Did you like the TV series LOST?

[Totenkindly]

Then it just got really annoying and I haven't seen it in about 3 years. I can't stand Matthew Fox.. or at least His character in that show.. Maybe if dies .. I would check out the final episode.

For a long time, Jack pissed me off. He was Directive, and I aligned far more with Locke, who was Informative.

But I thought the character was excellent and wouldn't have had him any other way. I remember when we had arguments here around Season 3-4 where Locke seemed to be veering off into Crazyland and Jack was getting downright aggressive. Some tempers got heated here in the discussions over who could understand whose motivations. But the characters were great; both had nearly opposite ways of viewing the world, and both tenaciously held onto their viewpoints.

I really liked what they did with Jack over the series arc.
He finally learned how to let go.

....

As far as the rest, I admired the series from a writer's viewpoint. It was an NP wonderland, and that's a lot harder than you might imagine to pull off. Even if you have a few anchorpoints driven in, a lot of stuff is just throwing crap at the wall and seeing what sticks or what patterns you can discern in the mess. This is what authors do when they write books, however they have the benefit of calling that a "first draft" and then being able to go back and change everything before the audience EVER sees it and do complete rewrites. Because they have the opportunity to endlessly rework the material, the readers never realize how crappy the earlier drafts were and how difficult the writing might have been.

Tolkien took 12 years to write the Lord of the Rings and wrote draft after draft before he got the core of the One Ring and what he wanted to do with it. Stephen King is notorious for writing a shit-draft but in the process he uncovers a few core elements that end up making the final version soar. (I'm talking about his earlier stuff, btw; it seems like he's sort of burned out in the last 5-10 years or so.)

TV writers do not get that ability. Whatever you write into the earlier episodes has to somehow give a direction, yet be open-ended enough to allow you to weave a tapestry that you perceive within the act of actually writing and producing episodes. It's also not even a 'writer's effort," you have audience participation (by their response) + the actors themselves who can either make or break a character. Ben Linus was a three-episode guest star, but because of what Michael Emerson did with the role in those three episodes, he became a main character. This sort of stuff is not easy. You constantly have to allow your artistic vision change to embrace whatever is organically happening. This actually is a skill, and one that has to be honed -- to give just enough options (based on one's intuition) to allow for new pathways and patterns to open up, while not enough to seem scattered and diffuse. Sometimes it's hit or miss.

Which is why I'm pretty forgiving about the loose threads that might not have been tied up, themes that were lost or dropped in favor of other themes, and the whole messy business of writing an organically developing show like this. If they had the opportunity to script and plan all 121 episodes up front, perhaps I would be much harsher, but it is not that type of medium. The writers have to be very P -- you have an idea where you want to paddle the boat, but you have to contend with the waves and the storms, and sometimes you have to change direction mid-course to follow what is becoming an apparently better (or merely inevitable) direction.

....

Thought this commentary was interesting.
Early Reflections on the Lost Finale | This Lamp

 

[Spamtar]

I think that its less of a Fe/Fi thing and more of a P/J aspect which effects the type's overall predisposition to acquire the taste for Lost.

Would you be able to elaborate on this?

The show itself appears a bit outwardly illogical and has a very lose structure; a lot of loose ends.

According to Myers judging types like to have matters settled...Lost, even in its finale is by its nature and concept unsettled.

Conversly, according to Myers, perceptive types prefer to "keep decisions open."

Lost is the most open ended fictional television series that I can recall ever seeing. Thus as noted, Ps in theory, as a group, would tend to have a greater preference for this type of television show than Js because the show is closer to how they chose to perceive the world as opposed to Js.

I would go further and say that NPs as a group would prefer the show over SPs. I would speculate that as a group SPs would more likely like fast moving sports, game shows and thrillers on one hand or something more practical such as news/cooking shows (or other "how-to" type shows) or documentaries on the other hand. This theory on NPs being the key demographic is because Lost hit on a lot of "abstract themes", which is like crack to a lot of NPs.*

Naturally there are plenty of exceptions and am not trying to pidgin hole anybody but nevertheless I believe that for this and similar applications I would be shown statistically proved correct.

