On Mar 17, 1:46 am, dgates <dga...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 10:32:31 -0500, Gumby <gu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >Jimbo wrote:
>
> >> It seems like sooo many people look to the podcasts for some answers.
> >> What about the people who don't get the podcasts?
> >> I do know a few people who watch LOST but don't get podcasts, as a
mater of
> >> fact, one of them doesn't even use a computer or cell phone.
>
> >> My question is this . . .
> >> Do you think that someone who only watches LOST as a weekly show
would be
> >> able to keep up with it and not loose interest in it?
> >> I know that some of the people I know that only watch the TV show are
> >> starting to watch other shows now and are forgetting to watch LOST.
>
> >> Do you think that the producers are trying to capitalize on the idea
of a
> >> show that requires so much investment that the viewer will watch it
because
> >> of the time and energy invested?
>
> >> In Economics this way of thinking is called a "sunk cost" and to
dwell on it
> >> is a bad thing.
>
> >> If this is the case then "The Economist" may have a deeper meaning.
>
> >> Don't get me wrong, I like the show and have watched every one, even
read NG
> >> posts but, I just thought of this and was wondering if anyone else
thought
> >> this.
>
> >I don't do anything but watch the show and read this newsgroup. I'm
> >enjoying and understanding the show thorougly.
>
> I enjoy the show too. But, to be fair, if you read this newsgroup,
> you probably get all of the same peripheral information that anyone
> else gets from alternate reality games, podcasts, etc.
>
> The ideal answer to the original question would be: The people who
> check out all these other sources (podcasts, games, etc.) get the same
> info that a normal user will evenutally get; they just get some of it
> a lot earlier.
>
> Unfortunately, I suspect that's not the case. I think the people who
> check out the other sources get much clearer answers than do regular
> viewers. I think that the producers, for example, explain things in a
> much less ambiguous way on their podcasts than the scenes we see on
> the show.
>
> I could probably have named quite a few examples in the past, but I'll
> try for at least one now.
>
> It is quite possible that the show will never explain exactly what
> happened to 815's pilot, and if it was the same "monster" or
> "beautiful white light" that Locke saw later. But the producers said
> (something very much to the effect of) the pilot's reaction to the
> thing was what caused it to kill him.
>
> I remember, also, on one of the catch-up episodes shown on ABC (I
> think at the beginning of season 3), the producers said a few things
> that were never spelled out on the show.
>
> Sorry, I don't have the best specific examples here. But what I'm
> seeing is that:
>
> - those who check out all the podcasts, etc. will get more answers
> than a normal viewer.
> - a normal viewer, unless he's writing down a ton of notes, will
> probably forget most of the mysteries that at one point puzzled him.
This is a good post, I agree with about 95% of it. I think the degree
to which the podcasts clarify things isn't as great as you suggest,
but they do clear up some lingering issues. Because as you said, no
show has writing that gets everything across the way they want it to
perfectly in any show. You could probably do a similar podcast with
any show slightly more complicated than, say, "Dynasty" and say the
same thing about it.
My question to you is, is that a bad thing? Pretty soon the
distinction between "TV" and "the Internet" is going to be trivial.
You're going to get your Internet through your cable box and watch it
on the big screen HDTV in your living room same as TV. Shows will be
offering more and more "added content", and stuff that you have to go
download now at abc.com may be there in your lap to watch with one
click right after fini****ng an episode. So this media-overlapping
format is in a sense the beginning of a new form of entertainment. I
think you're going to see more of this type of thing in general, and
less concern for the people who can only watch the episodes and don't
pursue other forms of media. I doubt that people watching TV series
in 2025 are going to be overly concerned with having to go to "The
Internet" to see some greater content related to their favorite show
because it is going to be the same thing.
|
