"lost" a reason for writer David Fury's leaving and the budget over-runs?

205 views
Skip to first unread message

Garondo...@hotmail.com

unread,
Sep 26, 2005, 10:28:23 PM9/26/05
to
Writer David Fury is one of my, and that creepy bastard Mr. Hole's
favorite tv writers, EVER, so we thought it interesting to read his
comments in the current issue of "Rolling Stone" issue #984 dated
October 6, 2005. This blurp/qoute is from a sidebar within the article
on Evangeline Lilly who's also the cover model:

THEY'RE MAKING IT UP AS THEY GO

The Lost creators have often claimed they know where the show is going
and that everything will ultimately add up. Well, the current creators,
anyway. "there was absoluetly no master plan on Lost" insists David
Fury, a co-executive producer last season who wrote the series's two
best episodes and is now a writer-producer on 24. "anybody who said
that was lying.
"On a show like Lost, it becomes a great big shaggy-dog story," he
continues cheerily. "They keep saying there's meaning in everything,
and I'm here to tell you no - a lot of things are just arbitrary. What
I always tried to do to do was connect these random elements, to create
the illusion that it was all adding up to something."
Many plot elements were concocted on the fly, Fury says; for
example, they didn't know Hurley won the lottery until it came time to
write his episode. "I don't like to talk about when we come up with
ideas," Lindelof demurs. It's a magic trick. But we planned that plot:
We seeded references to it in earlier episodes." Fury disagrees. He
says scenes with those references were filmed much later and inserted
into earlier yet-to-air episodes: "it's a brilliant trick to make us
look smart. But doing that created a huge budget problem."

..
Garondo Marondo!

Melroseman

unread,
Sep 26, 2005, 11:03:20 PM9/26/05
to
Garondo...@hotmail.com wrote:

He sounds bitter. Maybe they didn't let him in on the whole plot?

--
New to alt.tv.lost? Please read the FAQ before posting:
http://www.geocities.com/alt_tv_lost/

Garondo...@hotmail.com

unread,
Sep 26, 2005, 11:10:34 PM9/26/05
to

Stop being such a fanboy. He left the show, he's got no reason to be
bitter.

..
Garondo Marondo!

Luna

unread,
Sep 26, 2005, 11:17:03 PM9/26/05
to
In article <1127788103.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
Garondo...@hotmail.com wrote:

Ok, if Fury's right, and not just messing with us, then I'm kinda pissed.

--
http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick

Ar Q

unread,
Sep 26, 2005, 11:23:31 PM9/26/05
to

<Garondo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127788103.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

> Writer David Fury is one of my, and that creepy bastard Mr. Hole's
> favorite tv writers, EVER, so we thought it interesting to read his
> comments in the current issue of "Rolling Stone" issue #984 dated
> October 6, 2005. This blurp/qoute is from a sidebar within the article
> on Evangeline Lilly who's also the cover model:
>
> THEY'RE MAKING IT UP AS THEY GO
>
> The Lost creators have often claimed they know where the show is going
> and that everything will ultimately add up. Well, the current creators,
> anyway. "there was absoluetly no master plan on Lost" insists David
> Fury, a co-executive producer last season who wrote the series's two
> best episodes and is now a writer-producer on 24. "anybody who said
> that was lying.

That makes sense since the whole idea come from the top ABC executive who
wanted to blend "Survivors" in a drama. Someone recommended him J. J. Abrams
who was the top producer at that time to execute the project. Then they
assembled a writer team brainstorming to broaden the concept. Here and there
I read stories about how they don't agree with each other sometimes, not on
details but the main plot. It is a miracle that "Lost" didn't fall apart.
Almost. Since they didn't come up with something solid before the deadline,
we had a season finale about nothing. This isn't "Seinfeld". Or is it?


Uniblab

unread,
Sep 26, 2005, 11:43:31 PM9/26/05
to
<Garondo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127790634.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
People leave jobs all the time and are bitter, whether their departures are
voluntary or not. Sounds like Fury had a bad experience and is venting to
the press. No class.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

arnold kim

unread,
Sep 27, 2005, 12:14:55 AM9/27/05
to

<Garondo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127788103.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

> Writer David Fury is one of my, and that creepy bastard Mr. Hole's
> favorite tv writers, EVER, so we thought it interesting to read his
> comments in the current issue of "Rolling Stone" issue #984 dated
> October 6, 2005. This blurp/qoute is from a sidebar within the article
> on Evangeline Lilly who's also the cover model:

To me, it only matters if they get somewhere and the show entertains me in
the process. If they do it by making it up on the fly or planning it out in
advance, it doesn't really matter as long as it's done in a way that brings
things together. Besides, for me it's more about the character stories.

Arnold Kim


Invid Fan

unread,
Sep 27, 2005, 12:47:43 AM9/27/05
to
In article <1H3_e.123$Ge5...@fe10.lga>, arnold kim
<arno...@optonline.net> wrote:

True, but given that it's a character's history that makes them what
they are, if you keep just adding background out of nowhere it's
eventually going to bring the show down. With luck the show runners
have some sort of plan now, even if there wasn't one for the first
season.

--
Chris Mack "Refugee, total shit. That's how I've always seen us.
'Invid Fan' Not a help, you'll admit, to agreement between us."
-'Deal/No Deal', CHESS

arnold kim

unread,
Sep 27, 2005, 1:02:37 AM9/27/05
to

"Invid Fan" <in...@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:270920050047436276%in...@localnet.com...

> In article <1H3_e.123$Ge5...@fe10.lga>, arnold kim
> <arno...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> <Garondo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1127788103.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> > Writer David Fury is one of my, and that creepy bastard Mr. Hole's
>> > favorite tv writers, EVER, so we thought it interesting to read his
>> > comments in the current issue of "Rolling Stone" issue #984 dated
>> > October 6, 2005. This blurp/qoute is from a sidebar within the article
>> > on Evangeline Lilly who's also the cover model:
>>
>> To me, it only matters if they get somewhere and the show entertains me
>> in
>> the process. If they do it by making it up on the fly or planning it out
>> in
>> advance, it doesn't really matter as long as it's done in a way that
>> brings
>> things together. Besides, for me it's more about the character stories.
>>
> True, but given that it's a character's history that makes them what
> they are, if you keep just adding background out of nowhere it's
> eventually going to bring the show down.

Well, that hasn't happened yet, so I'm not exactly ready to jump ship.

> With luck the show runners
> have some sort of plan now, even if there wasn't one for the first
> season.

Hopefully so, if anything just to tie things together.

