I didn't enjoy what they did with the Sawyer character this year. I didn't think someone would change THAT much even if 3 years had gone by. But there's nothing wrong with Holloway's acting. I think he done great work every season so it'd be great for him to win. But in my mind, it'd be a cumulative thing. I can't believe they base their awards on one episode of a television series. It'd be like basing Oscars on the first ten minutes of a movie.

quote:

Originally posted by Aura:
I can't believe they base their awards on one episode of a television series. It'd be like basing Oscars on the first ten minutes of a movie.

Film and Television are differet mediums. This year if the lead actor nominiies are the same as last year (Laurie, Spader, Hamm, Cranston, Byrne and Hall) voters would have to watch 110 episodes (well over 60 hours) in between ballots being sent and ballots being due.

I think that's un unfair expectation on voters (I don't think I could do it) and the numbers of people voting would drop or voters just wouldn't bother watching all the tapes.

So you could scrap the tape system all together. But then voters would just be voting for the performance they know. If a voter watches Boston Legal regularly and has a good idea of Spader's performance over the course of the season they are clearly better informed than on just one episode for HIS performance. But they may have not seen any of Breaking Bad this season and obviously won't vote for Cranston. The tape system safegurads that all actors have at least some work seen by voters and that everyone has their best work of the year up for consideration. Is it perfect? No. I for one would like 2 or 3 episodes chosen by actors and have them randomly destributed to voters (like they do for series).

However the current system is much fairer than it would be if voters were expected to watch the whole body of work for all the noms.

For all the criticim the system gets I am waiting for a proposal that makes sense and is practical where the whole body of work of an actor can be fairly evaluated.

quote:

Originally posted by Noble:

quote:

Originally posted by Aura:
I can't believe they base their awards on one episode of a television series. It'd be like basing Oscars on the first ten minutes of a movie.

Film and Television are differet mediums. This year if the lead actor nominiies are the same as last year (Laurie, Spader, Hamm, Cranston, Byrne and Hall) voters would have to watch 110 episodes (well over 60 hours) in between ballots being sent and ballots being due.

I think that's un unfair expectation on voters (I don't think I could do it) and the numbers of people voting would drop or voters just wouldn't bother watching all the tapes.

So you could scrap the tape system all together. But then voters would just be voting for the performance they know. If a voter watches Boston Legal regularly and has a good idea of Spader's performance over the course of the season they are clearly better informed than on just one episode for HIS performance. But they may have not seen any of Breaking Bad this season and obviously won't vote for Cranston. The tape system safegurads that all actors have at least some work seen by voters and that everyone has their best work of the year up for consideration. Is it perfect? No. I for one would like 2 or 3 episodes chosen by actors and have them randomly destributed to voters (like they do for series).

However the current system is much fairer than it would be if voters were expected to watch the whole body of work for all the noms.

For all the criticim the system gets I am waiting for a proposal that makes sense and is practical where the whole body of work of an actor can be fairly evaluated.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I think that they should keep the tape system... in a way. What I propose is that each actor be afforded thirty to sixty minutes on one tape. However, while the current tape system requires actors to cut their scenes from a single episode, my plan has the actor cutting scenes from the entire season. Still confused? Here's an example:

Michael Emerson from LOST is one of the supposed locks for Best Supporting Actor. If, or when, he is nominated, he will have to choose one episode to represent him. Let's say, for the sake of the scenario, that he chooses "Dead Is Dead," which was for the most part centric with his character Ben Linus.

When he chooses that episode, the producers will then have the episode cut down until it is only the scenes that Emerson himself is present in. No matter what great work he did in other episodes of Season 5, the voters who do not watch LOST will on have his "Dead is Dead" scenes to judge his whole season's performance by. That's the current system.

My system would allow Emerson, and other actors like him, to compile a tape full of his scenes. However, instead of limiting him to only "Dead is Dead," he would be afforded the right to edit onto the tape any scene from the entire season that he feels exhibited his best work for the year. So instead of receiving a tape of just his "Dead is Dead" work, voters would receive a tape with several scenes on it from several episodes in the order they were aired. Instead of being limited to his Alex encounter in "Dead," voters would also see perhaps his It-happened-because-you-left from the season premiere, AND his Alex encounter, AND his stunned-face in "Follow the Leader" AND his Why-him monologue in "The Incident." So long as the scene was featured in Season 5, and can join the tape without extending the time over sixty minutes, Emerson can add it in.

