OT LOST Finale
I totally agree with your explanation as to why the writers didn't keep Walt. However, with all this 'mystical' things on the island they could've explained his growth being due to the island itself. With his 'powers' being intensified by the island it could have also accelerated his growth.
Questions like this and many others that the Lost writers failed to explain just ruined the series for me. I watched because I felt the story was about the island and what its purpose was. In the end I got a love story between many different charcaters. I'm sorry but I didn't care about the characters neary as much as the mythology of the island.
Doesn't anyone feel that the whole island was pointless? Couldn't they have had these characters anywhere do similar things and it would have made the same point. The island to this story has no real significance... at least that is what I'm drawing from the conclusion. They could've done this on the moon for all I care. By not explaining why the island is what it is... or why only these select people were chosen out of Millions who live lives that are flawed. Oh and why did Dharma come to the island? Are all those scientist flawed? So many holes it completely loses its sensibilties. We all got played.
See my post at the very bottom. Like I said, I originally thought that everything really happened, but upon more reflection I don't think it did. I think it's all Jack's dying thoughts. If that is the case, everything is about Jack trying to come to terms with his death. He had nothing in his life at the point of his death and everything that happened throughout the show is his way of building a family before he dies so he doesn't have to go out alone.
I need to go back through the show and look for clues, but he probably saw Walt's comic book on the plane, which would explain the polar bear and might explain his special powers.
I explain where I think the mythology came from in my other post. If it's not explained, I attribute it to a wandering mind leaving loose ends in a dream right before death.
I think I'm beginning to be in full agreement the further I get from the episode and the more I read various reviews/critiques. The finale was pretty to watch and had an emotional payoff but it reflected what I think is a big disconnect between the writers of the show and a large (majority?) of the fanbase. They seem to think that LOST was a character driven show and I think that is complete nonsense.
We are invested in these characters because we've seen them crash on a seemingly deserted island and be chased by smoke and polar bears and kidnapped by people dressed in rags who turn out to have modern homes and scientific equipment that they got after they killed all the people who first came to the island to study the magical/magnetic qualities of this place and eventually a bunch of the main characters went back in time to live with these initial scientist people who were opposed by both the smoke who turned out to be a dead guy and that guy's brother who could live forever and had to protect a bright light that gave the island (and possibly the entire world) its power and...
The show was must-see because of the plot, even off the island (Kate on the lam after killing her step-father to protect her mother, Sawyer's quest for revenge, Locke finding his father only to learn he is a con-man and be thrown out a window and paralyzed, etc.). The characters were secondary. On top of that they chose to focus the finale (and presumably the show as a whole) around the least interesting of all the characters (a successful surgeon who didn't really get along with his dead dad).
To me the finale was great as a "remember how much you cared about this show" moment but it pretty blatantly ignored why people tuned in every week. If these same characters had been trying to work out their issues in present-day Los Angeles, nobody would have given a shit.
I guess I understand why some people think the "plot" with Dharma and the others and all that was more important than it really was.
But to say that this wasn't a character-driven series and that the characters were secondary really shows a lack of attention to the series. From episode 2 it became a totally character-driven series. It was all about learning about the characters, what makes them tick, what makes them the way they are, and what they may be on the island for.
I used to be all "what's DHARMA, what's the island, who's doing all this, what are the numbers" etc, etc. Then I realized that was missing the point. There's this crazy unique island that has mystical powers. These X people crash landed on it and became a family by going through some intense and crazy experiences. And in the finale, they were all re-united in death.
Also, re: "the whole thing was Jack's dying thoughts" ignores so much evidence on the contrary. The biggest piece: Christian Shepard - "They're all dead. Some died before, some much, much later."
This I think illustrates my point exactly. These characters (especially Jack) are only interesting because of their relationship with the Island. The finale completely ignores that relationship and instead treats the events of the show as a bonding summer camp experience (though with way more death and danger) that could have happened anywhere so long as these people did something together, could come to terms with their various issues, and then be happily bonded in the afterlife.
I don't care if some successful surgeon can come to terms with his distant dead father (Jack's character sans plot) and I don't think anybody else does. I do care about a guy who crashes on a mytical island and goes through all of the events of the show's first six seasons both on and off the island (the plot of the show). The writers on the other hand focused on the former as the key to the show rather than the latter and that I found really annoying.
