(no subject)

[apocalypsos]

naodrith has an excellent entry on what was wrong about last night's episode of Lost.

I particularly agree with the third entry -- nobody important is dying on this show.

Okay, look, here's the thing with survival situations. There are two kinds of deaths that really have any sort of effect on a group -- emotional losses, and necessary losses. In a necessary loss, you lose someone who is vital to the survival of the group ... a doctor, a hunter, or, say, a mother nursing a newborn. In a emotional loss, you lose someone who -- while not vital to the group in a food-and-shelter way -- still affects everyone else by having a positive attitude or being someone whose presence would be missed. The first loss brings you down on a physical level, the second brings you down on a mental level and can, in some instances, have just as much of an impact as the first loss.

Look at who we've lost so far on the island.

Have any of them been necessary losses?

The answer: No. The closest we get to a necessary loss is Boone, but he wasn't really. The problem is that the Lostaways -- at the time -- believed he was hunting for boar all the time with Locke. They would have considered it a necessary loss, because Boone's death hinders their food supply. But it wasn't, and that's the problem.

The closest we come after that is the lost of Artz, but since he just suddenly sprang up out of nowhere to toss out dynamite exposition before exploding, that doesn't make him a necessary loss, either.

Shannon, Scott, and the air marshal weren't anywhere close to necessary losses. Their deaths neither hindered or helped the Lostaways on a necessary level.

Have any of them been emotional losses?

The answer: Somewhat. Not significantly, though. Again, Boone is the best option we have. He was inept and not really helping even though he tried, but he meant well and his death came from nowhere, and the length of his suffering was affecting. However, when you get down to it, it only struck really affected three of the Lostaways -- Shannon, Jack, and Locke -- and Jack and Locke recovered quickly enough. Shannon, however, still had reason to mourn, and now she's gone.

Shannon's loss is a emotional loss only to Sayid. I don't think he lied when he promised to stay with her after the island. Survival situations are stressful, and things like this make people say and do things they wouldn't normally do. I think any life they would have had after the island would have broken up not long after, but I think that in that moment, they really thought they'd spend their life after the island together.

Shannon's death will affect Ana-Lucia, of course -- now that she's realized she's shot an innocent person, it's not going to be pretty. And while I think the Lostaways will be pissed she shot one of their own, I think that's the problem. They're not going to see it as "We lost Shannon," they'll see it as "You shot an innocent person." Was Shannon anybody's friend? She wasn't being bitchy anymore, but she wasn't being nice, either, and while she and Claire arrived together to give Sun that bottle, I don't think they had the kind of friendship that'll make her loss that much harder for Claire.

Who would be a necessary loss?

Well, at the moment:

1. Jack -- Losing Jack would mean serious problems for the Lostaways. Yes, they have medical supplies in the hatch now, but they also only have one doctor. Sun is an herbalist, Locke knows natural emergency techniques (ex. you break your ankle in the woods, he can set it with a couple of twigs or something), and Libby's a psychologist. (Hey, it somewhat counts.) If they lose Jack, it's not just that they lose their doctor, they also lose their leader. Locke would easily slip into that role, but ... well, you see where that can go.

2. Locke -- At the same time that Locke is a necessary loss, he is also an emotional loss. Should the hatch's food supply run out (and it will ... oh, but it will), they'll need their hunter again, and he's the only real one they've got. He's also the best tracker they've got.

3. Claire -- Claire is nursing a newborn. Enough said. (Although let's be honest -- if I'm remembering correctly, it is possible for the baby to survive on fruit juices and things, but since I'm not exactly sure, and I'm not sure how many of the Lostaways would even know how to feed a baby on that island, her loss would be a detriment.)

4. Kate -- Well, that's what happens when you make her the second-best hunter and the best female with a gun and the best female fighter and zzzzzzzzz. *eye roll*

5. Sayid -- Even before the hatch was opened, he was the only one with the military and electrical training to work on a radio or follow a map, and now that it is open, he's the one to keep it working.

6. Jin -- As someone who can fish, he'll be useful again when the food runs out. But this is a marginal necessary loss, as I don't doubt that by now, more people know how to fish.

7. Sun -- This is also a marginal necessary loss as well, because while she does know how to grow things and what to do with them, it's one of those things that others have to have learned some by now and that Locke has a very good grasp on as well.

Who would be an emotional loss?

