Was Lost originally meant to have a rational explanation?

DeepBlue

Perhaps someone who follows the podcasts and behind the scenes stuff could answer this for me.
Did the writers/creators state at various points that the mystery behind Lost would be explained by the end of the series and that it would be a rational explanation which would have a scientific basis i.e. that the explanation wouldn't be supernatural.

By now we have a time-travelling Desmond, ghosts showing up (Charlie appearing to Hurley in the flashforward) and an apparently teleporting Ben in the last episode. Others can probably give loads more examples.

Have the writers abandoned any notion of presenting a solution to the mystery that is consistent with what is actually plausible scientifically?

User45701

I dont know i assumed ben had parashouited out of a plane/helicopter in that last part. However even if they do explain things well explain this

Where is the logic in building a large foot/statue with an extra toe?

I cant see any prupase a object like that would serve.

Sherifu

DeepBlue wrote: »

Perhaps someone who follows the podcasts and behind the scenes stuff could answer this for me.
Did the writers/creators state at various points that the mystery behind Lost would be explained by the end of the series and that it would be a rational explanation which would have a scientific basis i.e. that the explanation wouldn't be supernatural.

I think it was sad professor that was saying it was pitched like that so they'd get it off the ground. Now all bets are off.

Sad Professor

JJ Abrams was asked a couple of years back if he considered Lost a sci-fi show and this is what he said:

"It was sort of Damon's and my secret that it was a sci-fi show. We certainly never presented it that way. When we created it, conventional wisdom was that sci-fi on major networks didn't exist. The X-Files was seen as an anomaly. So we kept it to ourselves in the beginning. If we had pitched Lost as a sci-fi show, it wouldn't have gotten made."

You see the problem is Lost wasn't quite what ABC signed up for. In the pilot stage ABC thought they were getting Survivor/Cast Away the tv series and when they started seeing dailies that made the show more closely resemble Jurassic Park the tv series they got worried. But the show was a hit so they let the writers do as they wished but it didn't stop them from having deep reservations about a lot of the mystery element.

Sci-fi is a bad word in network television and a huge segment of the audience will tune out when they hear it. For that reason you wont ever hear Damon or Carlton call it that while it's on air. Instead they've described the show's genre as pseudo-science but I still think they may be holding back on a paranormal element as well.

Recently Cuse and Lindelof said this:

"The science needs to be right enough that we create a sense of believability to the storytelling," Cuse says. "But we're always trying to skirt that line between the two possible explanations—the scientific one or a mythical and magical one—and we are purposefully ambiguous about which one might be correct."

"Hopefully it won't feel like it's a copout when the show does answer that question," Lindelof adds, "because we never promised a show that was based entirely and grounded in science."

Some fans would dispute that last comment but there's enough evidence imo to suggest the writers were under pressure from ABC in the first season not to define the show in a way which might hurt the ratings. The show had a huge mainstream following in the first season who might have tuned out much earlier had they realised what they were watching. Also the show's mystery element hangs in a big way on not knowing what kind of explanation there's going to be.

loon

the problem is that they went the other way and discredited all fan theories eg. purgatory, nanobites, time travelling, aliens, etc.

so now they have to try and come up with a solution which does count their discredited theories.

madrab

wizards?

Killaqueen!!!

The thing is, there'll always be a few fanatics who have probably worked it out (not the final solution, but perhaps nearly there) who will in turn share it over the internet, meaning that the mass will find out and it will be an anti-climax for many if that's how the show turns out. When they didn't know how many series there was going to be, the answer could very well have been purgatory, but the writers had to rule it out because even the average joes and joannes like me came up with theories like that.

I think the reason why season 1 was so good - and the best series IMO- is because it appealed to everyone. I think it did have that survivor/castaway elemant, as well as great plots, character development, good writing, touches of soap drama but with a hint of sci-fi and just plain weirdness! As the seasons go by, Lost has to live up to previous episodes by creating random and crazy wtf moments (which we all love) but it ends up being very sci-fi orientated...which has probably put off a lot of viewers.

loon

lost is now about ben vs charles.

none of the losties matter and nothing before season 4 matters either.

