10 Best SciFi TV Episodes Of All Time

I discovered Blastr this morning thanks to a link going around showing off an Empire Strikes Back chess set made of legos and have officially added the site to my ever growing google reader.

The first article I discovered was one naming the ten best Sci Fi Television Episodes of all time. And, I gotta say, it's a pretty damn good list. Open in up in a new window, read it, then come back here. Don't worry. I'll wait.

While I absolutely agree with their Buffy, Dr. Who, X-Files, Lost & Firefly episodes (and don't consider myself fluent enough in Outer Limits or Star Trek to have an opinion), I question their Battlestar choice. 33 is a great episode and as the first ep after the mini-series it DOES establish the tone of what's to come and all that, but I tend to lean more towards the season 2 or 3 finales...not that they were brilliant stand alone sci fi pieces, but they WERE breathtaking episodes of science fiction television. I won't be so silly as to suggest my own favorite BSG episode, Unfinished Business, as a candidate, considering there's practically no sci-fi in that episode whatsoever (but a whole of love and shipping!), but 33? I'm just not so sure.

Twilight Zone has so many classic episodes that Eye of the Beholder seems like a perfectly fine choice. It's classic, but disturbing & relevant classic, not almost-silly-at-this-point classic like let's say Nightmare at 2000 feet or overdone classic like To Serve Man. So while I suspect many will object to this selection, I'm actually fine with it.

If I had to add to this list...might I suggest a showing from Angel? If we are talking fantastic episodes that both played with & showed off the conventions of Science Fiction, it's hard to not look to season five's Smile Time. Watching that episode single handedly sold me on watching all of Angel's final season, and I sure am glad I made the effort - GREAT season, by far the best of the spin-off's five years.

So what would you add to this list? What would you take off? What would you tweak? Eager to hear your thoughts, especially from those of you who watch the Sci fi shows I haven't checked out yet i.e. Supernatural and....um...that might be it.

Read More

How Chris Nolan Incepted Us With Inception & May Be Taking Over The World

Note: Inception spoilers lie ahead. Do not read if you haven't seen Inception. In fact, if you haven't seen Inception, please close the computer immediately and go see it. Good deal!

Okay. So. This just happened. It's 4:30 in the morning now and I started writing at 3:50.

The first thing I remember is being in a hotel room. High in a hotel room, cause it's just me, a hotel room, room service and a tv. Fun! Then all of the sudden, I hear the zzzzt sound of a hotel door being opened and it's someone who I love very much, but was not expecting to see behind the door and someone who I don't want to see when I'm blazed out of my mind. So I ask what Person A is doing there! Person A had to see me. I explain that I'm really tired. Person A suggests breakfast. I say I don't think that would work and note how odd all of this is and think, how funny if I was dreaming...

Cut to: I'm a library with Person B and Person C.

(Back ground: Person B is an old friend of mine who recently got involved in a theater company I work with. Person C is the artistic director of the theater company. Person B works in theater at a high school and Person C is in the process of finalizing a deal where the theater company teaches, in some cases, theater to kids - we had a meeting yesterday where this was brought up.)

Person B tells Person C that the kids talk about the program all the time and they just love it, etc. etc. I interject, "Wait, didn't we JUST have that meeting yesterday?" Person C replies "Quick turnaround."

So I start thinking...about how earlier I thought I might be dreaming...

I then say "Okay, this might sound totally weird, but I LITERALLY have no idea if I'm in a dream or not right now, it's totally fucked up." And look to them for answers, for them to tell me I'm ridiculous. Blank stares. I suddenly feel threatened and terrified.

I think think - "where's my totem. fuck fuck, where's my totem? I need to know if I'm dreaming. If I am, I need to wake up."

I try to look at my hands, I can't see them. Something is wrong. I reach into my pocket and realize I don't have a totem, so what else, what else. The pocket! What pocket am I reaching into? What am I wearing? What WAS I wearing earlier? I can't see it. I then decide that my shirt must be made of my mother's name and my pants must be made out of my dad's name. But then I realize none of this makes sense, I can't see what I'm wearing & there is no such thing as a shirt made out of Elizabeth* or pants made out of Arthur* - this is a fucking dream.

So I say think, okay, WAKE UP! Things get shaky, but it works! I'm suddenly in bed!

But wait, it may be cause it's dark, but it looks like my bedroom in my parents' house, not where I sleep now. I then look to the side of the bed and see what may or may not be a foreboding figure standing in front of me, holding a weapon. I scream at the top of my lungs AND FALL OUT OF BED, hitting my stand up lamp on the way down.

I instantly wake up in actual real life, terrified, on the verge of hyperventilating. I turn the light on, get my cat, and write all of this down.

I'm not sure where all of this falls on the scale of positive vs negative ways a movie affects your life, but Inception played a role in my dreams tonight in a way bigger then "I dreamt about Inception."

I understood after seeing this movie, on a subconscious level, that what it was telling me about dreams was true. That I could figure out if it was real or not, that I could wake myself up, that telling my dream-mates that I think I'm dreaming is dangerous and - interesting that screaming & falling on the last plane of dreaming before waking up is what actually woke me up? We all know the "kick" on the first plane in a dream within a dream is what actually wakes you up. Well, we think we know this cause we saw Inception. And now it just happened in my dream.

Chris Nolan, I don't know what kind of genius mastermind you are and I hope if you do take over the world, it's a benevolent dictatorship. Because you just made some shit up in a movie and I DECIDED IT WAS FACT WITHOUT EVER DECIDING IT WAS A FACT. Which also happens to be what occurs when someone is incepted in your movie. When Inception occurs. You incepted me with Inception. You incepted all of us. And now for better or for worse, I am finding it easier and easier to recognize when I'm dreaming (something similar, but not quite as intense, happened a week or so ago). At this stage, being conscious of the fact that I'm in my subconscious freaks me out to much to stay there, and I always wake up. But if this movie is somehow singlehandedly building our minds up enough to be able to fully participate in lucid dreaming, which, who knows, could lead to the film's technology existing in real life? Which could lead to actual physical Inception? Which you could totally do with an army of top notch lucid dreamers?! Well that's a whole other fucking movie right there, isn't it?! Except real if it was real! But IS IT REAL?!

WHAT'S HAPPENING?!

I also happen to be so sleepy and tired with a brain that has yet to recover from all of the 8 hours of drinking and 3 hours of sleeping that occurred yesterday, that it's no wonder I was high in my dream. My brain can't even function normally in my subconscious. That's how tired I am. But maybe it's also this complete inability to keep my eyes open that allowed for such a deep sleep so soon after I turned the lights off. Two levels in after a half hour, if that, of sleeping?

