Below is the content of an e-mail I sent to a co-worker who agreed to be a Timberwolves fan if I would in turn be a Bulls fan. I considered this a fair exchange and prepped this little run down of the franchise's history for his benefit.
1.) The team is 18 years old this year which means it’s old enough to vote and smoke but not to drink legally. I was 9 when the team came into existence, drafted Pooh Richardson and played their first season pushed up against the bleachers in the Metrodome. Our first win was against the Charles Barkley-lead Philadelphia 76ers and I was there. Our first home game was against Michael Jordan and the Bulls. We didn’t win that game.
2.) The following media members were ours first.
Kevin Harlan
Michelle Tafoya
It gives us a little smile to see that they succeeded coming out of our small market. So well, in fact, that no one knows they were ours first.
3.) The following players were ours at one point.
Pooh Richardson
Luc Longley
Stephon Marbury
Donyell Marshall
Chauncey Billups
Any mention of their success as players on playoff teams after leaving our team is subconsciously foot-noted in our minds with the words “Ex-Timberwolf.”
4.) The less said about Gerald Glass, Felton Spencer, Marlon Maxey, Will Avery or Ndudi Ebi the better.
5.) Isaiah Rider warrants mentioning if only to prove there was someone even more screwed up than Stephon Marbury whom we placed all of our hopes into at one point.
6.) Christian Laettner warrants mentioning if only to illustrate the Wolve’s ability to get draft pick X+1 when there are X number of sure things in the draft. Laettner was after Shaq-Alonzo in 1992, Rider went after Webber-Bradley-Penny-Mashburn in 1993 and Marshall went after Robinson-Kidd-Hill in 1994.
Other than Bradley, all of those guys were an All-Star at least once if not multiple times. Laettner is the only one of our guys who made the All-Star Game and he was an ex-Wolf by then. As such, we’re all a little troubled by picking third in this year’s draft.
7.) Mr. Timberwolf is Doug West. He was the original Timberwolf who stuck with the team for the longest and we were all shocked when he was traded for Anthony Peeler and then even more shocked when it was revealed he was an alcoholic. I mean, if he’d just said something we would’ve got him some help and not loved him any less.
8.) The greatest accomplishment in Wolves history pre-1995 was when Micheal Williams (notice the Dwyane-esque alternative spelling) made 97 FT in a row to break and set the “consecutive FT w/o a miss” record.
9.) The career leaders in points, rebounds, assists, steals, blocks, turnovers, personal fouls, field goals, field goal attempts, games and minutes played pre-1995 were Doug West, Christian Laettner, Pooh Richardson, Doug West, Christian Laettner, Christian Laettner, Doug West, Doug West, Doug West, Doug West and Doug West respectively. (See #7)
10.) The second greatest day in Timberwolves history was June 28th, 1995 when the Timberwolves drafted Kevin Garnett out of Farragut Academy High School in Chicago. He then became the franchise’s career leader in points, rebounds, assists, steals, blocks, personal fouls, field goals, field goal attempts, games and minutes played. Often this is by a large margin.
11.) Kevin Garnett was and is a superior player to Tim Duncan. It’s arguable if you’re an impartial fan. It’s completely inarguable if you are a Timberwolves fan and anyone who believes otherwise doesn’t see KG on a game-to-game basis. If Garnett had the same supporting cast as Duncan and vice versa, we’d be talking about Tim Duncan never living up to his potential. For further evidence, examine the career of Rasho Nesterovic when he played next to KG and then when he played next to Tim.
12.) The most painful day in Timberwolves history was May 20th, 2000 the day Malik Sealy was killed by a drunk driver who was driving down the wrong side of a divided highway. Sealy was driving home from KG’s 24th birthday party and to this day Malik’s number 2 is the only number retired by the Wolves. That they guy who killed him was recently arrested again for DWI makes us smolderingly mad.
13.) The second most painful day in Timberwolves history is the day Marbury was traded to New Jersey, Sam Casell went to Milwaukee and we got Terrell Brandon. Remember when Terrell Brandon was considered an elite point guard in the NBA? Yeah, that all disappeared into knee surgeries and lost opportunities in Minnesota. More importantly, it broke up the KG-Marbury duo who honestly had fun playing together and were perfectly suited to each others games. Marbury just didn’t want to be second banana to KG.
14.) #s 12 and 13 are the things which make KG’s career actually Large “T” Tragic. Something changed in the ultimate teammate each of those days.
15.) The Joe Smith Debacle didn’t cost the Timberwolves as much as you’d believe. Yes, we lost three first round picks (The penalty was originally five and then two were returned) but the only player we actually lost out on was Zach Randolph in 2001 and he plays the same position as KG. The way it hurt the Wolves was we didn’t have 1st rounders to throw in on trades for veterans to surround KG.
16.) The third and fourth greatest days in Timberwolves history were July 25th and 28th, 2003 when Glen Taylor, a man who made his millions selling greeting cards, pushed his chips to the center of the table and said, “I’d like Latrell Sprewell and Sam Cassell.” In return the Wolves gave up Terrell Brandon, Joe Smith, Anthony Peeler and Marc Jackson. The Timberwolves then embarked on the greatest season in franchise history winning 58 games, taking the 1 seed in the West, busting out of the first round and winning KG the league MVP award.
17.) The greatest game in franchise history was during the playoffs that year, Game 3 of the second round series against Sacramento. Each side kept trading blows until Trenton Hassell got a hand on a last second OT jumper by Peja Stojakovic. I literally am getting goose bumps right now. This also doubled as the greatest game of KG’s entire career as he submitted a 30-15 right when his team needed him to play huge.