 

[PeaceBaby]

It was an NP wonderland, and that's a lot harder than you might imagine to pull off.

Still, each construct requires a core consistency; a place of rules that form the locus of that world; and if this show is an NP wonderland I should love it, no? But the rules shifted and changed, and those whims of fancy offend me. To me, it's disrespectful of the audience.

And there's no question of my NP'ness here folks.

I wondered if perhaps Fe was more accepting of the rule changes along the way ... Fi demanding that the human game be played with a consistent core set of rules. Doesn't matter what they are at the outset ... but when you lay the foundation, the house you build can't exceed that blueprint.

 

[Spamtar]

Still, each construct requires a core consistency; a place of rules that form the locus of that world; and if this show is an NP wonderland I should love it, no? But the rules shifted and changed, and those whims of fancy offend me. To me, it's disrespectful of the audience.

And there's no question of my NP'ness here folks.

I wondered if perhaps Fe was more accepting of the rule changes along the way ... Fi demanding that the human game be played with a consistent core set of rules. Doesn't matter what they are at the outset ... but when you lay the foundation, the house you build can't exceed that blueprint.

I agree and as a fellow P am nearly always open to view correlating data that would create additional clues as type preference causation. The world and the human mind is rarely so black and white as to end continued evaluation. The only reason to limit or stop evaluation is time and resource restraints.

I am curious on how this Fi/Fe poll will play out as the question doesn't seem as clear cut in theory. In other words in this instance I am happy to hear the question raised for which I do not know the answer

 

[Totenkindly]

Still, each construct requires a core consistency; a place of rules that form the locus of that world; and if this show is an NP wonderland I should love it, no? But the rules shifted and changed, and those whims of fancy offend me. To me, it's disrespectful of the audience.

My problem, PB, is that I do not understand why you are saying the rules changed arbitrarily.

To me, the rules never changed in a way that mattered.

Could you explain better what rules you think changed -- especially in a way that "offended" you? That is a pretty strong reaction.

I just don't understand where you are coming from.

And there's no question of my NP'ness here folks.

I never said you weren't.

So it must be something else -- and to me it is most likely the strong Fi valueset you are applying that I cannot grasp because it's part of your personal internal landscape rather than a ruleset I can derive from simple observation.

I wondered if perhaps Fe was more accepting of the rule changes along the way ... Fi demanding that the human game be played with a consistent core set of rules. Doesn't matter what they are at the outset ... but when you lay the foundation, the house you build can't exceed that blueprint.

Do you understand what I've been saying? To me, the rules were consistent. There were inconsistencies but to me they were not crucial ones.

What rules were inconsistent to you?
You need to explain them better so I can follow you.

 

[PeaceBaby]

I never said you weren't.

Oh I know - I just don't have my type in my profile right now so that was for the benefit of the general audience.

So it must be something else -- and to me it is most likely the strong Fi valueset you are applying that I cannot grasp because it's part of your personal internal landscape rather than a ruleset I can derive from simple observation.

No, not a personal set of rules per se ... although to be fair, I do think that writers have a responsibility to their audience to craft a work that respects their intelligence and emotions. And, I see the humans in any story as more than pawns ...

That's not very important though. I don't expect anyone here to justify anything on behalf of the show.

I was thinking about this a few minutes ago ... here's an example that may be helpful to illustrate.

When I watched sci-fi TV with my brother (INTP) he would complain about the rules of physics or gravity or propulsion etc being broken, or not working the way they were depicted. For example, he would complain, "aircraft can't be shaped like that; the aerodynamics would be totally incorrect - it would never achieve lift. Plus, what would be the fuel source? If they used a product of fission, the weight of shielding would prevent flight as well. This is stupid."

I feel that way about people, characters. I can't really define it better than that at the moment.

Do you understand what I've been saying? To me, the rules were consistent. There were inconsistencies but to me they were not crucial ones.