I must know go back into the land of the unknown (and by unknown I mean very well known) of my subconscious and hope things go more smoothly this time. Dating Joseph Gordon Levitt, Rupert Grint, James McAvoy or Aaron Tveit would definitely be acceptable subject matter.

See you on the other side.

*Not my parents' actual names, changed for purposes of this story.

Read More

Televisionaholic

Going to keep most of this after jump because I want to keep Megan Fox's acting and JGL on the front page for as long as possible.

(cross posted from But They Didn't Ask Me)

They say the first step is admitting you have a problem.  Lady and gentleman who read my blog, I have a problem.  I watch way too much television.  Case and point:  I visited Hulu.com as I often do when I have other things I should be doing and decided to give the pilot episode of SyFy's Haven a look-see.



I like Stephen King.  I like Maine in theory.  And while waiting for Fringe to return in the fall, I could use something reminiscent of The X-Files and every other crime fighting science fiction show ever.   Plus, Haven has that one actor from Six Feet Under and 24 with the great goatee that I saw in Santa Monica the other weekend.  Consider me sold.

The rest after the jump




Ten minutes into the pilot, our fish out of water FBI agent is having a somewhat heated conversation with the local police chief because this murder just isn't making any sense.  That's when I recognize the police chief.  He's the actor who played the coroner and title character in the Canadian crime show Da Vinci's Inquest.



He's a little grayer and puffier than when I last saw him bucking the system and fighting for his dead victims in Vancouver, but it's definitely him.  Although I lived in Canada for several years, the only reason I know and love Da Vinci's Inquest is because my Canadian grandmother stumbled across it at 4pm everyday on A&E.  The show was amazing, and not just because in Canada, the coroners are a cross between a homicide detective, American coroners who conduct autopsies, and judges who get to hold their own trials otherwise known as inquests.  Every episode was reminiscent of Homicide:  Life on the Street or Law & Order in it's prime when Sam Waterson aka A.D.A. Jack McCoy played the system anyway he could to get justice.  And Da Vinci himself was a brilliant alcoholic misanthrope who could banter up and down a scene with his teenage daughter.  Anyway, the show was amazing until Da Vinci got into politics, but back to the point-- this actor my grandma loves shows up in the middle of a crime scene on this new show Haven.

I immediately call my grandpa's cell phone, and when he answers and explains that they're out to lunch with some visiting family, I assure him it's an emergency and I need to talk to Grandma now.  Very confused and a little concerned, she takes the phone, and I start heatedly describing to her what I've just witnessed.  Da Vinci is on a new show that they absolutely have to start watching immediately, like during lunch if possible.  You see, not only do I watch too much television, but I know far too much about other people's viewing habits.  I know that my grandparents love procedurals, but especially the kind that are a little tongue in cheek and on the quirky side.  Haven is set in Maine with an absurd recurring cast of locals and the occasional death or dismemberment is seen as puzzling and troubling rather than earth shattering, and that's perfect as they really enjoy something with a body count and a sense of humor a la the long dead Nash Bridges or more recently Castle.

Doesn't get much better than Don Johnson and Cheech

Except for maybe Nathon Fillion and... can we replace her with Cheech?

Grandpa also has a thing for young, pretty professional woman who are too smart and too sarcastic for their own good.  This describes the blonde protagonist in Haven to a tee.  And Grandma loves paranormal undertones, but nothing as frustrating or vague as the supernatural on a show like Lost.  The strange phenomenon in Haven have a logical and clear if still fantastical explanation by every episode's end.  PLUS, there's a recurring role played by Da Vinci!  If the start of a television show tailor made for them isn't an emergency, I don't know what is!!!!

Grandma laughed, explained to visiting family what my call was about, and handed the phone back to Grandpa.  Grandpa laughed and asked me to email him the name of the show and when it aired so he could record it on his DVR.   A few days later, he emailed me back to say they loved it.  Just as I was starting to feel proud of my recommendation, my television viewing prowess, it hit me.  I watch way too much damn television.

Read More

These are my Inceptionssss

(cross-posted from The Ecstatic Truth)

so… by now, everyone and their dog has already seen Christopher Nolan’s Inception (my poodle was not a fan, as her small but adorably fluffy dog brain doesn’t really allow her to form the complex thoughts required to enjoy even an ill-conceived Christopher Nolan film such as The Dark Knight), and has an opinion of both its value and its meaning. but not everyone and their dog has a blog through which to share said opinion (my poodle only has a twitter account). unfortunately for us all, i have both. so here’s my take on this whole shebang... it's not a review so much as my own reading of the film. having said that, i implore you only to read on if you’ve seen it. and if you haven’t seen Inception… see Inception.

the article after the jump

so, perhaps it was chud’s devin faraci who most eloquently presented the reading that Inception is all a dream, and that “reality” - such as it is - is never visited in the film. i share this approach for the most part, but with the benefit of seeing the film after reading his piece, i think i’ve found some of the hard-ish supporting evidence his piece omitted, and in turn arrived at an understanding that deviates from his theory in one major way. so read the following with faraci’s piece in mind… as i begin with the assumption that the entire film is not “reality,” and that i find that the film’s editing, shot selection (that whole Mombassa sequence is so telling… the tail is a projection, and check out the top-down shot… a maze of streets that look remarkably similar to ariadne’s designs) and characterizations support that argument.

so… yes, the entire film is a dream. but it’s not. it’s not a dream like you dream or i dream - it’s a dream like an extractor dreams. this is a key distinction. faraci and others posit that this is simply a random firing of neurons that the brain (a.k.a. the camera or chris nolan) is hurrying to whip into coherence, but i find that inherently dissatisfying, as cobb’s journey is too immaculately precise and self-serving (his need to let go so perfectly fills the cracks of the Fisher mission)… too constructed… too much the result of a guiding hand (a screenwriter or… an architect) to be random. i understand that nolan is presenting dreams as he understands them rather than as they are physiologically, but the ironies and conveniences of cobb’s descent (cobb’s epiphany in limbo has the exact same staged feeling as fisher’s engineered breakthrough) transgress any sort of suspension of disbelief… i mean, they do for me, and i write a blog called “the ecstatic truth,” so i’m not exactly the type who mines imdb for continuity errors. i just feel that this reading makes the film a hell of a lot more interesting. faraci posits that the film gets tremendous milage from the notion that what happens in a dream is just as valid and significant as what happens in real life, but shouldn’t that hold doubly true if the dreamer has a tragic personal and professional history that confirms that idea? cobb - for all intents and purposes - lost his wife down in a dream, and thus the film begins with the implicit understanding that dream-space is a place of tremendous consequence… that its unreal qualities are precisely the cause of its real world consequences… cobb knows this, and his team knows it too.

