more on Lost- Ivan Askwith article

OK so, as I mentioned before, I have started to watch the seasons of Lost since being in the class, and even though I am not too far along, I am almost done with season 1.  It's really not bad at all.  And after talking to my friends who all loved watching Lost, they said that the first three seasons are the best, and then it all does downhill from there.  In this article that I read for class, the majority of it talks about whether or not the Lost writers had any idea how they were going to end the series, and if all of the answers will be solved.  Askwith goes on to say that there are four key points of the series that the writers have done to make it difficult to explain at the end.  They are:
1. Too many questions, too few answers
2. Redundant flashbacks and the endless middle
3. Convenient Inconsistance
4. Meaningless signifiers

A lot of people, including Askwith, speculated whether or not the writers were just writing each episode as they go a long, and not really know what is going to happen, which upset a lot of the viewers.  I have to say that after reading all of these Lost articles, I am a little worried myself that once I get more into the series, I will be more confused and more angry that nothing is getting solved.  It is interesting though to see that this article bashes the writers and how they are doing a poor job with the writing because they don't know how to end the series, and in the article that we read in class last week (Pearson), she talks about Lost being the best narrative out there. 

What really upset me after reading this article, is seeing Askwith talk about the episode in the first season with Hurley and the numbers.  It's ironic because that is the episode I just watched last, and after the end of the episode I really want to know what the numbers mean.  Come to find out through this article, Askwith added a text from an interview of one of the writers basically saying that they probably won't solve what the numbers mean at the end of the series and that they didn't know themselves what they mean.  I think it's a little ridiculous, but I haven't given up on Lost just yet, I will keep watching to see how it plays out.

Pearson and Mittell Articles on "Lost"

After my last post about not watching Lost, I watched the pilot episode that was assigned, followed by the next 6 episodes.  Yes, Lost and I now have a love/hate relationship 7 episodes in.  In the two articles I read for my class Thursday, I see valid points in both articles, however, the Pearson article seemed to gear more towards informing the viewer of how the narrative of Lost is the best in television history.  In the Pearson article, she explains to the viewers the significance of the shows narrative.

"Whether the producers do or do not eventually provide solutions to all the island's many mysteries, their narrative innovation should be seen as a significant marker in the history of the television drama" (Pearson 4).

I wish I could see the narrative as being the "greatest" a drama show has ever been, but I just can't seem to help myself thinking that the narrative is so bizarre and out there, and not all good...in my opinion.  I feel like the "magical essence" of the plot line is weired, but I think I enjoy it so much because of how complexed I feel when watching it.  I have the urge to want to watch more. In the other article by Jason Mittell, he talks about 4 aesthetic qualities that make Lost what it is, and complexity happens to be one of the four.  The other three would be surprise, forensic engagement, and unity.  I would have to say that most every quality listed is the reasons why I watch it, but I could do without unity.  To me, it doesn't seem that important.  However, Lost is one of the most complex shows that I have seen, and I probably will continue watching the seasons.  I'm curious to find out how I'll feel at the end because all of my die hard Lost fans, hated the ending, and felt like they wasted 5 years of their life with this show--maybe a little dramatic?  Who knows, but I do know that the Mittell article was written during the taping of the series because Mittell quotes that

"Lost seems to be the first popular show to successfully mobilize fans' forensic impulses toward sustained narrative pleasure over frustration---- although the success rate might certainly change over the final three seasons" (Mittell 130).

Looks like I'll have to keep watching the episodes and find out if I'm like the majority of people who hated the creators for how they ended Lost! 

Stacey Abbot article--Is "Lost" considered a Cult series?

I guess I can start off this blog post by letting you know that I have never seen an episode of Lost before in my life, let alone not giving it a second thought to want to start watching the series.  But since I am required to watch some episodes for this class, I thought I would keep an open mind, and if I really do enjoy it, I'll probably start watching the seasons.

With that being said, let's get into talking about this article by Stacey Abbot.  I found this article very interesting because the author talks a lot about whether or not the TV series "Lost" is considered a cult series.  Better yet, Abbot talks about how she thinks that Lost is considered a "Cult Blockbuster" and how to most people, that seems to contradict itself.  In the article Abbot says in referance to how a cult movie, or tv show should be, that

"reinforcing this notion that cult, particularly in the eyes of the fans, often stands in opposition to the mainstream" (Abbot 11).