Arnold Kim


Steven L.

unread,
Sep 27, 2005, 1:04:08 AM9/27/05
to
Garondo...@hotmail.com wrote:

> Writer David Fury is one of my, and that creepy bastard Mr. Hole's
> favorite tv writers, EVER, so we thought it interesting to read his
> comments in the current issue of "Rolling Stone" issue #984 dated
> October 6, 2005. This blurp/qoute is from a sidebar within the article
> on Evangeline Lilly who's also the cover model:
>
> THEY'RE MAKING IT UP AS THEY GO
>
> The Lost creators have often claimed they know where the show is going
> and that everything will ultimately add up. Well, the current creators,
> anyway. "there was absoluetly no master plan on Lost" insists David
> Fury, a co-executive producer last season who wrote the series's two
> best episodes and is now a writer-producer on 24. "anybody who said
> that was lying.
> "On a show like Lost, it becomes a great big shaggy-dog story," he
> continues cheerily. "They keep saying there's meaning in everything,
> and I'm here to tell you no - a lot of things are just arbitrary. What
> I always tried to do to do was connect these random elements, to create
> the illusion that it was all adding up to something."
> Many plot elements were concocted on the fly, Fury says; for
> example, they didn't know Hurley won the lottery until it came time to
> write his episode.

Well, duh.

I never expected that Abrams/Lindelof had detailed bios and backstories
worked out for every character. In fact, I know they didn't.
Initially, Kate and Jack were the leads. Locke was just one more
supporting character. That's how the show was sold to ABC. Terry
O'Quinn said that when he was cast to play Locke, he had no idea how
important his role would turn out to be. Clearly the significance of
the Locke character has grown by now, probably due to viewer interest.

However, I do know that they did have the big-ticket items right from
the start: There was going to be a relatively large ensemble cast of
Lostaways; Lost Island wasn't your typical island but had, as Abrams
said, an "amazing history" of weirdness; and the Lostaways weren't going
to be alone on Lost Island. Getting the basic premise right is all you
need.

Star Trek was in a similar situation in 1966. When it premiered, a lot
of concepts like the Federation and Prime Directive and the history and
philosophy of Vulcans hadn't been invented yet. These things were
invented on the fly as the episodes were written. But the basic premise
had been tied down from the start--a big starship with a crew of
hundreds exploring the galaxy. As audience feedback on the Spock
character was positive, his role grew steadily in the show and entire
episodes were all about his background, family, and Vulcan culture.

The original Star Trek series was cancelled after 3 seasons. If it had
been renewed for a 4th season, Roddenberry was planning to "introduce"
us to Dr. McCoy's adult daughter Joanna McCoy, a point that had never
been developed in the series till then.


--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net

Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

Steven L.

unread,
Sep 27, 2005, 1:07:07 AM9/27/05
to
Garondo...@hotmail.com wrote:

He's displaying the typical revisionist bitterness of every disgruntled
employee: "My bosses were all screwed up. I did my best to straighten
them out but they wouldn't listen to me."

If it weren't for J.J. Abrams, Lost wouldn't exist and David Fury
wouldn't have had a job in the first place. At least he got paid for
those two episodes. That money is in his bank account because Abrams
conceived of Lost.

arnold kim

unread,
Sep 27, 2005, 1:20:21 AM9/27/05
to

"Steven L." <sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:cp4_e.4310$oc....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...

Hell, not even Jack was supposed to be the lead. He was killed off in the
original pilot script.

Another example, though not nearly as significant- the changes in the
relationship between Jin and Michael weren't preplanned, but Daniel Dae Kim
and Harold Perrineau became good friends during the series, so the producers
decided to take advantage of their natural chemistry. Thus the relationship
was greatly softened, and Jin ended up on the raft.

Arnold Kim


Milhouse Van Houten

unread,
Sep 27, 2005, 1:20:49 AM9/27/05
to
"Ar Q" <Arthu...@hottmail.com> wrote in message
news:TW2_e.4380$vw6....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...

> Almost. Since they didn't come up with something solid before the
> deadline,
> we had a season finale about nothing. This isn't "Seinfeld". Or is it?

We did? If you say so, but you miss the point and demonstrate that the show
is lost on you. Those final two hours probably outshone most everything in
movie theaters that week.


Milhouse Van Houten

unread,
Sep 27, 2005, 1:23:24 AM9/27/05
to
I'm pretty sure I saw him center stage at the Emmy's. Did I or was that
someone else? If he was there, the rift can't be that bad.


Luna

unread,
Sep 27, 2005, 1:56:28 AM9/27/05
to
In article <cp4_e.4310$oc....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"Steven L." <sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote:


>
> Star Trek was in a similar situation in 1966. When it premiered, a lot
> of concepts like the Federation and Prime Directive and the history and
> philosophy of Vulcans hadn't been invented yet. These things were
> invented on the fly as the episodes were written. But the basic premise
> had been tied down from the start--a big starship with a crew of
> hundreds exploring the galaxy. As audience feedback on the Spock
> character was positive, his role grew steadily in the show and entire
> episodes were all about his background, family, and Vulcan culture.
>

The difference is, Star Trek wasn't a mystery, and Lost has been
presented as such. To write a good mystery, you really need to know how
it's going to turn out before you start. The intricacies of Lost, if
they're ever going to make sense, need to be rather meticulously planned
out to prevent it from being a big mess. Unless they're going to go
with "It was all a dream" in which case they can throw in flying pigs or
whatever the hell they feel like.

--
http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick

Palpie

unread,
Sep 27, 2005, 2:06:01 AM9/27/05
to
"Luna" <luna...@NOSPAMmindspring.com> wrote in message
news:lunachick-2994D...@news1.east.earthlink.net...

> In article <cp4_e.4310$oc....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> "Steven L." <sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Star Trek was in a similar situation in 1966. When it premiered, a lot
> > of concepts like the Federation and Prime Directive and the history and
> > philosophy of Vulcans hadn't been invented yet. These things were
> > invented on the fly as the episodes were written. But the basic premise
> > had been tied down from the start--a big starship with a crew of
> > hundreds exploring the galaxy. As audience feedback on the Spock
> > character was positive, his role grew steadily in the show and entire
> > episodes were all about his background, family, and Vulcan culture.
> >
>
> The difference is, Star Trek wasn't a mystery, and Lost has been
> presented as such. To write a good mystery, you really need to know how
> it's going to turn out before you start. The intricacies of Lost, if
> they're ever going to make sense, need to be rather meticulously planned
> out to prevent it from being a big mess.

Yup. I don't expect them to have written five seasons with 24 episodes each
before they ever started. But they should have had an overall plan for the
story and known the answers the the basic questions the pilot raised.

> Unless they're going to go
> with "It was all a dream" in which case they can throw in flying pigs or
> whatever the hell they feel like.

And then go into hidng from the fans who will be looking to lynch them.

Justin Bacon

unread,
Sep 27, 2005, 3:01:36 AM9/27/05
to

Steven L. wrote:
> I never expected that Abrams/Lindelof had detailed bios and backstories
> worked out for every character. In fact, I know they didn't.
> Initially, Kate and Jack were the leads. Locke was just one more
> supporting character. That's how the show was sold to ABC.

I suggest you do at least a minimal amount of research before touting
your personal theories as if they were fact. Watch the DVD special
features: The show was sold to ABC on the basis of a treatment of the
pilot. In that treatment, Jack died halfway through the pilot. How
could a character who dies halfway into the pilot be a main character?

