: "I wish the writers would just stay true to the characters and write them how they believe they would really act and talk"

I never said anything about wishing the characters to talk and act how I want them to, and specifically said I want the writers to portray the characters based on who the writers think they are, not what is best for their agenda in terms of plot or ratings. I watch the show as an observer wanting to be entertained, deciding what I like and don't like based on what I see, not what I would I do if I were the writer. I honestly don't care how any of the characters act so long as it makes for good, preferably great television. Which means, for me, they need to be realistic and characterized consistently.

I agree that realistically, things would be much more hostile and brutal on the island. One of my issues with the show is how passive the redshirts are.

Writing for televisin must be an interesting job. They have an hour a week to move a story forward without going back and covering material that has already been gone over AND they have to keep the audience in mind. They can't really write for the sake of writing..they have to write for the sake of it 'being seen' and not really 'heard'. I don't know if I could do it.

Yes, it's definitely a tough job, no question, and I know I couldn't do it, but I've seen many shows with terrific, realistic dialogue that remains consistent with the characters' personalities that the writers have established. Since Lost places the focus on character development, I think the writers' first priority should be to stay true to the characters and not sacrifice them for plot or ratings. I don't think they've done that in many instances.

As a viewer of the show, I would love for the characters to communicate more, even if it's about stuff I already know. It doesn't matter if I know it -- I want to see what the characters think about it. I want to see their reactions. The whole reason I watch Lost is to see how the characters respond to situations.

I agree...there is a lot of pressure to post. :)

On the other issue: the Star Trek comparison is a very good one. In that show they were very careful to establish their 'fiction' within the boundaries of what was understood at the time, and then when they needed to move beyond contemporary science they were careful to keep it linked to contemporary science but then wink at the audience. Star Trek has since been a source of inspiration for scientists, particularly at NASA's JPL, because its creators were so careful in that way.

But there are a number of key differences between the two shows. First, because the Star Trek was clearly science fiction, a genre that we were all familiar with, viewers understood where to suspend their disbelief. Further, the unexplained elements of the show (How does the teleporter work? How does a warp drive work?) were not problematized, i.e. the viewer wasn't invited to wonder about them. We may have, but it wasn't the central point of the show. In the case of Lost, the opposite is true on both counts: It is not clear where we are supposed to suspend our disbelief and the mysteries are highly problematized. This has led to some confusion. That's not necessarily bad. In fact, it may be the point of the show?:


Excellent post. I think you've brought up a great topic here and I'm surprised it hasn't been discussed more in Lost fandom. With every show, rules are set by the writers so you know what to expect and when and where to suspend disbelief. If it's a drama set in our reality about teen angst, doctors or crime, you know there won't be aliens and you expect a lot of realism. If it's sci-fi, you know you have to suspend disbelief, open your imagination and accept extreme possibilities. With Lost, the writers have yet to set the rules, so I don't know what to suspend disbelief about. I don't know whether I'm supposed to suspend disbelief about 70 people surviving the crash of a plan that split apart at 30,000 feet, or if it's a mystery that will eventually be explained with some attempt at realism.

The writers say they like to give both the Mulder and Scully explanation for things, and avoid giving definitive answers. They say the show isn't sci-fi, but then they say the show is influenced by The Twilight Zone and that it will have psuedo-science in it, i.e. fake science, i.e. science fiction. So I'm confused. I think the writers are just trying to have it both ways. They don't want to alienate the audience that doesn't like sci-fi, but know that sci-fi is the only way some of the events in the show can be properly explained.

first of all scope, i didn't mean to offend you, or to attack your posts on a personnal level
I do respect your point of view. It's not about who's right or wrong here, although i know that sometimes, i write in such fashion that it may give that impression
Sorry if i somehow upset or offend you

I agree that realistically, things would be much more hostile and brutal on the island. One of my issues with the show is how passive the redshirts are.
You are absolutely right
The only red shirt "unrest" was through Artz when he made he talked to Hurley by the Black Rock
The red shirts are like sheeps (lambs) who accept to endure anything and blindly follow their leader, without any question
Well isn't that obvious since their leader's name definitely sounds like "Shepherd" ?

but know that sci-fi is the only way some of the events in the show can be properly explained.

And here i don't agree
They do not need to go into scifi to explain things
I already talked about miracles, and there were lots of religious issues in Lost
So unless you consider that religion is sci-fi, we may have some unexplained issues and we may have to choose the "miraculous" explanation, and assume it was a miracle

Actually some people who were in a coma for many years, just woke upone day, although it can not be explained by the doctors
well maybe it can't be explained yet, but so far we have to believe it was a miracle

and as far as the plane crash goes, of course it is more than unlikely that the plane hit the water like that
Still some people survived free falls from tens of thousands of feet without a parachute, and barely without any injuries
Is that a miracle ? Sci-Fi, or is there an explanation still to be found

Then we must bear in mind that it is a TV-Show. The average viewer will be ok with a plane crashing like that
And it is a very good and unexpensive way (CGI-wise) to have our losties arrive on the island

But there could also be another explanation
What did we see when the tail section crashed into the ocean ?
Did we see it as it really happened, or did we see it through the eyes of some "Other" ? or did we see a mere speculation ?
I watch a lot of shows such as CSI, or Without a trace, and in those shows, when they try to figure out what happened, we sometimes see the same scene different ways. Because at first it's only speculations, and then the pieces click into place as the evidences are examined
Bottomline is : what we saw may not be what really happened

And this kind of scenes were already shown in Lost
Sun's flashback for example, was not fully understood until we had the other part of the story with Jin's flashback (when he comes home covered with blood)

The tail section crashing into the ocean might be seen again, and be slightly different (or completely different) than what we saw

And finally, there is not 100% guaranteed that the plane could not have hit the water the way it did
Of course it is very unlikely, because the laws of physics would have it crash another way
But the laws of physics assume that we are in a "normal" and standard world
The island is anything but "normal"

To illustrate that, i will give you an example
You see someone boiling water, and the water normally boils at 100°C
Now you see on a show someone who boils water a 90°C and assume there is an error
well depending on the pressure water does not always boil at 100°C

So we would be looking at a very specific set of conditions which would render the crash possible the way we've seen it
And it would not be sci-fi either, for example if the plane was brought down by an EM beam
Not sci-fi because even today, train prototypes hover over their rails using EM fields
It's on the edge of sci-fi because the technology has not yet hit the streets, but it is a possible application of technologies that are currentely under development

Science has evolved so fast over the last decades that the threshold between science and sci-fi is not very clear anymore
25 or 30 years ago, the only assumption that we would be one day discussing on a forum like we do today would have seemed utter sci-fi to the vast majority of people
But for people who worked at DARPA and on ARPANET, it was the "logical" evolution of what was science to them

Anyway time will tell :)

Each 42 minute episode covers a 24 hour period.

You're on an Island with other unknown people, strange gargantuan things out in the jungle, hidden bunkers, animals that don't belong, you're trying to survive on the Island AND find a way off of it at the same time, your friends are getting kidnapped, or go missing, people you thought were dead are not, people are shooting other people. There's a long list of stuff that's going on.

Fans are already complaining thatr it's been too long since the "monster" reared it's ugly head on the show... too long since they saw what's happening with the button... too long since this or that...

Plus, you've got to have those Flashbacks, or we won't really care who any of these people are, or what happens to them.

And you expect them to spend some of those 42 minutes showing ordinary, common place, expected chit-chat? Or Claire breast-feeding her baby? Somewhere along the line, we the audience have to fill in some of the blanks for ourselves. We have to ASSUME certain discussions took place during the 23 hours and 18 minutes that didn't get aired. It's not "Ed T.V."

By the way, these guys have an awful lot of food. Including fruit, fish, and boar. If they had a little pasta, they'd be all set. They're eating better than I do. It's not Survivor, where a bunch of people who can't fend for themselves get a bowl of rice and get sent on their way.

By the way, these guys have an awful lot of food. Including fruit, fish, and boar. If they had a little pasta, they'd be all set. They're eating better than I do. It's not Survivor, where a bunch of people who can't fend for themselves get a bowl of rice and get sent on their way.

While you are correct that it is not implausible that they haven't died of starvation, it is definitely implausible that they managed to develop the ability to feed 40ish people a balanced diet so fast that none of them lost even a little weight. But whatever. Obviously they couldn't try to get 40-50 actors to all lose weight. I would have accepted this, and I'm sure that most other people would as well. They don't look particularly sunburnt or fly-bitten either.

Instead, I find it very interesting that they just didn't leave the entire business unaddressed and therefore stick it all in the category of suspension of disbelief. Instead they addressed in in a half-assed way: In Exodus they got Hurley to suggest that the reason he hadn't lost weight was because he was a big guy and it takes time to show. That was pretty stupid: the larger you are, the faster you lose weight when your diet is changed. Anyone who has lost a lot of weight knows this. Also, Hurley's explanation does not cover anyone else. And as time goes on Hurley will surely maintain his large weight. Even if he is now on a 'good' diet, he surely does not have access to the 4,000+ calorie-a-day high-fat, starch and carbohydrate diet required to maintain his physique.

My point here is not that the weight loss issue is implausible. I can live with implausible. But rather, I find it interesting, that the show chose to address the issue directly.

Are there any other shows around that explicitly address elements that the audience had, until that point, been implicitly asked to ignore? The only examples of that that I have seen are in cartoon shows: e.g. when The Simpsons began to poke fun at the facts that their characters all wore the same clothes, never aged, etc. But even then they didn't do it for many years. And The Simpsons is a cartoon show. There are no suspension of disbelief issues. But even then they maintained the integrity of the show's fictional universe for years before addressing it.

When Hurley gave this explanation I felt like the show was poking me in the eye. It was saying: What are you willing to swallow here? It was speaking directly to the audience. It was making an issue out of this. If they wanted us to suspend our disbelief, they should have ignored the issue. But they didn't. No-one could believe their half-assed explanation and so they compromised the integrity of the show's fictional universe. And I think it was deliberate.