18.) The greatest day in Timberwolves history is May 19th, 2004 when Timberwolves beat the Sacramento in Game 7 of that same series to advance to the Western Conference Finals. The Wolves won 83-80 behind 32-20 from KG, 23 points from Cassell and another 14 from Sprewell. The eerie coincidence is it was exactly four years to the day from the birthday party that ended with Malik Sealy losing his life. In that moment, the franchise had never been so high and yet its history was extremely close at hand.
19.) Things kind of fell apart from that day. The Wolves lost to the Lakers in six game, Cassell and Sprewell both acted pouty when the Wolves wouldn’t give them exorbitant amounts of cash, the Wolves did give exorbitant amounts of cash to guys like Troy Hudson and Trenton Hassell and things weren’t going to work out. When The KG Trade came it was like both sides happily walking away from a marriage. The love was still there but we just were headed in two different directions.
20.) In fact, the sting of the KG Trade was dulled a bit when eleven months later Boston won the title and KG had a little mini-breakdown on live television. When the words “This is For ‘Sota,” escaped his mouth every true fan felt a tingle up their spine, every “KG was better than Duncan” argument gained that much more credibility and every moment spent loving KG was validated.
There is only one other Minnesota athlete in my entire life that the people of Minnesota loved as much as KG and that was Kirby Puckett. Some may have been bitter that KG couldn’t bring the hardware to us the way Kirby had twice. But deep down we were all happy that KG that, even if he got his championship somewhere else, KG was still thinking of us first.
21.) The future of the franchise looks good. We have a soon-to-be elite player in Al Jefferson who is good enough that our front office allegedly rebuffed the Bulls offer of the #1 pick for him, Randy Foye who any Wolves fan worth his salt will argue is statistically equal to Brandon Roy when healthy and some honest to goodness cap space coming in 2009.
Add in whomever we end up with after the draft (Mayo Clinic! Mayo Clinic!) to a bunch of other young guys like Rashad McCants, Corey Brewer, Ryan Gomes, etc. and we’re going to be a team to follow. Maybe we won’t win a championship or even go that far into the playoffs. But we’re at least going to be interesting to watch.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Life, Love and The NBA Draft
Most NBA Draft coverage falls into two categories. Either it's speculation about who certain teams will pick, often in the form of mock drafts, or it's analysis of who should be picked by certain teams. Obviously it's more of the latter for teams earlier in the draft and more of the former for teams later in the draft which is logical. Teams toward the beginning of the draft control their own destiny and teams closer to the end need a little luck.
This article will not fall into either one of those categories. I'm not anyone who has secret insight into who teams will pick nor do I have particularly interesting opinions of who should be picked. I fall into the "Beasley fits Chicago better but Rose would never forgive them" camp and, as a basketball fan, I hope the Bulls slight Rose and thus make him a player with a chip on his shoulder. (See: Paul, Chris) Yet I, like most of the basketball prognastocating masses, expect Rose to go first and Beasley to go second to the Heat. Instead my article will be about how I'd feel on Thursday night if the Timberwolves pick certain players with the number three pick.
Derrick Rose (.00001% chance of happening)
To do this the Timberwolves would probably have to trade for the top pick and I doubt Chicago would do it unless we gave them El Jefe. If we gave up Jefe I'd be very upset and wouldn't like it at all.
Michael Beasley (.00999% chance)
I would like to have Michael Beasley on the Timberwolves and if the Bulls take Rose first and the Heat take OJ Mayo he could end up on the team. If that were the case, not only would I be happy we got such a good young player but also that unlikely circumstance guided him to us.
OJ Mayo
An odd taste, yes. But delicious in the way things that aren't good for us usually are while still being full of Vitamin C, potassium and folic acid. Yum!
Ovington J'Antony Mayo (75% chance)
He's the draft's third best player and we have the third pick by merits of having the third worst record. So I'd be happy because we got the guy we wanted and deserved and because I think OJ Mayo fits well with Randy Foye in the backcourt. Plus he comes with a ready-made Minnesota-relevant nickname, The Clinic.
Brook Lopez (15% chance)
Brook Lopez is seven feet tall and our team ostensibly needs a center but that doesn't necessarily mean we have to pick Brook Lopez. I didn't want him last year when we picked seventh and I especially don't want him this year when we pick third.
Jerryd Bayless (2% chance)
I don't know as much about Bayless as Mayo and I've even cited that here in an earlier post. If he ended up on the Wolves instead of Mayo without a trade for pieces, I guess I'd be a little shocked and wonder what the front office knew that I didn't.
Kevin Love (4% chance)
He isn't tall enough to play center like Brook Lopez and again if he ended up on the Wolves without a trade, I'd be a little shocked and wonder what the front office knows that I didn't. However I do know a bit more about Love than Bayless and I'm impressed enough to perhaps have a little faith in the pick. How could you pass at buying a T'Wolves jersey that says "LOVE" across the back?
Danilo Gallinari (2% chance)
Honestly I don't know what to expect from Gallinari and I don't know if I like that for the Wolves. The team already took a big risk trading away Kevin Garnett and, in the early stages, it seems to have worked. But let's not convince ourselves the front office all of a sudden got their shit together and all of their big time risks are going to pay off.
DeAndre Jordan (.5% chance)
Eric Gordon (.25% chance)
Russel Westbrook (.25% chance)
The Wolves would probably trade out of the top three and get pieces back in exchange in order to take any of these three guys. Without knowing who we got back, I'd still be okay with having any of these three eventhough I don't know how well they fit with pieces we already have and none of them clearly will be good at the next level.
