First nod:
Throughout all of LOST, we have seen interesting ways of storytelling. For example in "Three Minutes", we see linear flashbacks of Michael's recent encounters. Another example is "Exposé" (though dreadful), shown a linear and recent flashbacking. The reason I bring this up is simply because these are a few examples of how LOST presents a slightly different way of storytelling beside the typical flashback/flash-forward glances. In this past season's pre-finale show, "Follow the Leader", I noticed something new to the structure. It began shortly before "The Variable" ended. Instead, it shows from Jack and Kate's point of view. I truly don't believe that it was focusing on their point of view (which it was) or hinting at Jacks intrigue over Daniels theory (which it also does). I believe it was directed this way to quickly display the truth of what Daniel's ideas was: wrong. In "The Variable", we learn of this incredible and shociking theory of changing the past/future! . For a week we contemplated, "is it possible?" Then "Follow the Leader" airs and it begins shortly before Daniels death (story wise). When I first watched it I gasped, thinking, what if this time Eloise doesn't kill him or what if this time Daniel does shoot Richard. The writer's love to throw curveballs. But alas, everything happens as it did the week before. But I believe it was not the perspective the writers wanted to show us, but instead the fact that Whatever Happened Happened. For it did happen. There are always reasons in this show, however small they are. It would have been easier (economically as well) to begin with Daniel on the ground dead and Widmore carrying Jack and Kate out of the jungle at gunpoint. But it wasn't filmed this way. It was filmed in a way to tell the attentive audience that, it's ok, whatever happened did indeed happen. The cycle is forever the cycle. Don't fret.
Second nod:
This may have already been discussed and if so I am sorry for the repetition. Remember when J.J. Abrams went on stage to describe his "mystery technique" and he showed one of his favorite film scenes from Jaws? As we know, the writers incorporate a ton of other themes and storylines from literature and other media. So to focus in, let's examine "Jaws". Shark kills people, thus people venture into the soul mission of killing the shark. It's near the end and only one man stands face to face with the great white. A canister of propane is in the shark's mouth as it charges the ship. The protagonist aims him weapon directly at the tank in its mouth. BANG. Nothing. BANG. Still nothing. BANG. No reaction to the tank, but the shark is getting closer. The character grunts at the top of his lungs, "Come on you son-of-a-bitch" and fires one more round. BANG, and a huge explosion engulfs the water.
Sound familiar? Juliet and the bomb? Is this a gentle nod to Steven Spielberg? Or are they fooling us with this, "must have happened since it did in Jaws" outcome? I suppose only time will tell.
Hope you enjoyed my observations. First time posting. Thanks for reading guys.
Throughout all of LOST, we have seen interesting ways of storytelling. For example in "Three Minutes", we see linear flashbacks of Michael's recent encounters. Another example is "Exposé" (though dreadful), shown a linear and recent flashbacking. The reason I bring this up is simply because these are a few examples of how LOST presents a slightly different way of storytelling beside the typical flashback/flash-forward glances. In this past season's pre-finale show, "Follow the Leader", I noticed something new to the structure. It began shortly before "The Variable" ended. Instead, it shows from Jack and Kate's point of view. I truly don't believe that it was focusing on their point of view (which it was) or hinting at Jacks intrigue over Daniels theory (which it also does). I believe it was directed this way to quickly display the truth of what Daniel's ideas was: wrong. In "The Variable", we learn of this incredible and shociking theory of changing the past/future! . For a week we contemplated, "is it possible?" Then "Follow the Leader" airs and it begins shortly before Daniels death (story wise). When I first watched it I gasped, thinking, what if this time Eloise doesn't kill him or what if this time Daniel does shoot Richard. The writer's love to throw curveballs. But alas, everything happens as it did the week before. But I believe it was not the perspective the writers wanted to show us, but instead the fact that Whatever Happened Happened. For it did happen. There are always reasons in this show, however small they are. It would have been easier (economically as well) to begin with Daniel on the ground dead and Widmore carrying Jack and Kate out of the jungle at gunpoint. But it wasn't filmed this way. It was filmed in a way to tell the attentive audience that, it's ok, whatever happened did indeed happen. The cycle is forever the cycle. Don't fret.
Second nod:
This may have already been discussed and if so I am sorry for the repetition. Remember when J.J. Abrams went on stage to describe his "mystery technique" and he showed one of his favorite film scenes from Jaws? As we know, the writers incorporate a ton of other themes and storylines from literature and other media. So to focus in, let's examine "Jaws". Shark kills people, thus people venture into the soul mission of killing the shark. It's near the end and only one man stands face to face with the great white. A canister of propane is in the shark's mouth as it charges the ship. The protagonist aims him weapon directly at the tank in its mouth. BANG. Nothing. BANG. Still nothing. BANG. No reaction to the tank, but the shark is getting closer. The character grunts at the top of his lungs, "Come on you son-of-a-bitch" and fires one more round. BANG, and a huge explosion engulfs the water.
Sound familiar? Juliet and the bomb? Is this a gentle nod to Steven Spielberg? Or are they fooling us with this, "must have happened since it did in Jaws" outcome? I suppose only time will tell.
Hope you enjoyed my observations. First time posting. Thanks for reading guys.