The premise of the show draws you in, but the characters make you fall in love with it.
I think that LOST was clearly character driven. I mean just look athe the final episode, it jumped from character, to character, to character.
Also, the fact that entire episodes were devoted to exploring a single character.
The show WAS character driven, and the writers clearly illustrated this, and I think that probably the best evidence pointing to this fact is indeed the fact that pretty much all of the people who were more involved in the plot than the characters were disappointed by the finale, whereas everyone who was more involved in the characters than the plot, generally came away satisfied.
Just rewatch the scenes with Jacob, he pretty much points to the fact that he and the MiB have been through this charade countless times before, but it took a special group of people to ultimately decide the fate of the island.
The characters were the engine that drove the show.
The premise draws you in, but it becomes apparent immediately that it's more about people than plot.
I mean, just compare the story line of the plot to the storylines and arcs of the characters, and you'll find that the writers clearly spent far more hours on character than on plot.
Just because a show has characters that participate in the plot and do things to further the plot doesn't mean the show is driven by the characters, even if we build an emotional attachment to those characters. People love the characters in Star Wars, but it is still a plot driven movie. Nobody would give a shit if Luke had stayed on Tatooine.
A show like Six Feet Under was character driven because it explored who the characters were and how they interacted, with little influence from external events. LOST was plot driven because it focused on what happened to the characters. John Locke isn't interesting as a guy in a wheelchair who works in a job he doesn't like. He is interesting as a guy who lands on an Island that magically allows him to walk again or when we see him pushed out of the window by his father who also happens to be the con man that got Sawyer's parents killed. These are plot points and events. They have nothing to do with the characters themselves and they were the strength of LOST. Even an interesting character like Sayid (remorseful Iraqi torturer) is a bit of a two dimensional archetype, but we love the character because of good acting and the powerful events we've seen the character go through.
Sorry, but the fact that John and Sawyer were conned by the same man, that John went through the emotional trauma of having his kidney stolen and Sawyer went through the trauma of witnessing his parents' murder-suicide has absolutely nothing to do with the "island plot lines." Literally, nothing.
But it does have everything to do with those characters and their lives.
It is still the plot of the show, even if the events took place off the Island. Alone, I don't think it would be all that interesting, which is why I said the characters weren't all that interesting without the Island involved. Still, these off-Island events are just that, events. The characters in and off themselves are interesting because of what we saw happen to them. That is the plot of the show (even though characters are obviously participants in the progression of the plot).
Any good show is going to cause us to like or be interested in its characters, but that doesn't mean the characters themselves are driving the show. In LOST, it is the events the characters go through that make them interesting, not the other way around.
These characters (especially Jack) are only interesting because of their relationship with the Island.But said here-
The show was must-see because of the plot, even off the island (Kate on the lam after killing her step-father to protect her mother, Sawyer's quest for revenge, Locke finding his father only to learn he is a con-man and be thrown out a window and paralyzed, etc.). And then say the characters were secondary. But you've just showed that in your opinion, the characters were interesting in an area that had nothing to do with the island. And then praise all those character moments. Because none of their particular "plotlines" were all that original. But it was how it affected the characters that we cared about. Right at the beginning they started having flashbacks that developed characters, a different character every week. Mythology based episodes were few and far between. So, I think they made it pretty clear what their priority was. While I did care about the Island Mythology, I would say the plot was secondary to the characters. And they creators never really made that a secret. Would a bit more of middle ground made more people happy? Probably. But it also might have just made people think it was a wishy-washy finale. I'm not sure they were going to win with this one, someone was going to be unhappy, because different people got different things out of the show, and they're all pretty valid.
Even off the Island, the interesting parts of the show are plot oriented. Seeing Kate set the fire and running from the Feds, Saywer witnessing his parent's death, etc. Caring about the characters doesn't mean that the characters drove the show. We bonded with them because we saw them dealing with difficult external circumstances (plot), not because any of them were inherently interesting (which isn't to say they were crappy characters, just that they weren't the engine driving the show independent of the great plotlines of the show).
The difference between a plot driven and a character driven story is that in a plot driven story, the characters are merely vehicles to move the plot. The characters don't have a great deal of depth because they exist merely as a function of the plot.