1. Locke -- He's turned into these people's shaman, of sorts, and he's easy to talk to. The loss of Locke would hit everybody very hard.

2. Aaron -- Yes, Beelzebaby. Could you imagine what would happen if the baby died? He might be an infant, but he's a ray of hope on that island.

3. Hurley -- Hurley is everybody's friend. He's friendly, he's lovable, he's like a great big teddy bear. And I honestly don't think anybody knows how much it would affect them on an emotional level.

4. Rose -- She's like everybody's mom. And she hasn't seen Bernard yet! She needs to see him, and get back together with him, and if she didn't, it would be wrong.

Who's left?

-- Sawyer. Yeah, I said it. I love him to pieces, but he contributes nothing. He repels everyone with his personality and he sells everybody back their own crap. In some ways, he's even detrimental to the existence of the Lostaways.

-- Michael and Walt. Walt himself is useless. Yes, he's a child, so you'd think his would make it a moral loss, and it might be a small way, but not the way the loss of Aaron would affect everybody. Michael's loss would only affect Walt, and he's popping up in the jungle soaking wet and whispering to Shannon, who's all dead now.

-- Charlie. Carting around a Virgin Mary full of heroin and driving Claire nuts. Oh, yeah, he's really helpful.

My prediction for who will die next: Michael. And here's why.

They're not going to kill off Sawyer. Everybody loves Sawyer. And when I saw "everybody," I mean the audience. He's hot, he gets the best lines, he goes on all of the good adventures, and he grates every character the wrong way. He's abrasive, and it's good for storylines.

Walt won't die. If Walt's dead now, I'd be surprised. I highly doubt this writing team would kill a child, especially that child.

So it comes down to Charlie and Michael, unless there's some sort of surprise in our future, which ... heh. Unlikely. They've already said they won't kill the hobbit (and I believe them on that one), which leaves Michael. And frankly, even with the heroin, Michael's in much more danger. He's going to continue to go after Walt and it's going to get him in trouble.

However, I should point out that this is without me considering Jin or Sun, who I think are the next most likely targets. If they were thrown into the mix, I could see Jin going before Michael, although it wouldn't shock me if they killed Sun simply because when she's not there, she's missed more onscreen because she's a good person and less because she's essential to the plot.

Now, I would love to be proven wrong about any of this. I would love to tune in one day to suddenly see Jack, Kate, and Locke splattered after the jungle monster shoved them all off the cliff.

But I won't be, because I swear I've given up on any of these deaths surprising me anymore. (Much the same way as I've given up on getting many real answers.)

Comments

[titti]

(Much the same way as I've given up on getting many real answers.)

See, JJ said that they don't plan to reveal what's going on about the island until end of s4 or s5. After reading that, I stopped watching. I can sit here, week after week, knowing that nothing will come of it for another 2-3 seasons.

[apocalypsos.livejournal.com]

Predictable deaths. No answers. More than a few characters I hate. Oh, yeah, that'll keep me watching. *eye roll*

[titti]

Have you been following the ratings? Is it still going as strong as last year? I tried watching at the beginning of the season, but I got to the point that I was waiting for the Sawyer/Mike moments, and that's a sign of how bad it was for me.

[valerie]

You've got to be kidding me.

Well, there's one more push towards not watching.

[titti]

Yes, I saw that, and I knew I wouldn't have to tape Veronica Mars anymore.

[valerie]

Is there a link to where he said that or whatever? I'd be interested to read it.

[titti]

I honestly can't remember where I read it, it could Kristen but I wouldn't swear to it. I know it was a 'reputable' site, because I'm too bored to look for info about Lost.

[valerie]

I don't blame ya.

[unanon.livejournal.com]

Why do there even have to be deaths?! Why can't there be injuries instead for a while? It makes sense to me that someone would break a leg or an arm or get stung by jellyfish or...anything!

I wasn't spoiled for this death...even though I almost clicked the link you had about it a few weeks ago. It was NOT a pleasant shock, let me tell you. *grumbles*

[apocalypsos.livejournal.com]

See, I can accept deaths, but why the hell can't we have something a little more believable? These people are in a survival situation. Look at how they've died -- shot, squished by an airplane, beaten to death, and blown up by dynamite. Joanna's drowning death was the only one whose death was the least bit natural. Why hasn't anybody's appendix ruptured? Why hasn't there been more deaths that weren't caused by something completely out of the ordinary for the situation?