I think that the central premise of the show is this basic post-modern theme: to manipulate us into considering our role in this artistic experience. To intentionally confuse us about what is real and what is illusory. To make us consider what we are willing to accept as possible even if we know that it is all fiction. The plot asks the characters what they need to be empirically demonstrated and what they are willing to accept on faith. But I think the show is essentially asking the audience the same thing, and that this is more centrally important to it than what is actually happening on the island. In this way, the show is post-modern but also, as I have suggested elsewhere, echoes themes that resound throughout the history of literature.

Obviously people enjoy this show on different levels. Some simply take it on face value and gush over some characters and revile others. Still others enjoy it on a different level, and get engaged in 'man of science' v. 'man of faith' kind of debates (see tarf's post immediately above) to try and 'solve' the mysteries of the show. Whatever level you enjoy the show on is completely up to you. And I would suggest that there is yet another level upon which to enjoy it: you can be a 'person of art' and consider the post-modern themes of the show. The show is inviting you to be not just a passive recipient of informaiton and ideas, but instead a participant in a self-reflexive process. And the good thing is that if you appreciate the show at this level, you can still appreciate it at the other levels too.

I think that the central premise of the show is this basic post-modern theme: to manipulate us into considering our role in this artistic experience. To intentionally confuse us about what is real and what is illusory. To make us consider what we are willing to accept as possible even if we know that it is all fiction. The plot asks the characters what they need to be empirically demonstrated and what they are willing to accept on faith. But I think the show is essentially asking the audience the same thing, and that this is more centrally important to it than what is actually happening on the island. In this way, the show is post-modern
It sounds like the use of this forum and other TPTB-sponsored web sites would fall into this definition as well?

I definitely think the active encouragement of an online virtual reality associated with the show is part of this project.

Instead, I find it very interesting that they just didn't leave the entire business unaddressed and therefore stick it all in the category of suspension of disbelief. Instead they addressed in in a half-assed way: In Exodus they got Hurley to suggest that the reason he hadn't lost weight was because he was a big guy and it takes time to show. That was pretty stupid: the larger you are, the faster you lose weight when your diet is changed. Anyone who has lost a lot of weight knows this. Also, Hurley's explanation does not cover anyone else. And as time goes on Hurley will surely maintain his large weight. Even if he is now on a 'good' diet, he surely does not have access to the 4,000+ calorie-a-day high-fat, starch and carbohydrate diet required to maintain his physique.

As an expert in this topic, you should have also told us how many pounds we could have expected Hurley to lose in 48 days so that we can decide for ourselves whether or not we think the man looks 5 or 10 pounds thinner.

I will ignore your sarcasm and suggest that over the course of six weeks on such a radically changed diet and with an elevated level of physical activity I would guess that a man of Hurley's size would lose a minimum of 40 pounds.

tarf, no offense taken. :)



And here i don't agree
They do not need to go into scifi to explain things
I already talked about miracles, and there were lots of religious issues in Lost
So unless you consider that religion is sci-fi, we may have some unexplained issues and we may have to choose the "miraculous" explanation, and assume it was a miracle

I agree that they don't need to go into sci-fi to explain things, but I think that's where they're headed. Here's an excerpt from an interview with David Fury last winter when he was still with the show:


“We didn’t run into any network interference until roughly around episodes nine and 10,” Fury reveals. “We were starting to make some choices that definitely terrified the network. There was a feeling on our part, particularly Damon’s, that we needed to goose things and take it a bit further. So in terms of ‘network interference,’ there were a lot of meetings at that time about the direction of the show. Ultimately, it was a tonal issue and a matter of degrees and calibration and taking out a lot of the more hard to explain things that we were going to introduce and finding a way to keep it a bit vague. So on one level, there is a frustration for me as a viewer, in that I’d like some clearer answers, but those answers were resting in the area of sci fi and that’s where we had to draw the line. We are holding back, but it’s not like we want to burst forth and admit we are a sci fi show in the closet coming out,” he chuckles. “It’s more about trying to find the elements of the island that become the metaphors for character stories that we are trying to tell. It’s about trying to find those mystical elements and yet give them an element of being possibly mystical, or not, by perception. We have Locke [Terry O’Quinn], who perceives the island as having a consciousness and who apparently came face to face with the monster. When you try to answer those questions, it falls into the realm of genre. We do know what the island is and have all those answers and they lean very heavily into the sci fi category, but those are answers that scare our parent company. While they are content with the mysteries, they are not content with the answers. There is an interesting level to that, which I appreciate, but then there is the challenge of how long an audience will be invested in the show and in these characters without getting enough concrete answers.”

So the answers to many of the mysteries lean heavily toward sci-fi, at least according to David Fury. And I'm happy to hear that, because I think that's the best way to answer many of the mysteries.

I do consider religion to be sci-fi. Shows like Touched by an Angel and Joan of Arcadia fall in the fantasy genre, which is basically sci-fi. If the Lost writers are going to go the religious or mystical route, explaining the strange happenings away as miracles or luck then it will be part of the overall sci-fi genre, imo.

I take your point that there are a lot of weird, unexplained things that have happened in reality. I personally am a believer in many paranormal things, but I recognize that they haven't been proven and thus are considered science fiction. Of course, then that can lead us into the murky territory of what exactly science fiction is and how science is ever evolving and disproving past "proofs."

But regarding this specific topic, the writers are creative enough to be able to explain the weird happenings any number of ways. I just hope they do explain them and don't leave us hanging. I'd like to know what kind of show Lost is, what the rules are, so I can know what I'm supposed to suspend disbelief on. The writers confuse me with their conflicting statements, saying in one breath that the show isn't sci-fi and in the next breath saying it will have pseudo(fake)-science.

I have read through this entire thread with enjoyment. I like that the discussion is not primarily focused on the show being unbelievable but on how to explain what is and isn't happening.

There has been a lot of discussion about the lack of discussion among the characters. IMHO, this has to do with style. There is a big difference between reading a James Michener novel and a Robert Ludlum Novel. Michener is very descriptive and at times too descriptive, whereas Ludlum prefers to write in a manner that catapults the reader along. If you took a novel written by Michener that covers 1,000 pages, Ludlum would cover the same ground in 300 pages. This is not to say that Ludlum is a better writer only that they have different styles both being best sellers. Let's take Stephen King for example, when it comes to converting novels to TV/movies. When I read "The Shinning" one of the most fascinating parts was when the shrubbery animals came to life. This was totally eliminated in the screen version. Why? because too much detail is boring. I can say the same about most novels that are made into TV/Movie versions. The time constraints just don't allow for too much detail. CSI is the number 1 show on TV yet they don't go into minute detail about how forensics actually works because it is boring. They give us the crib note version. This is just part of the limitations of a TV series. I like the fact that LOST leaves many things up to the individual to determine instead of providing pat answers. I love that I can research to my hearts content, even when I'm wrong, and learn something that I may not have been exposed to without prompting.

In regards to the show being SciFi or real science, IMHO, I think they have taken today's science to the next level. Star Trek and Jules Verne took it to levels completely beyond what was fathomable at the time. I will say that the plane being ripped apart and brought down to earth is stretching a bit but through my involvement on this forum I have also researched and learned about a man called Nikola Tesla who was thought crazy because he believed in wireless communications back in the early 1900's. By the way he also envisioned a weapon that could rip an airplane apart and gently bring it to earth. Is this where the creators of LOST are going with the story? I don't know but maybe it isn't as far fetched as it may seem.

Javi answered a question recently concerning the science vs SciFi issued and said something to the effect of it all depended on how liberal your view of Science was. I mean we aren't watching discovery channel, PBS or Nova. This is a fictional story and some poetic license is to be expected. Personally, I hope they open up many new doors that I haven't explored yet because I was just about done with episodic TV until LOST came along. Will they be able to sustain it to the satisfaction of both the network and the viewing audience remains to be seen. I for one enjoy the ride that they are giving me and then enjoy combing every detail possible to find a clue as to where they are going.

New WTF:

Remember when Locke built a trebuchet! How many people know how to build a trebuchet? Or even know what one is?

New WTF:

Remember when Locke built a trebuchet! How many people know how to build a trebuchet? Or even know what one is?

Poor Boone (rest his pouty, bushy-browed soul) didn't even know how to spell it, so you've got the jump on him there.

Locke obviously got his Weebelo [sic?] trebuchet construction badge. Ties knots, identifies birds, improvises seige weaponry. Oh, to be a boy scout in Locke's day, when it actually meant something.

[quote=VictoriaFoxtrot;630613]Each 42 minute episode covers a 24 hour period.

You're on an Island with other unknown people, strange gargantuan things out in the jungle, hidden bunkers, animals that don't belong, you're trying to survive on the Island AND find a way off of it at the same time, your friends are getting kidnapped, or go missing, people you thought were dead are not, people are shooting other people. There's a long list of stuff that's going on.

Fans are already complaining thatr it's been too long since the "monster" reared it's ugly head on the show... too long since they saw what's happening with the button... too long since this or that...

Plus, you've got to have those Flashbacks, or we won't really care who any of these people are, or what happens to them.

And you expect them to spend some of those 42 minutes showing ordinary, common place, expected chit-chat?


I agree. Not only would it be time consuming but repetitive. Can you imagine EACH character telling EACH character EVERYTHING they have experienced?

Maybe they should have nightly or weekly meetings by the campfire with marshmallows and tell "ghost" stories...lol

Another WTF:

Seems strange that a major network show would establish two strong female characters and then, in consecutive episodes, reveal them both to be murderers. Now the show will go back to making them both sympathetic. Are we really so easily manipulated that we are willing to so quickly forgive murder?

Todell has a thread that fits in with the intentions of this thread: Visual Inconsistencies (http://www.thefuselage.com/Threaded/showthread.php?t=26190).

She includes such interesting observations as the differences in Marvin Candle's tie in the two videos and that Jack's tattoos seem to move. Responses suggest that some or all of these may be simple technical goofs. But the tattoo mirror-image thing may be more meaningful.

[quote]


I agree. Not only would it be time consuming but repetitive. Can you imagine EACH character telling EACH character EVERYTHING they have experienced?