And what's more, the voters will get a better sense of what quality of work the actor put in throughout the year.

That's my idea.

Does anyone else think that we are going into the new season with much better combinations of characters and scenarios than last season? Last year, we started with two character groupings, just as we will this year.

Jack, Kate, Ben, Hurley, Sayid, Sun, Desmond and Penny were together at the end of last season; this season ended with Jack, Kate, Sawyer, Hurley, Sayid, Jin and Miles together. Even though Juliet just died, I am glad that the old gang is back together and I will gladly take the new bunch over pathetic addict Jack and his various broken relationships.

Locke, Sawyer, Juliet, Faraday, Miles, Charlotte were in the other group last season; the sixth season will start with Ben, Sun, Richard, Frank, Ilana, Bram and the man in black together. That freighter group started out pretty cool, but I am glad that they are gone now. Faraday was the twitchy scientist with an ulterior motive and Miles was the sarcastic guy who could talk to dead people, but we ended up with Faraday the unpredictable and miserable wreck and Miles the loser with daddy issues. Charlotte was annoying and bitchy in the fourth season and I think that the writers might have taken note of fans' complaints at the start of the fifth season when she was portrayed in a much more positive light (she even made some jokes). And then she died, but not before summing up her life story just prior. I will gladly take the mysterious and intriguing Ilana, her accomplice Bram and fake Locke over those nosebleeds.

quote:

Originally posted by thedemonhog:
Does anyone else think that we are going into the new season with much better combinations of characters and scenarios than last season? Last year, we started with two character groupings, just as we will this year.

Jack, Kate, Ben, Hurley, Sayid, Sun, Desmond and Penny were together at the end of last season; this season ended with Jack, Kate, Sawyer, Hurley, Sayid, Jin and Miles together. Even though Juliet just died, I am glad that the old gang is back together and I will gladly take the new bunch over pathetic addict Jack and his various broken relationships.

Locke, Sawyer, Juliet, Faraday, Miles, Charlotte were in the other group last season; the sixth season will start with Ben, Sun, Richard, Frank, Ilana, Bram and the man in black together. That freighter group started out pretty cool, but I am glad that they are gone now. Faraday was the twitchy scientist with an ulterior motive and Miles was the sarcastic guy who could talk to dead people, but we ended up with Faraday the unpredictable and miserable wreck and Miles the loser with daddy issues. Charlotte was annoying and bitchy in the fourth season and I think that the writers might have taken note of fans' complaints at the start of the fifth season when she was portrayed in a much more positive light (she even made some jokes). And then she died, but not before summing up her life story just prior. I will gladly take the mysterious and intriguing Ilana, her accomplice Bram and fake Locke over those nosebleeds.

I certainly think that the LOST writing staff gets a bit more credit than they deserve some times. It's hilarious that they say that the characters come first, mythology second. So far, the characters have been not so firmly illustrated; instead, its the mythology that ends up sparking the most interest in the show. I don't care why Jack had tattooes, or why Faraday lost his memory. Maybe I would, if the dialogue wasn't so one-dimensional some of the time.

Understand, I love this show. My favorite show bar none. But keep an ear out. In every episode, you will hear at least one character say at least one of these things:

"Mind telling me [insert whatever]?"
"Ready to tell me [insert whatever]?"
"I wanna know why [insert whatever]!"

Three extremely cliche lines, all of them cheap tricks that writers use to get characters to say things that they did not want to write a full conversation for.

As for the Season 6 cast, as long as Desmond becomes more involved again, I'll be happy.

quote:

Posted June 22, 2009 01:59 AM Hide Post
Does anyone else think that we are going into the new season with much better combinations of characters and scenarios than last season? Last year, we started with two character groupings, just as we will this year.

Jack, Kate, Ben, Hurley, Sayid, Sun, Desmond and Penny were together at the end of last season; this season ended with Jack, Kate, Sawyer, Hurley, Sayid, Jin and Miles together. Even though Juliet just died, I am glad that the old gang is back together and I will gladly take the new bunch over pathetic addict Jack and his various broken relationships.