Vegeta

Killaqueen!!! wrote: »

I think the reason why season 1 was so good - and the best series IMO- is because it appealed to everyone. I think it did have that survivor/castaway elemant, as well as great plots, character development, good writing, touches of soap drama but with a hint of sci-fi and just plain weirdness! As the seasons go by, Lost has to live up to previous episodes by creating random and crazy wtf moments (which we all love) but it ends up being very sci-fi orientated...which has probably put off a lot of viewers.

Nail on the head for me anyway. I followed this show very closely for the first 2-3 seasons and then dropped it like a hot snot. I love sci-fi so if it was orientated in that way it wouldn't bother me in the least. Now its just bad, they've taken a great idea for a show, great initial plot, very likeable (and hate-able) characters and simply ruined it with all these plot twists which go nowhere and make no sense.

thegills

It was planned to run Coronation Street for a few years and end it but here we are 30+ years later. When LOST started we expected 2 maybe 3 series but know we are in Series 4 and confused as ever.

I am expecting a damp squib ending in 2 years with the realization that I have wasted 6 years watching LOST when I could have been studying for a Masters Degree or learning Italian (I always fancied myself as a Mobster)

thegills

Sad Professor

Can we stay on topic here, folks? The whining thread is here.

thegills

Agreed. The fact that the producers admitted to not knowing the ending half way through series 2 I think would point to the show not having a rational explanation.

IamBeowulf

thegills wrote: »

Agreed. The fact that the producers admitted to not knowing the ending half way through series 2 I think would point to the show not having a rational explanation.

They could, of course, be lying. Shooting in the dark sounds a little difficult with a show like this. they openly admitted that ben was only supposed to be in the show for a few episodes until they realised the potential of the actor. But the ending...I really think they HAD to have it planned out from the start. Otherwise, massive plot holes could appear and the sales of the DVDs might plummet (something the writers' bosses would slightly disapprove of).

All IMHO:D

Psychedelic

thegills wrote: »

Agreed. The fact that the producers admitted to not knowing the ending half way through series 2 I think would point to the show not having a rational explanation.

do you have a link or source to where they said that?

vikarama

:pac:RATIONAL EXPLANATION OR NOT GREAT VIEWING GREAT CRAIC IF DARK CLOUD GETS OFF ISLAND AND JACK TO MARRY AGAIN AND GO OFF THE RAILS

Sad Professor

Psychedelic wrote: »

do you have a link or source to where they said that?

He doesn't because they never said it. The writers have always insisted they had a plan. Personally I don't really care if they do or not. As long as everything fits together in the end I'll be happy. But I see no reason why they wouldn't. I mean planning is easy. But there's a big difference between having a rough outline of future seasons and having every episode written, which seems to be what many fans expect.

But they certainly know where they're going now. Here's a quote from a recent interview:

Damon Lindelof: The last line of dialogue, we have a little bit of wiggle room, but the last scene has definitely been determined. There would have to be some major shift in both our mindsets to sort of back off that. We've been working towards that for a couple of years now, even before the end date was announced.

Re: Michael Emerson's casting, there was always going to be a leader of the Others, the question was simply whether Henry Gale would be that leader or merely a lieutenant.

Psychedelic

thanks for that. i had a feeling they didn't say anything like that, but even if they did, i don't think it would matter too much now.

like you said some people criticise the writers for "just making it up as they go along" but i definitely think they had an overall storyline from the very start, they just added to it or amended it as the show progressed. this would be inevitable due to many unavoidable contingencies and feedback from fans.

you are also bang on with the emerson's casting, if it wasn't him it would have been someone else.

W1llz0rz

DeepBlue wrote: »

Perhaps someone who follows the podcasts and behind the scenes stuff could answer this for me.
Did the writers/creators state at various points that the mystery behind Lost would be explained by the end of the series and that it would be a rational explanation which would have a scientific basis i.e. that the explanation wouldn't be supernatural.

By now we have a time-travelling Desmond, ghosts showing up (Charlie appearing to Hurley in the flashforward) and an apparently teleporting Ben in the last episode. Others can probably give loads more examples.

Have the writers abandoned any notion of presenting a solution to the mystery that is consistent with what is actually plausible scientifically?

Nice spoiler tags there, thanks.

Sad Professor

W1llz0rz wrote: »

Nice spoiler tags there, thanks.

What spoilers? He's just speculating based on the latest episodes.