Maybe they should have nightly or weekly meetings by the campfire with marshmallows and tell "ghost" stories...lol

I don't think anyone expects or wants each character to talk to each character about everything they've experienced. The complaints I've heard, and agree with, is that the characters are, by and large, too casual and incurious, that they don't communicate enough about their perilous situation and the numerous bizarre things that've happened. To me, the characters just don't interact in a realistic manner much of the time, and as a viewer it really disengages me from the show. But that doesn't mean I want the characters to be talking with each other all the time about their experiences. I just want their communication and their reactions to what the writers throw at them to be realistic and based on who they are, not what the writers need them to be for the plot or ratings.

Perhaps they are coming around...

Sayid told Kate (but not Michael!) about Walt and she told him about the horse.

No discussion yet about the monster. Though Charlie did make a joke about how weird it is that there is a monster out there.

Locke and Eko communicate about the hatch and the film and Michael gets in on discussions about the hatch.

If they are starting to open up, three possibilities:

Perhaps the writers are getting sensitive to this aspect of implausibility.
Perhaps the characters are learning to trust each other.
Perhaps it is just time to move certain plotlines along.

Or perhaps its a little of all of these.

It could be that the theme of the Skinnerian psychological experiment -- how long will someone do a thing without knowing why -- is a metaphor for the show itself.

How long will a bunch of people watch and obsess over a TV show without knowing WTF is going on?

Clever writers.

It could be that the theme of the Skinnerian psychological experiment -- how long will someone do a thing without knowing why -- is a metaphor for the show itself.

How long will a bunch of people watch and obsess over a TV show without knowing WTF is going on?

Clever writers.

exactly

exactly
And some may be taking shifts on button duty soon, as well!

And some may be taking shifts on button duty soon, as well!

Look to the right of your screen... many are already pressing the button!

Look to the right of your screen... many are already pressing the button!
Not that one...go see what the Rebellious Rabbits are up to...

Just want to add in my "WTF", sorry if it has all been mentioned before.

Would I be wrong in assuming that getting off the island is or should be the #1 priority of the castways? I would even venture to say that survival takes a backseat to getting off the island, hence the lostways who took a big chance setting sail on a tiny raft, and the other lostaways who hauled around some old dynamite to see the insides of a quarantined hatch. Yet the same people have not yet explored the island? Why not, is it because the others or the monster? These two seem like much less threats than the raft or the dynamite. The others are a bit freaky, but AL had no problems one on one and Ecko had no problems one on two, not to mention with there newly found guns in the hatch, the others probably would not be much of a problem. As for the monster, it seems pretty easy to outrun or even hide from. And now that some lostaways may think there is way to communicate with the outside world through the computer, there is no way they would not try. Candle says in doing so the project may be jeopardized, big deal, who cares about the project at this point. Candle also said there may be another incident, which is a risk, but I would say not nearly as big a risk as the raft or even carrying around old dynamite. The whole situation just seems really inconsistent especially with the prior chances taken and behaviors shown. I dont have a problem with really anything else on the show, but to ignore the lostways looking for ways to get off the island is hard for me to swallow. There has to be a reason for this, and I am sure there probably is one. I just hope it is not bad writing, because that would be an unforgivable error for me. Well, let me know where I am going wrong.

Locke obviously got his Weebelo [sic?] trebuchet construction badge. Ties knots, identifies birds, improvises seige weaponry. Oh, to be a boy scout in Locke's day, when it actually meant something.
Pffft. My 15 year old knows how to build a rough trebuchet :)

I don't find the lack of communication unusual. Annoying as all get out to us watching, but not unusual. Look what happened to Hurley when he tried to tell Jack about the numbers."You were in a psych ward?", Or Sayid's reaction to Shannon? Or Charlie denying the Others exist?
How many of us would feel comfortable telling 40 strangers (who have already had a creepy guy killing them off, and a creepy lady fortelling DOOM) "Oh, by the way, I hallucinated my dead dad out in the jungle, anyone else see anything weird?" "Oh yeah, you know, I was hearing voices in the middle of nowhere, ain't that crazy?" "Musta had an overripe mango there, buddy!"
Despite the weird-o-rama going on almost daily, no one believes anyone else when they do mention something strange.

Pffft. My 15 year old knows how to build a rough trebuchet :)

I don't find the lack of communication unusual. Annoying as all get out to us watching, but not unusual. Look what happened to Hurley when he tried to tell Jack about the numbers."You were in a psych ward?", Or Sayid's reaction to Shannon? Or Charlie denying the Others exist?
How many of us would feel comfortable telling 40 strangers (who have already had a creepy guy killing them off, and a creepy lady fortelling DOOM) "Oh, by the way, I hallucinated my dead dad out in the jungle, anyone else see anything weird?" "Oh yeah, you know, I was hearing voices in the middle of nowhere, ain't that crazy?" "Musta had an overripe mango there, buddy!"
Despite the weird-o-rama going on almost daily, no one believes anyone else when they do mention something strange.


Good post. I think at the end of season 1 it was somewhat addressed. There was the whole speech by Arzt. Arzt also knew about the expedition to get the dynamite, he told Jack if you want to keep something secret don't tell the fat guy. So there is some communication going on it's just not shown because there is over more important ground to cover in the 40 or so minutes of each episode. I could just hear it now if the writers had chosen to show the interaction you are talking about, there would be 100 threads complaining about the filler and predictable way that it was being handled.

If you take a novel and turn it into a movie a lot has to be cut because of time and transferability. All of Stephen King's novels that have been adapted to either TV of the big screen have had portions cut because it would not translate well.

My 13 year old built a trebuchet as a project for school last year. He got an A. Of course it was a little one but it worked!

Are there any other shows around that explicitly address elements that the audience had, until that point, been implicitly asked to ignore?

Smallville used to. Sometimes they'd pretty obviously speak thru a character to the audience.

Once, Malcolm in the Middle did too. That was a show that I didn't really enjoy, but sometimes wound up watching, or half-watching, because it was literally in the middle, between shows I enjoyed on that channel. One night I heard a character engaging in a dialog with herself (supposedly anticipating another character's questions) in which she rattled off the things about the show that made no sense -- the very elements that I'd've told someone else as the reasons I didn't care for it -- in what appeared to be an apology to the audience. But it amounted to the same thing as the voice out of the whirlwind in Job -- that's just the way it is, there's no explaining them.

Robert

Didn't see that Malcolm in the Middle... but it seems like it was comedic (as it is in the Simpsons or Family Guy, but not, conspicuously, King of the Hill) rather than thematic, as I'm suggesting it is in Lost.

You are right about Smallville. I am embarrassed to say that I have secretly, with the blinds drawn, watched this show since it aired. The references to the Superman canon (little jokes about man of steel, Clark always wears primary colours, etc) have crossed the line from occassional insider joke to just stupid puns. This is only one of the ways in which Smallville has become one big stinking lump of cheese.

I have to hope that Lost is not going the way of fromage. Though I have to admit that sometimes the lack of logic makes me hold tightly to my post-modernism theory to justify my investment of time in the show.

Guys, it`s a t.v show, not real life. Give it a rest, seriously.
I just think it`s nitpicking tbh.

Dirge: If you want to give it a rest, umm, stop reading.

I think it's pretty interesting to hear everyones theories and thoughts.

Good point and i`ll do that but i really think analyzing the show to this extent and nitpicking on flaws is just plain ridiculas.

OK, read all these posts..all very well written and make a lot of sence. That said, however, I still can't understand why no one asked Danielle more questions. On the way to Black Rock to get the dynamite, they all run from the "monsters". Daniell says, there are no monsters..it's a security system. OK, cool.
The woman has been there for 16 years, tromped all over....why does no one say "What do you mean? How does it work? Where can we get a good look at it?"
I can understand the Lostaways not yammering on about every minute point but geezaloo.....get some info while you can.
p.s. Walt does go to the bathroom up against a tree in one episode. And Locke also studied survival for "years" when he was planning on going on Walkabout..thus, the trebuchet.

some people seem to have a hard time understanding that LOST is a TV-Show, not real life

even in real life, things WILL happen to you and you won't be able to explain them, no matter how hard you try
even in real life, some things may never be explained, no matter how many journalists, scientists, senate subcomitees, etc, work on trying to uncover the "truth", or to find the reason to a certain event

stuff happens ...

a plane can't possibly crash the way we saw the plane crash (add the running engine, the survivors, etc)
BUT in Lost it just did

Of course it's fun and entertaining to speculate and nitpick
but the main point is not to know wether or not it's possible, the point is to assume that it DID happen that way
maybe we will discover that there is something more to this plane crash, but maybe it will just stay that way
and if it stays that way, it's not an inconsistency but part of the story.

No-one can positively be 100% affirmative in saying that NO plane will EVER crash that way.
Even if this crash defies the laws of physics in OUR world, who knows if the laws of physics in Lost were "broken". There might be specific conditions around and on the island that would have rendered such a crash possible the way we saw it
And even if there are no specific conditions, the fact is that the crash happened.

Some things remain unexplained. I personnally saw a car doing at least 10 barrel rolls off the highway, and to everyone's surprise, there was a basket of eggs in the trunk, none of them broken, not even shattered.The laws of physics, and the violence of the crash would have had anyone expect to find a nice "omelette", but no
Some people get out of horrible accidents without a scratch. People jumped off planes at several thousand feet without a parachute and survived

If you BELIEVE, you call these "miracles", and if you don't you simply call it on "luck", "fate" or "still to be explained"

I think some of us miss the point here.
Some say : this is not possible. I answer : But that's the way it happened, like it or not
Of course i'm not challenging the fun people get by speculating. I enjoy this too, otherwise i wouldn't be posting in this thread

But some seem to be "cheated" by the writers because of the way TPTB chose to show or not to show things, because of the lack of communication, etc etc etc

But i really think we should consider that what we were shown IS the way things happen, that it is the way THOSE people (losties) behave and ARE

I agree that from our perspective, lots of things do seem strange and/or out of place, but in Lost-world are those things strange ? or are they just part of "normal" things ?