Locke, Sawyer, Juliet, Faraday, Miles, Charlotte were in the other group last season; the sixth season will start with Ben, Sun, Richard, Frank, Ilana, Bram and the man in black together. That freighter group started out pretty cool, but I am glad that they are gone now. Faraday was the twitchy scientist with an ulterior motive and Miles was the sarcastic guy who could talk to dead people, but we ended up with Faraday the unpredictable and miserable wreck and Miles the loser with daddy issues. Charlotte was annoying and bitchy in the fourth season and I think that the writers might have taken note of fans' complaints at the start of the fifth season when she was portrayed in a much more positive light (she even made some jokes). And then she died, but not before summing up her life story just prior. I will gladly take the mysterious and intriguing Ilana, her accomplice Bram and fake Locke over those nosebleeds.

how can we say juliet is dead? i never understood that because if she died, how could everybody else not die?!? it would have to be some absurd storyline they make up where she dies. since she has a new show, and the bomb was supposed to send them back to the plane or whatever they said, juliet in theory would just go back to living with the others in dharmaville, so maybe less story time, but not dead.

quote:

Originally posted by Ted Mosby...Architect: how can we say juliet is dead?

I agree to call her dead is presumptous. There are 3 possible outcomes regarding Juliet.

A: She blew up the island, in which case it dosn't matter whether you fell down the shaft or are anywhere else on the island, you're fate is the same.
B: She caused a smaller explosion than expected (the incident) and only her died.
C: Nothing happened and she is still down the shaft in the process of dying

Given the ending I doubt it would be C. It looks like A is what happened (or that may be just what they want us to think).

quote:

Originally posted by Dr. McPhearson:
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I think that they should keep the tape system... in a way. What I propose is that each actor be afforded thirty to sixty minutes on one tape. However, while the current tape system requires actors to cut their scenes from a single episode, my plan has the actor cutting scenes from the entire season. Still confused? Here's an example:

I agree that it isn't perfect. With your proposal I have some reservations regarding the practicality of it. How easy will it be for actors to get in an edit room and compile these tapes? But it is an idea worthy of consideration.

And example of my proposal would be for Emerson to submit 3 episodes.
Tape 1: Dead is Dead - which 1/3 of voters get
Tape 2: The Incident - which 1/3 of voters get
Tape 3: Life and Death of Jeremy Bentham - which 1/3 of voters get

An actor would no longer be able to float by on their 1 baity episode.

All due respect, I really want to stop conversing about whether or not Juliet is dead. I will find the article in which Lindelof and Cuse confirm her death. Not only that, but Elizabeth Mitchell is the star of another show. Again, I'll post the link where they confirm it.

My theory is this:
Juliet hits Jughead with a rock, setting it off all the way down there in that shaft. The explosion, mixed with the intensely high level of magnetism down there, creates a pocket much like the one that Flight 316 flew directly into. In this case, the explosion kills Juliet, but the 815ers who were all surrounding the Swan construction site are sent into a different time period (either egyptian times with Jacob and Black Shirt Man, or 2007 where Ben and Alpert are).

The reasons I don't think the Island exploded is because, well, as the episode title suggests, what transpired in DHARMA times was the same Incident that Radzinsky writes about on the Swan Station safedoor so many years later. In addition, if the Island were to blow up, that means that the Losties would have changed the entire timeline for good. But why would that be? Notice how throughout Season 5, every thing they thought they were doing as an exercise of free will (Jack denying Ben's surgery, Sayid shooting young Ben, Faraday running straight into Camp Hostile) had actually already happened the first time around.

The "whatever happened happened" rule makes it obvious that Juliet had always blown up Jughead, and that the Swan Station was always built around that pocket of energy, and that in order to keep that energy at bay, a button system was installed so that every 108 minutes, the pocket would be subdued.

Remember, kids... only Desmond can change the course of things. I think that when Faraday told Desmond to go find Eloise Hawking, it was the first time that the timeline had changed. Perhaps going to Eloise, and then being shot by Ben, will encourage Desmond to return to the Island. And if that happens, the "whatever happened happened" rule won't apply to him.

quote:

Originally posted by Dr. McPhearson:
All due respect, I really want to stop conversing about whether or not Juliet is dead. I will find the article in which Lindelof and Cuse confirm her death. Not only that, but Elizabeth Mitchell is the star of another show. Again, I'll post the link where they confirm it.

They have never confirmed it, as they are not doing any interviews until Comic-Con, but Matthew Fox has (link).

Noble and Dr. McPhearson

This thing with the tapes. That's assuming that the voters actually watch the tapes. Just because they have them doesn't mean they watch them.