so i’ll bring in a somewhat common notion that the entire film is the process by which Cobb is being incepted with the idea that he has to let go. my spin on the matter is that he is the company’s best architect, and he can no longer create dreams because the wraith of his ex-wife subverts and destroys anything he designs. thus, they risk life and psyche to plumb his mind and free him from his dead love. of course, given cobb’s familiarity with the extraction process, his mind would be nearly impenetrable… dude does this for a living. so what’s the only solution? the only way to prevent cobb from understanding that he’s in a dream? to use his knowledge as the cornerstone of their operation and to have him inadvertently incept himself while ostensibly attempting to incept someone else. so to finish the thought left hanging by the previous paragraph, if cobb’s woes can only be corrected by plunging him into a deep SHARED dream, doesn’t that compliment Devin’s initial analogy and take it a compelling step further? a movie that is a dream is no less “real” than any other projected moving image, and either interpretation supports that claim. however, if cobb is someone who ALREADY KNOWS THAT as a result of his profession but is STILL BAMBOOZLED by the compelling nature and careful construction of the illusions presented to him… he becomes that much more like any experienced moviegoer, who enters the cinema armed with the knowledge that they’ve asked to be entreated into fantasy - that they’ve exchanged $13 - $20 for a rapid-fire succession of lies.

so yeah… below i flesh out my approach a bit, but understand that although i believe that there is relatively hard evidence as to the idea that the entire film is a dream, the circumstances of that dream are unprovable. i happen to find a certain credence in my understanding, and - more importantly - believe that this interpretation best rounds the film’s edges… this is how my (sub)conscious most contentedly fills out the nooks and crannies left untended by nolan’s framework. so while this treads perilously close to fan fiction, methinks that Inception’s insistence that we all collectively fill its holes with our own logic is the closest the film ever cleaves to dreams as they exist in the real world.

so…

the moment they get on the plane, Cobb’s crew performs an enormous mr. charles on their fearless leader. but the trick is that they’re already a dream deeper than cobb thinks… which of course mirrors Fisher’s understanding when he’s told he’s in a dream on the 2nd level… and the two characters have a parallel journey from there on down. because of their thorough understanding of cobb’s psychological state, the architect of THE MOVIE is able to make subversive use of his totem. while i’d argue that it doesn’t matter whether or not the top falls in the final shot so much as that cobb is free to walk away from it, i’d also argue that it doesn’t matter if it falls because the object’s physics have been determined by an unseen designer… much like the rug in saito’s bathroom, the top’s properties are at the discretion of another mind, and those properties can change at will depending on the dream level.

in my reading of the film, i’d suggest that cobb can’t meet anyone in his dream that he knows in real life… thus meaning that ariadne is a construct of some kind, which would help to explain her flatly curious nature. the rest of the crew are his co-workers, and saito is probably also saito in reality… a guy who needs cobb fixed so that cobb can perform a major job for him.

now… the beginning of the film. its order. the beginning of the film is NOT limbo. think of Inception like the Prestige… think of the hats and michael caine’s narration. classic bit of misdirection. there are many differences between the limbo in the beginning of the film and how it’s presented in the idea… the delivery of the dialogue and the positioning of the actors… all slightly different. we see the film in chronological order. the “limbo” in the beginning is simply the design of the dream… the tease of the prestige… the key to eventually convincing cobb of the veracity of his predicament when he’s trapped in limbo with cobb at the end. it’s a trail of breadcrumbs. it’s a failsafe so that neither forgets that they’re in limbo. it’s why when cobb and saito are ostensibly having this conversation for the first time in the warehouse in the first of fisher’s dreams that it seems as if they’re parroting a half-remembered conversation back at one another… as if they’ve remembered their cues.

so back to the beginning. the architecture of the dream changes and suddenly everyone is young. but the setting couldn’t be any more familiar to cobb… he’s on a job, and there’s Mal… as could be expected at this point. but who says Mal is his projection? maybe she’s there just to CONVINCE Cobb that she is her projection… because if she’s there, it’s the most incontrovertible evidence that he is on a job and that she is interfering. maybe this is really the mr. charles… proving to Cobb that he’s in a dream but telling him that that’s okay because it’s not his dream - it’s work. from that point on he’s in the very capable hands of arthur and eames and the rest… all playing their part in the deception / inception.

it’s not a provable theory… but if my choices are either this or that it’s a random dream / he’s in an insane asylum (gag) or whatever else… this is the most compelling interpretation for me, and the one that best reinforces the themes that many of us can all agree the film is exploring. i’m never one to give chris nolan more credit than he’s due, but methinks that if this film is to be celebrated for its failings (i think of the limp James Bond sequence), then its manifold success… the rope it may even inadvertantly give the audience to go all Christian Metz and fittingly arrive at their own very real conclusions… should not be overlooked.

and… okay, i’m getting tired, now. there’s a lot more to explore, and i need you and / or a 3rd viewing to do it at the moment. sorry. cop out. devin gets paid for this, i don’t, so… when i gotta cut and run uptown, this is what you get.

p.s. good movie. very good movie. hopefully another step for nolan and not his final destination… so sad that he has to waste another 2 years in the prime of his career on another fucking batman movie. so no matter your interpretation, Inception is a tragedy of time lost. nolan - when freed from the constraints of gotham city - makes great hedge mazes and then invites the viewer to play the role of minotaur, and it’s seldom been this much fun.

p.p.s. how good is hans zimmer’s “Time?”

Read More

Saturn Awards Wrap Up 2010

I had the pleasure of attending the 36th Annual Saturn Awards last night and live tweeting the entire event for you readers. But in case you aren't a fan of Twitter, here are some highlight tweets from last night, along with some exclusive photos!

Awesome Quotes 

She got confused about which side of the card had nominees and which had the winner, but managed to turn her faux pas into a very endearing comedy bit. I like her about 3000 more times than I ever have before. Though as a Joss alum, she should have known how to pronounce the name of nominee Morena Baccarin.

A whole lot more after the jump!

Moments

I won't spoil it for those of you who don't watch Dexter, but DAMNIT. I really should have watched this show before last night cause I imagine what Benz said was something I would have never seen coming. The audience was audibly disturbed by the spoiler. Her comment elicited forlorn moans from all corners of the room. Rule of thumb, actors - try to avoid spoilers whenever possible. Yes Stephen Lang referenced nuking home tree, but who HASN'T seen Avatar? Honestly. Who hasn't. In this country. I want to know.

A really lovely moment. Plus presenter Catherine Hicks had just thanked Nimoy for discovering her & told him he looked fantastic. After they hugged on stage, she ran off to the side, half hiding herself like an embarrassed school girl - it was incredibly sweet. Between that, Anna Torv leading a standing o, and Nimoy admitting that he's never won anything for acting, the whole five minutes was supremely heartwarming. 

