|
Post by Rachael on Nov 11, 2004 10:12:32 GMT -5
I'm gonna place myself in the minority and say while I hated the torture scene, I understand how it came to that and that it didn't alter my opinion of the guys involved. You're right--they never asked Sawyer if he had it, but he still had plenty of opportunities to tell them he didn't (whether they'd have believed him is another matter entirely). Sawyer certainly could have told Boone instead of sending him back to the caves bleeding from various locales, or given someone like Kate free rein to go through all of his things and see for themselves it wasn't there. But he didn't, even as their desperation and Shannon's condition escalated. He'd also shown himself unwilling to cooperate in this regard in the past--remember the laptop batteries? As for Jack, don't forget he'd just watched Shannon almost suffocate to death. Should he have considered other remedies? Yeah, but he's a typical Western doctor--if a remedy wasn't made by a manufacturer, it's not going to be the first thing that leaps to mind. So in his mind it really was a matter of life and death. And from that perspective I personally don't see a whole lot of difference between his actions and Buffy forcing a cross down a vampire's throat in order to find out where Willow, Giles, Cordelia and Jenny were being held hostage, or Spike doing whatever he did to that doctor to try and obtain information that might save Fred's life. Even with all of this being true (and I can't even quibble with most of it), there's still the fact that torture is not a reliable means of extracting information. It's really not used, by and large, for that purpose, at all. It's more used to break someone until they'll stop opposing your political will, not as a way to get information. Someone with the stomach to have read further than I did on this topic can try to explain why torture doesn't extract accurate information, as a rule...but I saw the entire scene as more a punishment and whipping into shape kind of deal - make the man afraid enough so that he'll stop opposing everything you want to do. I don't think either Jack or Sayid consciously had that in mind, but in the end, you had the two most overtly powerful men on the island hurting a political dissident. Also true. And it's nearly impossible for me to see what they did and not hate them. I just can't see them the same way...not for a while.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Nov 11, 2004 10:35:05 GMT -5
Even with all of this being true (and I can't even quibble with most of it), there's still the fact that torture is not a reliable means of extracting information. It's really not used, by and large, for that purpose, at all. It's more used to break someone until they'll stop opposing your political will, not as a way to get information. Someone with the stomach to have read further than I did on this topic can try to explain why torture doesn't extract accurate information, as a rule...but I saw the entire scene as more a punishment and whipping into shape kind of deal - make the man afraid enough so that he'll stop opposing everything you want to do. I don't think either Jack or Sayid consciously had that in mind, but in the end, you had the two most overtly powerful men on the island hurting a political dissident. Yes - really, the whole ep was about people finding reasons to do what they really wanted to do, see what they wanted to see. . . Locke able to manipulate Sayid because Sayid has an underlying dislike of Sawyer anyhow, Sawyer being able to manipulate the husband and wife because of their greed, Sawyer manipulating Jack and Sayid into punishing him due to their own feelings of impotence and lack of "confidence," Claire (in a much milder and pleasant version) letting Charlie talk her into "seeing the peanut butter" and joining him, because that's what she wants to do anyhow. So . . . maybe if they'd locked Sawyer in a closet with bucket?? But seriously - they were under such stress and in such a tough spot. I agree that their choice to torture Sawyer reflects badly on them, but . . . the circumstances, and the fact that they seem to have learned, or be willing to learn, their lesson, reflects well on Jack & Sayid.
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Nov 11, 2004 10:56:54 GMT -5
Yes - really, the whole ep was about people finding reasons to do what they really wanted to do, see what they wanted to see. . . Locke able to manipulate Sayid because Sayid has an underlying dislike of Sawyer anyhow, Sawyer being able to manipulate the husband and wife because of their greed, Sawyer manipulating Jack and Sayid into punishing him due to their own feelings of impotence and lack of "confidence," Claire (in a much milder and pleasant version) letting Charlie talk her into "seeing the peanut butter" and joining him, because that's what she wants to do anyhow. So . . . maybe if they'd locked Sawyer in a closet with bucket?? I'm consistent; I don't find that particular turn of events at all attractive in Wesley, either. I have a very hard time watching those scenes, and the only reason I enjoy them is because AD is doing such a fine job of acting as a man who's so desperate that he's given up his own moral code. We'll see. They're gonna have to prove it to me, with more than words and facial expressions - I don't want to see this sort of behavior, from either of them, ever again. If they're to be "heroes" in my book, that is. Starting to think that Kate is the real hero of the story, myself.