A character driven show focuses more on the struggle of the characters, delves into their lives and their psyches. The characters are full of depth and the most important part of the story. Character driven stories have plots, and also have plot driven scenes, but that doesn't make the entirety of the story plot driven, plot is just an essential part of story.
The first scene with Jack rescuing everyone is EXTRMELY plot driven. He is forced into a situation where he MUST act, he really has no choice, but the vast majority of the show was character driven, exploring their lives, relationships, feelings, philosophies, choices, fears, flaws, etc, as seen with all of the character episodes. A plot driven show would not have entire episodes devoted to exploring specific characters, and a plot driven show would not have entire episodes, where not much happens.
There really isn't a whole lot of action in Lost, and when there is action, it usually serves a purpose, such as exposing a certain element of a character's personality, and revealing something about who they are or how they've changed.
In a plot driven stroy, characters typically don't undergo changes in personality, or come full circle, and pretty much every single character in Lost comes full circle at one point. We see how they change, why they change. The ultimate goal of the series, and the ultimate goal of the island was to "fix," or "find," these flawed, and "lost" individuals.
The fact that the characters change doesn't make it a character driven show (though I don't really see how any of the characters changed other than the fact that they now feel better about themselves in bright light land). If anything they changed because their external circumstances changed (Kate was always an okay person, she now was just no longer a wanted fugitive). What depth do these characters have aside from events (plot) that happened to them during the course of the show? The answer is very little (in most cases) to none (in Jack's case). Any depth they have comes from the events they have gone through on the show (whether in the present or shown to us as flashbacks). I don't know why this is so hard to understand or why you think the focus on a particular character's storyline makes the plot irrelevant. All stories have plots and characters and good ones usually need both to be quality if the show is going to be successful. I'm not saying LOST had crappy characters, but to think they were the engine of the show's success is completely insane.
Is your favorite episode the one where Jack sits on the beach in Thailand feeling sorry for himself and we learn why he has a stupid tattoo? That is a character-driven LOST episode and it freaking sucks. The external conflicts on LOST were always infinitely more interesting than the internal conflicts of the characters. What good episode of the show involves nothing happening? I honestly can't think of any. Would you have watched the show if these same characters weren't on a magical island facing incredible adversity and battling powerful, mysterious enemies? No you wouldn't. A show with a doctor and a guy in wheelchair and an ex con and assorted other characters sitting around talking about philosophy and working out their personal issues so they can live together in heaven would have had zero viewers.
Try to imagine LOST without the plane crash and the smoke monster attacks and seeing polar bears and breaking into the Hatch and meeting/being kidnapped by the Others and the freighter coming to rescue/kill everyone and time travel and working with the Dharma Initiative and Jacob/Widmore/Ben/SM battling for control of the Island and...
Without the loads and loads of plot I've mentioned, the show is extremely different (and in my mind not nearly as good). A LOST where Jack doesn't have daddy isssues or Locke hadn't been put up for adoption is just as interesting. Different characters could go through those exact same events and you'd still have a compelling show. On the flip-side, removing the characters in LOST from the storyline/plot of LOST makes them pretty uninteresting (especially Jack, who appears to have been the focal point of the whole show).
Ok, you're way of base here. I think you need to research what a plot driven story is and what a character driven story is, and how they differ, because your definitions are off quite a bit.
That out of the way, no one is saying that the plot is irrelevant. Plot is always relevant, just as character is always relevant.
As a general rule, every story has plot, and every story has characters. The question is whether the plot drives the story, or the characters drive the story. Lost has a mixture of both, and in the first season was more balanced, but over time transitioned to a solidly character driven show. A show being character driven doesn't necessarily take anything away from the plot, you can still have ana amazing plot with all kinds of twists and turns, in a character driven show. (I don't mean to come across as condescending, it's just that your definitions are off)
Plot driven shows are basically garbage (EDIT: I should say garbage in terms of how the writing community feels about them. Character driven shows are much more respected and desired at the moment). They are typically action movies.
Do this, do that, accomplish this, don't do that. You're more invested in completing the goal, as opposed to who is completing the goal and their motivation for doing it, on a deeper level than, "must save world," or, "must save girl."
If the show was plot driven, why was there an entire episode devoted to Richard Alpert?
That episode was completely useless to the plot and could have been discarded without consequence.
Why then, is that considered one of the best episodes?