> Terry
> O'Quinn said that when he was cast to play Locke, he had no idea how
> important his role would turn out to be.

The actors haven't been told the arcs of their characters -- either
past or future. Now, possibly, that means the writers just don't know
that stuff. Or, more likely, the writers are just keeping their cards
close to their chest.

> Clearly the significance of
> the Locke character has grown by now,

True. If you had watched the DVD special features, you'd know that --
due to the rushed production schedule of the series -- the writers were
still working through their rough draft process when casting began. The
roles of many characters were expanded, changed, added, and deleted as
the writers worked. This does not mean, however, that they didn't
emerge from that process with a plan in place.

Nor does the fact that they had a plan in place mean that they've got
every line of dialogue and every plot point in every sub-plot mapped
out in excruciating detail.

> probably due to viewer interest.

Utter nonsense. The episodes establishing Locke as a central character
to the series would have been *long* in the can before the first
episode was aired.

> However, I do know that they did have the big-ticket items right from
> the start: There was going to be a relatively large ensemble cast of
> Lostaways; Lost Island wasn't your typical island but had, as Abrams
> said, an "amazing history" of weirdness; and the Lostaways weren't going
> to be alone on Lost Island. Getting the basic premise right is all you
> need.

Depends on what you mean by "right from the start". The show was
initially pitched as "CAST AWAY the series". They couldn't get any
traction with that. So they brought in the writers, who brainstormed it
and concluded that there needed to be more to the series.

Now, it's possible that they're all lying to us. But why? Rather than
lying to us, wouldn't it have been easier to *actually* come up with a
plan for the series? Given a choice between flying blind and plotting,
why would the writers and producers choose to fly blind?

--
Justin Alexander Bacon
http://www.thealexandrian.net

Steven L.

unread,
Sep 27, 2005, 3:05:48 AM9/27/05
to
Palpie wrote:

> "Luna" <luna...@NOSPAMmindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:lunachick-2994D...@news1.east.earthlink.net...
>
>>In article <cp4_e.4310$oc....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
>> "Steven L." <sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Star Trek was in a similar situation in 1966. When it premiered, a lot
>>>of concepts like the Federation and Prime Directive and the history and
>>>philosophy of Vulcans hadn't been invented yet. These things were
>>>invented on the fly as the episodes were written. But the basic premise
>>>had been tied down from the start--a big starship with a crew of
>>>hundreds exploring the galaxy. As audience feedback on the Spock
>>>character was positive, his role grew steadily in the show and entire
>>>episodes were all about his background, family, and Vulcan culture.
>>>
>>
>>The difference is, Star Trek wasn't a mystery, and Lost has been
>>presented as such. To write a good mystery, you really need to know how
>>it's going to turn out before you start. The intricacies of Lost, if
>>they're ever going to make sense, need to be rather meticulously planned
>>out to prevent it from being a big mess.
>
>
> Yup. I don't expect them to have written five seasons with 24 episodes each
> before they ever started. But they should have had an overall plan for the
> story and known the answers the the basic questions the pilot raised.

As I said, I believe they did have answers to those questions from the
start. But remember, those are the truly *basic* questions: Where are
the Lostaways? What will become of them? What is the "amazing" history
of Lost Island? (This last includes the hatch and the bunker, both of
which I'm pretty sure Abrams had in mind from the start.) I'm pretty
sure Abrams knew all that from the beginning. Because when ABC
approached him to do Lost, he told them he couldn't do it as a
straightforward "Survivor" type show--he had to make the island
mysterious and spooky. So he knew that even before he wrote a single
line of script.

Now that leaves a zillion less important questions, like how are
Hurley's numbers operating and Kate's backstory and Jack's marriage and
even Locke regaining use of his legs and so on. Those questions were
*NOT* raised in the Season 1 premiere. It wouldn't bother me if that
stuff were being invented on the fly.

Steven L.

unread,
Sep 27, 2005, 3:29:29 AM9/27/05
to
Luna wrote:

> In article <cp4_e.4310$oc....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> "Steven L." <sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Star Trek was in a similar situation in 1966. When it premiered, a lot
>>of concepts like the Federation and Prime Directive and the history and
>>philosophy of Vulcans hadn't been invented yet. These things were
>>invented on the fly as the episodes were written. But the basic premise
>>had been tied down from the start--a big starship with a crew of
>>hundreds exploring the galaxy. As audience feedback on the Spock
>>character was positive, his role grew steadily in the show and entire
>>episodes were all about his background, family, and Vulcan culture.
>>
>
>
> The difference is, Star Trek wasn't a mystery, and Lost has been
> presented as such. To write a good mystery, you really need to know how
> it's going to turn out before you start. The intricacies of Lost, if
> they're ever going to make sense, need to be rather meticulously planned
> out to prevent it from being a big mess.

But they did. The *major* mysteries, I'm sure they had prepared answers
for in advance:

- Where are the Lostaways?
- What will become of them? (includes building a new society in Seasons
Two and Three)
- The "amazing history" (Abrams' words) of Lost Island
- The hatch and its associated bunker


Then there are the relatively *minor* mysteries that yes, they are
working out on the fly:

- The characters' backstories
- Hurley's numbers
- Danielle (but do you really care that much?)
- Ethan Rom (do you really care?)
- The polar bears (who cares?)
- The Others
- Locke regaining the use of his legs (recall that Locke was a minor
character at first so this wasn't all that important)


And then there are things they changed from the original conception:

- Locke has been elevated to a major character, a mystic
- The "monster" was made subterranean so it could mostly stay invisible
until it attacks (like the shark in Jaws)


> Unless they're going to go
> with "It was all a dream" in which case they can throw in flying pigs or
> whatever the hell they feel like.

Abrams and Lindelof have said 23,000 times already that it's not a dream.

We may NEVER find out who or what Ethan Rom was all about. Do you
really care that much?

Evil Bastard

unread,
Sep 27, 2005, 5:46:40 AM9/27/05
to
So he is going from one show that makes it up as the go along to
another that does the same. Just read any article describing the
writing process on 24. They have a basic idea on where the season
starts, but have no ide where it will end until it does.

Ken Ream

unread,
Sep 27, 2005, 6:25:27 AM9/27/05
to

The difference being "24" pays of in 24 episodes. That's a few months
of the viewer's investment to see a story completed. The worry here is
we'll spend years following "Lost" hoping the story is going somewhere
and the creators have explanations to all the mysteries in mind, but
they don't and we get burned. Just like "X-Files" where Chris Carter
laid on so many mysteries he made up as he went along in the mythology
that most of us just gave up.

rwgibson13

unread,
Sep 27, 2005, 6:38:22 AM9/27/05
to

Milhouse Van Houten wrote:
> I'm pretty sure I saw him center stage at the Emmy's. Did I or was that
> someone else? If he was there, the rift can't be that bad.

I doubt it is.