It's not about what should have been (according to logic, science, etc) it's about what IS

The about that trebuchet. Actually lots of people know how to build it.
Actually the trebuchet has been used in many computer games, and anyone who is good at "putting bits and pieces" together should be able to design one
But i doubt Locke was an online gamer
but we saw Locke play some strategy wargame. Chances are that he did not only play this game, he maybe played some games with older weapons, and the trebuchet could have been one of them, alongside the catapult and other weapons of this era. So litteraly Locke might already have "played" with a trebuchet before.
It is far from inconsistent for a man we saw build a crib out of nothing, make glue and some more stuff, to be able to design such a basic equipment as a trebuchet. After all it is nothing more than a giant hammer

and once again, the point is not to know how on earth he could have made that, the fact is that he did.

things might be inconsistent in OUR world, but in Lost-world they happened, wether you can explain them or not, this doesn't change the fact that IT HAPPENED

:D
anyway this is a cool thread to read, lots of ideas and theories

things might be inconsistent in OUR world, but in Lost-world they happened, wether you can explain them or not, this doesn't change the fact that IT HAPPENED


Of course. The same is true for every fictional story ever created. The Lost writers can write whatever they want and it will exist in the Lost universe, but whether we as viewers accept it and suspend disbelief is a separate issue altogether. I'm not saying the plane crash didn't happen; I'm saying that unless the writers have something up their sleeves that will better explain how so many people survived the crash in such good health, it's too unbelievable for me to just suspend disbelief.

I realize it's just a tv show and thus I am willing to--and do--suspend disbelief on a lot of things, but I have an independent mind with my own personal tastes, and thus cannot just accept anything and everything the writers throw at me regardless of how contrived and forced I find it to be. Otherwise I'd just like any tv show I ever watched.

Of course. The same is true for every fictional story ever created. The Lost writers can write whatever they want and it will exist in the Lost universe, but whether we as viewers accept it and suspend disbelief is a separate issue altogether. I'm not saying the plane crash didn't happen; I'm saying that unless the writers have something up their sleeves that will better explain how so many people survived the crash in such good health, it's too unbelievable for me to just suspend disbelief.

I realize it's just a tv show and thus I am willing to--and do--suspend disbelief on a lot of things, but I have an independent mind with my own personal tastes, and thus cannot just accept anything and everything the writers throw at me regardless of how contrived and forced I find it to be. Otherwise I'd just like any tv show I ever watched.

You are absolutely correct in deciding when You suspend your disbelief. You certainly are not the only one who at times feels the story is contrived or forced. I have read others post the same feelings. However, I disagree. IMHO, I see LOST as a novel being told in TV episodes. We have seen this done in miniseries format but not in an ongoing series that may well progress over a number of years. Because of this at times it may seem slow, contrived or forced. I see Season 1 as chapter 1. I have never read a book that explained everything in the first few chapters. If you know too much early on there is no reason to finish the book.

If you are waiting for the writers to come up with a logical reason for there to be so many survivors of the plane crash that opened the series, you may be in for a disappointment or a long wait. If we knew the how and why of that the series would lose much of it's mystery. IMHO, this is the type of question that would be dealt with in the final few chapters certainly not in the beginning.

One other point. IMHO, We had to suspend our disbelief at the very beginning when we saw the plane rip apart and so many passengers survive many with no or minor injuries. In today's world there is no way it could happen and certainly no way it could be explained. As Tarf stated there are many things that happen in today's world that defy explanation. I recently saw a news story about a woman who jumped out of a plane and her parachutes failed to open. This was from thousands of feet in the air. She survived, has under gone surgeries and has more surgeries to follow but she lived to tell about it. No one can explain why she was able to survive not even science.

I enjoy LOST for what it is a good story that keeps me guessing and develops characters that I both like and dislike. I believe many of our questions will be answered and some will not because we are all individuals and have different wants and needs. Some of us will be completely satisfied and others completely let down. It all a matter of perspective.

New WTF:

Remember when Locke built a trebuchet! How many people know how to build a trebuchet? Or even know what one is?

Just had to agree with those who don't believe this is far-fetched. My son was a webelo, and is now a boyscout. While he was still a webelo he went on a Camporee with a boyscout troop, kind of trying them out before deciding which troop he wanted to join. One of the activities was a catapult building contest. There were some trebuchets among the entries. There was also ax-throwing...:cool:

re recent posts by tarf and lostbylost:

The basic point that both of you make is that Lost is a fictional show, like other television shows, that asks us to suspend our disbelief when watching the show and accept that what we are seeing is actually what is actually happening in that universe. This includes a request not only to believe that things that happen on the TV show might not have actually been able to happen in real life, and also asks us to accept, for the purposes of the show, supernatural events that in real life we would never believe.

I think it's fine if you want to think that about Lost. If you want to accept it just like you see it, like a story that is unfolding.

But the point I have been developing through this thread is that Lost is unlike other shows in that it is constantly playing with the boundaries of our suspension of disbelief and therefore making direct reference to its own implausibility. I think this is relevant for the content of the show (Lost is attempting to hint at us that perhaps all is not as it seems) and it is also relevant for the themes of the show (my contention that Lost is postmodern).

So you don't have to think about it at this level if you don't want to. You can continue enjoying "the story" and "the characters". Though I don't know why you would want to. At that level it is little more than a pretty silly soap opera. Then again, there are lots of people that like silly soap operas.

don't worry addictedtolying, i still want some answers to be fully satisfied with this show

I am also inclined to think that Lost is not just your regular boring show

But still the fact is that we need to suspend our disbelief at some points in the story

OK, now let's say we are not watching Lost, but we are watching a show based on the Greek Mythology
No matter how inventive the writers are, and no matter how innovative the show is, you will still have a hard time believing that this one guy glued feathers to his arms and fell into the ocean when he flew too close to the sun (I'm talking about Icarus of course, and that's just one example)

This one example relates to what you mention when you say

and also asks us to accept, for the purposes of the show, supernatural events that in real life we would never believe.

and this goes for any sci-fi show for example
Do you watch Star Trek and say "Oh come on, a flying saucer, no way !!!" :)
no noe said that no sci-fi at all would be involved (actually it seems that JJ wanted some and Disney/ABC tried to limit the sci-fi aspect)

Anyway the writers have warned us, when they made their statement about
everything can and will be explained by science and pseudoscience
this meant from the start that some elements (in the eventually that they are even given to us) might seem odd or even unbelievable

We may also talk about cheesy shows
When you see Beverly Hills (ok i know, bad example :D ) how shocking or disbelief suspending is it that everyone is good looking ?
Now that was a really bad example :)

For example, lots of speculations about Lost revolve around Montauk and Philadelphia experiment
TPTB might include some of these into the show, but those experiments are still considered to fall under the "global conspiracy" theories

If you look at JJ's other very good show : Alias
you have this Rambaldi guy, with strange out of time devices.
Halvar Hanso could be a sort of Rambaldi
How would that affect the show ?
Can you be 100% positive that the show will not take this kind of road ?

Depending on how it's done, the show could remain good quality, even if some things could not be believed in

Don't forget the tail section of a 747 falling from 3.000 feet at hundreds of mph hitting the ocean surface and just bounce and float like if it was a cork.
That was lame and ridiculous.
Amen! And half those people just popped up like they'd only taken a canonball dive! Please! We'd be seeing bodies flying out of the hunk of plane, or some blood oozing up to the surface, something! AL mentioned she'd woken up underwater. Woken up? Hon, you'd be sleeping - with the fishes!

I've come to the conclusion nothing about the show is really realistic and am slowly trying to accept it. But it's hard...very hard...the show should actually be renamed: Lost:WTF?

tarf, you're still missing my point.

No problem with Star Trek or Beverly Hills or whatever. Most shows on television are implausible and only the 'comic book guys' complain. Everyone else suspends their disbelief and everyone, show and audience alike, pretends that what they are seeing is what is happening.

But Lost doesn't do that. It problematizes its implausible aspects, forcing the viewer to be confused about what he/she is supposed to suspend disbelief about and what he/she is supposed to wonder about. We are directly asked to wonder whether the button-pushing is real or fake. We are directly asked to wonder if the plane crash was staged (Locke asked this question). Examples about. This makes the show different, and I think it is fundamentally important to it.

There is/will be a good explanation for it...what it is yet we don't know, but I can't imagine the writers going that far out there.

Suspension of belief isn't all that hard. We do it all the time when we watch TV. The Brady Bunch? The Huxtables? Family Ties? Come on...no family is that perfect, solves all their problems in 30 minutes and can take someone with serious problem (like drug addiction) and clean them up with a pep talk. Survivor is supposed to be "reality", in other words, totally true and believeable.....but we all know there are camera guys, sound gals, a director for God's sake all running around there with them. They aren't any more alone that any of us is...but we suspend that belief because.....it's just more fun to imagine a world like that rather than the one where we take out the trash, change diapers and have to go to work.

4. Locke was able to not walk but run after being in a wheel chair for four years (and don't give me that bs about electro-stimulation; I broke my leg and was non-weight bearing for only three months and lost almost all of the muscle in there even though I was using electro-stimulation and going through extensive physio. Two years later it's still not back to normal).


When the pilot was filmed, Terry O'Quinn didn't know that locke was in a wheelchair for four years. That's why he walked/ran as though he always could.

He says more about it in the Season one dvd, in the making of the pilot part.

DangerKitty: Fine. And I think that Lost, in developing the themes it is developing, is commenting on that. My problem is not that the show asks us to suspend our disbelief but that the show asks us ABOUT our suspension of disbelief. Other shows do not do this. Does anyone out there understand what I'm trying to communicate here?

And LostPriest: I didn't listen to the commentary on the DVD, but if this is the best that they can come up with for this then they are either very sloppy or else intentionally misleading. While it wouldn't be surprising that the actor didn't know that he was supposed to be in a wheelchair, this would be something that directors and producers would know. The wheelchair appeared in a very early episode and the pilot for this show was not produced long before the other episodes. Instead the show was ordered without pilot.

Addictedtolying: I do understand what you mean. I just have understood what they are trying to convey as being that what we interpret as the real world may be very limited. There have been many allusions to this. For example: Locke telling Boone you can't hear everything or the theme that not everything is as it seems. Without having a character actually turn and talk to the audience they let us know that they are listening to what you say and feel. A good example was Ana Lucia's conversation with Jack on the beach when he offered her a drink. She tells him You're not going to try and tell me that everybody likes me are you, I thought that was a direct reference to the avalanche of criticism her character has received on this forum. There are many subtle things that they do to let us know they are listening and reading.

