Month: February 2010

I had posted my comments about the season premiere of “Lost” (and the series generally) on David Bianculli’s website/blog, “TV Worth Watching,” which I’ll link here, and re-post below, for Triscribers’ reading pleasure!   Be warned – I rambled a bit, but generally, I really enjoyed the season premiere (even if it was a little boring with the alternate universe thing).  Also, Bianculli has a good review on NPR – essentially noting that those who are waiting until the series is over and then watch it all on DVD are missing the fun.

I enjoyed the season premiere for balancing the tension and humor (Hugo was funny and sweet; Sawyer’s rage against Jack was so raw).

Otherwise, I was left a little confused (as usual). The “alternate” (?) timeline at LAX airport was a little boring to me, and I wonder if this will be kept up for the rest of the season.

But, the nuances were interesting to look for: Jack seems to be a little more positive and kinder in the “alternate” time; even “alternate” John Locke seems more vibrant than his sad sack self of the main timeline; plus the return of Boone (how poignant that he tells alternate Locke that he’d stick with him if they were stuck on an island; main timeline Boone wasn’t so lucky, after all, in sticking with main timeline Locke), Charlie, and Claire!; and what is Desmond doing…?

Terry O’Quinn as “alternate” John Locke and the fake John Locke (a.k.a., Jacob’s enemy) – what an acting power! He pulled off essentially two characters, and it was fantastic to watch.

I’m not a big serious “Lostie” – I am much more of a casual fan/viewer. I empathize a little with those who gave up with watching and I understand that some were disappointed that “Lost” seemed too convoluted or uninteresting as sci-fi/fantasy or has too many plot holes; but I appreciate that the series has been a fun watch to me. Personally, I was more bored back in Season 2 when it didn’t go into the sci-fi/fantasy stuff and it felt like the writers were running out of ideas. The creative energy has been in place since showrunners Cuse/Lindelof made the decision to keep “Lost” to a deadline, and it sizzles.

Not every series get that chance to make such a risky decision, and some series – well, I think they should have done that before they lost their creativity (pardon me if I can’t quite give specific examples off the top of my head at the moment).

Generally, I think there are a lot of different aspects to “Lost” to enjoy or consider – I found empathy with the complex relationships that the characters have with their parents (Jack and his father; John Locke and his parents; poor Daniel Faraday and his mother); the love stories that did work were compelling (Desmond and Penny’s ultimate episode, where Penny is Desmond’s constant; Sawyer and Juliet finding their version of a decent life among the Dharma Initiative; the love and life that Rose and Bernard shared; the tragedy of Daniel and Charlotte – that was just sad how time traveling can really mess things up); and the weirdness – there’s not much on tv that takes as much pleasure in the weird as “Lost” does.

I’m not a fan of time traveling stories generally, but “Lost” pulled me into how much emotional toil time travel puts on those stuck in time – so “Lost” made the time traveling fascinating, even if I might gnash my teeth over how it drives me crazy!

It’s possible that some mysteries might never be quite solved – I’m more okay with that than I expected, since the journey has been such an entertaining ride.

No show is completely perfect; what really matters is whether we’re entertained and get something worthwhile out of it. To me, I want a well-done show, visually and emotionally; packed with plots and characters and heart; and writers who seem to be into what they’re doing in a positive way – that seems to be what “Lost” has been. I find myself caring about the characters, the conflicts, and the questions, even if I’m not as rabid or dedicated to figuring everything out about “Lost.”

So, I think “Lost” is worth watching; looking forward to seeing what’s next – and feeling a little sad already that the crazy ride that “Lost” is coming to an end soon.

As Time’s James Poniewozik notes: Happy “Lost” Day! It’s the return of “Lost.”  I’m confused as ever, with tons of questions, as usual.  ‘Nuff said.

Apologies to Conan O’Brien: I’m still cynical.  Why should it be any surprise that Vanity Fair’s cover on “New Hollywood” – to cover the rise of new actresses – lacks diversity, i.e., we’ve got a cover of white women.  Nothing against white women, but what about other actresses of other backgrounds?  Is this what we get when The Powers That Be of Hollywood are not of diverse backgrounds?  I liked that the article references to Gabourey Sidibe from “Precious”; Zoe Saladana for “Avatar” and “Star Trek”; and even Freida Pinto from “Slumdog Millionare.”

Angry Asian Man also links to that foregoing article about the lack of diversity of that Vanity Fair cover, and adds that there’s still not much in the way of Asian/APA representation at the Oscars, beyond – say – Russell from “Up.”

So, as exciting as it is that the Oscars have improved on the diversity of nominated directors and there’s improvement about the nominations of African-American actors (Sidibe, Mo’Nique, and Morgan Freeman) – it is a little disappointing about the lack of Asian/APA’s, after the excitement of last year’s “Slumdog Millionaire.”  Progress takes time, I guess.