|
|
|
Post by Sara on Nov 11, 2004 11:20:22 GMT -5
Even with all of this being true (and I can't even quibble with most of it), there's still the fact that torture is not a reliable means of extracting information. It's really not used, by and large, for that purpose, at all. It's more used to break someone until they'll stop opposing your political will, not as a way to get information. Someone with the stomach to have read further than I did on this topic can try to explain why torture doesn't extract accurate information, as a rule...but I saw the entire scene as more a punishment and whipping into shape kind of deal - make the man afraid enough so that he'll stop opposing everything you want to do. I don't think either Jack or Sayid consciously had that in mind, but in the end, you had the two most overtly powerful men on the island hurting a political dissident. Huh. I didn't get that sense from it at all, mostly because I haven't seen Sawyer as the opposition to what they try to do. He's argued with them about things, behaved like a jackass in general, but since shooting the marshall he hasn't taken steps to undermine any of their actions or decisions--and even then was genuinely trying to do what was best for the group. Sawyer went on the expedition with Sayid and the others, and as far as we know has kept to the agreement to maintain the secret of the French lady's looping SOS. He didn't try to keep people from going to the caves with Jack or from staying on the beach with Sayid. As far as anyone knows he did his job in sending up the rocket and activating the triangulation device. And he jumped in to help break up the fight between Jin and Michael. Overall, it seemed to me he'd achieved a sort of "you don't bug me, I won't bug you" peace with the other castaways. So I pretty much took the scene for what it seemed to be--two guys letting their dislike for Sawyer overrule their better selves in their vastly fulked-up attempt to save Shannon's life. Fair enough. Like I said, I know I'm in minority on this one.
|
|
|
Post by Nickim on Nov 11, 2004 12:35:29 GMT -5
Huh. I didn't get that sense from it at all, mostly because I haven't seen Sawyer as the opposition to what they try to do. He's argued with them about things, behaved like a jackass in general, but since shooting the marshall he hasn't taken steps to undermine any of their actions or decisions--and even then was genuinely trying to do what was best for the group. Sawyer went on the expedition with Sayid and the others, and as far as we know has kept to the agreement to maintain the secret of the French lady's looping SOS. He didn't try to keep people from going to the caves with Jack or from staying on the beach with Sayid. As far as anyone knows he did his job in sending up the rocket and activating the triangulation device. And he jumped in to help break up the fight between Jin and Michael. Overall, it seemed to me he'd achieved a sort of "you don't bug me, I won't bug you" peace with the other castaways. So I pretty much took the scene for what it seemed to be--two guys letting their dislike for Sawyer overrule their better selves in their vastly fulked-up attempt to save Shannon's life. ITA
|
|
|
Post by Patti - S'cubie Cutie on Nov 11, 2004 14:56:26 GMT -5
Heck, neither did Sayid. Clearly. Yes, he clearly said that. at the END of the episode, when we needed to be able to feel some connection to him again. I did believe him - I'm just ...it was very disturbing because torture...should be reserved for mutual fun, you know? oh....wrong show! sorry.
|
|
|
Post by Patti - S'cubie Cutie on Nov 11, 2004 14:57:57 GMT -5
Huh... I'd tend to disagree... Indy's bravado seem to me to come more from the fact that he's the good guy, and KNOWS that he's the good guy. Sawyer's every move in this episode was calculated to get people to hate him, to harm him, perhaps to go as far as to kill him for what he feels are his crimes. True deathwish... feels that he needs to be punished, executed, but can't do it himself, so he tries to goad others into doing it. His snark at Sayid, his teasing of Kate, his willingness to let everyone believe that he was the bad guy, willing to keep something that benefitted him not, but which the withholding of harmed another.. He hates himself: he's trying to piss everyone off to do what he can't do himself. I agree with all you said but I was talking only about the comment after he'd gotten the bamboo up his fingernails. I think that comment was 'macho bravado'. Don't let 'em see it hurt.