Easy, because people want to know more about Richard, the character. How did he get to be on the island? Why was he on the island? Why doesn't he age? None of those questions or mysteries have any bearing on the plot. They don't matter if the show is plot driven, and there is no reason answer them.
They don't help Jack and co. get from point A to point B to point C.
The episode Walkabout in season one, I believe it is either the 4th or 5th episode. Nothing happens of any significance the entire episode in terms of plot. It's all about exploring Locke's character.
The only "thing" that happens is the burning of the fuselodge, and even that act only serves the purpose of being a symbol of rebirth for Locke, because it shows his wheelchair in the flames, symbolizing the death of the old Locke and the rebirth of a new Locke on the island. Nothing happens by way of plot in that episode, nothing.
As for you saying " What depth do these characters have aside from events (plot) that happened to them during the course of the show? The answer is very little (in most cases) to none (in Jack's case)."
Jack changed a whole hell of a lot, probably more so than any character on the show. Through his interactions with Locke he went from a a man of science to a man of faith. That's a huge, monumental change. Jack's struggle was entirely internal. He didn't believe in destiny, or that he was meant to go to the island, and then he slowly comes to realize that the island is his destiny.
That is absolutely not a function of plot, that is a function of character. His intractions with Locke caused him to change, and then as a result, Jack moves the plot forward by attempting to convince everyone to go back to the island.
Sawyer, also comes full circle through his interactions with the other survivors.
You can have an amazing plot in a character driven show. Lost is just that.
If Lost is supposed to be a plot driven show, then the writers did a fairly shitty job of making it one.
Essentially, in the end, the heart of Lost was more important than the spine.
First to the two episodes you mentioned, "Walkabout" is extremely important to the plot of the show because we find out that Locke was in a freaking wheelchair. How is learning that the Island has the ability to heal the sick not an enormous plot point in the show?
As for Richard, we are interested in him because of the mystery surrounding him. How does he know/communicate with Jacob? Why does he not seem to age? Discovering those things and learning more about the nature of the Island was another big plot-point even though it focused on the life of a specific character. To deal with that episode specifically, it is entirely plot driven (external events shape the outcome). Richard's wife becomes ill (external event), he goes to get medicine (predictable reaction not at all unique to Richard's character) but is refused (external event), he gets angry and accidentally kills the guy with the medicine (predictable reaction), he is then jailed and sold into slavery where he ends up on an island where he is confronted with two somewhat supernatural beings (external events). In the end he has to choose between the two, but nowhere does his character/nature drive events forward and even his eventual choice is influenced heavily by external pressures.
You seem to have a very narrow view of plot-driven fiction (action movies). I can assure you that I am well aware of the differences between that and character-driven fiction as this is something I do for a (rather meagre) living. The key question is what is the engine that drives the narrative forward. In the case of LOST, I think this engine is made up almost entirely of external factors that force the characters to act or drastically impact their ability to do so, rather than the wills/desires/wishes of the characters. You mention the characters tendency to reflect and philosophize, but they only did so because they were marooned on an island with incredible and often times confusing powers. I can imagine LOST with a different band of characters (so long as the acting was good and enough tension was inherently present between the characters). I can't imagine LOST without the Island and its mysteries or the constant conflict generated by those looking to control the island.
LOST was a plot-driven show with strong characters. This is not an insult. The problem is that the writers threw this out the window entirely when they wrote the finale and focused on the personal journey of the characters (and did so merely by waiving a magic wand to indicate they were all no content/enlightened/at peace). By saying essentially the Island/plot/events didn't matter, they disappointed me immensely as a longtime fan of the show.
And had arcs...and sometimes back again. Most were broken, damaged, or bad people, and had an arc of redemption. Sayid the Torturer turned hero. Sun and Jin, barely speaking spouses (and Jin kinda a dick), to a loving couple. Charlie the junkie, to potential dad and hero. Locke, a negative cripple, who becomes a leader, then loses all his faith that he was searching for, to the point of suicide. Ben, the villain....to Hurley's honored #2.