Okay. So Neil Marshall's name was called as a presenter, but no one came on stage. Naturally, Zach and Josh stepped in to save the day, running on stage, joking about taking Neil out with a blaster, only to discover he was there, just didn't realize his name had been called. They then sheepishly and hilariously left the stage and returned a few moments later to present the next award. When Sigourney Weaver won Best Supporting Actress, a comedy bit revolving around Zach being unable to do an impression of her while reading her acceptance letter, but maybe he could do impressions of other people, emerged. They also joked about how Chuck won nothing and it was "Bad Robot" night. The two of them brought so much energy to the stage, I hope they come back and present every year. 

The Mark Pellegrino Saga 

We got a little obsessed with the idea of being the next Jacob....

So that about does it for this year! Thanks for reading and hopefully we'll bring you just as much coverage next year. Maybe I'll even see you there! Complete list of winners here.

Read More

SATURN AWARDS - LIVE TWEETING TONIGHT!

Hey fine folks!

Starting tonight around 6:30PT, keep an eye on @loquaciousmuse for All Things Fangirl's Second Annual Saturn Awards Live Tweeting.


We kept you readers constantly up to date last year to an enthusiastic response, so we're doing it again!
We even got a nice little shout out from Cinematical regarding our tweets. Hopefully the show this year will be just as jam packed and our tweets will be just as frequent & exciting. Though few things are as cool as getting a picture with Jacob from Lost touching you on the shoulder. Well. I suppose a photo of Jacob from Lost handing you a glass of wine would be even better, yes? LOST REFERENCES FTW!!!

Take a look at the 36th Annual Saturn Awards nominees here. I can't believe that Alexander Skarsgard, John Noble, Jeremy Davies and Michael Emerson are all nominated opposite each other. I LOVE THE SATURNS!

Read More

To Open Wide Or Not To Open Wide

Was reading Harry Knowles' review of Splice last night and found myself obviously thrilled to be reading yet another great review for a movie I adore, but also found myself bothered by certain parts of the review. See if you can notice a theme.

SPLICE is such a film. A delicate, crazed, wonderful, beautiful and warped film that we don't see in wide release any more. Mainstream horror & science fiction is generally these days a remake or a gore fest....

SPLICE is going to be on more that 2,500 screens this weekend.

A release on the same scale as the global abomination known as MARMADUKE, the lessor film KILLERS and the hysterical comedy GET HIM TO THE GREEK. That is, frankly, AMAZING...

It is so amazing to see this released by a major studio. Reminds me of DISTRICT 9 that way. A lower budget independent science fiction taking on issues and making a compelling genre film

While Harry clearly loves the idea of Splice being opened wide - I'm not quite on board.

Sure, District 9 opened wide, but it also had a huge campaign, covering all bases - genre, viral, mass market, screened & had a panel at Comic Con, had those Humans Only signs out and about before anyone even knew the name of the movie, and it was CLEARLY a summer movie. It had aliens and guns and spaceships, people. Plus while D9 had its hard to handle moments, it doesn't go anywhere near where Splice goes in terms of a certain level of fucked-up-ness. D9 had a chance at a huge opening weekend, the pieces were in place. Splice just doesn't.

Now, let me clarify. I love Splice. I LOVE Splice. Which is WHY I'm concerned about it opening wide. This movie is amazing, but it is not for everyone. People who don't know what they are in for, if they bother to see it, very well may walk out. It's controversial, it's provocative. A lot of people outside of the genre community haven't even heard of it. At Wondercon, when Vincenzo Natali spoke so eloquently about the film and spiked my interest - barely a single person in that room knew anything about that movie coming in. Which means Splice has had only TWO MONTHS to do, in terms of buzz & publicity, what District 9 did over YEARS. Sure people loved the movie at Sundance, in January, but if I wasn't even hit by the buzz then, I'm not sure it really counts as the marked beginning of buzz-building. I don't see a scenario in which this film mimics D9 in terms of box office either. If Splice magically pulls off a 25 million dollar opening weekend, I will HAPPILY eat my words. But I think 10 million would be a huge accomplishment at this point.

Now, if Splice weren't opening wide, if it were opening limited, it would have time to find its audience without the giant studio behind it wondering immediately if they made the right investment.  It would have time to build word of mouth, to grow steadily, to become the film you MUST go see NOW,  because it's too good and unique to let slip by. I worry, with a 2,500 screen opening and not the publicity or star power to back up that big of an opening, the numbers will be considered a disappointment and the movie will fade into obscurity. The reason why non quality horror films open wide is because everyone goes to see it opening weekend, makes all of its money right when it comes out, then it has a huge drop off and soon leaves theaters because it's a piece of shit.

But because Splice is such a HIGH QUALITY film, a special film, it deserves better. It is not meant to be thrown out into the vicious competition of summer in the hopes of finding an audience, somewhere, anywhere. Opening a "word of mouth" movie WIDE in the  SUMMER means if it doesn't open with huge numbers, it will be pushed out of theaters the weekend after, in favor of the plethora of high profile summer movies that, ohwhatdoyaknow, COME OUT IN THE SUMMER. June 11th, we have Karate Kid & The A-Team (I will see A Team). June 18th we have Toy Story 3 & Jonah Hex (the latter of which which I suspect won't be in theaters for very long, but movies have to leave theaters for this one to enter theaters, regardless of its box office performance! Though I WILL be seeing it. And Toy Story. Duh.), the 25th we have Knight & Day and Grown Ups (neither of which appeal to me) and June 30th, Eclipse (Obviously seeing it. But I won't get drunk this time. Promise.)  These movies have to be on multiplex screens somehow and how are those decisions made? "Which movie is bringing in the smallest numbers? You're out."

I think you guys may be interpretating a wide release as a sign of support from the studio, when really it just means Splice was a pick-up that they needed to release. Don't get me wrong, I love Warner Brothers, I just think someone needed to take the time to say, this belongs in the fall and deserves a much longer, a much better campaign, and maybe, just maybe, it should be released limited. (And KEEP SPOILERS OUT OF THE TRAILERS. Is another thing. Someone should have thought of. But that's another issue entirely.)

I hope I'm wrong. I hope this movie exceeds our expectations and opens huge.

-I'll scream and bless this country if it hits 30 million.

-I'll be bouncing off the walls if it hits 20-30 million (25,000 means 10,000 per screen, just like District 9's 30 million to 3000 screens, and boy, would that be great!)

-I'll be sad, but not suicidal if it hits between 10 & 20 mil -12,500 means about a 5000 per screen average, which is dealable.

-I'll sadly shake my head and think "I knew it" if it opens between 5 and 10

-If it opens under 5? Let's not talk about that scenario, shall we?