This article will not fall into either one of those categories. I'm not anyone who has secret insight into who teams will pick nor do I have particularly interesting opinions of who should be picked. I fall into the "Beasley fits Chicago better but Rose would never forgive them" camp and, as a basketball fan, I hope the Bulls slight Rose and thus make him a player with a chip on his shoulder. (See: Paul, Chris) Yet I, like most of the basketball prognastocating masses, expect Rose to go first and Beasley to go second to the Heat. Instead my article will be about how I'd feel on Thursday night if the Timberwolves pick certain players with the number three pick.
Derrick Rose (.00001% chance of happening)
To do this the Timberwolves would probably have to trade for the top pick and I doubt Chicago would do it unless we gave them El Jefe. If we gave up Jefe I'd be very upset and wouldn't like it at all.
Michael Beasley (.00999% chance)
I would like to have Michael Beasley on the Timberwolves and if the Bulls take Rose first and the Heat take OJ Mayo he could end up on the team. If that were the case, not only would I be happy we got such a good young player but also that unlikely circumstance guided him to us.
OJ Mayo
An odd taste, yes. But delicious in the way things that aren't good for us usually are while still being full of Vitamin C, potassium and folic acid. Yum!
Ovington J'Antony Mayo (75% chance)
He's the draft's third best player and we have the third pick by merits of having the third worst record. So I'd be happy because we got the guy we wanted and deserved and because I think OJ Mayo fits well with Randy Foye in the backcourt. Plus he comes with a ready-made Minnesota-relevant nickname, The Clinic.
Brook Lopez (15% chance)
Brook Lopez is seven feet tall and our team ostensibly needs a center but that doesn't necessarily mean we have to pick Brook Lopez. I didn't want him last year when we picked seventh and I especially don't want him this year when we pick third.
Jerryd Bayless (2% chance)
I don't know as much about Bayless as Mayo and I've even cited that here in an earlier post. If he ended up on the Wolves instead of Mayo without a trade for pieces, I guess I'd be a little shocked and wonder what the front office knew that I didn't.
Kevin Love (4% chance)
He isn't tall enough to play center like Brook Lopez and again if he ended up on the Wolves without a trade, I'd be a little shocked and wonder what the front office knows that I didn't. However I do know a bit more about Love than Bayless and I'm impressed enough to perhaps have a little faith in the pick. How could you pass at buying a T'Wolves jersey that says "LOVE" across the back?
Danilo Gallinari (2% chance)
Honestly I don't know what to expect from Gallinari and I don't know if I like that for the Wolves. The team already took a big risk trading away Kevin Garnett and, in the early stages, it seems to have worked. But let's not convince ourselves the front office all of a sudden got their shit together and all of their big time risks are going to pay off.
DeAndre Jordan (.5% chance)
Eric Gordon (.25% chance)
Russel Westbrook (.25% chance)
The Wolves would probably trade out of the top three and get pieces back in exchange in order to take any of these three guys. Without knowing who we got back, I'd still be okay with having any of these three eventhough I don't know how well they fit with pieces we already have and none of them clearly will be good at the next level.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Looking California and Feeling Minnesota
It's been around eight months since I downloaded Radiohead's "In Rainbows" for 2 quid and in the meantime I've probably listened to the album all the way through maybe twice. I haven't listened to Thom Yorke's "The Eraser" much either. I'm still thrilled to see them at Lollapalooza in August and I declared "Pyramid Song" as the perfect "waking up from a nap" song over Memorial Day weekend. So I don't think my enthusiasm for Radiohead has diminished.
Part of the problem is the time I have for listening to music these days is on the train in the morning and when I'm at the gym and neither circumstance is conducive to listening to Mssrs. York, Greenwood, Greenwood, O'Brien and Selway. More importantly, my life right now isn't conducive to listening to Radiohead either. Their songs may not be about despair and loneliness. But the part of me that wants to listen to them is definitely.
What I'm feeling right now is a variation of blissed out with a sense of impending doom. So is it any suprise that the song I'm really feeling right now is "Viva La Vida" by Coldplay. I mean isn't "Radiohead except hopeful with a steak of sad instead of vice versa" exactly the way you would describe Coldplay to someone who had never heard them. Today during my lunch break I bought the album of the same name and nothing on the album suggests it will be another "Rush of Blood to the Head" or even "Parachutes." In fact, I'll probably listen to it en total about the same number of times as "In Rainbows". Despite all of that, the song "Viva La Vida" can basically describe my moment.
I was having lunch with a friend yesterday and she observed that the Lakers needed to start playing defense and making their shots. Lo and behold Lons Angeles was blown off the court last night surrendering 131 points while only scoring 92. Then this morning she stopped by my desk to return my copy of "Viva" and made an equally outstanding point albeit one which is less scientifically verifiable. The song would absolutely make sense as a U2 single. It's not too much of a leap to imagine Bono singing "I used to roll the dice/Feel the fear in my enemies eyes/Listen as the crowd would sing/'Now the old king is dead, long live the king'!" in 100% earnestness.
The difference is Coldplay, as Klosterman describes, "manufactures fake love as frentically as the Ford Motor Company manufactures Mustangs" and I need that in a generous helping right now. Not fake love per se but emotion that I'm not actually feeling that makes me feel like Bono and that I may be able to accomplish anything. Thom Yorke or Morrisey or even Rivers Cuomo can't give that to me. I don't feel lonely and full of despair. I feel like I'm on my way to Great U2-sized things except on the scale of a single human life and I need fake reassurance more than I need a reflection of my real fear.
Part of the problem is the time I have for listening to music these days is on the train in the morning and when I'm at the gym and neither circumstance is conducive to listening to Mssrs. York, Greenwood, Greenwood, O'Brien and Selway. More importantly, my life right now isn't conducive to listening to Radiohead either. Their songs may not be about despair and loneliness. But the part of me that wants to listen to them is definitely.