 She also goes on to talk about how if you're a cult, you can't be a blockbuster because if you're a blockbuster, you're a huge success and very popular.  Well, I would like to go ahead and argue that in this day in age, you can be a cult tv series, or cult movie, and still be considered a blockbuster.  For example, many movies and shows that are considered "cult" today, may not have been considered it when they were made.  However, when I think of a show or movie to be considered "Cult" I automatically think of the Star Wars Trilogies.  The series was one of the most grossing movies to ever be made, and yet, if you look up the definition of what a Cult show is, Star Wars falls right into that category, even though its movies were all huge blockbusters.  Included in this blog is a link to an article I found online talking about the Stars Wars Trilogy.  You can find the article here: Star Wars Trilogies Article

In my opinion, I think that the Lost Series is considered to be a cult tv series, one that will become a classic that many people will talk about in the years to come.  It has every characteristic that a cult classic should consist of.  Abbot goes on in the article pulling facts about cult classics and how lost fits in, while its doing so well as a blockbuster so she does go on to say in the end how "Cult has been appropriated for the mainstream" (Abbot 23).  They need to change the way Cult movies and television shows are viewed, because I think that in this day in age, we look at Cult Classics as being mainstream and popular, and less and less as being hidden from mainstream.

Jenkins article, "A New Paradigm for Understanding Media Change"

The main focus on this article is about changes brought into the media by three different concepts---those concepts being (1) media convergence, (2) participatory culture, and (3) collective intelligence.  The two that they talk about most in the article is media convergence and participatory culture.  Jenkins talks about convergence being "the flow of content across multiple media platforms, the cooperation between multiple media industries, and the migratory behavior of media audiences who will go almost anywhere in search of the kinds of entertainment experiences they want" (Jenkins 2).  After reading this article, the only thing that I kept thinking about was how Apple has definitely brought media to change with the new iPad being a huge hit.  When I read this article, I wanted to get some more information on Apple and the new iPad, so I googled "why is the iPad so successful" and came across this great article online that explains why Apple is so successful, why it had brought about so much change, and why it sinks you into the confined restriction of Apple itself.  You can find the article by going to this link provided: Why the iPad Will Change Everything. 

Jenkins goes on to say that "convergence involves both a change in the way media is produced and a change in the way media is consumed" (Jenkins 16).  I feel like this absolutely has Apple and the iPad written all over it.  In the iPad article online, the author of the article, Daniel Lyons, talks about how when you buy an iPad through Apple, you become "locked" into their ways and are confined with using only Apple approved things.  Some would think this would be a problem, however, people don't seem to mind and are constantly and continually buying the iPad, which you can use for almost everything.  Another link I wanted to include will show you better than I can tell you of everything the iPad is capable of doing.... take a look: New iPad Commercial.  the iPad is taking all of the technologies that the old media had created...tv, dvds, cameras, gps, etc. and combining it into one thing.  It seems to me like Apple has just created this new and very large media change that is going to take off, with even bigger and better things to come.

HBO Drama Article-Is HBO Drama really considered art?

HBO came up with this slogan, which is "It's not TV, it's HBO".  What does that exactly mean?  Obviously HBO is not a network cable station that plays TV series.  We know that in order to watch HBO, people have to subscribe to it, because it is considered a "premium channel".  Why?  Because they show movies, and commercial free TV series, and miniseries, etc.  After reading this article on HBO, and whether or not it's considered art, I realized something.... I don't believe that HBO Drama series, like the Sopranos, should be considered art, or artistic, or anything to do with art.  When I think of art, I think of something along the lines of a Picasso painting, or a form of dancing, not a director writing a script about a Mafia family.  On another note, everyone is titled to their own opinion, and many people have different definitions of what they consider to be "art". 

Many HBO series are great to watch, especially the dramas.  I personally prefer all of the miniseries that they have done. My 2 favorite being Band of Brothers, and The Pacific.  Now, to contradict myself in saying I don't believe in HBO drama series being "art", I will say that those two miniseries could be considered art.  For example, both miniseries was based around two very important historical times in the US, and when a director can recapture those moments and tell it with such power, it then can become art.  It's re-telling the importance of our nation, and the history of what happened.  With the Sopranos, it's just an hour long, commercial free tv show that shows us the lives of Tony Soprano, who is a fictional character acting in a series. 

The way people look at art varies differently-therefore people's opinions change on whether or not HBO has taken that step in creating drama series as being artistic.  Sopranos-No, The Pacific/Band of Brothers- Yes.
Sopranos recapturing history?-No... The Pacific/Band of Brothers-Yes.