Now whether this makes it plot driven or character driven may be splitting hairs, because by design, it was heavily both. But I'd say that while the show probably would have been interesting if we didn't know those character points you mention, I'd also say we would probably care about the show a lot less. It would still be intellectually stimulating, but we wouldn't really care about what happens in the plot if we didn't get to care about the characters. Who cares when Sun and Jin die if they hadn't gone through the long journey of being reunited? It was tragic and sad. But if they had just been characters on the Island, serving the Island's plot purposes, they still would have died- the point was to show that the Locke Ness Monster was really bad - but we wouldn't have really cared. So they go hand in hand. One keeps us interested, the other keeps us engaged.
In your example, I'd say no, I don't miss Jack in Thailand, a bad episode (though a little Bai Ling ain't bad). But one of my favorites is Sun in Korea coming to grips with Jin's death, and that had nothing to do with the overall picture. In fact, the "vengence Sun" plot was never really picked up, but it wasn't a crucial plot point. Just picking a bad episode that was character driven doesn't mean character driven episodes are bad, anymore than the 3rd to last episode, with Jacob and MiB, which sucked big time, is any more of an indictment that Plot/mythology episodes are bad. Because that's not the case either. Some have blown me away.
I don't think we'd care about Sun mourning Jin and being a new mother nearly as much if we hadn't seen her go through all the crazy external shit that happened on the Island. Without those events, she is basically a quiet Korean lady with some marriage/family issues (albeit a very hot Korean lady). The show had a lot of strong characters, but it is what happened to them (especially the crash and events on the Island) that made them interesting to me and kept me watching for all this time.
I'm probably more on TheLastProphet's description side of things. To me, if any storyline existing makes something Plot driven, rather than Character driven, about the only thing left that could be considered "character driven" are monologues or dialogues. Just a couple of characters up on the screen, discussing their lives. But maybe I'm not understanding your definition clearly.
Because while I see the island mysteries, and characters trying to get off as plot, I don't see the flash stories as plot driven at all, but character driven. There's no need for the story of them trapped/trying to get off/freaky island to know most of that backstory. It's to develop the character. As that's the majority, I see it as character driven. Because, frankly (and my view isn't everyone's, obviously), I don't really care about the plot of most of their backstories, except in how it forms and influences their characters "now". The drama of Kate and her father and mother doesn't excite me, but the fact that the "girl next door" is a fugitive and a killer, and how that has her interact with the other characters, is what does it for me.
Plot driven, as TLP said, is something where it's all about the story, and the characters could easily be interchangeable, and it doesn't matter who does what. Ideally, and usually, there's a mix of both. In your Star Wars example, I'd say that's the difference between the first trilogy, and the more recent. Because while very plot driven, in the first three, we care about the character arc of Luke et al., whereas in the 2nd three, it's so heavy-handed plot driven that it's about getting the characters to that point, and it makes the characters more paper-thin, and less likable. And this difference exists in something that is far more plot-oriented and while containing character arcs, not really a character study by any means.
Even if the flashbacks are character-driven (I would concede they are focused on character building), the most compelling points for me are events (plot). I like most if not all of the show's characters (except Jack) but I also think that any number of alternative characters could have been put in the same situations and made for a compelling series. That to me (the fact that the events/situations were the strength of the show) makes it very obviously a plot-driven series (at least until the writers basically decided that everything that happened only mattered as a trip to the supernatural shrink for all the characters to get together peacefully in the afterlife). In contrast, on a character-driven show like Six Feet Under, you could change virtually all of the specific events (except maybe the initial death of the father) and you would have a show that I think would have been equally compelling with those characters.
LOST (like the two Star Wars) wouldn't have worked without likeable characters, but I don't see how the particular characters they used drove the story in any meaningful way unless from the beggining you were far more interested in how Jack dealt with his dad's death rather than the conflicts/mysteries taking place on the island. I obviously was more interested in the latter.
We're getting down to character driven vs character building.
But I don't think anyone (well, at least the 2 of responding at the moment) think you're saying they're bad characters. Beyond the fact you're denying it and I believe you, you've not really indicated anything in your statements either. I mean, I'm with you on at least one thing...I don't particularly like Jack. I like his character arc, but I think he's kinda a douche. I was always a Locke guy. And not so much for philosophical reasons as character reasons. Locke was cool. Locke, Sayid, Sun and Jin, Sawyer, Ben, Charlie....man, I could go a long way down the list before my rankings got to Jack. He'd be down towards the bottom around Kate, but above character abortions like Paulo, Anna Lucia, and such.
