"Jimbo" <chris150@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:Tp5Dj.21859$mI6.13998@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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 have a rubbish memory for detail, partly because I dont actually watch
properly. So, this NG and other web sites help me remember details.
The theories and the silly OTT research mostly do nothing what-so-ever for
me. Noting as such wrong with it, but they mostly turn out to be
completely
bogus. Or they just reveal "nods" the writers want to throw in rather than
key plot points. I dont think I have seen one "big theory" turn out to be
correct. Im not sure Lost is written well enough to sup****t serious
attempts
to understand the over all plot in advance. Sure I have my ideas of whats
going on but they are not better or worse than anyone elses.
AC
|