I may have misunderstood your stance earlier but I think I understand where you are coming from. My earlier post may have been a result of reading to many people nitpick and lose sight of what is truly important. Which of course is the story we are being told.

By the way I never watch soap operas in the light of day, only when no else is watching. Though I an not a fan of S O's I understand the bond that some people may form with the characters because they are completely character driven. LOST is a combination of Drama, Mystery, Science, SciFi and Character development. The main point I was attempting to get across is the fact that this is being written for the long haul like a novel and that if we take a step back and let it develop we might be pleasantly surprised.

I enjoy your posts keep posting. Hey Tarf nice to hear your take on things as always.

Notice when people talk on the phone on TV or in a movie, they hang up without a goodbye or have transition statement to goodbye. They're talking and suddenly hang-up. Real people don't do that. Lost eliminates conversation to save time. Kinda the same thing.

We already went through this on another thread, but the characters already have talked to us quite directly

One of the earlys WTF was about Hurley and his not losing weight

This scene with Artz outside the Black Rock was one of those moments where the character apparently talks to another character, but is really talking to us, the viewers
Some issues, and some WTFs were adressed at that time
And Hurley's reaction (bored) was not just the reaction of someone who's bored, but it was also a message that such things were not "interesting" or relevant for the plot.
This scene was not "necessary" for the plot, since Artz was soon to blow himself up, but it sealed some issues about the main group of characters

(Part of this has been discussed in a quite old thread called "are we being watched" which dealt with the question : "Do TPTB read the 'lage and do they take our comments into account")

addictedtolying it's really nice to see people like you want to have a show the way you described stuff in your posts, and i would also love to see a show which is soooo real without falling into the cheesy reality shows
But it's impossible to please everyone, and to give each and every detail needed to please everyone
Lost is fictionnal, I said it before, but even if we had a show about real people, with their real story, and told in a 100% accurate and detailed way, there would still be things you would not believe
Some people have stories, or went through things you can't possibly imagine or believe, still those things happened to them, for real

And we need to remember that Lost has to fit in a 40+ minutes time format
Lost is not 24 or realtime

and i perfectly understand when you say
My problem is not that the show asks us to suspend our disbelief but that the show asks us ABOUT our suspension of disbelief.

to be cynical about this, i'd say that it is a marketing tool, since the effect is that it keeps us talking and glued to the show even during a 6 week hiatus (and we are proof that it works)
I know it's a very unsatisfiying way to see things, but it might be one (after all TV is still about ratings and making money)

Lost is creating a "myth", and we are contributing to create this myth, and the question you ask (your problem quoted above) is just what makes us spend so much time here

the island was speculated to be an "experiment", we are not looking at our TV, we are looking through a microscope
In this sense, we are the scientists monitoring the experiment
And if the show asks us about our suspension of disbelief, it's just like when a scientist will first discover something absolutely unknown so far. The scientist will need to suspend his disbelief at first, because what he sees, he can't explain yet. It will be HIS job to explain things, not the experiment's job.
It's like when scientists theorise on the String Theories. They are making assumptions on something they may never be able to prove (or disprove)
Now we are the scientists watching some lab rats nicknamed Jack, Kate, Sawyer, etc
We need to suspend our disbelief, because even if whatever they do, whatever happens to them, seem unbelievable, it happens to them. Those lab rats ask us about our suspension of disbelief, because they also ask us questions about ourselves
But the experiment will not give us the answers, it will only ask more and more questions, and show us more and more unbelievable things
Our job is to try to make a theory and find the answers ourselves.and until we find them, the only thing we can do is ask "why?" and "what?"
Here suspension of disbelief is the thing which will enable the scientist to search further. Without this he would just dismiss the experiment as failed, because he can't explain it

I know it might be hard to understand

but to make it simple
imagine that you are not a viewer sitting on your couch, watching a TV show
you are a Dharma operative (or senior member) monitoring the experiment on the island
When the show asks you about your suspension of disbelief, it is in fact, one of the scientists on the island who requires instructions as to what is the next step to be taken

hope I still make sense after only a couple of hours of sleep :)

anyway :)

Is Mike really white? Look at the exposed skin of the person wearing Mike's clothes on the ground.

http://www.lost-media.com/modules.php?name=coppermine&file=displayimage&album=728&pos=17

Must be another OOOPS with one of the stand ins.
Funny.

nice catch lol

If you are waiting for the writers to come up with a logical reason for there to be so many survivors of the plane crash that opened the series, you may be in for a disappointment or a long wait. If we knew the how and why of that the series would lose much of it's mystery. IMHO, this is the type of question that would be dealt with in the final few chapters certainly not in the beginning.

Yes, that's why I'm willing to wait. I haven't called BS on the crash yet, especially since the writers have gone out of their way to show how ridiculously impossible it seems to be, but I also am not holding my breath for an explanation. If I had to guess, I'd say it's just lazy writing on their part, but I hope I'm wrong and am open to a future explanation.


One other point. IMHO, We had to suspend our disbelief at the very beginning when we saw the plane rip apart and so many passengers survive many with no or minor injuries. In today's world there is no way it could happen and certainly no way it could be explained. As Tarf stated there are many things that happen in today's world that defy explanation. I recently saw a news story about a woman who jumped out of a plane and her parachutes failed to open. This was from thousands of feet in the air. She survived, has under gone surgeries and has more surgeries to follow but she lived to tell about it. No one can explain why she was able to survive not even science.


Yes, there are many real-life events science has yet to explain, but in real life, as far as I know, there are no writers making these things happen, no writers who are responsible for real life making sense. The Lost writers have the luxury of being in control of their show and I think they are responsible for it making some kind of sense. I'm not going to give them a free pass to write anything they want, perhaps have Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny discovered on the island, and just excuse it away as "weird things happen" or "some people believe those things are real."

To me, 65 people surviving that crash virtually unscatched without some sci-fi explanation, with us just expected to believe it was an ordinary plane crash, is every bit as unbelievable as Santa Claus, Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy. It would ruin the show, imo, since the crash is the very foundation of the show. But that's just my opinion.

And LostPriest: I didn't listen to the commentary on the DVD, but if this is the best that they can come up with for this then they are either very sloppy or else intentionally misleading. While it wouldn't be surprising that the actor didn't know that he was supposed to be in a wheelchair, this would be something that directors and producers would know. The wheelchair appeared in a very early episode and the pilot for this show was not produced long before the other episodes. Instead the show was ordered without pilot.

Actually, the Pilot was produced in late March/early April, before the show was picked up. Javi has said Locke's paralysis was not thought up by the writers until Walkabout was being written. I question whether they knew then, or even know now, how Locke was healed.

It would ruin the show, imo, since the crash is the very foundation of the show.

I will have to disagree with you on this one
The crash is not the foundation of the show (but this is my opinion :) )

The crash (and thus the plane) were just a way to bring the losties on the island
the real foundation of the show is the island itself
the island is a character of its own

the plane was just a prop, and was unimportant

The losties could have as well arrived on the island in a balloon, a boat, or through divine intervention

there may have been some events taking place in the plane prior to the crash, but those events could have happened in any kind of transportation means

The foundation of Lost is not "HOW did they arrive there?", but "WHY did they arrive there?"

The plane just brought them on the island, and the story begins when they ARE on the island
unless the crash was staged, or something very important happened on the plane (which I doubt) the way the plane crashed, although not plausible, is irrelevant to the show

I know the plane crash is part of the show, but even if it's unsatisfying in Lost, discussing about that crash (until proven otherwise) would be like discussing the color and make of the car which brought an actor before he enters the stage for a play

the crash served to introduce the characters on the island, and its role stops there

The foundation of Lost is the island itself, not the plane

well if i were to take the example of the actor and the play again, just consider the plane this way :
the actor comes from the make up room
before he enters the stage he waits backstage
the plane is this backstage
once he enters the stage, then it begins

But in Lost you had to see this backstage, because without it there was no way to bring the Losties to their starting point

tarf, I wasn't saying the plane is the foundation of the show. I was saying the characters' survival of the crash is, and what I mean by that is that if they hadn't have survived, there'd be no show. Thus it is the starting point, the foundation. If their very survival was just BS, lazy writing, then it shatters the realism of the whole show, imo.

The writers are the ones always talking about realism, to the point of saying they have to kill off main characters for the realism of the show, yet the very existence of all these characters, until their survival is explained, is totally unrealistic.

As you said, the writers didn't have to use a plane crash to get these characters on the island. There are many realistic ways they could've achieved that goal. They chose to make it not only a plane crash, but a very extreme one, with the plane splitting in half and many people from both sections surviving in good health. They chose to show how Jack woke up in the jungle alive, how the people from the tailsection just came to the ocean surface as if they'd been dropped 30 feet, and they've chosen to have characters remark on their impossible survival. The optimist in me says this is because the writers plan to explain all this, that they didn't just make the crash so extreme as a cheap plot device.

The optimist in me says this is because the writers plan to explain all this, that they didn't just make the crash so extreme as a cheap plot device.

I dearly hope the optimist in you is right :D

but as of right now, and the way the show seems to go, I think we might have to take the "miracle" explanation as an answer

I mean, look at episode 2x01, main of science, man of faith

We are all Jacks (most of us). rational people who want answers and who want those answers to be fully backed up by evidence and believable things
But the Lockes step in and say "you have to believe", or "you are a man of faith, you just don't know it yet"

Part of MoSMoF was, I think, designed to answer our WTFs, hinting that in the end, all might not be explained otherwise than by faith

That's what I''ve been trying to say (more or less clearly) in my replies here

The show is innovative and all, but the answers and the evidences are just part of the show
another part of this show is completely devoted to Faith and religion
and even though Lost does not seem to be a rewrite of the Bible, there are part of the character who don't second guess

23rd Psalm was also very striking about this
Eko did not think twice, he shot the old man because he knew that's what he had to do
He didn't flinch in front of "smokey"
What we don't know scares us, but people with Faith are not scared of the unknown, because they have Faith

this faith : believing without seeing, or without proof or well documented explanation is half of the show
Half because everything in lost seems to be cut in two (black/white science/faith)

It is nice and satisfying to want to have every possible answer, and to want the show to be 100% accurate and full of realism
but then we are only taking the "man of science" part of Lost, and discarding the "man of faith" part

Answers are nice, accuracy is nice, but the "miracles" (read : the things you can't explain, or that seem impossible) are also a part of the show of their own

Our best example here is Rose
She KNEW her husband was still alive, and nothing could have made her change her mind
believing without seeing

Explaining everything for the sake of realism would be ok if we only had science driven characters on the island
but there are strong believers too
The evidences, proofs, and explanations we will be given until the end of the show will only suit half the characters, those science driven
If there is an explanation to everything, why bother introducing religious people in the first place ?

