alooo wrote:
> "Jim Gysin" <jimgysin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote
>
>
>>Where I draw the line is in not letting *us* know when someone is lying
>>or something is off. It's one thing to keep the show's characters in
>>the dark, but something else entirely to out and out lie to the
>>audience. For example, Ben lies to people all the time, but we *know*
>>when he's lying in short order, so it's okay. But to let a lie remain
>>out there for a year or more in real time... well, I would have a real
>>problem with that, I guess.
>
>
> I agree that the viewers should be in on im****tant lies that characters
tell
> but I don't think we need to know mysteries that the characters
themselves
> don't know about. I think you could easily make a case that Ben's
miserable
> childhood and the subsequent gassing of the Dharma folks were results of
his
> mother's death. The knowledge that she's been alive all this time could
> impact Ben's identity, but if Ben doesn't know it yet, we don't need to
know
> it either.
>
>
>
>
>>I definitely agree on the "timely manner" business. A perfect example
>>would be Shannon's "death" at the hands (?) of Smoky. Before the
>>episode was even over, we knew that that was just an illusion on Boone's
>>part. Now if they had written off Shannon for 24 episodes and then
>>brought her back and said, "Well, we never actually said she was
>>dead..." that would be too much.
>
>
> But depending on how a "death" is depicted, I think they can bring
people
> back. For instance, prior to Miles spotting Danielle's body, I think the
> writers could have easily brought her back 5, 10 episodes from now
without
> the viewers feeling they cheated. Since we never even witnessed Ben's
> mother's death, they could do the same with her.
>
>
>
>
>
>>Again, if Roger says, "Your mother is dead and you killed her," I don't
>>think it's an unfair assumption (with the above three caveats) to assume
>>that Roger is telling the truth, and that Emily is dead. If we have to
>>start assuming that *no one's* word can be taken at face value, we're
>>gonna be in robgood's bizarre little world in no time whatsoever.
>
>
>
> Maybe Roger was lying and she walked out on them when Ben was young or
maybe
> her death was faked and Roger doesn't even know that. What's im****tant
is
> that we understand Ben's reality and Ben's reality is that his mother
died
> during childbirth.
>
As I've said before, maybe she was committed to a mental hospital. That
would explain her idiosyncrasies.
>
>
>>The theory itself isn't outrageous, but the abuse of the audience and of
>>script credibility would be extremely outrageous, IMO.
>
>
>
> But again, it's not necessarily an abuse of the audience or the script
> credibility. At the point we all assumed the loved ones were mere
visions,
> we didn't know there was tele****ting/time travelling going on. This new
> information alters the certainty of assumptions we've made. So maybe
before
> I was around 95% certain those were visions, now I'm at about 60%. If
you'd
> asked me six months ago if Ben's mother was dead I would have been about
99%
> certain but now I'm about 75% certain. The writers give us elements we
think
> we understand but with new information we realize we didn't understand
> correctly. All that matters is that the explanation matches up to what
we
> actually witnessed and not how we interpreted it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
|