I still think it would have been cool if they had killed him in the Pilot like their original intention was. But I understand why they didn't.
Plot driven shows tend to spend very little time "building character." Character construction over the course of a movie or tv series is a huge beacon shouting "character driven!" Especially when the series devotes as much time to constructing character as Lost.
I think you've just set up a false dichotomy that a show with strong characters that the writers seem to care about developing can't be plot-driven. I don't think this is the case when done well (as LOST was).
EDIT: and +1 to M-Wolverine for "character abortions"
When I wrote that, I really did feel completely inspired by you. I thought it'd would be something you'd say. Or pick out. ;-)
Final Transmission: What is here right now, *this*, isn't everything. There is a state beyond it all, a transcendence. Of ourselves, of our lives. We're fighting for a final destination for our souls. Attainment is ripe for the taking. Let's find that one person to make it all worth living for. Thank you, Lost, for showing me that meaningful relationships are possible. Over and out.
Who called the onion rings finale... because it was an alternate ending....
whose bank account is going to take a hit on August 24 when the complete series is release on blue ray....
Anyone else feel there were similar overtones to Contact (by Carl Sagan)? Although the main character didn't die, the emotional effect was very similar.
"You're an interesting species, an interesting mix. You're capable of such beautiful dreams and such horrible nightmares. You feel so lost, so cut off, so alone, only you're not. See, in all our searching, the only thing we've found that makes the emptiness bearable is each other."
It was beautiful. It didn't answer every question, but I now realize how much the show respected its viewers: it wasn't going to give us everything on a plate but leave us to figure everything out ourselves and make our own interpretations. It's also more apparent that the Island really was in control the whole time--not Jacob, the MiB, or their "mother." Throughout the series, the Island itself is a character in the story. It brought people to the Island to fulfill their purpose in life. Jacob was just its messenger with his own purpose as well. And the key message is that we won't be able to fulfill our purpose alone. MiB didn't believe in purpose.
It all comes together. The tone of the series is set in the 1st season by 2 instances:
- Locke holds up the two backgammon pieces--the battle between good and evil
- Jack proclaims, "If we can't live together, we're gonna die alone."
And btw, Juliet's cleavage was magical.
But, IIRC, you were one of the people who was really looking for answers from the end, no? For you to be as satisfied as you were with the ending, it gives me extra faith that the episode did it's job. Not to please everyone, mind you. But if it can reach the "answers"people too, it must have been effective.
And yes, along with Kate's rear, I noticed Juliet's cleavage. We needed more revealing Sun to complete the pyramid.
I loved the fact that it was one of the only shows in television history where the writers actually demanded you to do research and look up things beyond the show in order to solve some of the mysteries.
Like the numbers. I don't recall them ever being fully explained on the show, but if you do a little homework, then you discover their relevance and the secret behind why they're important and an integral part of the show.
I thought the finale was amazing. I was going into expecting lots of answers to the questions we have all had about the island, etc. I'm actually glad that the finale did not focus on mythology or plot. Instead they focused it on the characters, the reason why many of us got so emotionally connected to the show.
I was connected to the show because I wanted to know what the island's purpose was. It doesn't do it for me that the island was a sandbox for these characters to 'fix' their lives. If you felt Lost was all about the characters then I can understand why you were satisfied. I don't fault anyone for that logic. I just think for many of us we wanted to know how the island fit into the grand scheme of things.
I'm left not even sure why I was supposed to care about the island being destroyed? Once Jack/Kate killed Locke was there any point in saving the island? The last few episodes built to this crescendo that Locke couldn't leave the island because it wouldn't let him go. Once you kill Locke then the point of destroying/saving the island was lost. Everyone should have just escaped the island and left it to crumble once Locke was killed.
You are suppose to care about them saving the island because it will continue to fulfill one of its purposes which, as others have said, is to bring people who are "lost" in their lives to the island so they can find themselves. The end of the show signified the end of Jack's time on the island but just as there were other people on the island before flight 815 there will be others brought there after. Hugo probably went on to bring several groups of people to the island and then named a replacement for himself who went on to do the same. Remember Jacob needed to keep Locke on the island to keep the world safe BUT that was not THE purpose of the island. The island existed long before Jacob or Locke ever came there.