Rose could tell you "We survived an unsurvivable crash, well, praise the Lord, this is a miracle"
and that would be all the answers she needs

You want answers to everything, well that's legitimate, but by doing so you eclipse, or write off, characters such as Rose, Locke, or Eko
because they do not have their place in a "world" (lost world) where everything can be scientifically explained

They are part of the show too, and I think we'll need to accept at some point that unsolved mysteries (call the miracles) are just as important as any other thing you can explain

tarf, I think the writers can explain their survival of the crash with science or faith. I'm not asking that it be explained only with science and that the faith-based characters be discarded. If the writers' answer is to say it was miraculous divine intervention, then ok, at least we'd then know how and why they survived. To not explain their survival at all would be a major cop-out, imo, especially since the writers are the ones who keep saying they need to kill main characters to keep the show realistic.

I truly hope this is not show in which the writers feel they can make up anything they want, no matter how preposterous and implausible, and never attempt to make any sense of it, just asking us to trust them on "faith." I won't do that for religion and certainly not for a tv show.


What if Locke discovers he can fly in the next episode, and Jack learns he's immortal? Would you just accept these developments on faith, or would you think they needed to be explained?

tarf, I think the writers can explain their survival of the crash with science or faith. I'm not asking that it be explained only with science and that the faith-based characters be discarded. If the writers' answer is to say it was miraculous divine intervention, then ok, at least we'd then know how and why they survived. To not explain their survival at all would be a major cop-out, imo, especially since the writers are the ones who keep saying they need to kill main characters to keep the show realistic.

I truly hope this is not show in which the writers feel they can make up anything they want, no matter how preposterous and implausible, and never attempt to make any sense of it, just asking us to trust them on "faith." I won't do that for religion and certainly not for a tv show.


What if Locke discovers he can fly in the next episode, and Jack learns he's immortal? Would you just accept these developments on faith, or would you think they needed to be explained?

As I stated earlier I believe we will get an explanation of why the plane crashed. I just don't believe that the crash in and of itself will end up being that important and many will feel it to be a major cop out.

One thing I find strange is how comments made by TPTB suddenly take on a life of their own. I have read most of the comments they have made and have Never read where they said that everything that happens will be realistic or completely based on scientific fact. When they talk about the need to have characters die in order to "keep it real" I believe they were speaking to the fact that it would be totally unrealistic for no one to die under the circumstances, not that this is a reality show. This is a work of fiction.

They have said many times that there is no one answer to all the mysteries but many answers to many different mysteries that are intertwined. Take for example the Black Rock. I believe it was shown to let us know that things have been going on for a long period of time. I think we will never find out how the Black Rock ended up in the middle of the Island. Whether it got there because of a tsunami or the Island rose up while it was sailing over the area is not important it will be left for us to debate ad fin-em and I don't think that leaves a hole in the plot. I have never read a work of fiction where every single question that arose was answered. I have always wondered about certain things but also realized that the answer to those questions would neither add or detract from the story.

As I stated earlier I believe we will get an explanation of why the plane crashed. I just don't believe that the crash in and of itself will end up being that important and many will feel it to be a major cop out.

One thing I find strange is how comments made by TPTB suddenly take on a life of their own. I have read most of the comments they have made and have Never read where they said that everything that happens will be realistic or completely based on scientific fact. When they talk about the need to have characters die in order to "keep it real" I believe they were speaking to the fact that it would be totally unrealistic for no one to die under the circumstances, not that this is a reality show. This is a work of fiction.

They have said many times that there is no one answer to all the mysteries but many answers to many different mysteries that are intertwined. Take for example the Black Rock. I believe it was shown to let us know that things have been going on for a long period of time. I think we will never find out how the Black Rock ended up in the middle of the Island. Whether it got there because of a tsunami or the Island rose up while it was sailing over the area is not important it will be left for us to debate ad fin-em and I don't think that leaves a hole in the plot. I have never read a work of fiction where every single question that arose was answered. I have always wondered about certain things but also realized that the answer to those questions would neither add or detract from the story.

I agree with everything you said. I don't think the Black Rock has to be explained. I don't think every little question has to be answered. Just the really big ones, of which I definitely think their survival of the crash is one. I know we'll find out why the plane crashed (the writers have said so), but what I want to know is how they survived unscatched.

I agree that it wouldn't be realistic for everyone to survive the island, but it's far more realistic than them all surviving that crash in the first place (at least until their survival is explained). So I think it's strikingly odd that the writers say main characters must die for realism when it's totally unrealistic that any of them are alive at all.

I think there may be some confusion about my use of the word realistic. As I've said, I am not at all saying the show needs to based on scientific fact. To me, any story can be realistic even if it's sci-fi so long as it is consistent with the rules of that story's universe. Just because a story is set in space with aliens, or in the future with robots, that doesn't qualify as unrealistic, imo, because those things are all very possible. What's unrealistic to me is something that doesn't make sense, that defies all reason and understanding, like their survival of the crash as it stands now. The show can be whatever it wants, sci-fi, religious, science fact--I just ask that it at least be understandable, comprehensible, rather than, well, wtf.

I agree with everything you said. I don't think the Black Rock has to be explained. I don't think every little question has to be answered. Just the really big ones, of which I definitely think their survival of the crash is one. I know we'll find out why the plane crashed (the writers have said so), but what I want to know is how they survived unscatched.

I agree that it wouldn't be realistic for everyone to survive the island, but it's far more realistic than them all surviving that crash in the first place (at least until their survival is explained). So I think it's strikingly odd that the writers say main characters must die for realism when it's totally unrealistic that any of them are alive at all.

I think there may be some confusion about my use of the word realistic. As I've said, I am not at all saying the show needs to based on scientific fact. To me, any story can be realistic even if it's sci-fi so long as it is consistent with the rules of that story's universe. Just because a story is set in space with aliens, or in the future with robots, that doesn't qualify as unrealistic, imo, because those things are all very possible. What's unrealistic to me is something that doesn't make sense, that defies all reason and understanding, like their survival of the crash as it stands now. The show can be whatever it wants, sci-fi, religious, science fact--I just ask that it at least be understandable, comprehensible, rather than, well, wtf.


I completely understand where you are coming from and I also do want answers but am willing to wait and let them play out. IMHO, we had to accept the premise that these people survived the crash from the very beginning as part of the universe of LOST or nothing would make sense. In real world logic no one should have survived but the very first premise we are given is that however unlikely these people did survive and some people from the tail section survived. I actually find it easier to accept them surviving than for instance; to accept Wet Walt appearing to Shannon. Since I have read about real life situation where people have survived things that defy logic. It's all part of the suspension of disbelieve. I am in no way saying that we have to accept every thing that the writers throw at us. If as someone posted earlier, Locke was suddenly able to fly, I would no longer watch LOST. There are limits. I will enjoy the ride and if it becomes too bumpy I'll switch rides. Up until now I still believe that LOST is a unique TV series and is the only program I watch without fail. There are other programs I enjoy but missing them wouldn't annoy me in the least.

We do need to get answers, I agree with everyone on that. I just think we also need to be patient. If the shows runs 8 Seasons we aren't even a 1/4 of the way through. Time will tell. I can guarantee one thing no matter how well TPTB develop the plot and answer the questions some people are going to be disappointed. We all have different expectations and perceptions therefore when I see a clue someone else sees a tennis shoe. It's all okay because I believe LOST can be enjoyed on many different levels and can be enjoyed by many different groups of people.

If the writers' answer is to say it was miraculous divine intervention, then ok, at least we'd then know how and why they survived.

And that's were the thing is flawed
the writers will never say that it was a divine intervention, maybe they might say it in interviews, but in the show no way

You will never see a character come up in front of the screen and say "ok that was a miracle, now let's move on"
Even if a characted did (and one actually did) that would only be this character's opinion

Since there is no way to prove a miracle, unless through faith, you will never get this answer

Now I quote you again
If the writers' answer is to say it was miraculous divine intervention

This answer was given
Sayid gave this answer, when he said that no one should have survived at all
He could had added "this is a miracle", but this line was implied

If you're willing to accept the "miracle" as an answer, well case closed on the crash, the answer was given

When it comes to divine interventions, or more widely of "Jesus stuff" (to misquote Charlie and his "Jesus Stick") things are not said directly
They are said through metaphors, images, stories or riddles
That's what Locke did on several occasions (story of the dog and such)

The "miracle" explanation will not come bluntly

no one can proclame that a miracle has happened. In the Roman Catholic Church, only the Pope is entitled to declare an event is "a miracle"

People will mostly use oeuphemisms, like Sayid did "no one should have survived"
this really means/implies that something out of our understanding happened
And that line is already enough of an answer

With a scientific answer, a character could demonstrate, without the shadow of a doubt, what really happened
With a divine intervention, no one could demonstrate it, and no character could step forward, adress us directly and say : "Ok, since we were not able to prove it, and since we shouldn't be here at all, I hereby declare that you viewers just witnessed a miracle"

the only thing you would get is a line like Sayid's

So as far as I'm concerned, the crash issue was already answered in the show

I completely understand where you are coming from and I also do want answers but am willing to wait and let them play out. IMHO, we had to accept the premise that these people survived the crash from the very beginning as part of the universe of LOST or nothing would make sense. In real world logic no one should have survived but the very first premise we are given is that however unlikely these people did survive and some people from the tail section survived. I actually find it easier to accept them surviving than for instance; to accept Wet Walt appearing to Shannon. Since I have read about real life situation where people have survived things that defy logic.