|
|
|
Post by Patti - S'cubie Cutie on Nov 11, 2004 15:07:34 GMT -5
Yep. Well said. Of course, the hook is, that in his understanding that he is a loathsome thing, there is hope that he could find his way out of the pit. He's told someone about it now - that is a huge step.
|
|
|
Post by Patti - S'cubie Cutie on Nov 11, 2004 15:10:58 GMT -5
I'm gonna place myself in the minority and say while I hated the torture scene, I understand how it came to that and that it didn't alter my opinion of the guys involved. You're right--they never asked Sawyer if he had it, but he still had plenty of opportunities to tell them he didn't (whether they'd have believed him is another matter entirely). Sawyer certainly could have told Boone instead of sending him back to the caves bleeding from various locales, or given someone like Kate free rein to go through all of his things and see for themselves it wasn't there. But he didn't, even as their desperation and Shannon's condition escalated. He'd also shown himself unwilling to cooperate in this regard in the past--remember the laptop batteries? As for Jack, don't forget he'd just watched Shannon almost suffocate to death. Should he have considered other remedies? Yeah, but he's a typical Western doctor--if a remedy wasn't made by a manufacturer, it's not going to be the first thing that leaps to mind. So in his mind it really was a matter of life and death. And from that perspective I personally don't see a whole lot of difference between his actions and Buffy forcing a cross down a vampire's throat in order to find out where Willow, Giles, Cordelia and Jenny were being held hostage, or Spike doing whatever he did to that doctor to try and obtain information that might save Fred's life. I also think there's one other thing to consider before directing a whole lot of antipathy specifically toward Sayid and Jack: there's no way anyone on that island could have not heard Sawyer screaming. And yet no one came to see what was happening or--excepting Kate--to try to stop it. To me, that makes all of them just as accountable. But what saves it all for me is the impact their actions had on both men--Jack's when it was happening, Sayid's after. Their self-loathing pulled me out of my anger and disgust, much like Sawyer's did with Kate. I still don't like what they did, but I do still like them. *shrug* Just another couple of pennies thrown in during my constant quest to avoid real work. Very very shiny pennies. Kudos Sara.
|
|
|
Post by Patti - S'cubie Cutie on Nov 11, 2004 15:13:30 GMT -5
Huh. I didn't get that sense from it at all, mostly because I haven't seen Sawyer as the opposition to what they try to do. He's argued with them about things, behaved like a jackass in general, but since shooting the marshall he hasn't taken steps to undermine any of their actions or decisions--and even then was genuinely trying to do what was best for the group. Sawyer went on the expedition with Sayid and the others, and as far as we know has kept to the agreement to maintain the secret of the French lady's looping SOS. He didn't try to keep people from going to the caves with Jack or from staying on the beach with Sayid. As far as anyone knows he did his job in sending up the rocket and activating the triangulation device. And he jumped in to help break up the fight between Jin and Michael. Overall, it seemed to me he'd achieved a sort of "you don't bug me, I won't bug you" peace with the other castaways. So I pretty much took the scene for what it seemed to be--two guys letting their dislike for Sawyer overrule their better selves in their vastly fulked-up attempt to save Shannon's life. Fair enough. Like I said, I know I'm in minority on this one. your arguments have made you at least not a minority of one.