These guys are showmen. Hucksters. The only bad publicity is no
publicity. If Fury's comments start more people wondering what's up
with the show, most involved probably sees that as a good thing. Heck,
it might have even been, gasp, PLANNED.

Seriously, how many people reading that Rolling Stones article are
going to go "Damn, now I'm not going to watch the show anymore!"
because of those comments?

If you watch the DVD commentary tracks, you can pretty much read
between the lines and tell a great deal was made up as they went. And
they all seemed rather proud of it :-)

RWG (as well they should be)

Steve Wadding

unread,
Sep 27, 2005, 6:46:53 AM9/27/05
to
"Steven L." <sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in news:tx6_e.4373
$0m6....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:

> Abrams and Lindelof have said 23,000 times already that it's not a dream.

I won't believe him until he says it 42,000 times! <g>

Steve W.

rwgibson13

unread,
Sep 27, 2005, 6:46:55 AM9/27/05
to

And we, as fans, got two of the very best tv episodes in recent memory,
"Walkabout," and "Numbers," because Abrams and company were smart
enough to hire him. Other writers tried similar tricks to "tie up the
random elements into an illusion of something" during that first
season.

RWG (now go rewatch "Hearts and Minds" and "Born to Run" or "All the
Best Cowboys..." and compare)

Anthony Cerrato

unread,
Sep 27, 2005, 7:00:39 AM9/27/05
to

"Justin Bacon" <tria...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1127802760.4...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Steven L. wrote:

snip

> Now, it's possible that they're all lying to us. But why?
Rather than
> lying to us, wouldn't it have been easier to *actually*
come up with a
> plan for the series? Given a choice between flying blind
and plotting,
> why would the writers and producers choose to fly blind?


Yes. I see the early brainstorming as a sort of top-down
process. Initially the big questions and plot points are set
up--major premises, what overall does it entail as to where
the series will end up, and how major segments of plot will
connect together (details to be finalized later)--then
possible brief alternatives for what the history, function,
and behavior of each character might be, TBD later.

Then, at the next level, early on, the backstorys and some
of the details of each character are fleshed out a little
for early eps...then when the first ep is written many more
details are finalized. So, one has an overall plot, a bunch
of segments of that plot, and for each segment _some_
detail_...then, for each new ep written one extends the
story, consistent with the already firm plot points etc. and
the substories at each level flshed out more or modified
(maintaining continuity and story logic.) IOW, the series is
open-ended to some extent, but within constraints that may
vary somewhat. Anyways, that's the way I'd do it...:)
...tonyC

Steven L.

unread,
Sep 27, 2005, 8:49:00 AM9/27/05
to
Ken Ream wrote:
> Evil Bastard wrote:
>
>> So he is going from one show that makes it up as the go along to
>> another that does the same. Just read any article describing the
>> writing process on 24. They have a basic idea on where the season
>> starts, but have no ide where it will end until it does.
>>
>
> The difference being "24" pays of in 24 episodes. That's a few months
> of the viewer's investment to see a story completed. The worry here is
> we'll spend years following "Lost" hoping the story is going somewhere
> and the creators have explanations to all the mysteries in mind, but
> they don't and we get burned.

You don't necessarily get burned. I think Abrams' hope all along has
been that the mysteries could eventually be de-emphasized in favor of
the continuing relationships among the characters and the issues in
building a new society on the island.

If Lost does remain on the air for years, I hope that the "monster" and
such will recede into the background. (I always thought introducing a
"monster" was a bad idea, and after the Season One Finale it's clear I
was right.) They were hooks to attract a mass audience. At some point,
we're supposed to start being more interested in whether Jack and Kate
will hook up, or whether she'll go with Sawyer, etc.

Steven L.

unread,
Sep 27, 2005, 8:53:22 AM9/27/05
to
rwgibson13 wrote:

The ratings for Lost clearly show it's not dependent on Fury's
two-episode contribution. Neither he nor any other writer, nor any
actor for that matter, is indispensable. Not even Terry O'Quinn.

And that's a clear sign that Abrams got the basic premise
right--probably the most intriguing basic premise for an adventure-drama
since Star Trek: The Original Series.

rwgibson13

unread,
Sep 27, 2005, 9:12:30 AM9/27/05
to

Premises, Shmimisis. Since you mention "Star Trek," let's just go with
that. Most hard core Trek fans I knew at the time considered "DS9" an
absolutely LOUSY "premise" when it was announced and thought "Voyager"
was a fucking GREAT premise.

Ask them now how THOSE turned out and they'll probably lie through
their teeth about how they originally felt about 'em :-)

Put the guys writing and producing "Surface" on "Lost" and watch the
ratings tank.

It's ALL about the talent assembled.

In particular, on "Lost," Fury managed to make Locke and Hurley more
interesting in TWO flashback episodes than the other writers have
managed to make Jack and Kate in SIX.

Great premises are a dime a dozen in Hollywood. But really good
WRITERS are almost ridiculously difficult to come by.

RWG (and, for whatever reason, "Lost" lost one of the very best in Dave
Fury)

Steven L.

unread,
Sep 27, 2005, 9:18:17 AM9/27/05
to
rwgibson13 wrote:

> Milhouse Van Houten wrote:
>
>>I'm pretty sure I saw him center stage at the Emmy's. Did I or was that
>>someone else? If he was there, the rift can't be that bad.
>
>
> I doubt it is.
>
> These guys are showmen. Hucksters. The only bad publicity is no
> publicity. If Fury's comments start more people wondering what's up
> with the show, most involved probably sees that as a good thing. Heck,
> it might have even been, gasp, PLANNED.

I think Fury is covering his ass. He's trying to explain to the
industry (and future employers) why he walked out of one of the world's
most successful TV dramas. I think he thought Lost was going to
collapse without him. And now that the Season 2 premiere got the
highest ratings in the show's history, he looks like a doofus and a
prima-donna.

I'll bet with Lost's ratings, a fascinating premise, a great cast and
high production values, all of Fury's writer friends are dying for a
chance to work on Lost.

In fact, I'll bet *YOU* would love a chance to work on Lost too.

rwgibson13

unread,
Sep 27, 2005, 9:43:49 AM9/27/05
to

Steven L. wrote:
> rwgibson13 wrote:
>
> > Milhouse Van Houten wrote:
> >
> >>I'm pretty sure I saw him center stage at the Emmy's. Did I or was that
> >>someone else? If he was there, the rift can't be that bad.
> >
> >
> > I doubt it is.
> >
> > These guys are showmen. Hucksters. The only bad publicity is no
> > publicity. If Fury's comments start more people wondering what's up
> > with the show, most involved probably sees that as a good thing. Heck,
> > it might have even been, gasp, PLANNED.
>
> I think Fury is covering his ass. He's trying to explain to the
> industry (and future employers) why he walked out of one of the world's
> most successful TV dramas.

Hmm, and here I thought he left for a better position on another show.
Happens all the time in Hollywood (and elsewhere in the "real world,"
even :-) You climb the production ladder until you get a show of your
own. Maybe it just didn't work out. Maybe it's still in the planning
stages. I dunno.