I don't mean to sound as if I don't support small movies getting a chance or a studio release. I think that's all fantastic! I just worry about the pieces not coming together. Why is this movie not coming out closer to Halloween? If you're making the push to get big numbers (which is the only reason, speaking from a business stand point, to open wide initially, isn't it?) then how can you not have the marketing campaign to back that up? Even opening the film in October would have given it more of a chance. But June? Counter-programming, sure, but what part of Middle America is going to see Splice before seeing any number of movies currently out or coming out this Friday? And if you don't care about that audience...why are you opening so wide? Not to mention, Splice would STILL be counter programming in the fall, because it is a fantastic, high quality, genre film. It's not some shitty gore-fest, which most everything else is around Halloween. It IS counter programming, people, in any effing event.

This may all be silly. The movie may open just fine. I just hate seeing films I love not even stand a chance.

Please prove me wrong. Please go see Splice this weekend - give it a HUGE opening weekend (25 mil would be the D9 equivalent & considered a huge success) and encourage the studios to keep picking up smart, fascinating, well-made genre films like this.

I love this movie so much. I hope you do too :). I've seen it twice. It holds up. GO SEE IT. And stop watching the trailers.

P.S. If you think I'm totally wrong, and hey, I might be, don't be afraid to comment! I'm interested in your thoughts on this subject, readers, and am open to all ideas.

Read More

Choose Your Own Lost [MOAR LOST!]

It's like choose your own adventure, but with unanswered Lost questions! Fun for haters and lovers alike! And may actually be created by Beauty & the Geek contestant/comedian/friend of a friend Nate Dern.

Play here.

[No idea where I found this link]

Read More

Lost Series Finale - A Conversation

 A screen-cap from possibly my favorite moment of the finale? Okay!

So. @xoxogg and I have been disagreeing about Lost this entire season. We decided our next gchat conversation on the matter, which was to no doubt come after the finale, would be posted here as a point/counterpoint. So here it is, as promised. And in case you're wondering, xoxogg has been a Lost lover from the start, so much so that he has trouble picking a favorite season. But he started to get worried with the season 5 finale, and has overall strongly disliked season 6. I too have been watching since the beginning, but didn't become obsessed like I am now until the end of season 3. My favorite seasons are 4 and 5. Here is our discussion on the Lost series finale.

 xoxoGG: Are you ready to do this with me?

LoquaciousMuse: I should be.  I’m just sad its over and my face hurts, my brain is fried and I'm saaaaaaad.

xoxoGG: Okay, so then, you go first: tell me what you thought how you felt, and then I'll go.

LoquaciousMuse: Hmmm.  I thought it was beautiful.  I loved that half of the season was the epilogue and we didn't know it, that the finale still managed to turn a device we thought we knew on its head.  I love the idea that these souls are bonded together and I see them "moving on" together as them going into their next life, but souls forever bonded, which is something I believe in and I notice people are interpreting the end to fit whatever their own faith is, which I think is lovely even if it's just spirituality ‘cause I'm more of a secular spiritualist anyway, and it allowed room for anything, making the themes love, redemption, about characters and closure which it has always been about, and I wanted character resolution and I got it.  The character arcs were amazing, especially Hurley's and Jack's.  The reunions were breathtaking, I sobbed during every one.  The acting was spot on -- Charlie saying "Claire" broke me. And I like the idea that there are questions left unanswered, because it allows continual theorizing, and keeps the show alive past its end date.

xoxoGG: Alrighty, can I cut in?  :)

LoquaciousMuse:  Yes haha.

xoxoGG: As you know, I've been SUPER pissed this whole past season because the show has been such a shadow of its former self -- completely eschewing character and development for a last minute ultimate good vs. ultimate evil (thought not really blah blah blah I'm sure the writers can't even explain it) storyline that's taken up all of our time on-island this past five months, but, ultimately, I didn't hate the finale.  I think it was the best that we could have gotten given the lackluster sixth season that we've had and I really did enjoy the character reunions.  I'm not even bothered by the revelation that the side flashes were basically heaven's waiting room (though I could have done without the multi-religious church at the end -- I mean, I get that they wouldn't want to alienate anyone's faith but Jesus a little heavy handed) -- that said, I think it was an ultimately lackluster SERIES finale it capped the show that I’ve been watching this year perfectly.  But that show isn't the one that I started watching six years ago.

LoquaciousMuse: I don't think it was ever about ultimate good versus ultimate evil and Across the Sea helped illuminate that it's a lot more complicated than that, that they were just people. MiB would do anything to get off that island. Jacob would do anything to protect it.  

The complete discussion after the jump

xoxoGG: I know, I’m saying it's more complicated than that -- but I’m saying I don't think that the writers could even explain it to you.  My boyfriend was/is livid about how the show ended and I get why he was, but shockingly I can't muster that anger.  Because it's over.  And what's the point?  What I don't understand about what you said -- or, rather, I do understand it, but it makes zero sense -- is about theorizing after the fact -- the show is over.  We're not getting any more info, and I think that as an audience we have to look at what we were given and think about it critically.  I know you wanna love love love it to pieces, but ultimately there were some BIG things missing.

LoquaciousMuse: I didn't even notice the multi-faith stained glass until it was pointed out to me, so I didn't find it heavy handed at all! Once I noticed it and looked back, I thought it was a nice touch. I liked that they made it clear, "Listen. Don't say this is some Christian bullshit. It's spiritual, people, it's whatever you want."

xoxoGG: Pandering, pure and simple. I know a lot of people out there are straining to fill in the blanks and make sense of stuff but I think that's a huge waste of time.  You can't rationalize away any problems that you had.  If they didn't tell us, it's because it was just sloppy writing.  Here are my big problems with how it ended and what I think we never got an answer to: 1) It's all well and good that the side flashes were a coda to a series where everyone got to be together -- the Claire/Charlie/Kate moment was great, as was the Sawyer/Juliet, and I'll admit it, I loved Shannon and Sayid.  But they weren't a resolution.

LoquaciousMuse: Well, Shannon/Sayid I get it, even though I never liked their romance.  He could move on and forget his past with her whereas Nadia WAS his past. He could really move on and feel redeemed with Shannon.

xoxoGG: That’s all beside the point, and don't EVEN get me started on Sun and Jin -- what a fucking joke.

LoquaciousMuse: You didn't like Sun & Jin???

xoxoGG: THEY SUDDENLY SPEAK ENGLISH GIVE ME A FREAKIN' BREAK, but this is nitpicky and not even the point that I’m trying to make.