Have you read about anything similar to 65 people surviving the crash of a plane that broke apart at 30,000 feet, with the large majority of the survivors having no major injuries? To me, that is just as unlikely as Locke being able to fly, since they all would've needed that ability to survive that crash as they did.

I understand it was necessary for the premise that the characters arrive on the island, but it wasn't necessary for the writers to do it in such an extreme, implausible fashion. I mean, did they have to have the plane split in half at 30,000 feet, and have the tailsection survive?

tarf, Sayid's statement that "we should not have survived" is not an answer to how they survived the crash. He did not say it was a miracle from God, and even if he had, that doesn't make it so. It would just be his opinion. But all he actually said is they should be dead, which is true unless and until the writers explain how they survived.

You're assuming the answer must come from the characters, but actually the writers could simply show us how they survived on screen. If their answer is that God or some other being with superior abilities saved them, they can show that.

If you don't want an answer, that's fine, I'm not saying you're wrong and the writers must answer this. It's just my personal preference. Everyone else is of course free to excuse the writers on this and just suspend disbelief. I guess I just expected more intelligence from this show, and for the writers to not just make crazy things happen as a cheap stunt.

Have you read about anything similar to 65 people surviving the crash of a plane that broke apart at 30,000 feet, with the large majority of the survivors having no major injuries?

Actually that's the point :)
A miraculous thing is a one time wonder

tarf, Sayid's statement that "we should not have survived" is not an answer to how they survived the crash. He did not say it was a miracle from God
Once again it's precisely the point. In many religions answers are never given. It's up to you to answer your own question (and often this answer is Faith)
You can relate this to some asiatic doctrines or religion where when you ask a question people will answer you by asking you another question, or by an elaborated metaphor which is even more intricate and complicated than your question

"we should not have survived" is not a statement per se, since the person who makes this statement is well alive. What matters is what goes unsaid


, and even if he had, that doesn't make it so. It would just be his opinion.

true, but how could anyone prove the miracle without the shadow of a doubt ?
Religious explanations are just a matter of opinions


But all he actually said is they should be dead, which is true unless and until the writers explain how they survived.

I'll become a bit silly here, but do the writers have to explain how the survivors are alive at all ?
Can you explain how you're alive ?
I don't mean how you were born (or any of us for that matter) but how LIFE itslef managed to emerge on our small rock called Earth
The mere apparition of life is itself not explained; because the conditions which led to the creation of the universe, life and everything are still not explained except for a cascade of extraordinary coincidences and luck
Fact is that we shouldn't even exist. does it change the fact that we are now talking to each other ? Does anyone have to prove all of this before we are able to talk to each other
I know it sounds silly but that's the way it is

Add to this, that Lost might very well be a show about the "Origin of Life"
the losties are already in a situation where they start their lives all over again
The monster might even be the result of an experiment to create a new lifeform
and we have this reference to Adam and Eve
we have the "cycle of life" reference when Aaron is born at the same time Boone died
It's all about life and how it begins


You're assuming the answer must come from the characters, but actually the writers could simply show us how they survived on screen. If their answer is that God or some other being with superior abilities saved them, they can show that.

yes they could, but how would they do it ?
One thing to ponder here is the attempt made in some movies or miniseries
I'll just take "the stand" miniseries since it was suspected that Lost has a lot of common grounds with that S King's book
At the end of the miniseries, we have "the hand of God" crushing an atomic bomb and sealing the story
Most people who have seen this miniserie have told how cheesy (and even lame) this was
Would you prefer to see something like that, and risk more WTFs, or would you prefer keeping to suspend your disbelief and assume it was a divine intervention ?


I guess I just expected more intelligence from this show, and for the writers to not just make crazy things happen as a cheap stunt.

If the crash was just a miracle, I think this was pretty much intelligent not to explain or show how it happened at all
Most shows or movies would rely on some CGI or special effects to add weight to the divine intervention
White blinding lights, music, "hands of God", you name it
But Faith and miracles are something you accept and believe in whithout seing them

If the point is in believing in the outcome without seing the action leading to that outcome, what good would it serve to show the "action"
That would be fairly intelligent to explain this by not explaining this at all
that would be more intelligent that what is done on other shows or movies

Final example
when God created the world, he said "let there be light" and then there was light
What you suggest (show and explain) would be like having a character screw a huge lightbulb in its socket, and whoaaaa there is light
That would be fine in "the monty python's flying circus" or in "hitchickers guide to the galaxy", but not in Lost :)

I also have to add that i'm not a religious person whatsoever, I'm an atheist
But if I believe there are such things as miracles, I think they happen in the blink of an eye
It's not there, you blink, it's there
during that blink of an eye you can't see (your eyes are closed)

Most episodes start with the eye of someone opening and this eye opens to whatever is "new" on the island
what haoppened before just happened behind "closed doors" or rather "closed eyes"

How would you show something you're not supposed or able to see ?

!if God exists, and if He is able to perform miracles, do you think He would do it with a fanfare and SFXs ?

"Let they survive and so they survived"
nothing flashy, nothing to show, and it would only be cheesy and lame to attempt to show something which just happened out of thin air
And in this sense (granted that the crash was a miracle) Lost was more nicely done than any show out there

Actually that's the point :)
A miraculous thing is a one time wonder

That assumes it was a miracle, which has not been established.


Once again it's precisely the point. In many religions answers are never given. It's up to you to answer your own question (and often this answer is Faith)
You can relate this to some asiatic doctrines or religion where when you ask a question people will answer you by asking you another question, or by an elaborated metaphor which is even more intricate and complicated than your question

"we should not have survived" is not a statement per se, since the person who makes this statement is well alive. What matters is what goes unsaid


True, but regardless of what Sayid was implying, it's still not an answer.


true, but how could anyone prove the miracle without the shadow of a doubt ?
Religious explanations are just a matter of opinions


In real life, yes, but not in fiction. In a story, the writer(s) can decide what is or isn't a miracle.


I'll become a bit silly here, but do the writers have to explain how the survivors are alive at all ?
Can you explain how you're alive ?
I don't mean how you were born (or any of us for that matter) but how LIFE itslef managed to emerge on our small rock called Earth
The mere apparition of life is itself not explained; because the conditions which led to the creation of the universe, life and everything are still not explained except for a cascade of extraordinary coincidences and luck
Fact is that we shouldn't even exist. does it change the fact that we are now talking to each other ? Does anyone have to prove all of this before we are able to talk to each other
I know it sounds silly but that's the way it is


I understand what you're saying, but I just don't see how that's analogous. For one, regardless of how, humans are alive on this planet. We know that is possible. There is no case remotely similar to 65 people surviving unscatched from the crash of a plane that broke apart at 30,000 feet. This is something that's not possible, as far as we know. If the writers contend it is, then great, show us, but I won't just accept it blindly on faith.

Secondly, I must again point out that unlike real life, where there are no writers making mysterious things happen (as far as we know), Lost is a work of fiction, something the writers are in total control of. They choose whether or not their show makes sense.or just has preposterous things happen that are never explained. That's why I don't agree with these analogies to reality. Unlike you and me in our reality, the Lost writers don't have the excuse of not being able to explain things in their story and make it comprehensible.


yes they could, but how would they do it ?
One thing to ponder here is the attempt made in some movies or miniseries
I'll just take "the stand" miniseries since it was suspected that Lost has a lot of common grounds with that S King's book
At the end of the miniseries, we have "the hand of God" crushing an atomic bomb and sealing the story
Most people who have seen this miniserie have told how cheesy (and even lame) this was
Would you prefer to see something like that, and risk more WTFs, or would you prefer keeping to suspend your disbelief and assume it was a divine intervention ?


I'd prefer it wasn't divine intervention at all. Of course, I'd prefer their survival not be portrayed so unrealistically to begin with. I think the writers have created a big problem for which there is probably no good solution, but I'd rather have some sort of solution than none at all. If they show God or some other being with superior force swooping down and saving them, I'm pretty sure I'd think that was really bad and lame just as I did watching The Stand, but at least then I'd have an answer and the show would be comprehensible.


If the crash was just a miracle, I think this was pretty much intelligent not to explain or show how it happened at all

But if the miracle is never established in the canon of the show, it wouldn't exist, and thus can hardly be called intelligent writing.


Most shows or movies would rely on some CGI or special effects to add weight to the divine intervention
White blinding lights, music, "hands of God", you name it
But Faith and miracles are something you accept and believe in whithout seing them

If the point is in believing in the outcome without seing the action leading to that outcome, what good would it serve to show the "action"
That would be fairly intelligent to explain this by not explaining this at all
that would be more intelligent that what is done on other shows or movies

Final example
when God created the world, he said "let there be light" and then there was light
What you suggest (show and explain) would be like having a character screw a huge lightbulb in its socket, and whoaaaa there is light
That would be fine in "the monty python's flying circus" or in "hitchickers guide to the galaxy", but not in Lost :)

I also have to add that i'm not a religious person whatsoever, I'm an atheist
But if I believe there are such things as miracles, I think they happen in the blink of an eye
It's not there, you blink, it's there
during that blink of an eye you can't see (your eyes are closed)

Most episodes start with the eye of someone opening and this eye opens to whatever is "new" on the island
what haoppened before just happened behind "closed doors" or rather "closed eyes"

How would you show something you're not supposed or able to see ?

!if God exists, and if He is able to perform miracles, do you think He would do it with a fanfare and SFXs ?

"Let they survive and so they survived"
nothing flashy, nothing to show, and it would only be cheesy and lame to attempt to show something which just happened out of thin air
And in this sense (granted that the crash was a miracle) Lost was more nicely done than any show out there.


I agree, but that's only if it was a miracle. If that's the answer to how they survived, it would certainly be better for the writers to give us this answer in a more subtle way, which I trust they could do. It wouldn't even have to be a definitive answer, just a big hint showing us how they might have survived. But I'd much prefer a more scientific explanation over "God did it." :rolleyes:

I understand what you're saying, but I just don't see how that's analogous. For one, regardless of how, humans are alive on this planet. We know that is possible.