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Nov 11, 2004 16:41:16 GMT -5
Yes, he clearly said that. at the END of the episode, when we needed to be able to feel some connection to him again. I did believe him - I'm just ...it was very disturbing because torture...should be reserved for mutual fun, you know? oh....wrong show! sorry. **snicker, snicker** Um. That's very wrong of me to have found that funny. Yes. Wrong. **snicker, snicker** Lola
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Nov 11, 2004 17:58:44 GMT -5
I'm consistent; I don't find that particular turn of events at all attractive in Wesley, either. I have a very hard time watching those scenes, and the only reason I enjoy them is because AD is doing such a fine job of acting as a man who's so desperate that he's given up his own moral code. Understood (though - being inconsisent also OK in my book.) And, well put: I see Jack and Sayid the same way - desperate and giving up on their moral code. Kate is, I think, going to be the . . . moral center, I guess you could say. I don't know what her "crime" is so I'm feeling a little uncertain on her overall. I guessing that neither Sayid nor Jack or any of them are going to be heroes . . . I think they're all going to be really imperfect people.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Nov 11, 2004 18:01:14 GMT -5
Huh. I didn't get that sense from it at all, mostly because I haven't seen Sawyer as the opposition to what they try to do. He's argued with them about things, behaved like a jackass in general, but since shooting the marshall he hasn't taken steps to undermine any of their actions or decisions--and even then was genuinely trying to do what was best for the group. Sawyer went on the expedition with Sayid and the others, and as far as we know has kept to the agreement to maintain the secret of the French lady's looping SOS. He didn't try to keep people from going to the caves with Jack or from staying on the beach with Sayid. As far as anyone knows he did his job in sending up the rocket and activating the triangulation device. And he jumped in to help break up the fight between Jin and Michael. Overall, it seemed to me he'd achieved a sort of "you don't bug me, I won't bug you" peace with the other castaways. So I pretty much took the scene for what it seemed to be--two guys letting their dislike for Sawyer overrule their better selves in their vastly fulked-up attempt to save Shannon's life. Yes - their dislike for Sawyer, their desperation to save Shannon, and also, I think, a lack of faith in themselves that Sawyer exploited. I see the whole scene much the same way.
|
|
|
Post by Sara on Nov 11, 2004 19:25:30 GMT -5
that's very interesting! Jack was supposed to DIE...they must have liked the actor a lot! I've heard of this happening before. Actually, they made the decision to have Jack live before they cast the role--everyone who read the script really liked and identified with the guy. Thus, he lived, and they went from looking for a big-name star who'd make a solo appearance to going for someone in it for the long term.
|
|
|
Post by Sara on Nov 11, 2004 19:31:11 GMT -5
The entire text for anyone who's interested:
How 'Lost' Careered Into Being a Hit Show By JOE RHODES LOS ANGELES, Nov. 9 - The speed with which ABC's Wednesday night breakout hit drama "Lost" went from a network executive's half-baked suggestion to one of the most elaborate and expensive pilots ever filmed was brain blurring.
Determined to see his idea into the fall lineup, Lloyd Braun, then head of ABC Entertainment, brought together J. J. Abrams, the producer of the funhouse-mirror spy drama "Alias,'' and Damon Lindelof, a writer for "Crossing Jordan,'' to kick around his idea about plane crash survivors stranded on an island, a notion that he freely admitted was inspired by the reality show "Survivor.'' The result has been a show among the top 10 this season.
"I met Damon for the first time on a Monday," Mr. Abrams remembered. "By that Friday we had written a 20-page outline. And they green-lit the pilot on Saturday. At that point, we didn't even have a script, but in less than 12 weeks we had to start shooting."
That wasn't the hard part. And transporting the wreckage of an L-1011 jetliner to the show's location on Oahu may have been daunting, but doable. But of all the logistical nightmares that deadline represented none were more daunting than finding actors for the unusually large and internationally diverse ensemble cast - as the parts were still being written.
"It was insanity," said the casting director, April Webster, who had worked with Mr. Abrams on "Alias." "The characters kept changing. Every few days they'd call up and say, 'It looks like there's another one.' "
Because there were so many parts to cast - 14 major characters and dozens of background actors whose primary job is to walk around dazed on the beach until their story line comes to the fore - and only a three-week window to cast them, Ms. Webster put out the equivalent of an all-points bulletin. Calls were made to agencies in London, Sydney, New York, Toronto and points between.
"We were looking at tapes from all over,'' she said, and complicating the matter was the need to put together a cast at a time when most network pilots were already shooting. And whoever signed on for "Lost'' had to commit to working and living on Oahu for the duration of the series.