I agree with you in that I do not think the island's sole purpose was to allow people to fix their lives however I am fine with the show not explaining all the mysteries of the island because like I said this show ends with Jack's experience of the island ending but the island itself will continue to exist and the island itself is so complex it likely has many purposes that are always changing. I feel like the Island is perhaps even beyond the scope of human understanding. Ok I am just going to end this now because I am rambling sorry about that.
Now what am I going to watch? 24?
Island was real. Sideways was a sort of purgatory. Clues were all there, but easy to see only after the mysteries were solved.
After letting it settle, I'm OK with the ending.
My biggest wish is for a little more of an epilogue for the surviving characters. We got a little with Hurley and Ben's friendship (and assumed successful protectorship), but what of the rest? A montage or a few comments could've easily covered what happened to Claire/Aaron, Kate, Sawyer, Lapidus, Jin Hua (Sun & Jin's daughter), Miles, and Richard.
Speaking of, how does Richard assimilate back into a world where he's been missing for ~150 years? Wouldn't it have been cool if he assumed someone's identity? "Hi, I'm Jack Shephard..." Again, something that could've been resolved quickly and interestingly.
I'm a little unnerved that Eloise is the one (besides Ben) refusing to move on. She was the high priestess of all things island, doesn't seem like she'd be one to sit around in limbo. To me, anyway.
I get where you're coming from, but for me personally that would have been misplaced, because what was important was their time spent together on the island.
Going to the island was the most important event in their lives. Every act that transpired on the island was an important piece in a large work that they all had a part in creating.
IMO the show had so many big emotional payoffs, there wasn't really any point in tacking on a quick, "what happened after they got off the island" montage. Coupled with the fact that what they do "now" (i.e. after leaving the island) isn't at all pertinant to the show.
They were lost and now they've found themselves, and that's really all that mattered.
We were brought into the world of Lost with Jack, and we were ushered out with Jack. I thought it was extremely well done.
just watched this and its so clear now !!
Purgatory is still better than Ohio.
One thing that hasn't been discussed yet -
When Locke / Jack where in the hospital after the surgery and Locke told Jack that it wasn't his son? Does anyone have a clue what that means? My initial thought was that it could be Sawyer's son (his life with Juliette and all), but that seems a little too simplistic.
The flash-sideways wasn't real and was itself purgatory-ish. What was real was that experienced before the crash of 815 and on the island.
This is more my interpretation (another great thing about the show), but to achieve salvation and move on to paradise/heaven/nirvana/etc. (gotta love the stained glass windows with the different religious symbols in the room where Jack talks to his father), they had to let go of the easier, more idealized version of their lives presented in the flash-sideways by somehow connecting (embracing? coming to terms? what's a better term to use?) with their real lives spent together on the island.
From what I interpreted, Jack's son in the flashsideways was not real. jack never had a son. Jack's son in the flashsideways was just a manifestation of his need to have a healthy father/son relationship he never had with Christian.
I am so happy with the final. Reading a few different sites and hearing people responses it's clear not all got the message but for anyone who really pays attention to Christan will see it. . I was at a friends house watching it. It was hard holding back the tears. It's always hard letting go of a great show. It's fun to think of Hurley and Bens adventures that must go on for years and years. Spin off? lol That would never happen.
It fills so good. Like being full after a great meal.
I loved the moment of realization for Claire, Kate, and Charlie. The whole scene was heart wrenching. Mostly I loved the small conversation that Ben and Hurley have at the end, Hugo would have most definitely made a great #1.
Those scenes were great, and the music of the show just made it more beautiful, driving home the emotion of the experience as it always has. I don't know which one was my favorite, but that one and Jin/Sun's awakening was also very powerful.
And I totally agree about Ben and Hurley's conversation at the end. Only further strengthened the message that we were not meant to be alone. "Maybe there's a better way." This only makes Jacob more interesting: he lived in solitude and in fact beat up Richard for trespassing, yet he helped bring people to the island. I think he came to realize this, but I think it was also his undoing when he callously responded to Ben, "What about you?" despite being consistent with his belief that humans were fundamentally good even without his help.
I loved how when Jacob was introduced, everyone wanted to know the mystery behind him, who he was, what he did, where he was from, etc.., but as we learned more about Jacob, and his life, he ended up leaving the show an even greater enigma, IMO, than when we were first introduced. That's good writing.