What rules were inconsistent to you?
You need to explain them better so I can follow you.

I appreciate your effort to understand my viewpoint. Perhaps if I borrow that DVD set of yours, I shall tally up my human rules of LOST and how they were thusly broken and we can discuss them at a meet-up

 

[Totenkindly]

I feel that way about people, characters. I can't really define it better than that at the moment.

And this is the issue... I think the characters are actually acting authentically, moreso than many characters in many other narratives I've witnessed over the years in books, movies, and TV.

....That is why I'm realllllllly confused!

You've mentioned a few things in older discussions but they seemed like trivial points of the characters, not core motivations and personality types. These are strong characters.

I appreciate your effort to understand my viewpoint. Perhaps if I borrow that DVD set of yours, I shall tally up my human rules of LOST and how they were thusly broken and we can discuss them at a meet-up

Yay! You're coming to the East Coast? Or do you expect me to fly to Chicago? (And do you expect me to fly ANYWHERE after watching Lost? )

 

[Randomnity]

So what does it mean if you neither loved nor hated it, but rather thought it was thoroughly mediocre (but watchable on a boring day)?

 

[Spamtar]

You've mentioned a few things in older discussions but they seemed like trivial points of the characters, not core motivations and personality types. These are strong characters.

I can appreciate how the audience (especially F doms) would get a bit bothered by incongruities in the characters. Somebody would act quiet sane and reasonable and suddenly they would do something extremely unreasonable like murdering somebody without cause or apparent motivation. These twists were fun at the beginning but it happened so often that I assume most of the audience become incredulous. Halfway toward the end of this season the characters were admittedly acting both neurotic in general and very incongruent with how they acted at the beginning.

At this stage there were 3 primary options

1) suspend disbelief with the anticipation that this would all eventually make sense in the cosmic balance
or
2) feel that ones social intelligence was being insulted or values violated and begin to feel resentment towards the television series.

3) do both and hold off complete judgment until the end to see if it was worth in retrospect. (my choice)

 

[Spamtar]

So what does it mean if you neither loved nor hated it, but rather thought it was thoroughly mediocre (but watchable on a boring day)?

Prolly means you are an ISTP or have no predisposition one way or the other to this genre.

 

[PeaceBaby]

So what does it mean if you neither loved nor hated it, but rather thought it was thoroughly mediocre (but watchable on a boring day)?

I would say if you stuck with it and liked it enough to watch mostly to the end, you are a yes.

 

[scantilyclad]

I gave this ridiculous show a chance but I just hate it. I also watched the finale, because a friend was having a party, and it was ridiculous, and I'm glad i didn't invest very much time into the show.

 

[Randomnity]

I watched maybe 5 episodes total, mostly in the first and last seasons, plus the finale and "recap" show before it, since others were watching it.

I voted no, since I wouldn't go out of my way to watch it, and objectively don't think it was a great show, just as mindless and superficially entertaining as most of what's on tv, but it pretends to be more.

 

[MacGuffin]

I'm glad I didn't see that, my suspension of disbelief would have blown a fuse...

Seriously? You have a low threshold.

 

[Totenkindly]

I can appreciate how the audience (especially F doms) would get a bit bothered by incongruities in the characters. Somebody would act quiet sane and reasonable and suddenly they would do something extremely unreasonable like murdering somebody without cause or apparent motivation.

I guess I didn't see them as without motivation. Everything made sense to me, based on the personality of the character involved... and sometimes we could simply enter a "hold and wait" period to see what got revealed later on to explain the characters' motivations.

Anyway, for me to continue to discuss it isn't productive and just ends up seeming like an argument, which isn't my point at all -- if people didn't get out of the show what I did, that's fine, we're all different and value different things and perceive different things, and I'll just consider this all my own private pleasure -- so I think I'm out of here.

 

[PeaceBaby]

^ I enjoy your contribution; come back and share more whenever you like

 

[FDG]

For a long time, Jack pissed me off. He was Directive, and I aligned far more with Locke, who was Informative.