LoquaciousMuse: Oh, I loved that! Same with Locke being able to walk. When they woke up, it was their world, anything was possible.

xoxoGG: What I liked or didn't like about the side flash universe is immaterial to the show.  Like I said, it's all well and good that it's a coda, but it's not a true resolution for our characters and their lives, because ultimately everything that happened to them in the Side flash universe had no bearing because none of it was real -- I'm talking legitimate story, here. It wasn't real, and hey, Locke backed me up: "But Jack, you don't have a son."  It's the Celestine Prophecy -- that's fine and dandy but it doesn't offer a true resolution to the story we've been told for six years because it ultimately isn't tied to what's happened in their real lives.  Alright, argue with me, go (and then I’ll get onto my next problem)

LoquaciousMuse: See, I think it was real.  Christian Shephard said it's real.  The island was real, and sideways was real. What wasn't real were the "props" -- like David, fulfilling something for Jack that he never had.

xoxoGG: Okay, let me clarify: it wasn't real life -- it wasn't the same timeline as the island, which is what we've been dealing with for six years.  And like I said: "But Jack, you don't have a son."

LoquaciousMuse: I think it was the same timeline.  It's just after.

xoxoGG: They're dead.  Christian told Jack they were.

LoquaciousMuse: They are dead, but it's still real.

xoxoGG: Not in the same way that the island world was real.

LoquaciousMuse: Again, I think a lot of this is up to interpretation and how you see the afterlife.

xoxoGG: Exactly: afterlife.  I’m talking about the real tangible this-life world.

LoquaciousMuse: But vampires are undead and still walk the earth.

xoxoGG: Oh don't gimme that crap.

LoquaciousMuse: Hahahaa

xoxoGG: They weren't walking around this universe -- it was some higher plane.

LoquaciousMuse: I just mean, while it may not have been an on earth tangible resolution, it still tied things up for the characters, who were experiencing it just as they experienced life.

xoxoGG: Okay, but that's not my point.  Some sort of grand emotional resolution doesn't offer us a STORY oriented resolution.  We've been invested in these characters and what was happening to them in THEIR LIVES for five years. Their lives here, on earth (actual earth) not some bullshit higher plane.  I'm ultimately not interested in the afterlife. It's sweet, but it's not the point.

LoquaciousMuse: On Earth, we saw what really mattered, the most important time in their lives - the time on the island

xoxoGG: Okay, sure, I’ll give you that.

LoquaciousMuse: And most of the characters were dead by the end.

xoxoGG: Because of crappy season six, yes, all of the ethnics got killed.

LoquaciousMuse: I was happy with Hurley and Ben becoming the new Jacob & Richard and then the next we hear from them is "You were a great number one.”  I am totally satisfied with that. More than satisfied.

xoxoGG: I'm fine with that too, but as far as I'm concerned it's beside the point.

LoquaciousMuse: I don't want to see what Kate and Sawyer and Miles and Richard and Frank did off island. I mean, I assume Kate raised Aaron, Richard experienced modern life, Desmond eventually got back to Penny & Charlie, etc. but that part of their lives isn't what the show was about

 xoxoGG: we still don't know what made THESE people so special and we don’t' know what the island is!

LoquaciousMuse: It's about what the island did for them, the people they started as, the people they became and their connection to each other & the experience.  The island is a cork.  There was a literal cork. Haha!

xoxoGG: Oh reallllllly.  Oh, OKAY.  Well that TOTALLY clears it up:  "What's the deal with that crazy island on Lost?"   “Oh that?  It’s a cork.”

LoquaciousMuse: I'm okay with a little fantasy.  The island is the heart of the universe, it keeps things intact.

xoxoGG: When did they say THAT?  Because I watched every episode… There were no definitive answers about ANYTHING.

LoquaciousMuse: But did you really want that?  I mean, you can't over explain anything.  I thought it was made clear without being overt.

xoxoGG: No, but you can at least explain SOME things.

LoquaciousMuse: It keeps the evil of the world trapped. And someone has to protect it and make sure it stays trapped.

xoxoGG: See, this is my problem with people in your camp.  You fill in the blanks with whatever you want. It is a TELEVISION SHOW.  We as an audience do not have creative license to try and figure out what we don't understand.

LoquaciousMuse: But they said all of that.  Everything I just said, they said.

xoxoGG: Jacob said that, and he said that about Smokey being evil.  But if Across The Sea told us anything it's that Jacob wasn't always right.

LoquaciousMuse: These people, our Losties, were chosen as candidates to protect the island because they had nothing across the sea. And not only did the island ultimately come out protected, but all the characters walked away with something whether it was what they were going to (Kate to Claire/Aaron) or something they had finally got to have (Sawyer w/ Juliet)

xoxoGG: but WHY THEM?  Why not another ragtag group of people with no connection to the world.

LoquaciousMuse: They were a few names of hundreds on the wheel.

xoxoGG: Over hundreds of years.

LoquaciousMuse: But these, specifically the ones connected to the numbers, were the ones who would actually change it from "just progress" to "the end."  So of course the TV show follows the ones who actually do it and don't all get crossed out. We know there are at least, what, 360 names in that lighthouse?

xoxoGG: Lost has ALWAYS purported to be about grand themes like fate and there's always been this sense of a grand plan and reason that NEVER came to fruition and because the show was about characters (at least for the first five years) we were lead to believe that there was something different and special about this group of people, why their lives kept intersecting and they were all connected even before they came to the island.

LoquaciousMuse: They were special because they were the ones who ended it.

xoxoGG: They threw all of that out in favor of a struggle between an angry dude made of smoke and his brother.

LoquaciousMuse: They were the ones who killed Smokey, who fixed the mistake Jacob made. Who made things right.

xoxoGG: They didn't though.  Nothing ended. 

LoquaciousMuse: Smokey's dead.

xoxoGG: The island was still there.

LoquaciousMuse: The island is safe.  The island will always be there.

xoxoGG: If it is safe then why does it need a protector?

LoquaciousMuse: From people who come to try and tap into it i.e. the Dharma Initiative.  Anyone who tries to figure it out.  But Hurley probably won't kill people like Jacob did.  Hurley was the purest of all and is gonna run things differently.  Jacob was taught this crazy shit from his crazy mother.

xoxoGG: So you're telling me that at it's basest level, the story we were watching was about a group of people fated to stop the man in black from destroying the island.  Yes or no?

LoquaciousMuse: Fated to ultimately protect the island from destruction, and thus the universe from destruction. They were fated to save the world. And along the way, find the things they never had off island.

 xoxoGG: So, basically what I just said.

LoquaciousMuse: We meet Smokey in the pilot.

xoxoGG: Let's remember for a moment that they didn't plan this out that far in advance.

LoquaciousMuse: I know, but they went back and watched it and made it work, which is even more brilliant. Flash Forward planned 5 years and got canceled. Haha!

xoxoGG: Well every show should come to the table with a plan, and fingers crossed they survive.