What I'm feeling right now is a variation of blissed out with a sense of impending doom. So is it any suprise that the song I'm really feeling right now is "Viva La Vida" by Coldplay. I mean isn't "Radiohead except hopeful with a steak of sad instead of vice versa" exactly the way you would describe Coldplay to someone who had never heard them. Today during my lunch break I bought the album of the same name and nothing on the album suggests it will be another "Rush of Blood to the Head" or even "Parachutes." In fact, I'll probably listen to it en total about the same number of times as "In Rainbows". Despite all of that, the song "Viva La Vida" can basically describe my moment.
I was having lunch with a friend yesterday and she observed that the Lakers needed to start playing defense and making their shots. Lo and behold Lons Angeles was blown off the court last night surrendering 131 points while only scoring 92. Then this morning she stopped by my desk to return my copy of "Viva" and made an equally outstanding point albeit one which is less scientifically verifiable. The song would absolutely make sense as a U2 single. It's not too much of a leap to imagine Bono singing "I used to roll the dice/Feel the fear in my enemies eyes/Listen as the crowd would sing/'Now the old king is dead, long live the king'!" in 100% earnestness.
The difference is Coldplay, as Klosterman describes, "manufactures fake love as frentically as the Ford Motor Company manufactures Mustangs" and I need that in a generous helping right now. Not fake love per se but emotion that I'm not actually feeling that makes me feel like Bono and that I may be able to accomplish anything. Thom Yorke or Morrisey or even Rivers Cuomo can't give that to me. I don't feel lonely and full of despair. I feel like I'm on my way to Great U2-sized things except on the scale of a single human life and I need fake reassurance more than I need a reflection of my real fear.
Monday, June 2, 2008
People I Know In The Know - "Lost" with Meg and Gerry
There's a new feature I'd like to try now that I'm re-trying the blog thing and it's to interview my friends. Not about themselves but about topics I know they think about and are the people I talk with about these topics. It's called "People I Know In The Know."
Gerry Diaz is actually making his second appearance on FWOSB after his appearance as counterpoint in the Obama-Iraq post from the beginning of April. When I'm not poaching our personal communiques for content, he can be found at his own blog Ghostwriter.
Meg Bridge is a graduate student at The New College in San Francisco. Or at least she was until they lost their accreditation. She blogs at 15% Prettier in between beating me handily at games of online Scrabble.
Both of them are devoted fans of "Lost" and I've invited them to talk with me about the show. (Ed. Note - Apologies to my brother Dan who is also a tremendous fan but was at a movie screening this night.)
MIKE: Alright, here's the deal guys. I'm going to ask you three basic questions about Lost since you guys are the foremost Lost fans I know.
Meg: Rawk.
MIKE: And anything is in play. Go ahead and spoil anything.
Meg: 'kie
MIKE: If I wanted to be unspoiled, I would've watched it the first time around. So go ahead and talk about everything. I'm going to put this up on my blog so do say anything you wouldn't say in a room full of people listening to you. But I don't think we'll go into anything like that. Are you two ready?
Meg: Ready.
Gerry: oops..yeah..paying attention now
MIKE: As you both know, I just started watching "Lost" on DVD and am about three discs into the first season. Why should I keep watching?
Gerry: Sawyer, Locke and Ben.
Meg: Hmm. Personally, I think if you're not enjoying the show now you're going to completely despise season two
MIKE: I'm enjoying it so far.
Meg: However, have you gotten to the episode where they hung Charlie yet?
MIKE: Yes, I've gotten to that episode
Meg: Good, 'cause that's the episode that got me hooked on the show.
MIKE: Care to elaborate, Gerry?
Gerry: Ben doesn't even come into the picture until season 2. But he's worth the wait.
Meg: Yeah, but it's not until season four where he starts to really shine, and damn did he blow everybody out of the water in season three.
Gerry: At least give it until the episode "Lockdown."
Meg: I'd stay in the series just to see what they do to Locke and Jack. Both are given the same kind of obstacles thrown into their paths, but they come out completely different. Jack regresses while Locke grows.
MIKE: Why do you think Jack regresses?
Meg: I think it's a choice the writers made to create a foil for Locke. They needed two strong conflicting characters who were basically two sides of the same coin.
MIKE: Something which I didn't like about the Harry Potter series was when people told me to "stick with it until the third book." Is the payoff really worth it?
Meg: I think so for season four, which is fantastic. But I also am a believer than you can completely ignore seasons and books in a series if you just don't like them. Sure, it may be cheating, but it works.
Gerry: LOST wasn't paced well the first two seasons. Had the first two season been done the way season four was done, it wouldn't labor under needless filler. If the episode is about Nikki and Paulo...skip it dude.
MIKE: I heard the producers killed them because people hated them
Gerry: On a show known to bringing in new characters...Nikki and Paulo's entrance was not handled well...and the characters never got a chance.
MIKE: So here's my second question. If you knew then what you know now, what would you liked to have known at the beginning of the series?
Meg: Nothing. With the exception of the horrible pacing in season two and the start of season three, I think they have been doing a great job with the story line.
Gerry: Nothing. I liked how they toyed around with us for so long. I liked that you actually had to argue with people that the show was even sci-fi. Not knowing what it was, put you right there on the island with a bunch of survivors who didn't know anything about what was happening to them.
MIKE: Not even anything like that you can ignore Nikki and Paulo episodes or that there are survivors in the tail section?
Gerry: I actually kind of enjoyed hating their guts for their 6 episode run, or however long it was.
Meg: To know anything right off the bat would ruin it, really. Piecing together the clues is half the fun. Even when it turned out that the "monster" that Locke saw at the beginning was this crappy CGI smoke monster. (Lame!) It set out what good shows set out to do - create a community of people coming together to speculate.