Do you?

I think he thought Lost was going to
> collapse without him. And now that the Season 2 premiere got the
> highest ratings in the show's history, he looks like a doofus and a
> prima-donna.

Only to those who don't know any better. Or CARE. Again, I'd rather
wait until I read some interviews shedding a bit more light on the
departure before making "guesses" about other people's occupational
motives.

> I'll bet with Lost's ratings, a fascinating premise, a great cast and
> high production values, all of Fury's writer friends are dying for a
> chance to work on Lost.

Probably. But much comes down to what kind of show makes you most
happy to work on. If you don't like "soap operas," writing for "Lost"
probably wouldn't appeal. If you don't like having to keep your yap
shut because the guys higher up on the ladder are super control freaks,
"Lost" probably wouldn't appeal. One of the perks of working on a
television show (or any job you love) are being able to discuss it with
peers, relatives and friends. I imagine working on "Lost" is kinda
like working on top-secret government programs - you can't even discuss
your upcoming fucking plots with your ACTORS for cryin' out loud.

Some people simply have other priorities in their work. And, again, we
don't even know if the interview in question was totally serious or
not, or whether or not it was (quietly) sanctioned by the "Lost"
production staff. You know the kind...

"Next season, we explore more of the island."

"If it's an island."

Insane giggling ensues.

Really, anything to get people talking. Talk is good.

>
> In fact, I'll bet *YOU* would love a chance to work on Lost too.

Depends on if I'd have to sign away my firstborn to keep the "company
secrets" I suppose.

RWG (or get skewered by the "fans" if I give unsanctioned interviews)

ANIM8Rfsk

unread,
Sep 27, 2005, 9:55:10 AM9/27/05
to
in article cp4_e.4310$oc....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net, Steven L. at
sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net wrote on 9/26/05 10:04 PM:

Um, well, no. The story about McCoy's daughter Joanna was produced in
season 3. Unfortunately, little Freddie Frieberger, the man who destroyed
Star Trek, made the arbitrary announcement that Kirk and McCoy were the same
age, and since Kirk wasn't old enough to have a grown daughter, McCoy wasn't
either. It can of course be argued that every part of that was wrong, but
then little Freddie had watched a whole THREE episodes of Trek in
preparation for producing the show, and knew that all it was was, in his
word, 'tits in space' so obviously he knew best. Joanna was changed into a
Russian space hippy, and her show aired as "The Way To Eden"
>

--

You Can't Stop the Signal


tria...@aol.com

unread,
Sep 27, 2005, 10:13:29 AM9/27/05
to

Anthony Cerrato wrote:
> Yes. I see the early brainstorming as a sort of top-down
> process. Initially the big questions and plot points are set
> up--major premises, what overall does it entail as to where
> the series will end up, and how major segments of plot will
> connect together (details to be finalized later)--then
> possible brief alternatives for what the history, function,
> and behavior of each character might be, TBD later.
>
> Then, at the next level, early on, the backstorys and some
> of the details of each character are fleshed out a little
> for early eps...then when the first ep is written many more
> details are finalized. So, one has an overall plot, a bunch
> of segments of that plot, and for each segment _some_
> detail_...then, for each new ep written one extends the
> story, consistent with the already firm plot points etc. and
> the substories at each level flshed out more or modified
> (maintaining continuity and story logic.) IOW, the series is
> open-ended to some extent, but within constraints that may
> vary somewhat. Anyways, that's the way I'd do it...:)

Exactly. On a purely hypothetical level, for example, we can imagine
the development of the Hurley arc over time:

First, a general property of the island/arc is established: There are
these numbers. They're bad luck. The fate of the plane may be tied to
them. The fates of all our characters seem to be tied to them to one
degree or another.

Later, they come to Hurley's back story. They decide that he's actually
rich back in the real world, but nobody believes him when he tells
them. Was he part of the dotcom boom? No, we've already got a
tech-savvy character in Sayid. What if he won the lottery? Sure. Hey,
what if he won the lottery *using the numbers*? Awesome. We can use
that to introduce the numbers.

Now maybe what David Fury says is literally true: They didn't have
*everything* planned out, down to the last detail. Hurley winning the
lottery wasn't determined until late into the first season. It's
possible. But that doesn't equate to "there's no master plan on LOST"
as Fury claims.

It's no different than a novelist who writes an outline, does some
background work on their characters, and starts to write. They're going
to discover all kinds of details and hidden synergies as they work --
but that doens't mean they didn't have an outline or have an
understanding of the characters before they began working.

Luna

unread,
Sep 27, 2005, 11:53:07 AM9/27/05
to
In article <tx6_e.4373$0m6....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"Steven L." <sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote:

> Luna wrote:
>
> > In article <cp4_e.4310$oc....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> > "Steven L." <sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>Star Trek was in a similar situation in 1966. When it premiered, a lot
> >>of concepts like the Federation and Prime Directive and the history and
> >>philosophy of Vulcans hadn't been invented yet. These things were
> >>invented on the fly as the episodes were written. But the basic premise
> >>had been tied down from the start--a big starship with a crew of
> >>hundreds exploring the galaxy. As audience feedback on the Spock
> >>character was positive, his role grew steadily in the show and entire
> >>episodes were all about his background, family, and Vulcan culture.
> >>
> >
> >
> > The difference is, Star Trek wasn't a mystery, and Lost has been
> > presented as such. To write a good mystery, you really need to know how
> > it's going to turn out before you start. The intricacies of Lost, if
> > they're ever going to make sense, need to be rather meticulously planned
> > out to prevent it from being a big mess.
>
> But they did. The *major* mysteries, I'm sure they had prepared answers
> for in advance:
>
> - Where are the Lostaways?
> - What will become of them? (includes building a new society in Seasons
> Two and Three)
> - The "amazing history" (Abrams' words) of Lost Island
> - The hatch and its associated bunker
>

How do you know that? You say you're sure they had prepared answers.
How can you be so sure?

>
> Then there are the relatively *minor* mysteries that yes, they are
> working out on the fly:
>
> - The characters' backstories
> - Hurley's numbers
> - Danielle (but do you really care that much?)
> - Ethan Rom (do you really care?)
> - The polar bears (who cares?)
> - The Others
> - Locke regaining the use of his legs (recall that Locke was a minor
> character at first so this wasn't all that important)

Maybe I'm in the minority, but yes, I do care about all of the above.

See, if Lost is a mystery, then all of the above are what we call
"clues," which, in a poorly written mystery allow you to figure out the
end before you get there, and in a well written one only make sense in
retrospect, once you've gotten to the end and you can look back and say
"Ok, then THAT'S why such and such happened." But if they're just going
to ignore Danielle, the polar bear, etc. and the resolution has nothing
to do with them, then that would be, imo, a big mess. "Just throw in
whatever weird shit you can think of with no reason" is sloppy writing.