LoquaciousMuse: In the pilot Jack hands off leadership to Hurley.  Hurley faints at the sight of blood.  In the finale, Jack passes it off, and Hurley takes it, because living there, his experience, has changed him into a leader.

xoxoGG: What you're saying comes down to a massive terrible amount of retroactive continuity, which at the end of the day comes down to nothing more than sloppy writing.

LoquaciousMuse: Retroactive continuity is a factor, yes, but I think it's further proof of the great writing, that they wanted to stay in line with what they had set up

xoxoGG: Taking the pieces of the puzzle and forcing them to fit.  If the writing is good, then they wouldn't have to use retcon, everything would work as is, but because they had no plan and were literally playing it by ear, stringing the audience along for years: sloppy writing.

LoquaciousMuse: They may have set up too many mysteries, sure, but I also enjoyed theorizing and experiencing those mysteries along the way and I don't mind that not all of them were answered.

xoxoGG: Hey, I’m not saying I need everything answered.

LoquaciousMuse: Until they got an end date—

xoxoGG: You act as though the end date was handed down from on high.  This is the TV business, which I know a thing or two about.  If a creative team wants to end their show, that's totally their right. They didn't have a plan from the beginning, which is just lazy, and forcing things to line up in the last few episodes is just cheap.  Look at the Adam and Eve of it all!  They explain that in the Sepinwall interview by saying "oh, uh....Jack isn't so good at forensics."  Seriously?  Shut the fuck up.

LoquaciousMuse: In the beginning, JJ claimed it was gonna be as easily accessible as a procedural.

xoxoGG: well, JJ left two years in and all you mega fans worship the ground that D&C walk on, so one assumes that they would have the skills to pick up any slack.

LoquaciousMuse: But I don't mind that, I mean, what the hell DOES Jack know about forensics?

xoxoGG: EXACTLY.  You don't mind that because you're not looking at it critically you're just like "oh, okay, whatever."

LoquaciousMuse: But why should Jack's word about something he knows nothing about be considered gospel? They've established many times that just because someone says it, it doesn't make it true.

 xoxoGG: Because we were never led to believe that he was an unreliable narrator and we have to take the show at face value.  Damon and Carlton saying that in an interview is a way of covering their asses because they realized they fucked up because they weren't paying attention.  You need to ignore anything that happened that wasn't taking place onscreen while watching the show when trying to put everything together.  That's the true test of whether or not it was successful in its execution -- if it can stand on its own two feet, so to speak, without Damon Lindelof or Carlton Cuse running their mouths.

LoquaciousMuse: My assumption was that Jack didn't know what he was talking about anyway cause later, Locke observed that normal clothes would degenerate? Disintegrate? I'm forgetting words, within two years.  Meaning those particular clothes stood out, were different in some way.  So that's what I thought.

xoxoGG: Because they were made on the loom of life” no doubt.  Really?  Honestly and truly you thought that from episode three or whatever?  You're not just saying that now to rationalize along with them?

LoquaciousMuse: No no, I looked up Adam & Eve and read all the references to them in other episodes before it was updated with theories about the reveal.

xoxoGG: AHA!  But you didn't jump to that conclusion at the time your story loophole was presented!  You looked it up AFTER you realized it didn’t make sense.

LoquaciousMuse: Where it was just like "in episode _ Jack says this." "In episode __ Locke says this," implying Jack was wrong about the clothes.

xoxoGG: It all comes down to retcon

LoquaciousMuse: But if I had remembered that scene with Locke, then I wouldn't have needed to look it up.  There's a lot I don't remember.

xoxoGG: The main problem is that the show doesn't work on its own. It, and "you people" require all of this ancillary content and commentary to explain the problems!  For example, we were told: Ben and Widmore have some sort of weird rules where they can't kill each other, which is why they were out for each other's daughters.  But then Ben kills Widmore! No explanation. But I guarantee that you and anyone still blindly in love could find a way to explain it to me. Yet, at the end of the day, that explanation didn't happen on TV and therefore isn't real.  It’s conjecture.

LoquaciousMuse: But that's what makes the show special and is part of why it is so unique and wonderful - we can fill in those blanks, it exists beyond what is on the screen, which is something I love.

xoxoGG: No, that's what makes it dumb. And I say that PURELY in criticism of it as a creative entity.

LoquaciousMuse: I love not having the answers for everything and getting to come up with my own explanations and reading other people's thoughts, and they deliberately left the finale up to interpretation to stay in line with the spirit of the show.

xoxoGG: They invited that speculation by always saying that everything mattered and that there was an endgame, and by creating their online puzzles and games, which, great. But we now know that they didn't actually HAVE an endgame or plan or know how and why everything mattered until three years in.  Then they traded on the unknown and innuendo in order to justify the fact that they were incapable of bringing it to a close. They've said they don't think they owe the fans anything.  I was a fan. I loved this show for five years.  I would DEFEND this show to people who said "ehhh doesn't seem like they know what they're doing." And I was a chump.  They turned me into a chump.  When Allison Janney says "Any question I answer will only lead to more questions" that's actually Damon and Carlton saying to the audience "We're not going to do what we promised. And we're not sorry." like, CLEAR CONTEMPT: http://deliberatepace.tumblr.com/post/599172981

LoquaciousMuse: I'm sorry you feel that way. :(  It's interesting how divided everyone is.  I don't think it comes down to anything in particular, it just worked for some people and not for others. And there are plenty of shows and movies where I do actually see the flaws and love it anyway, or I hate them, or I have mixed feelings about them.  But, like, I'm actually satisfied here and I'm happy that I'm satisfied and it feels good. And I'm sorry that not everybody was affected the same way, and it makes me sad

xoxoGG: But I'm saying that the people who it worked for have been sold a bill of goods. The people it worked for are people who are content overlooking or rationalizing away any flaws.  They aren't holding the show up to a high standard of quality storytelling. And sure, that's a person's prerogative, but it's blind and rose-colored.

LoquaciousMuse: It depends on what you see as flaws.  You are a writer, so you know like, no, these are actual flaws in the writing. 

xoxoGG: I'm not a writer.

LoquaciousMuse: Whereas for me, it took me on a full circle, brilliant, emotional journey that no other TV show has accomplished.

xoxoGG: Six Feet Under.  I know TV. On top of that I know GOOD TV and I will give these writers credit where credit is due. They did a great job.  Of making a brilliant show? No.  Of getting people to watch something by promising and not delivering? Yes.

LoquaciousMuse: It's funny, I mean, I said this earlier, but sure they maybe introduced too many mysteries without knowing how they would get solved but I wouldn't want them to be taken back because I loved experiencing them even if in the end, there is no clear cut answer.

xoxoGG: The whole time we've been told "there is a plan!" which is tantamount to saying that the ends will justify the means but they didn't because the writers didn't even understand the means and they just picked an ending and forced it to fit.