But I thought the character was excellent and wouldn't have had him any other way. I remember when we had arguments here around Season 3-4 where Locke seemed to be veering off into Crazyland and Jack was getting downright aggressive. Some tempers got heated here in the discussions over who could understand whose motivations. But the characters were great; both had nearly opposite ways of viewing the world, and both tenaciously held onto their viewpoints.

I really liked what they did with Jack over the series arc.
He finally learned how to let go.

....

As far as the rest, I admired the series from a writer's viewpoint. It was an NP wonderland, and that's a lot harder than you might imagine to pull off. Even if you have a few anchorpoints driven in, a lot of stuff is just throwing crap at the wall and seeing what sticks or what patterns you can discern in the mess. This is what authors do when they write books, however they have the benefit of calling that a "first draft" and then being able to go back and change everything before the audience EVER sees it and do complete rewrites. Because they have the opportunity to endlessly rework the material, the readers never realize how crappy the earlier drafts were and how difficult the writing might have been.

Tolkien took 12 years to write the Lord of the Rings and wrote draft after draft before he got the core of the One Ring and what he wanted to do with it. Stephen King is notorious for writing a shit-draft but in the process he uncovers a few core elements that end up making the final version soar. (I'm talking about his earlier stuff, btw; it seems like he's sort of burned out in the last 5-10 years or so.)

TV writers do not get that ability. Whatever you write into the earlier episodes has to somehow give a direction, yet be open-ended enough to allow you to weave a tapestry that you perceive within the act of actually writing and producing episodes. It's also not even a 'writer's effort," you have audience participation (by their response) + the actors themselves who can either make or break a character. Ben Linus was a three-episode guest star, but because of what Michael Emerson did with the role in those three episodes, he became a main character. This sort of stuff is not easy. You constantly have to allow your artistic vision change to embrace whatever is organically happening. This actually is a skill, and one that has to be honed -- to give just enough options (based on one's intuition) to allow for new pathways and patterns to open up, while not enough to seem scattered and diffuse. Sometimes it's hit or miss.

Which is why I'm pretty forgiving about the loose threads that might not have been tied up, themes that were lost or dropped in favor of other themes, and the whole messy business of writing an organically developing show like this. If they had the opportunity to script and plan all 121 episodes up front, perhaps I would be much harsher, but it is not that type of medium. The writers have to be very P -- you have an idea where you want to paddle the boat, but you have to contend with the waves and the storms, and sometimes you have to change direction mid-course to follow what is becoming an apparently better (or merely inevitable) direction.

....

Thought this commentary was interesting.
Early Reflections on the Lost Finale | This Lamp

I have a better explanation: you're a fanboy!

don't know about disgusting, exactly, but I did think it was pretty pisspoor from the little I saw of it. It was like the unholy bastard offspring of Lord of the Flies and some eye-wateringly inane soap opera devised by a corporate consortium and aimed at hitting as many demographic ratings targets among the middle classes as possible to maximise profit. Psychology? Absent. Practicalities? Irrelevant. Relationships? Mindlessly superficial. Cliches? Abounding. Suspension of disbelief required to watch the damn thing without hurling something at the Tv? Off the scale.

Yeah, now I agree. I kept on watching because I thought in the end they would explain certain misteries that made parts of the story fascinating (perhaps I had a too-good experience with Star Trek, where storyline coherence is considered of utmost importance), yesterday I understood the writers were just pulling shit out of their asses to keep the largest set of potential audience interested.

 

[Aleksei]

Other: I watched it, I did not care for it one way or the other (other than finding it vastly overrated), and I have Fi as my auxiliary.

 

[wolfy]

I enjoyed the first season. I dislike the feeling of being pulled to watch something.

 

[ragashree]

Seriously? You have a low threshold.

My bullshit tolerance is extremely low, unless it's imaginatively and interestingly worked into proceedings, perhaps displaying some wit and ingenuity in the process. At this point, of course, it ceases to be random bullshit and becomes genuine creativity.