Working off their original 20-page outline, Mr. Abrams and Mr. Lindelof had ideas about the show's vibe - "Gilligan" meets "X Files," strangers on a plane, mysterious island - and who the characters would be: the hero with a secret, the plucky-but-haunted heroine, the stuck-up girl, the affable dude, the menacing rogue. But everything else was still up in the air, even as actors were auditioning.
"We were writing audition scenes because we hadn't had time to finish the actual script," Mr. Abrams said.
But as actors came in to audition, something fascinating happened, he recalled. "They would inspire us to take characters in a direction that we wouldn't have come up with on our own," he said.
The result was a radical reimagining of some of the original characters. Charlie, the burned-out English rocker played by Dominic Monaghan, was originally envisioned as a middle-aged businessman with a drug problem. Sawyer, the troublesome American played by Josh Holloway, was going to be a New Zealander. And Jack, the heroic (so far) spinal surgeon played by Matthew Fox, was going to be much older. And since he was also meant to die in the first episode, a one-shot appearance, high-priced movie stars like Michael Keaton and Aaron Eckhardt were being considered for the part.
Some well-known actors not usually associated with prime-time television, Ms. Webster said, were attracted by Mr. Abrams's reputation and intrigued by the nontraditional premise, which is how they managed to get Mr. Monaghan, a hot property after playing Merry Brandybuck in the "Lord of the Rings" films; Naveen Andrews, best known for his performance as Lt. Kip Singh in "The English Patient"; and Harold Perrineau, coming off his appearance as Link in "The Matrix" trilogy and critical raves for his stage performance in "Top Dog/Underdog."
The cast also includes Terry O'Quinn, a frequent "Alias" guest star, as the philosopher-hunter Locke, and Jorge Garcia, whom Mr. Abrams and Ms. Webster happened to see on an episode of "Curb Your Enthusiasm" the night before his audition, as the imperturbably mellow Hurley. For the executives of the show, the most intriguing breakout star may turn out to be Yunjin Kim, who grew up on Staten Island and attended the High School of Performing Arts in Manhattan but then returned to her South Korean homeland to become a major Asian cinema star.
Ms. Kim originally auditioned for the part of Kate, the female lead, but Mr. Abrams decided immediately he wanted to write another part just for her. "We had thought about having a couple that didn't speak English before she came in," Mr. Abrams said, "but when she came in, we knew we had to have her on the show. And we started coming up with a story for this woman and then her husband."
"I walked in and, obviously, I speak Korean, and the next day they said they were going to write a role for me," said Ms. Kim, who plays Sun, a seemingly timid woman who planned to leave her husband on the day they boarded the ill-fated plane. "I was, like, 'Hey, I don't even need to read a script.' The fact that they would be so open and excited about me, that was a huge compliment."
The most difficult role to cast, in fact, turned out to be Kate. "We had master lists on the Kate character that were 12 to 13 pages long," Ms. Webster said, "which translates to more than 200 actresses who we least checked on their availability."
"We had seen some incredible actresses," said Bryan Burk, who shares the executive producer credit with Mr. Abrams and Mr. Lindelof. "'But J. J. kept saying, 'You're gonna know when she comes in, you're gonna know.' Which I thought was just his craziness. But then she came in. And we knew."
"She" was Evangeline Lilly, a virtually unknown Canadian actress who got the part, on a last-minute audition tape, almost out of nowhere.
Mr. Abrams seemed particularly pleased that the cast is not all perfect cheekbones and "Baywatch" bodies, although there are certainly plenty of those. "The show is about an international flight that crashes somewhere in the Pacific," he said, "so the cast is going to look more like the world looks and less like 'Beverly Hills 90210.' "
Not that they're done with the casting, even now. There are flashback episodes that have to be populated, and most of the 46 characters who survived the crash haven't been seen. The longer "Lost" stays on the air - and with an average of 18 million viewers per episode so far, it will undoubtedly be around for a while - the more likely it is that new faces will appear.
In other words, Mr. Abrams said, there's plenty of room to develop more characters without a need for outrageous plot turns. There's no need, for instance, to have another plane crash.
"No," he said, laughing. "Although I wouldn't rule that out."
|
|