I dunno. I think the problem with all of these awards shows is that it's such a chore for the voters to watch what they're voting on. I'm not a TV fan. I only watch LOST consistently. There are a few other shows I like but that's really it. If they asked me to vote, I'd tell them to pick someone else. I'm not even voting in the Goldderby awards because that would be stupid. I'd vote LOST down the line. That's not fair.

I know it's not going to happen but the only way the best people would win is if it was decided by people who truly love television and do watch most of the shows in contention of their own free will. If a show didn't have enough viewers amongst real fans then it wouldn't deserve to win anything anyway.

My two cents.

quote:

Originally posted by Dr. McPhearson:

quote:

Originally posted by thedemonhog:
Does anyone else think that we are going into the new season with much better combinations of characters and scenarios than last season? Last year, we started with two character groupings, just as we will this year.

I certainly think that the LOST writing staff gets a bit more credit than they deserve some times. It's hilarious that they say that the characters come first, mythology second. So far, the characters have been not so firmly illustrated; instead, its the mythology that ends up sparking the most interest in the show. I don't care why Jack had tattooes, or why Faraday lost his memory. Maybe I would, if the dialogue wasn't so one-dimensional some of the time.

Understand, I love this show. My favorite show bar none. But keep an ear out. In every episode, you will hear at least one character say at least one of these things:

"Mind telling me [insert whatever]?"
"Ready to tell me [insert whatever]?"
"I wanna know why [insert whatever]!"

Three extremely cliche lines, all of them cheap tricks that writers use to get characters to say things that they did not want to write a full conversation for.

As for the Season 6 cast, as long as Desmond becomes more involved again, I'll be happy.

I really hope I'm wrong but I got the impression that we might never see Des again after the screen went white.

Unless they reset and everyone comes back, Claire, Charlie, Shannon, everyone. I can't see what need there is for Des.

I mean I loved this show so much. When they were flashing back and forth this season I was saying "best show ever". The minute they landed in 1977, they lost me. I couldn't believe what they did to the characters based on the idea that 3 years had gone by. I'm not going to get going because my "1977 killed LOST" rants are fairly enormous but yeah, the writers need to be disciplined severely.

But my thoughts on next season are that we shouldn't have any thoughts. There is no way to speculate. Because Juliet detonating the bomb could have meant anything. The screen going white wiped everything away. 2 seconds after seeing it I said out loud, "They can do whatever they want now." Next season could be a Muppet Babies version of LOST. Or it could be about anything. Who knows. Zombies. Aliens. Ancient Egypt. Dirty Hippies. Tap dancing polar bears. You name it.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Aura,

quote:

Originally posted by Aura:
I really hope I'm wrong but I got the impression that we might never see Des again after the screen went white.

I kind of hope that we never do, as his story has ended nicely. As I stated in the second page of this thread, I am not really even sure why he was in the fifth season.

Speaking of Desmond, he is a great character and consistently ranks in the top three characters of the show in online polls, but I have been thinking for a while about how his personality is not that interesting. Henry Ian Cusick even said that he likes the character because he is a bit of an everyman, contrasting characters like Sayid and Ben. Don't get me wrong--he is one of my favourite characters too, but while Jack and other characters are interesting because of how they react to situations that they are placed in, Desmond is interesting just because the situations that he is placed in are interesting. Once in those situations, he kind of just acts as any of us would. Does anyone else feel this way?

quote:

Originally posted by Aura:

quote:

Originally posted by Dr. McPhearson:

quote:

Originally posted by thedemonhog:
Does anyone else think that we are going into the new season with much better combinations of characters and scenarios than last season? Last year, we started with two character groupings, just as we will this year.

I certainly think that the LOST writing staff gets a bit more credit than they deserve some times. It's hilarious that they say that the characters come first, mythology second. So far, the characters have been not so firmly illustrated; instead, its the mythology that ends up sparking the most interest in the show. I don't care why Jack had tattooes, or why Faraday lost his memory. Maybe I would, if the dialogue wasn't so one-dimensional some of the time.

Understand, I love this show. My favorite show bar none. But keep an ear out. In every episode, you will hear at least one character say at least one of these things:

"Mind telling me [insert whatever]?"
"Ready to tell me [insert whatever]?"
"I wanna know why [insert whatever]!"

Three extremely cliche lines, all of them cheap tricks that writers use to get characters to say things that they did not want to write a full conversation for.

As for the Season 6 cast, as long as Desmond becomes more involved again, I'll be happy.