>
> And then there are things they changed from the original conception:
>
> - Locke has been elevated to a major character, a mystic
> - The "monster" was made subterranean so it could mostly stay invisible
> until it attacks (like the shark in Jaws)
>
>
> > Unless they're going to go
> > with "It was all a dream" in which case they can throw in flying pigs or
> > whatever the hell they feel like.
>
> Abrams and Lindelof have said 23,000 times already that it's not a dream.
>
> We may NEVER find out who or what Ethan Rom was all about. Do you
> really care that much?

Uh, yeah. "Kill off Ethan so we can keep the audience in suspense and
prolong the unveiling of the mystery" is cool, but "Kill off Ethan so we
don't ever have to explain why he was there because that would be too
hard, and besides we'll be able to distract everyone and make them
forget all about Ethan if we develop a love interest for Kate, and love
stories are a lot easier to write than mysteries" is so NOT cool.

--
http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick

KC

unread,
Sep 27, 2005, 12:05:01 PM9/27/05
to

Well, yeah, I actually do care. The polar bear's existence as part of
some government experiment would point to a vastly different "amazing
history" than the polar bear as a manifestation of Walt's mind. The
explanation of that one "minor" mystery would lead us down two
completely different road.

I also care about who Ethan Rom was, how he got to the island, why he
wanted Claire, if he was one of The Others, and why he was willing to
kill people to get what he wanted.

Danielle, well, did she know Ethan, what happened to Alex, what did
her group die of?

I read somewhere (Entertainment Weekly, maybe) that Abrams says there
are clues in Desmond's mural. Down in the bottom right corner is the
word "sick", which ties in with the "quarantine" on the hatch and that
ties back to Danielle's statements. I don't consider the mystery of
Danielle to be minor.

KC

dre...@yahoo.com

unread,
Sep 27, 2005, 1:43:17 PM9/27/05
to
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 12:49:00 GMT, "Steven L."
<sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote:
> At some point,
>we're supposed to start being more interested in whether Jack and Kate
>will hook up, or whether she'll go with Sawyer, etc.

Oh yeah, a love triangle to try and keep a show afloat.

Novel.

Ian J. Ball

unread,
Sep 27, 2005, 12:53:08 PM9/27/05
to
In article <1127826750.2...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"rwgibson13" <rwgib...@gmail.com> wrote:

> In particular, on "Lost," Fury managed to make Locke and Hurley more
> interesting in TWO flashback episodes than the other writers have
> managed to make Jack and Kate in SIX.

Oh. You're one of those.

--
"Read less. More TV." - Dr. Greg House, "House"
http://homepage.mac.com/ijball/TV-Blog/

David

unread,
Sep 27, 2005, 1:02:45 PM9/27/05
to

rwgibson13 wrote:
> In particular, on "Lost," Fury managed to make Locke and Hurley more
> interesting in TWO flashback episodes than the other writers have
> managed to make Jack and Kate in SIX.

It's questionable (and we'll probably never know) how much influence
Fury had on Locke and Hurley's storylines. When it comes to shaping the
characters and putting in plot twists I'm guessing that it's a group
effort by all the writers and producers. Fury was responsible for the
scripts but probably not the ideas behind them.

arnold kim

unread,
Sep 27, 2005, 1:27:39 PM9/27/05
to

"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1127840565.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

It's also true that the credited writer usually is not the only writer who's
had a hand on the script. Other writers make revisions and add things as
well. For instance, I believe Joss Whedon took a pass on every Buffy script
through at least the first five seasons. There's at least one episode I
know of that's about 99% written by him, even though he's not the credited
writer.

Arnold Kim


rwgibson13

unread,
Sep 27, 2005, 2:16:25 PM9/27/05
to

Oh, undoubtedly. Some of his insights on the DVD commentary track he
and Jack Bender (and O'Quinn) for "Walkabout" tends to color my
opinions a great deal. But I found even dialogue and such in the
B-plots in "Walkabout" and "Solitary" (the golf scenes, for example),
that he wrote to be a step up on the B-plot scenes of most of the other
episodes.

Oh, well, it's all rather subjective, but I simply find it amazing that
three out of the five episodes of "Lost" that I find I keep going back
to rewatch are credited to the same guy.

RWG (his only dull one being "Special," and even that one advanced the
"does Walt have mystical powers" thing to a ridiculous level :-)

Ian J. Ball

unread,
Sep 27, 2005, 2:40:32 PM9/27/05
to
In article <1127817502.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"rwgibson13" <rwgib...@gmail.com> wrote:

> If you watch the DVD commentary tracks, you can pretty much read
> between the lines and tell a great deal was made up as they went. And
> they all seemed rather proud of it :-)

That, in a nutshell, is why I don't like TV writers all that much...


Ian (Or screenwriters. Or... well, you get the idea.)

Ian J. Ball

unread,
Sep 27, 2005, 2:44:23 PM9/27/05
to
In article <0db_e.4390$oc....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"Steven L." <sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote:

> You don't necessarily get burned. I think Abrams' hope...

Why do you keep talking about Lindelof's show as if it's Abrams'?

Ian J. Ball

unread,
Sep 27, 2005, 2:57:05 PM9/27/05
to
In article <dif_e.2552$dl2....@fe08.lga>,
"arnold kim" <arno...@optonline.net> wrote:

> "David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1127840565.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >

> > It's questionable (and we'll probably never know) how much influence
> > Fury had on Locke and Hurley's storylines. When it comes to shaping the
> > characters and putting in plot twists I'm guessing that it's a group
> > effort by all the writers and producers. Fury was responsible for the
> > scripts but probably not the ideas behind them.
>
> It's also true that the credited writer usually is not the only writer who's
> had a hand on the script. Other writers make revisions and add things as
> well. For instance, I believe Joss Whedon took a pass on every Buffy script
> through at least the first five seasons. There's at least one episode I
> know of that's about 99% written by him, even though he's not the credited
> writer.

Is it BB&B from season #2?

arnold kim

unread,
Sep 27, 2005, 3:17:16 PM9/27/05
to

"Ian J. Ball" <ijball***NO-SPAM***@mac.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:ijball***NO-SPAM***-2BD848.115...@news1.ucsd.edu...

Nope, right season though. From what I've heard, it's "Passion".

Arnold Kim


Mark

unread,
Sep 27, 2005, 4:43:06 PM9/27/05
to

"Steven L." <sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:tx6_e.4373$0m6....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...

>
> But they did. The *major* mysteries, I'm sure they had prepared answers
> for in advance:
>
> - The hatch and its associated bunker

I seriously doubt if the hatch is a major mystery. It's obviously another
thing made up on the fly. Why else would the character Desmond be introduced
five minutes before he is revealed in the Hatchelor Pad? If it was a major
plot point, he would have appeared in one of the flashbacks last season. It
would have had a MUCH greater impact that way. But they didn't know about
Desmond until they made him up this summer.

>> Unless they're going to go with "It was all a dream" in which case they
>> can throw in flying pigs or whatever the hell they feel like.
>
> Abrams and Lindelof have said 23,000 times already that it's not a dream.