Gerry: I loved the tailies reveal. That episode where you see the plane crash...and slowly realize you are watching the tailies version blew me away. And then when Jin, Michael and Sawyer get captured. And you think you are meeting the others. That was great.
MIKE: How different would the show have been if we'd simply started with the tail section? Would you have liked the show with out the suspense? Or is the slow reveal better?
Gerry: It would be a darker show. Tailies had it much harder.
Meg: I like the slow reveal. It's why I restrain myself from reading the last chapter of a book. And what's fun is that the series HAS a set ending. So we still get to keep guessing. We get to piece together what we know and also take wild stabs in the dark.
MIKE: I agree and that's something that has brought me to the series. If you're writing without the end in mind, you're going to back into something you don't like.
Gerry: The build up is what made it. Watching a "survivor" show and then slowly being dipped into a show with creepy bad guys and crazy science stations was what made the show. The show wouldn't have worked if they just started going wherever. All they do is play on us guessing wrong.
MIKE: So starting the show, for example, by showing all of the characters and then slowly re-introducing them like showing all of the pieces and then piecing together the puzzle wouldn't have been as effective?
Gerry: Not at all.
Meg: It could have - you never know. If they had executed it correctly, it may have worked. But the way they have been introducing the flashbacks/forwards is a much more effective way for us, as viewers, to be an interactive part of the show. I mean, if they gave everything to us all at once, it would be kind of mindless, wouldn't it? I do want to point out that Lost is not the first show to have a start and end point - Babylon Five did it - it was signed on for a five year contract and it fulfilled that.
Gerry: And again...I don't think we would have identified with the survivors.
MIKE: That's not really what I mean. I mean, like showing us Ben and the Other's perspective of the crash and start the show from there.
Gerry: You couldn't. You'd have to explain why Ben is there and who the Others are. No mystery (unless you count the mystery of who crashed...but they are not special...they are us.) The show has to be from the losties perspective.
Meg: I think by giving us the focus on the survivors first gave us a sense of who we SHOULD follow and brings us to the idea of "reliable narrator." Because our reactions to the Others first is that of distrust because the survivors distrust them. If we knew what the Others wanted right away, would it be as fun?
Gerry: The others make better boogie men. Something to fear in the shadows. You couldn't get that from a bunch of plane crash victims.
MIKE: Better than a big monster or wild animals?
Gerry: Well LOST has a big monster and wild animals too!
Meg: Of course, because they are human.
MIKE: But humans can be killed. It's Human Vs. Human instead of Human Vs. The Supernatural.
Gerry: And let's remember that everything that happened was manipulated. Locke was "meant" to get to the island.
Meg: Everybody was "meant" to get to the island. Well, those who survived, that is.
Gerry: Right...but it has only been explicitly stated with Locke.
Meg: Side Note- Claire? Totally dead. Are we in agreement?
Gerry: Was she ever alive?
Meg: hahahha. Seriously, it's why the ghost seeing guy kept asking if she needed help.
Gerry: I'm not entirely sure anyone can die on the island. Patchy always comes back. The 15-year-old crackers are nice and fresh.
MIKE: Michael can be dead because he was on the freighter.
Meg: So was Jin.
Gerry: Michael can't be dead.
Meg: Jin is totally dead. I think Claire is dead. She came back to speak to Kate.
Gerry: They can't be dead yet. Sun has to reveal that the baby is Michael's before they can die.
Meg: I think some people live because the island needs them to be alive.
MIKE: How so?
Meg: Well, Locke got SHOT and lived because the island needs him.
Gerry: And the Oceanic 6 can't die.
Meg: The island let Ben get sick because he was becoming out of balance with the island.
Gerry: I'm interested in the other Island. I think Ben had to go there for the operation. It wouldn't have worked on the island. And why were they building crap over there?
MIKE: This is actually a good point for my third question. It's May 2010. The sixth season finishes and the series is over. What are you hoping for?
Meg: Oh lord, right now I can't even tell you. Obviously, I want a conclusion. I want to know who the others are, how they got there, why they were so "hostile" to the Dharma initiative. I want to know what the island is. I want Kate to die a horrible painful death and for Sawyer to live happily ever after. I want Sun to kick some major ass.
Gerry: I want the Scooby Doo ending.
MIKE: The Scooby Doo ending? Locke pulls his mask off and it's Ben?
Meg: Ben and Whitmor are the same person.
Gerry: For a long time, I wanted the endless loop ending. The show ends with Jack getting in the time machine and poping out Act 1 Scene 1. Crash on the beach. Only this time he knows what he's supposed to do. Maybe he'll leave hints for himself. Like the number 3. (If any of you watched Star Trek: The Next Generation)
MIKE: Why do you want Kate to die, Meg?
Meg: Because she's horribly written. She's a classic Mary Sue. One moment she's all snuggly to Sawyer, who's a badass sure, but is also honest and genuine. Next she's all pissy because Juliette's over Jack and oh no, she just can't be having with that!
Gerry: Do you remember what a jerk Sawyer was in season 1? I liked him better then...but I totally respect the Han Solo character.
MIKE: I get Sawyer going Solo. I can see it happening. So, Meg, you wish Kate were a strong independent female instead of being defined by the men around her?
Meg: YES.
Gerry: Because no women ever are defined by the men around them. *cough* Did I say that outloud?
Meg: I think Juliette is a better example of a strong female. Kate is unbelievable. Juliette is.
Gerry: Because Juliette got treated like crap by her husband so she became Ben's pet...until something less bug-eyed came along?
Meg: At least she grew a spine.
Gerry: Juliette and Kate are playing the same game.