LoquaciousMuse: But the people who are hating keep saying like "This show is about characters, where are the characters?" or "That was so lame and obvious how they answered that question about the whispers" or what have you, and then the finale focuses on the characters and doesn't give obvious answers and the haters still hate it.

 xoxoGG: Ultimately, I don't care about that stuff -- the minutiae and the whispers and if they truly cared about focusing on characters then they would have done that this entire year, and they didn't.  It's like with Grey's Anatomy.

LoquaciousMuse: Wait. I'm 5 eps behind.  No spoilers.

xoxoGG: I'm not spoilering.  Speaking generally.

LoquaciousMuse: Okay.  For me, they DID focus on the characters this whole season, but I know not everyone sees it that way.

xoxoGG: The side flash world people were NOT our characters our characters were living and breathing and dying on the island.

LoquaciousMuse: We may have to agree to disagree there, cause I see them as definitely being our characters, just after they died on one plane of existence. But still them, their feelings, their habits, what they care about, what they need to work out…

xoxoGG: …speaking English when they shouldn't have been, turning back from their zombie-selves at the last moment to die in an out of left field grand gesture.  Anyways, Grey's: the show is good at what it does -- case of the week perfectly attuned to wring tears out, but it's not legitimately good storytelling. It's usually pretty clunky and recycled. Sure, I cry, but that's because they're good at pushing those buttons. They're skilled at that. So sometimes it's taken to be quality.

LoquaciousMuse: Hahaha I always cry during Grey's and I'm like WHY DOES THIS ALWAYS HAPPEN!?  I'M ONLY HALF WATCHING!

xoxoGG: It's emotional manipulation.  I think that just because you got some tearful reunions and sobbed your lil' lost loving heart out, you feel like some good was done.  It wasn't. They pushed the buttons and pulled the heartstrings but at the end of the day the drama wasn't based in anything substantial.  If this were Jonestown, you'd be dead.

LoquaciousMuse: But Grey's emotionally manipulates you by introducing a husband and wife and the wife dies and the husband yells at a doctor about how being alone sucks.  The reason I cried during Lost wasn't because of some sad story they constructed in 2 minutes.  It was because of the connection I felt to these characters for SIX YEARS and getting to see them reunite.

xoxoGG: I KNOW

LoquaciousMuse: All it took was Charlie saying "Claire."

xoxoGG: EXACTLY.  they know what they're doing.

LoquaciousMuse: That's because of good storytelling

xoxoGG: They know what buttons to push.

LoquaciousMuse: And character development.

xoxoGG: It wasn't good storytelling.

LoquaciousMuse: And relationships.

xoxoGG: It wasn't development.  They played the easy cards.

LoquaciousMuse: That we understand the connections between them enough to be moved by one word.

xoxoGG: Painted in broad strokes.  And you bought it.

LoquaciousMuse: I let myself experience it and I loved every moment.  I don't like being "on top" of things when I watch them.  I like letting myself be in the moment.  Feeling every emotion, not over analyzing

xoxoGG: But it's not like you're going to revisit them and try to see them from another perspective.  You love this show.

LoquaciousMuse: In this situation, afterwards, I still find myself not caring to over-analyze.

xoxoGG: EXACTLY

LoquaciousMuse: Maybe in a few years, I will rewatch, look back, question.

xoxoGG: Kool-Aid = death

LoquaciousMuse: But I'm totally satisfied right now, way more so than I was with the BSG finale.  Buffy is one of my all time favorite shows, but I didn't love the finale at the time or looking back.  This is one of the few series finales that just did it for me, and if that changes one day, then it will change, but right now I think it was brilliant and I will miss the show so much :(

xoxoGG: I'm worked up right now, but my general feeling about the finale was one of: "Meh, I'm glad THAT'S over."  My anger isn't with the finale; it's how we GOT to the finale. I think that they took a seriously wrong turn and this was the best they could do, and I'm angry that they wont' accept responsibility for it, that to our anger, they say "fuck you."

LoquaciousMuse: Which is how a lot of people feel, I don't think there is a right or wrong. I think half the audience hated the direction this season went and are upset and the other half loved the direction this season went and are satisfied and I was NOT obsessed with Lost since the beginning.

xoxoGG: I was. And now I really feel like I wasted energy and time.

LoquaciousMuse: I watched it casually and enjoyed it.  Then end of season 3 I fell in love.  I became REALLY obsessed.  But I haven’t been obsessed since day 1, though I've seen every episode and watched every week.

xoxoGG: I saw the pilot two months before the show premiered and I said to myself "This is gonna be BIG." I immediately made my best friend watch it. I fell in love. And this past season has been like finding out that I was being cheated on from day one, melodramatic as that sounds.

LoquaciousMuse: I didn't feel that way at all, but I don't think either one of us are wrong--

xoxoGG: Well you weren't in it from day one

LoquaciousMuse: --or less intelligent or more or less easily manipulated or more or less cynical like the names people are throwing around on Twitter for people who loved it or hated it I watched it, I loved it, I wasn't OBSESSED til half way through. I'm saying I haven't been a blind follower, it grew on me, it became something, and I was won over.

xoxoGG: I know that a lot of people who share my opinion about this last season who would disagree with me on this, but I feel like this last season ruined the show for me.

LoquaciousMuse:   I'm sorry about that, it makes me sad! It did that for a lot of people.

xoxoGG: But once it won YOU over there was really no turning back :(

LoquaciousMuse: For me, it followed through til the end and I'm happy with the time I dedicated and I wish I had purchased action figures while they still made them.

xoxoGG: Hahaha!  But that's just because you're a nerd ;)

LoquaciousMuse: Truth.  I am a nerd.  

xoxoGG: I really want to feel like you feel.  I really really want to love it, but I just can't. I'm not hatin' just to hate.

LoquaciousMuse: I understand, ‘cause I've been in your shoes with other things and I think you are one of the people who AREN’T hating just to hate. Like, I’m still upset that Starbuck didn't get the resolution I wanted with Lee and I can explain it away, but ultimately, then and now, I was upset. Which is another reason why I'm so happy that I feel satisfied with this finale.

xoxoGG: I feel completely wronged by the writers -- and I'm friends with their assistants!  Carlton's assistant lent me his copy of Watchmen and turned me onto Y The Last Man and Damon's assistant was my partner in crime when I worked at ABC Studios.

LoquaciousMuse:  Ooooh, awesome assistant. Haha!

LoquaciousMuse: (Didn't love the end of Y The Last Man could admit it then, can admit it now.)

xoxoGG: (Me neither.) Anyways, I've got a personal connection to this show, past just being a viewer and I still can't find my way around to like it.  Gahhh.  So is this whole thing gonna go up on ATF?

LoquaciousMuse: Right now.

Read More