And yes, there should be more injuries. No broken limbs (In a jungle they still don't know well? Yeah, right.), no shark attacks or jellyfish (although since Joanna died, I doubt anybody's made swimming a habit), no infections. It's annoying, and for a survival situation, it's all wrong.

[unanon.livejournal.com]

*nods* I'd be totally fine with a) an increase in injuries/illnesses and b) more credible deaths.

God, I really just am in Shannon-death denial here. Totally. Horribly. *whimpers* It's not good.

[valerie]

I think you're spot on about Michael. He has nothing to his storyline and character besides Walt, and he's going to run off and get himself killed. I won't mind, but I want a shock. I almost want to see someone like Hurley or Sun killed, just to throw everyone for a loop and see how it's handled. I want to be pissed off by good surprises, not by being bored week after week.

[apocalypsos.livejournal.com]

I want to be pissed off by good surprises, not by being bored week after week.

Amen. And if the next death turns out to be Michael like I predicted, I may be out. It shouldn't be that easy to figure out, damn it.

[erinlin.livejournal.com]

They've killed of two of the most interesting characters they have, while Kate is still allowed to live. If they ax off Sun or Jin, I might stop watching. For a show about being trapped on a deadly desert island, it's getting kinda boring.

[apocalypsos.livejournal.com]

What drives me nuts is that it isn't what these characters have done before they died that makes them important, but how they died. Their flashbacks are a useless waste of time if they're simply going to be killed so that their deaths can be used as a plot device.

[darxide.livejournal.com]

If they want to kill off someone whose loss won't severely disrupt the island but will still have some sort of emotional impact on both the characters in the audience, my vote for the next death would go to Mr. Eko, Bernard, or Rose.

I don't even care who they kill off next, I'd just like it to be a surprise next time.

Though I'm still holding out hope that Shannon's not actually dead and that Cindy is the one who's 'lost forever'. Otherwise, the backstory we got last night, especially considering the fact that it was Jack's decision that killed Shannon's dad [and without Shannon around, that'll never have a way of being revealed -- even the meeting between Sawyer and Jack's dad became knowledge for the two of them, I just don't believe that there's not going to be a revelation for the characters that Jack was indirectly responsible for Shannon's dad's death] makes no sense and is in no way complete.

[fyrdrakken]

Hmm, that actually has potential -- the idea that Shannon wasn't actually dead as of closing credits, and that at least they get a session in the next episode (okay, the next ep after we get the story of the Tailaways) of Jack struggling to save Shannon's life and perhaps somehow linking that back to his failure to save her father.

Of course, do I think that's what'll actually happen? Not bloodly likely.

[adjectivegirl.livejournal.com]

I have to say it, the Lost writers are pussies. When I heard that they had a public edict out that Charlie would never be killed (DUH I love Dom but notthefrigginpoint) I realized JJ would never be able to make the moves he did on Alias when he cared less about a touchy audience. Touch us! Harder!

Working from the lowest billing to the highest billing is for bad horror movies and it makes the market, the ratings, all this outside bullshit far too integrated into the process. You can read it with your eyes closed now.

[/hasn't even been watching lately but just got incensed about this Shannon thing, I mean did Sayid even know about the Boone!sex? WHY DID IT HAPPEN THEN?!]

[apocalypsos.livejournal.com]

That's what bugs me about both of the siblings's deaths. The two of them had these secrets with one another and connections to other Lostaways, and nothing happened with them. No one found out they'd slept together, and Shannon never got to confront Jack over his connection to her father's death. Which leads to the question, why were they such important plot points to show if the characters were going to be killed off?

See, this is my problem. They keep killing off characters who still have dangling storylines, but which they've been unable to find a resolution to, instead of killing off characters whose plotlines have been all tied up.

[adjectivegirl.livejournal.com]

I mean, what would have been wrong with Boone and Shannon being outed somehow and becoming pariahs? I know they would have wrung a few seriously great laughs out of it (thinking of Charlie and Hurley's reaction in particular) and would have likely made the two of them outcasts together, Boone really becoming all Shannon had sans her "new life" and Sayid's interest would be momentarily snuffed, but we know how that all works out. And Locke would be weirdly accepting of it and the hatch thing could have maybe integrated Shannon and...

WHAT THE HELL THIS IS ENSEMBLE ARC I JUST SKETCHED OUT. OW.