Meg: If they are, Juliette plays it better and more sympathetic. Kate's just annoying. Or are you defending Kate because, as you said (Ed. note - in a prior conversation), she's smoking hot? Hotter than Juliette therefore more interesting?
Gerry: Actually I'd probably be more attracted to Juliette. She's more my type. Only they never show her bathing in the ocean in her underwear.
Meg: I am just wondering if this is a qualifier in her state of character?
MIKE: The producers do seem to be sexing her up in the beginning of the show. I'm about nine episodes in and I've seen here in her underwear twice.
Gerry: I think Kate and Juliette are normal people. Motivated by...complex feelings for the opposite sex. Just like Jack and Sawyer and Ben. Et al. The show clearly plays up the fact that Kate is good looking. Just like they do with Sawyer.
Meg: I think Juliette is more complex than Kate - she chose to go to the island and was deceived. She knows first hand what Ben is capable of, a force Kate has never dealt with.
MIKE: One thing I have liked about the show is that it's not all just white dudes. There's a lot of diversity on the island.
Meg: Very true. They also have an interracial marriage.
Gerry: Yes, having a character like Sayid was a smart innovative move.
MIKE: It doesn't really feel like a typical American show.
Gerry: Well it was a trans-pacific flight. They would have got a bit of grief if it was filled with rich white people. And I think America is pretty diverse. So "American shows" should be diverse.
Meg: side note - Sayid's Fight scene last episode? Fucking awesome. Two well matched opponents, it was well done.
MIKE: Okay, I know I said three questions. But here's a closing thought question? Why do you think it took me so long to come around to "Lost"? You can be perfectly honest.
Meg: I think because you're a bit skeptical and you also don't like being told what you should enjoy. Hence your reaction to the Harry Potter books.
Gerry: Actually I think it was pretty easy to miss the show the first time around. After the first half of the first season I had someone make me watch it.
Meg: A lot of people came in late to Lost.
Gerry: Because the show is all mystery...it is hard to go out and grab people...cold turkey. You know what I mean.
Meg: I think it needed to prove itself to some people.
MIKE: Is this going to be a show people will "discover" in the future? Or will everyone be to busy playing PS6 and using space-drugs to care?
Meg: I think it'll go down the road of Twin Peaks. I hope it just goes out well. If anything, I would hope that it brings in more "set" series.
Gerry: I think once the curtain is pulled away...the show might not work anymore. If the ending of the series is "iconic" like the ending of the Bob Newhart show or something where everyone knows what the ending is, even if they didn't watch the show, few people will go through the trouble.
MIKE: So the through-line of the plot will actually hurt it because it's not episodic?
Gerry: I think LOST, Battlestar Galactica and Heroes have done wonders for having a plot before hand and having a show with a limited number of seasons. More of the BBC model (with the exception of Doctor Who).
Meg: So what if the show doesn't go down in history? If it help changes the course of TV from that of the normal never ending series to that of something set, I would love it. I think The X-Files would have done so much better if they had done that.
Gerry: Exactly.
Meg: See also - Babylon Five
Gerry: I never figured out why I started to hate the X-files after loving it. And that is the exact reason.
Meg: Because they let it stagger on and on like a wounded animal because people loved it so much instead of just humanly putting it out of its misery?
MIKE: It's because Mulder was going to start working with The Smoking Man and then it all came to nothing.
Gerry: Right.
Meg: And that's why season 2 and half of season three sucked so bad.
Gerry: A show like that needs to have 2-4 seasons and that is it. Tell the story you have.
Meg: I think a five year story is good
Gerry: I liked parts of season 2. But the season 3 six-episode run...yeah...grrrr.
MIKE: It's a trend in comics right now too. 100 Bullets, Y: The Last Man, Ex Machina, Walking Dead...
Meg: Sandman and Transmetropolitian too.
MIKE: Okay, I think this was good. Thanks to you both.
Gerry Diaz is actually making his second appearance on FWOSB after his appearance as counterpoint in the Obama-Iraq post from the beginning of April. When I'm not poaching our personal communiques for content, he can be found at his own blog Ghostwriter.
Meg Bridge is a graduate student at The New College in San Francisco. Or at least she was until they lost their accreditation. She blogs at 15% Prettier in between beating me handily at games of online Scrabble.
Both of them are devoted fans of "Lost" and I've invited them to talk with me about the show. (Ed. Note - Apologies to my brother Dan who is also a tremendous fan but was at a movie screening this night.)
MIKE: Alright, here's the deal guys. I'm going to ask you three basic questions about Lost since you guys are the foremost Lost fans I know.
Meg: Rawk.
MIKE: And anything is in play. Go ahead and spoil anything.
Meg: 'kie
MIKE: If I wanted to be unspoiled, I would've watched it the first time around. So go ahead and talk about everything. I'm going to put this up on my blog so do say anything you wouldn't say in a room full of people listening to you. But I don't think we'll go into anything like that. Are you two ready?
Meg: Ready.
Gerry: oops..yeah..paying attention now
MIKE: As you both know, I just started watching "Lost" on DVD and am about three discs into the first season. Why should I keep watching?
Gerry: Sawyer, Locke and Ben.
Meg: Hmm. Personally, I think if you're not enjoying the show now you're going to completely despise season two
MIKE: I'm enjoying it so far.
Meg: However, have you gotten to the episode where they hung Charlie yet?
MIKE: Yes, I've gotten to that episode
Meg: Good, 'cause that's the episode that got me hooked on the show.
MIKE: Care to elaborate, Gerry?
Gerry: Ben doesn't even come into the picture until season 2. But he's worth the wait.
Meg: Yeah, but it's not until season four where he starts to really shine, and damn did he blow everybody out of the water in season three.
