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.