But they've also claimed repeatedly that they're NOT making it up as they go
along. And they also claimed that the season finale was of 'who shot JR'
cliffhanger quality. And you STILL believe what they have to say?

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."


Steven L.

unread,
Sep 27, 2005, 4:43:42 PM9/27/05
to
Ian J. Ball wrote:

> In article <0db_e.4390$oc....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> "Steven L." <sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>
>
>>You don't necessarily get burned. I think Abrams' hope...
>
>
> Why do you keep talking about Lindelof's show as if it's Abrams'?

Let me rephrase. I think it's the hope of the "Lost Creative Team" that
we can gradually move away from mysteries and get on with the real meat
of Lost--the characters, their interrelationships, and their building a
new society.

rob...@bestweb.net

unread,
Sep 27, 2005, 5:47:00 PM9/27/05
to
Garondo...@hotmail.com wrote:

> Writer David Fury is one of my, and that creepy bastard Mr. Hole's
> favorite tv writers, EVER, so we thought it interesting to read his
> comments in the current issue of "Rolling Stone" issue #984 dated
> October 6, 2005. This blurp/qoute is from a sidebar within the article
> on Evangeline Lilly who's also the cover model:

> THEY'RE MAKING IT UP AS THEY GO

> The Lost creators have often claimed they know where the show is going
> and that everything will ultimately add up. Well, the current creators,
> anyway. "there was absoluetly no master plan on Lost" insists David
> Fury, a co-executive producer last season who wrote the series's two
> best episodes and is now a writer-producer on 24. "anybody who said
> that was lying.
> "On a show like Lost, it becomes a great big shaggy-dog story," he
> continues cheerily. "They keep saying there's meaning in everything,
> and I'm here to tell you no - a lot of things are just arbitrary. What
> I always tried to do to do was connect these random elements, to create
> the illusion that it was all adding up to something."
> Many plot elements were concocted on the fly, Fury says; for
> example, they didn't know Hurley won the lottery until it came time to

> write his episode. "I don't like to talk about when we come up with
> ideas," Lindelof demurs. "It's a magic trick. But we planned that plot:
> We seeded references to it in earlier episodes." Fury disagrees. He
> says scenes with those references were filmed much later and inserted
> into earlier yet-to-air episodes: "it's a brilliant trick to make us
> look smart. But doing that created a huge budget problem."

I think this is another joke by the makers of "Lost", echoing a major
theme of "Lost" -- that the causal relationships aren't what they seem,
that some things that seem mystically connected as precursors of others
were actually planted later and made to seem as if they were earlier.

Heh -- "it's a magic trick".

Robert

Steve Wadding

unread,
Sep 27, 2005, 6:28:21 PM9/27/05
to
dre...@yahoo.com wrote in news:531jj1p3129ksd89q...@4ax.com:

> Oh yeah, a love triangle to try and keep a show afloat.

Often it's a baby added to a show to try and get it going again. But Lost
already added a baby.

Steve W.

Anthony Cerrato

unread,
Sep 27, 2005, 6:49:29 PM9/27/05
to

<tria...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1127830409.1...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

We're in total agreement. Your Hurley/Numbers example is a
good one for writing a series like Lost. You're also right
that as the series goes on synergies will just naturally pop
up--as will more basic connection ideas for characters and
plot. One thing though I would be sure to do early on--once
the main premise is set as alluding to the show, "Survivor,"
and doing a weird/"mysterious" island as main prop, and
having strange unnatural animals or monsters on it (like
maybe a "tropical" polar bear,) I'd pose and answer the
question, will the story now be mainly, supernatural, SF,
high fantasy or magic realism, or some sort of realistic
conspiracy.

I'd sure decide that at this early step, since it determines
where and how the whole series will proceed later on (it
would be a writing aid!) Once that's done, we know how all
future plot points must be oriented (like Hurley's numbers.)

Now if we only knew what they chose for the genre. :)
...tonyC

him...@animail.net

unread,
Sep 27, 2005, 7:30:04 PM9/27/05
to

Steven L. wrote:

> > And we, as fans, got two of the very best tv episodes in recent memory,
> > "Walkabout," and "Numbers," because Abrams and company were smart
> > enough to hire him.

And we won't be getting any more of these, at least not from Fury.


>
> The ratings for Lost clearly show it's not dependent on Fury's
> two-episode contribution. Neither he nor any other writer, nor any
> actor for that matter, is indispensable. Not even Terry O'Quinn.

That remains to be seen. At least for me, Fury was a big plus for this
show. So is O'Quinn. I wouldn't be a fan of it at all if it hadn't
been for Walkabout. The pilot was OK, but I'm still wondering.


>
> And that's a clear sign that Abrams got the basic premise
> right--probably the most intriguing basic premise for an adventure-drama
> since Star Trek: The Original Series.

Right for who? TOS wasn't considered a success at the time, at least
not by the suits and bean-counters. It cost too much to make and
pulled only a small, niche audience. Obviously the fans had a
different POV, but I'm not sure the premise of the show was its main
selling point. For me, it was the characters.

himiko

arnold kim

unread,
Sep 27, 2005, 9:37:15 PM9/27/05
to

"Steve Wadding" <svw_...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns96DEBBF11FB6F...@216.196.97.136...

There's often also the case of the magically aging baby, who over the course
of one hiatus, goes from infant to five year old. Hope that doesn't happen
here.

Arnold Kim


lione...@yahoo.com

unread,
Sep 27, 2005, 11:45:59 PM9/27/05
to

Steven L. wrote:
"
>
> If it weren't for J.J. Abrams, Lost wouldn't exist and David Fury
> wouldn't have had a job in the first place. At least he got paid for
> those two episodes. That money is in his bank account because Abrams
> conceived of Lost.
>
>
Actually, I believe Lloyd Braun conceive of Lost and sold JJ on the
idea in early 2004. JJ has publicly stated that many elements of the
show were created on the flow. I believe they had the ultimate
destination of the show worked out prior to the pilot airing, but not
the backgrounds on all the characters.

Hell, Jack was supposed to die during the pilot.

Joe

Mark Anderson

unread,
Sep 28, 2005, 1:11:07 AM9/28/05
to
In article arno...@optonline.net says...

> There's often also the case of the magically aging baby, who over the course
> of one hiatus, goes from infant to five year old. Hope that doesn't happen
> here.