Gerry: At least give it until the episode "Lockdown."
Meg: I'd stay in the series just to see what they do to Locke and Jack. Both are given the same kind of obstacles thrown into their paths, but they come out completely different. Jack regresses while Locke grows.
MIKE: Why do you think Jack regresses?
Meg: I think it's a choice the writers made to create a foil for Locke. They needed two strong conflicting characters who were basically two sides of the same coin.
MIKE: Something which I didn't like about the Harry Potter series was when people told me to "stick with it until the third book." Is the payoff really worth it?
Meg: I think so for season four, which is fantastic. But I also am a believer than you can completely ignore seasons and books in a series if you just don't like them. Sure, it may be cheating, but it works.
Gerry: LOST wasn't paced well the first two seasons. Had the first two season been done the way season four was done, it wouldn't labor under needless filler. If the episode is about Nikki and Paulo...skip it dude.
MIKE: I heard the producers killed them because people hated them
Gerry: On a show known to bringing in new characters...Nikki and Paulo's entrance was not handled well...and the characters never got a chance.
MIKE: So here's my second question. If you knew then what you know now, what would you liked to have known at the beginning of the series?
Meg: Nothing. With the exception of the horrible pacing in season two and the start of season three, I think they have been doing a great job with the story line.
Gerry: Nothing. I liked how they toyed around with us for so long. I liked that you actually had to argue with people that the show was even sci-fi. Not knowing what it was, put you right there on the island with a bunch of survivors who didn't know anything about what was happening to them.
MIKE: Not even anything like that you can ignore Nikki and Paulo episodes or that there are survivors in the tail section?
Gerry: I actually kind of enjoyed hating their guts for their 6 episode run, or however long it was.
Meg: To know anything right off the bat would ruin it, really. Piecing together the clues is half the fun. Even when it turned out that the "monster" that Locke saw at the beginning was this crappy CGI smoke monster. (Lame!) It set out what good shows set out to do - create a community of people coming together to speculate.
Gerry: I loved the tailies reveal. That episode where you see the plane crash...and slowly realize you are watching the tailies version blew me away. And then when Jin, Michael and Sawyer get captured. And you think you are meeting the others. That was great.
MIKE: How different would the show have been if we'd simply started with the tail section? Would you have liked the show with out the suspense? Or is the slow reveal better?
Gerry: It would be a darker show. Tailies had it much harder.
Meg: I like the slow reveal. It's why I restrain myself from reading the last chapter of a book. And what's fun is that the series HAS a set ending. So we still get to keep guessing. We get to piece together what we know and also take wild stabs in the dark.
MIKE: I agree and that's something that has brought me to the series. If you're writing without the end in mind, you're going to back into something you don't like.
Gerry: The build up is what made it. Watching a "survivor" show and then slowly being dipped into a show with creepy bad guys and crazy science stations was what made the show. The show wouldn't have worked if they just started going wherever. All they do is play on us guessing wrong.
MIKE: So starting the show, for example, by showing all of the characters and then slowly re-introducing them like showing all of the pieces and then piecing together the puzzle wouldn't have been as effective?
Gerry: Not at all.
Meg: It could have - you never know. If they had executed it correctly, it may have worked. But the way they have been introducing the flashbacks/forwards is a much more effective way for us, as viewers, to be an interactive part of the show. I mean, if they gave everything to us all at once, it would be kind of mindless, wouldn't it? I do want to point out that Lost is not the first show to have a start and end point - Babylon Five did it - it was signed on for a five year contract and it fulfilled that.
Gerry: And again...I don't think we would have identified with the survivors.
MIKE: That's not really what I mean. I mean, like showing us Ben and the Other's perspective of the crash and start the show from there.
Gerry: You couldn't. You'd have to explain why Ben is there and who the Others are. No mystery (unless you count the mystery of who crashed...but they are not special...they are us.) The show has to be from the losties perspective.
Meg: I think by giving us the focus on the survivors first gave us a sense of who we SHOULD follow and brings us to the idea of "reliable narrator." Because our reactions to the Others first is that of distrust because the survivors distrust them. If we knew what the Others wanted right away, would it be as fun?
Gerry: The others make better boogie men. Something to fear in the shadows. You couldn't get that from a bunch of plane crash victims.
MIKE: Better than a big monster or wild animals?
Gerry: Well LOST has a big monster and wild animals too!
Meg: Of course, because they are human.
MIKE: But humans can be killed. It's Human Vs. Human instead of Human Vs. The Supernatural.
Gerry: And let's remember that everything that happened was manipulated. Locke was "meant" to get to the island.
Meg: Everybody was "meant" to get to the island. Well, those who survived, that is.
Gerry: Right...but it has only been explicitly stated with Locke.
Meg: Side Note- Claire? Totally dead. Are we in agreement?
Gerry: Was she ever alive?
Meg: hahahha. Seriously, it's why the ghost seeing guy kept asking if she needed help.
Gerry: I'm not entirely sure anyone can die on the island. Patchy always comes back. The 15-year-old crackers are nice and fresh.
MIKE: Michael can be dead because he was on the freighter.
Meg: So was Jin.
Gerry: Michael can't be dead.
Meg: Jin is totally dead. I think Claire is dead. She came back to speak to Kate.
Gerry: They can't be dead yet. Sun has to reveal that the baby is Michael's before they can die.
Meg: I think some people live because the island needs them to be alive.
MIKE: How so?
Meg: Well, Locke got SHOT and lived because the island needs him.
Gerry: And the Oceanic 6 can't die.
Meg: The island let Ben get sick because he was becoming out of balance with the island.
Gerry: I'm interested in the other Island. I think Ben had to go there for the operation. It wouldn't have worked on the island. And why were they building crap over there?
