Lost - I love Locke, but...

[USIncognito]

I'm not a big fan of dramas apart from police proceedurals, but the early buzz from the critics about Lost intrigued me. I watched the series opener and really liked it. The 2nd and 4th episodes hooked me helplessly. I do have one concern about a tone of the show and that's that it seems to be positioning skepticism and rationalism in the "bad" camp, while almost blind belief and faith are shown in a positive light.

Ironically, I find credulous Locke a wonderfully compelling and fascinating character, while skeptical Jack annoys me.

I cannot watch Medium, and despite thinking Jennifer Love Hewitt is one of the most beautiful women on Earth, I will not watch Ghost Whisperer. I understand that the entire fun of watching Lost is suspending reality, but it still bugs me a bit when skepticism of any sort is treated as a bad thing, while belief that results in the death of a fellow castaway (Boone) is considered good... if a bit weird.

[Bugmaster]

I do have one concern about a tone of the show and that's that it seems to be positioning skepticism and rationalism in the "bad" camp, while almost blind belief and faith are shown in a positive light.

That's absolutely true -- I've watched the show all the way through Season 1. However, note that in the Lost universe, the supernatural does indeed exist (though it may turn out to be perfectly natural in the end; several supernatural things have been sort-of explained so far). Since the supernatural does exist, and has clear and repeatable pilot-eating powers, even a skeptic must eventually accept its existence, based on evidence.

My one complaint about Lost is that they never really explain anything... They keep dragging out more and more mysteries, and yes, they're fun to ponder, but eventually I can see myself getting bored.

I'd highly, highly recommend the new Battlestar Galactica show. It's better than Lost, and it has nothing to do with the original BG show besides the name. I don't want to spoil too much for you, but one of the central themes of the show is a conflict between two religions -- and there seems to be solid, verifiable evidence for both. Even though they both can't be right... or can they ? And that's on top of political intrigue, tactical combat, personal stories, gentle (and not-so-gentle) philosophical questions about the nature of man, and, of course, great cinematography. Such a great show.

Another interesting show is Stargate:SG1, where you have the conflict between the Ancients, the Orai (sp?), and the humans stuck in the middle. It's a lot more crude than BG, but it also has a religious conflict as its main theme. Is anyone who possesses godlike powers automatically worthy of worship ?

[ST88]

Ironically, I find credulous Locke a wonderfully compelling and fascinating character, while skeptical Jack annoys me.

I think this just shows how peronal charisma can be more of a motivator when it comes to which leader to follow. Locke has been proven wrong on more than one occasion and yet he still is seen as having a valid world view because he's very good at certain things (e.g., hunting), and he's a very charismatic character both on the screen and to the other characters. Jack, by contrast, is not a natural leader -- he really has to struggle with that role that has been thrust upon him. He's a surgeon & is used to doing things his own way, but not as a delegator, for example.

As an aside, the producers of the show have said that everything in the story so far (through the 1st season) has a logical explanation.

[USIncognito]

That's absolutely true -- I've watched the show all the way through Season 1. However, note that in the Lost universe, the supernatural does indeed exist (though it may turn out to be perfectly natural in the end; several supernatural things have been sort-of explained so far). Since the supernatural does exist, and has clear and repeatable pilot-eating powers, even a skeptic must eventually accept its existence, based on evidence.

Good point. The end of season one revealed that the Monster is indeed a security system generated by the Island, and earlier Boone's visions of Shannon were the result of drugs and Ethan turned out to be very mortal in the end. But the numbers and Locke's healing...

My one complaint about Lost is that they never really explain anything... They keep dragging out more and more mysteries, and yes, they're fun to ponder, but eventually I can see myself getting bored.

Actually, the the three questions answered - five more offered are what keep my watching. I took the bait with the Monster, swallowed it when Sayid calculated the interations and jumped into J.J. Abrams boat with Locke's expository episode. The first two shows of season 2 thus far have only hooked me even more.

I'd highly, highly recommend the new Battlestar Galactica show. It's better than Lost, and it has nothing to do with the original BG show besides the name. I don't want to spoil too much for you, but one of the central themes of the show is a conflict between two religions -- and there seems to be solid, verifiable evidence for both. Even though they both can't be right... or can they ? And that's on top of political intrigue, tactical combat, personal stories, gentle (and not-so-gentle) philosophical questions about the nature of man, and, of course, great cinematography. Such a great show.

I haven't gotten into any sci-fi series Spike, back when it was TNN ran Star:Trek TNG in syndication, but BG's reincarnation is great television... and I watched the original when it aired live on ABC.

[USIncognito]

I think this just shows how peronal charisma can be more of a motivator when it comes to which leader to follow. Locke has been proven wrong on more than one occasion and yet he still is seen as having a valid world view because he's very good at certain things (e.g., hunting), and he's a very charismatic character both on the screen and to the other characters. Jack, by contrast, is not a natural leader -- he really has to struggle with that role that has been thrust upon him. He's a surgeon & is used to doing things his own way, but not as a delegator, for example.

But is Locke really that charismatic to his fellow survivors, or just to the audience? He mugged at Kate with the orange half in his mouth, he seemed like a child molester with Walt (until we learned what his secret was), he packed waaay to much cutlery, his actions have indirectly killed Boone and Arzt, Kate's missing, etc. and yet, to the audience, he's quite the compelling character. A cuckold who now has a chance to live out his fantasy life and is apparently doing so (with the exception of getting the girl).

He's definately fun to watch, but I'm not sure about "following" him were I on the Island. Jack on the other hand is just moody and prissy - but I think I should chaulk that up the Matthew Fox's acting and not Jack's character per se.

As an aside, the producers of the show have said that everything in the story so far (through the 1st season) has a logical explanation.

As I noted above, there have been several "logical" answers provided to certain questions, but I'm wondering if things like Locke's cured paralysis or Claire's encounter with the psychic will have "rational" explanations.

[ST88]

But is Locke really that charismatic to his fellow survivors, or just to the audience? He mugged at Kate with the orange half in his mouth, he seemed like a child molester with Walt (until we learned what his secret was), he packed waaay to much cutlery, his actions have indirectly killed Boone and Arzt, Kate's missing, etc. and yet, to the audience, he's quite the compelling character. A cuckold who now has a chance to live out his fantasy life and is apparently doing so (with the exception of getting the girl).

He's definately fun to watch, but I'm not sure about "following" him were I on the Island. Jack on the other hand is just moody and prissy - but I think I should chaulk that up the Matthew Fox's acting and not Jack's character per se.

I wasn't necessarily speaking of following him physically as a leader, but following him like a guru, of using his way of thinking as a model for one's own life. He seems almost absolutely certain of himself, and he also seems happier for it (though he swings into despair rather quickly when things don't go his way). Jack, by constrast, doesn't appear any happier that he's got his particular world view. Which is really the way things should be, shouldn't they?

[USIncognito]

I wasn't necessarily speaking of following him physically as a leader, but following him like a guru, of using his way of thinking as a model for one's own life.

Ah! Agreed completely. My objection related above sums up my internal conflict about his character. Locke basically is a spiritual guru for the now deceased Boone, was becomming so for Walt, and it appears Kate. He also took a leadership role during the "food" (thwack! We hunt) and "Ethan" (they're out there and the enemy not us) crises.

I suppose my concern over the tone of the show towards skepticism borders on the disingenuous, since I was very vocal early on about (in other forums) about objections to the sci-fi aspects of the show. In order to enjoy it, you really did need to suspend disbelief. Maybe I'm just overreacting to what I see as a commentary on Weltanschauung when it's really just a plot device.