Why ? because you breathe and talk ?

In Lost world, the survivors breathe and talk too, therefore according to your assumption, it is possible too (in that world at least)


There is no case remotely similar to 65 people surviving unscatched from the crash of a plane that broke apart at 30,000 feet. This is something that's not possible, as far as we know.

As far as we know, you say it perfectly, but when you have read the rest of my post you will know that we KNOW it IS possible

Let's say that tomorrow a plane breaks apart over the atlantic at 30.000 ft and some passengers survive with hardly any injury at all
Would it make it an answer to the show ?
No it would just prove in our real world that the Lost crash is possible

you said

There is no case remotely similar to 65 people surviving unscatched from the crash of a plane that broke apart at 30,000 feet. This is something that's not possible, as far as we know.

It was once believed that man would never be able to fly
If we had lived one thousand years ago, and if somone had speculated that one day man would be able to fly, this person might probably have been burned for witchcraft or heresy
I'd even say that if this person had built a flying machine he would certainly have been burned with his machine without much of a trial :)

Lots of things are supposed to be impossible until there is a first time
And first times might often be considered to be miracles

well, just for the record
Vesna Vulovic, a flight attendant from Yugoslavia, survived a fall from 10,160 m (33,330 ft) when the DC-9 airplane she was traveling in blew up over Czechoslovakia (now Czech Republic), on January 26, 1972. A terrorist bomb was thought to be the cause, and no other passengers survived. Vesna broke both legs and was temporarily paralyzed from the waist down.

Vesna remembers nothing, but later learned that a former nurse, Bruno Henke, saw Vesna's legs sticking out of the fuselage. Bruno cleared Vesna's airways before rushing her to hospital. Three days later she awoke from a coma in a hospital in Ceska, Karmenice.

She says, "I was so lucky to have survived! I hit the earth – not the trees, not the snow, but the frozen ground." Strangely, the first words she uttered, "Can I have a cigarette," were in English!

Luckily, she suffered no psychological trauma, and no fear of flying. Prevented from returning to her job, she forged a new career in administration. "I was able to fly over the world for free," she says. Her experience has helped her form a philosophical attitude towards life. "I believe we are masters of our lives - we hold all the cards and it is up to us to use them right."

This proves without the shadow of a doubt that a crash at 30.000 ft is survivable
Even though she was the only survivor, she survives nonetheless a crash similar to the Lost crash

I agree that 65 persons or one single individual, this makes a hell of a difference

but surviving a crash where the plane exploded (or broke apart) at 30.000 ft is not unheard of

and her statement about being the "masters of our own lives" strangely echo in Lost
(Toomey's wife saying "You make your own luck Mr Reyes" to Hurley)

then from wikipedia

At least three airmen have survived free falls of around 20,000 ft (6,000 m) without a parachute in the Second World War; Lt. I.M. Chisov was a Russian bomber, Sgt. Alan Magee an American gunner on a B-17, and Sgt. Nicholas Alkemade a British gunner on a Lancaster bomber


well now you know it happened at least 4 times in the past 60 years, and that it IS possible

Of course, once again, not 65 persons at the same time
but Vesna's example alone shows that it IS possible to survive a plane crash quite similar to the crash we saw in Lost

Why ? because you breathe and talk ?

In Lost world, the survivors breathe and talk too, therefore according to your assumption, it is possible too (in that world at least)

Of course--anything is possible in the Lost world. It's fiction. The writers can make anything they want happen in Lost. They can have Satan, Hitler and Elvis on the island; that doesn't mean it is believable.



As far as we know, you say it perfectly, but when you have read the rest of my post you will know that we KNOW it IS possible


No, I read the rest of your post and I don't know that. One person surviving a similar crash with numerous major injuries (" a fractured skull, two broken legs and three broken vertebrae, one of which was crushed and left her temporarily paralyzed from the waist down") is in no way similar to 65 people surviving a similar crash with no major injuries (save for a few). It doesn't begin to explain how that's possible.




It was once believed that man would never be able to fly
If we had lived one thousand years ago, and if somone had speculated that one day man would be able to fly, this person might probably have been burned for witchcraft or heresy
I'd even say that if this person had built a flying machine he would certainly have been burned with his machine without much of a trial :)

Lots of things are supposed to be impossible until there is a first time


So then let's see how it's possible for them to survive the crash like that. An explanation is all I'm asking for from the writers. Of course anything is possible. Maybe we are just virtual reality characters or in a dream, but I'm not going to believe it without evidence.

One person surviving a similar crash with numerous major injuries (" a fractured skull, two broken legs and three broken vertebrae, one of which was crushed and left her temporarily paralyzed from the waist down") is in no way similar to 65 people surviving a similar crash with no major injuries (save for a few). It doesn't begin to explain how that's possible.


you're absolutely right, this is in no way similar (or very very remotely similar)
This was merely to answer many posters who said that surviving a fall from 30.000 ft was impossible
Fact is that it is possible (of course regardless of the injuries sustained)

But then the lack on injury could be called on mere luck

You don't need to fall from 30.000 ft to sustain heavy injuries
actually you can die when falling from your own height

It is also a matter of your own conception of "danger"
Some might expect that you'd need quite a deep piece of water to drown (such as a swimming pool) when in fact you can drown in less than 1 foot of water

Anyway i'll stop at that, since the issue is not to know if the crash was possible at all
It happened in Lost so proof is that it is possible IN LOST WORLD (not in ours)
The real issue is to know "how it was possible" (or rather "how it happened")

And the crash was only one of the numerous WTFs

I think our discussion pretty well showed 2 different views on the subject, now I think it's time to let other people express their opinions on the other WTFs
And let's hope we have some answers (solid answers) soon

The Writers have said that by the end of the season we will know how the plane
crashed.

Granted it may not explain how so many people survived without injury but it
will show us just what happened.

Perhaps with that explanation we will get either enough clues to rely on
faith or good speculation to believe there is a way for it to have happened.

Just takes a little time and patience for the story to unfold in front of us,
with all the answers now the show would be over.

Its extremely rare but a number of people have fallen from airlines and lived to tell about it. Entire planes falling out of the sky and a good portion surviving, never heard of that, but it could happen. Just watch the tail come in - as crazy as it seems I can picture people surviving that -

you're absolutely right, this is in no way similar (or very very remotely similar)
This was merely to answer many posters who said that surviving a fall from 30.000 ft was impossible
Fact is that it is possible (of course regardless of the injuries sustained)


I don't recall who said it was impossible. It wasn't me. I've just said I don't know how it's possible for so many people to survive a plane crash like the one in Lost with no major injuries.

I visualize the plane descending slowly and being about 20 feet altitude when it hit the island, sprinkling people in the water and on the beach like so much salt and pepper. Still defies physics, I know. (No way it would have continued on trajectory after the tail section broke off.) But it's the only way I can visualize uninjured survivors.

Makes you wonder if it has something to do with the magnetic properties of the island. We've all seen Jacks necklace get pulled towards the wall, we all know that it was one of the Dharma projects. Could be that a magnetic pulse caused the plane to rip apart and attracted it to the island. Is it a coincidence that the three pieces of the plane all ended up on or near the island? Maybe someone didn't push the button in time. :eek2:

Smallville used to. Sometimes they'd pretty obviously speak thru a character to the audience.

Once, Malcolm in the Middle did too. That was a show that I didn't really enjoy, but sometimes wound up watching, or half-watching, because it was literally in the middle, between shows I enjoyed on that channel. One night I heard a character engaging in a dialog with herself (supposedly anticipating another character's questions) in which she rattled off the things about the show that made no sense -- the very elements that I'd've told someone else as the reasons I didn't care for it -- in what appeared to be an apology to the audience. But it amounted to the same thing as the voice out of the whirlwind in Job -- that's just the way it is, there's no explaining them.

Robert
Seinfeld did it, too, when the characters pitched "a show about nothing" to producers in one storyline, which is what the actual writers called Seinfeld.

So, Robert, what do you think of the scene where Locke turned his head away from Jack, faced the camera, rolled his eyes and said "for target practice"? It was in S2/The Hunting Party, in response to Jack's questioning Locke about letting Michael take a gun. They were locked in the armory, and Locke was between Jack and the camera. I thought it was interesting...whose POV was that supposed to be, other than ours?

Seinfeld did it, too, when the characters pitched "a show about nothing" to producers in one storyline, which is what the actual writers called Seinfeld.

Tabby Rasa, I think that you are one of the few people who understand what I've been talking about. And somewhere (in this thread or another one) I have suggested that Lost is the most idea-laden show on TV since Seinfeld. The show within a show idea was a brilliant way to highlight the show's commentary about contemporary urban nihilism. In fact, Seinfeld wasn't a show about nothing... Jerry may have been, but Seinfeld was a show about nothingness.

Anyway, I still sometimes have my doubts about Lost. Even If I'm right that it has a post-modern agenda I am still afraid that it will abandon it. Seinfeld didn't have to abandon its subversive premise because it didn't have to. It could maintain its agenda while simultaneously being just a sitcom, right up until the end. But remember how disappointed so many of its fans were about the finale. In fact the finale was faithful to the real premise of the show, right down to the last Sartresque shot where they are left in a cell together: the true meaning of hell is being confronted with the unavoidable fact of your own nothingness. But Lost is in a quandry: it's postmodern agenda involves intentionally confusing its audience, many of whom really have no idea than its anything more than a thriller. For the sake of ratings, the producers may be tempted to just give up and just produce a thriller.

I wasn't particularly pleased with the last episode, in particular. Train an army? Don't tell me that they are going to pander to middle-American jingoistic bullsh*t like so many other shows.

I wasn't particularly pleased with the last episode, in particular. Train an army? Don't tell me that they are going to pander to middle-American jingoistic bullsh*t like so many other shows.

They were basically told by Mr. Freindly that they are only allowed to live because they say it is OK. I think the other side pretty much threw down the gauntlet.

They were basically told by Mr. Freindly that they are only allowed to live because they say it is OK. I think the other side pretty much threw down the gauntlet.

Julie, the 'they' I'm talking about are not Jack et al, but the shows producers.