In The 4400 the magical aging baby goes from 6 months old to an
incredibly hot 18+ year old naked chick (as seen from behind) in less
than one episode. Unfortunately that's when the season ended.

rwgibson13

unread,
Sep 28, 2005, 9:42:15 AM9/28/05
to

Ian J. Ball wrote:
> In article <0db_e.4390$oc....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> "Steven L." <sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>
> > You don't necessarily get burned. I think Abrams' hope...
>
> Why do you keep talking about Lindelof's show as if it's Abrams'?
>

I keep hoping that it's simply that "Abrams" is easier to spell than
"Lindelof." :-)

Seriously, if JJ took off from "Lost" to prop up "Alias," I hope he
stays there a year or two longer :-)

RWG (Emmy or no Emmy)

rwgibson13

unread,
Sep 28, 2005, 10:00:55 AM9/28/05
to

Mark wrote:
> "Steven L." <sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
> news:tx6_e.4373$0m6....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > But they did. The *major* mysteries, I'm sure they had prepared answers
> > for in advance:
> >
> > - The hatch and its associated bunker
>
> I seriously doubt if the hatch is a major mystery. It's obviously another
> thing made up on the fly. Why else would the character Desmond be introduced
> five minutes before he is revealed in the Hatchelor Pad? If it was a major
> plot point, he would have appeared in one of the flashbacks last season. It
> would have had a MUCH greater impact that way. But they didn't know about
> Desmond until they made him up this summer.

Or perhaps they collectively knew that there was *someone* manning the
complex, but didn't have an idea for a specific character type until it
came time to plot out the episode.

Personally, I only consider two mysteries as *major* mysteries and both
of them were introduced in the pilot episode.

1) How did these particular (40+) people survive an unsurvivable
airplane crash with only superficial injuries while everyone else on
the plane (aside from the "marshall" and "pilot") died straightaway,
and...

2) What is the nature of the island?

All the other mysteries are subsets of those two IMO. Now TPTB have
said that they will answer most of #1 (why the plane crashed) before
Season #2 is over.

If we believe them, of course :-)

> >> Unless they're going to go with "It was all a dream" in which case they
> >> can throw in flying pigs or whatever the hell they feel like.
> >
> > Abrams and Lindelof have said 23,000 times already that it's not a dream.
>
> But they've also claimed repeatedly that they're NOT making it up as they go
> along. And they also claimed that the season finale was of 'who shot JR'
> cliffhanger quality. And you STILL believe what they have to say?
>
> "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

That's pretty much how I've been approaching offscreen comments since
"Deus Ex Machina," when it became obvious to me that they weren't
playing by their own stated rules. I even started a thread about that
time "What would you do if you found TPTB have been lying to you?" :-)

RWG (not much, it turns out, so long as what's onscreen is enjoyable)

David B

unread,
Sep 28, 2005, 4:58:29 PM9/28/05
to
rwgibson13 wrote:

He took off because he's directing Mission: Impossible 3.


electr...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 28, 2005, 6:04:38 PM9/28/05
to

rwgibson13 wrote:
> Premises, Shmimisis. Since you mention "Star Trek," let's just go with
> that. Most hard core Trek fans I knew at the time considered "DS9" an
> absolutely LOUSY "premise" when it was announced and thought "Voyager"
> was a fucking GREAT premise.
>
> Ask them now how THOSE turned out and they'll probably lie through
> their teeth about how they originally felt about 'em :-)

.

I thought both DS9 and VOY sounded like good premises.

But ultimately it's the *execution* that matters, not the premise.
That's why shows like Andromeda or Earth Final Conflict or Seaquest can
start brilliantly, but end terribly. It isn't the premise that
changed..... it was the execution by the writing staff.

Voyager *should* have been good, but it was run by a hack (Brannan
Braga). A great premise killed by bad execution. (Ditto Enterprise.)

troy

Kira Dirlik

unread,
Sep 28, 2005, 7:03:05 PM9/28/05
to
On 28 Sep 2005 15:04:38 -0700, electr...@gmail.com wrote:
>I thought both DS9 and VOY sounded like good premises.
>
>But ultimately it's the *execution* that matters, not the premise.
>That's why shows like Andromeda or Earth Final Conflict or Seaquest can
>start brilliantly, but end terribly. It isn't the premise that
>changed..... it was the execution by the writing staff.
>
>Voyager *should* have been good, but it was run by a hack (Brannan
>Braga). A great premise killed by bad execution. (Ditto Enterprise.)
>
>troy

Interesting. I never watched TV after high school until my parents
insisted I take their old TV (after I had a kid). So I missed Star
Treks and then got hooked on the reruns in the 70's. Then I was
really hooked on Next Generation (love Patrick Stewart). I liked
Deep Six 9.... I really like Major Kira. (The premier... I saw in the
credits Major Kira and thought Ohhhhh Nooooo.... a big evil blob from
outer space!!! And then she was just GREAT !)
But I have probably seen only a total of 5 episodes of Voyager and
Enterprise. Somehow I just didn't even want to get into it.
For one thing.... identifying with a Mom, Dr. Krutcher. Whatever
happened to Wesley ???? (My older son even looks like Wesley....
don't you EVER TELL him.... he hates Wesley. ha ha) Heart strings
really torn out there! Where/what is he now?
Kira

GMAN

unread,
Sep 28, 2005, 8:28:31 PM9/28/05
to
In article <1127790634.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, Garondo...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> He sounds bitter. Maybe they didn't let him in on the whole plot?
>
>Stop being such a fanboy. He left the show, he's got no reason to be
>bitter.
>
>
>

But i bet he is violating his NDA. The producers could sue.

Micky

unread,
Sep 29, 2005, 1:06:47 AM9/29/05
to
"Kira Dirlik" <!!yggdr...@earthlink.net!!> wrote in message
news:433b1f31...@news.east.earthlink.net...

> Interesting. I never watched TV after high school until my parents
> insisted I take their old TV (after I had a kid). So I missed Star
> Treks and then got hooked on the reruns in the 70's. Then I was
> really hooked on Next Generation (love Patrick Stewart). I liked
> Deep Six 9.... I really like Major Kira. (The premier... I saw in the
> credits Major Kira and thought Ohhhhh Nooooo.... a big evil blob from
> outer space!!! And then she was just GREAT !)
> But I have probably seen only a total of 5 episodes of Voyager and
> Enterprise. Somehow I just didn't even want to get into it.
> For one thing.... identifying with a Mom, Dr. Krutcher. Whatever
> happened to Wesley ???? (My older son even looks like Wesley....
> don't you EVER TELL him.... he hates Wesley. ha ha) Heart strings
> really torn out there! Where/what is he now?
> Kira

Firstly, it was Deep SPACE Nine (not Deep Six Nine). Secondly, Dr. Crusher
and her son, Wesley, were in TNG -- not Voyager nor Enterprise. Lastly,
Wesley left the Academy to became the "traveller's" bosom buddy, and was
thankfully never seen again. So much for your being hooked on TNG, Kira...


ANIM8Rfsk

unread,
Sep 29, 2005, 1:31:17 AM9/29/05
to
in article dhfsp7$285$1...@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com, Micky at
mi...@n05pam.com wrote on 9/28/05 10:06 PM:

didn't he show up in some of the awful movies?

>
>

--

You Can't Stop the Signal


Micky

unread,
Sep 29, 2005, 9:05:49 AM9/29/05
to

"ANIM8Rfsk" <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:BF60C7E9.54360%ANIM...@cox.net...

No. Wesley was "travelling" long before Generations -- the first of the
Patrick Stewart era movies.


electr...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 29, 2005, 9:20:55 AM9/29/05