MIKE: This is actually a good point for my third question. It's May 2010. The sixth season finishes and the series is over. What are you hoping for?
Meg: Oh lord, right now I can't even tell you. Obviously, I want a conclusion. I want to know who the others are, how they got there, why they were so "hostile" to the Dharma initiative. I want to know what the island is. I want Kate to die a horrible painful death and for Sawyer to live happily ever after. I want Sun to kick some major ass.
Gerry: I want the Scooby Doo ending.
MIKE: The Scooby Doo ending? Locke pulls his mask off and it's Ben?
Meg: Ben and Whitmor are the same person.
Gerry: For a long time, I wanted the endless loop ending. The show ends with Jack getting in the time machine and poping out Act 1 Scene 1. Crash on the beach. Only this time he knows what he's supposed to do. Maybe he'll leave hints for himself. Like the number 3. (If any of you watched Star Trek: The Next Generation)
MIKE: Why do you want Kate to die, Meg?
Meg: Because she's horribly written. She's a classic Mary Sue. One moment she's all snuggly to Sawyer, who's a badass sure, but is also honest and genuine. Next she's all pissy because Juliette's over Jack and oh no, she just can't be having with that!
Gerry: Do you remember what a jerk Sawyer was in season 1? I liked him better then...but I totally respect the Han Solo character.
MIKE: I get Sawyer going Solo. I can see it happening. So, Meg, you wish Kate were a strong independent female instead of being defined by the men around her?
Meg: YES.
Gerry: Because no women ever are defined by the men around them. *cough* Did I say that outloud?
Meg: I think Juliette is a better example of a strong female. Kate is unbelievable. Juliette is.
Gerry: Because Juliette got treated like crap by her husband so she became Ben's pet...until something less bug-eyed came along?
Meg: At least she grew a spine.
Gerry: Juliette and Kate are playing the same game.
Meg: If they are, Juliette plays it better and more sympathetic. Kate's just annoying. Or are you defending Kate because, as you said (Ed. note - in a prior conversation), she's smoking hot? Hotter than Juliette therefore more interesting?
Gerry: Actually I'd probably be more attracted to Juliette. She's more my type. Only they never show her bathing in the ocean in her underwear.
Meg: I am just wondering if this is a qualifier in her state of character?
MIKE: The producers do seem to be sexing her up in the beginning of the show. I'm about nine episodes in and I've seen here in her underwear twice.
Gerry: I think Kate and Juliette are normal people. Motivated by...complex feelings for the opposite sex. Just like Jack and Sawyer and Ben. Et al. The show clearly plays up the fact that Kate is good looking. Just like they do with Sawyer.
Meg: I think Juliette is more complex than Kate - she chose to go to the island and was deceived. She knows first hand what Ben is capable of, a force Kate has never dealt with.
MIKE: One thing I have liked about the show is that it's not all just white dudes. There's a lot of diversity on the island.
Meg: Very true. They also have an interracial marriage.
Gerry: Yes, having a character like Sayid was a smart innovative move.
MIKE: It doesn't really feel like a typical American show.
Gerry: Well it was a trans-pacific flight. They would have got a bit of grief if it was filled with rich white people. And I think America is pretty diverse. So "American shows" should be diverse.
Meg: side note - Sayid's Fight scene last episode? Fucking awesome. Two well matched opponents, it was well done.
MIKE: Okay, I know I said three questions. But here's a closing thought question? Why do you think it took me so long to come around to "Lost"? You can be perfectly honest.
Meg: I think because you're a bit skeptical and you also don't like being told what you should enjoy. Hence your reaction to the Harry Potter books.
Gerry: Actually I think it was pretty easy to miss the show the first time around. After the first half of the first season I had someone make me watch it.
Meg: A lot of people came in late to Lost.
Gerry: Because the show is all mystery...it is hard to go out and grab people...cold turkey. You know what I mean.
Meg: I think it needed to prove itself to some people.
MIKE: Is this going to be a show people will "discover" in the future? Or will everyone be to busy playing PS6 and using space-drugs to care?
Meg: I think it'll go down the road of Twin Peaks. I hope it just goes out well. If anything, I would hope that it brings in more "set" series.
Gerry: I think once the curtain is pulled away...the show might not work anymore. If the ending of the series is "iconic" like the ending of the Bob Newhart show or something where everyone knows what the ending is, even if they didn't watch the show, few people will go through the trouble.
MIKE: So the through-line of the plot will actually hurt it because it's not episodic?
Gerry: I think LOST, Battlestar Galactica and Heroes have done wonders for having a plot before hand and having a show with a limited number of seasons. More of the BBC model (with the exception of Doctor Who).
Meg: So what if the show doesn't go down in history? If it help changes the course of TV from that of the normal never ending series to that of something set, I would love it. I think The X-Files would have done so much better if they had done that.
Gerry: Exactly.
Meg: See also - Babylon Five
Gerry: I never figured out why I started to hate the X-files after loving it. And that is the exact reason.
Meg: Because they let it stagger on and on like a wounded animal because people loved it so much instead of just humanly putting it out of its misery?
MIKE: It's because Mulder was going to start working with The Smoking Man and then it all came to nothing.
Gerry: Right.
Meg: And that's why season 2 and half of season three sucked so bad.
Gerry: A show like that needs to have 2-4 seasons and that is it. Tell the story you have.
Meg: I think a five year story is good
Gerry: I liked parts of season 2. But the season 3 six-episode run...yeah...grrrr.
MIKE: It's a trend in comics right now too. 100 Bullets, Y: The Last Man, Ex Machina, Walking Dead...
Meg: Sandman and Transmetropolitian too.
MIKE: Okay, I think this was good. Thanks to you both.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)