I really hope I'm wrong but I got the impression that we might never see Des again after the screen went white.

Unless they reset and everyone comes back, Claire, Charlie, Shannon, everyone. I can't see what need there is for Des.

I mean I loved this show so much. When they were flashing back and forth this season I was saying "best show ever". The minute they landed in 1977, they lost me. I couldn't believe what they did to the characters based on the idea that 3 years had gone by. I'm not going to get going because my "1977 killed LOST" rants are fairly enormous but yeah, the writers need to be disciplined severely.

But my thoughts on next season are that we shouldn't have any thoughts. There is no way to speculate. Because Juliet detonating the bomb could have meant anything. The screen going white wiped everything away. 2 seconds after seeing it I said out loud, "They can do whatever they want now." Next season could be a Muppet Babies version of LOST. Or it could be about anything. Who knows. Zombies. Aliens. Ancient Egypt. Dirty Hippies. Tap dancing polar bears. You name it.

I have a love-hate relationship with 1977 LOST. I really liked that instead of having a flashback of DHARMA like usual, the characters are actually in 1977. Very cool idea. However, it took a while for the series to get back on its feet. I thought that off-island just wasn't that intriguing, but when Ben finally meets the Smoke Monster, things started piecing back together for me.

I think that Sawyer's transformation was compelling, and needed those three years to do what it did. However, on the same side of that coin, I think there were times when the dialogue was so cliche on the show that the great parts came off as phenomenal.

I'm supporting a Drama Series bid, as well as Emerson and Holloway's nomination. A Jack Bender nom would be nice, but beyond that, I'm cool with whatever.

quote:

Originally posted by thedemonhog:

quote:

Originally posted by Aura:
I really hope I'm wrong but I got the impression that we might never see Des again after the screen went white.

I kind of hope that we never do, as his story has ended nicely. As I stated in the second page of this thread, I am not really even sure why he was in the fifth season.

Speaking of Desmond, he is a great character and consistently ranks in the top three characters of the show in online polls, but I have been thinking for a while about how his personality is not that interesting. Henry Ian Cusick even said that he likes the character because he is a bit of an everyman, contrasting characters like Sayid and Ben. Don't get me wrong--he is one of my favourite characters too, but while Jack and other characters are interesting because of how they react to situations that they are placed in, Desmond is interesting just because the situations that he is placed in are interesting. Once in those situations, he kind of just acts as any of us would. Does anyone else feel this way?

If Des does return, I don't want it to be the little flash in the pans it was this season. That was pretty draining. If he comes back on the show, it better be as the time-bending hero, the everyman who ends a century-long battle.

Here is some random, but good news (link): ABC is ordering another hour for the final season, making for a total of eighteen hours, not including clip-shows. Counting each hour as an episode, Lost will end with 121 episodes. Both the premiere and finale broadcasts will include two original episodes. As it will most likely stay on Wednesdays, the final season will probably premiere January 27.

Interesting. I wonder if Cuse/Lindelof asked for it, since I don't see why ABC would add an extra hour if it wasn't really needed.

Too bad the premiere can't be only one hour. I would love to see a 3 hour finale. That would be the most epic thing ever.

quote:

Originally posted by Bazookka Joe:
Too bad the premiere can't be only one hour. I would love to see a 3 hour finale. That would be the most epic thing ever.

I will second that.

I do not know what the deal is. I really doubt that the writers have mapped out the entire season, episode-to-episode, especially this early. They always talk about how they like to keep things open a bit instead of sticking strictly to a plan.

I can definitely see why ABC wuold want them to have an extra hour. Obviously. $$$$$. More episodes means more advertising revenue.

You know what I would really love? I would love Disney to screen the LOST finale in movie theatres. I would love to see LOST on the big screen. Preferably in DLP. I would pay $10 for that. No problem. Sigh. Wish list.

quote:

Originally posted by LadyHathor25:
I can definitely see why ABC wuold want them to have an extra hour. Obviously. $$$$$. More episodes means more advertising revenue.

You know what I would really love? I would love Disney to screen the LOST finale in movie theatres. I would love to see LOST on the big screen. Preferably in DLP. I would pay $10 for that. No problem. Sigh. Wish list.

LOST: The Movie
"Remember the Hurley bird? No? You will."

Exactly! LOL.

Seriously though, we all know there will never be a LOST movie. So, why not show the LOST finale on the big screen? I think it would be awesome!