On Mon, 12 May 2008 16:21:50 -0700, "alooo" <uh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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 agree, but again I would think it's stretching things to the breaking
point to suggest that Roger could be fooled into thinking his wife was
dead when she was not.
> 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.
Leaving things vague or unanswered is fine, IMO; coming right out and
blatantly lying in order to fool the audience is something entirely
different.
> > 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.
The difference (prior to that Miles scene) is that no one in a position
to know came right out and said, "Danielle is dead."
> > 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.
Then the audience deserves to have a fighting chance to determine that
he's lying. Again, a tell, a smirk, a separate statement that we
already know to be false... *something*.
> What's im****tant is
> that we understand Ben's reality and Ben's reality is that his mother
died
> during childbirth.
If that's as far as it goes, I suppose it will mitigate some of it. But
I suspect that *if* they go that route, they'll end up giving her an
even larger role that we were never clued in on before. Time will tell.
> > 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.
But then we're back to leaving things vague or unanswered for the
audience (and letting us make assumptions) versus coming right out and
lying to us about a critical fact.
--
Jim Gysin
Waukesha, WI
|
