The Guardian (UK) had a recent article which explained that there are actually three different kinds of intelligence.
It was under the pretense that even smart people with high IQs make dumb and stupid mistakes all the time. The reason for it that intelligence and common sense do not parallel each other.
Having a high IQ score does not mean that someone is intelligent. IQ
tests only capture analytical intelligence; this is the ability to
notice patterns and solve analytical problems. Most standard IQ tests
miss out two other aspects of human intelligence:creative and practical intelligence.
Creative intelligence is our ability to deal with novel situations.
Practical intelligence is our ability to get things done. For the first
20 years of life, people are rewarded for their analytical intelligence.
Then we wonder why the “best and brightest” are uncreative and
practically useless.
Most intelligent people make mental short cuts all the time. One of
the most powerful is self-serving bias: we tend to think we are better
than others. Most people think they are "above average drivers." If you ask a class of students whether they are above the class average
in intelligence, the vast majority of hands shoot up. Even when you ask
people who are objectively among the worst in a certain skill, they still tend to say they are "above average."
Not everyone can be above average – but we can all have the illusion
that we are.
We desperately cling to this illusion even when there is
devastating evidence to the contrary. We collect all the information we
can find to prove ourselves right and ignore any information that proves
us wrong. We feel good, but we overlook crucial facts. As a result the
smartest people ignore the intelligence of others so they make
themselves feel smarter.
Being "smart" can come at a cost. Asking tricky questions, doing the
research and carefully thinking things through takes time. It’s also
unpleasant. Most of us would rather do anything than think. A recent
study found that when left alone in a room, people preferred to give themselves electric shocks than quietly sit and think. This may be why work place procrastination is on the rise.
Being smart can also upset people. Asking tough questions can quickly make you unpopular. People may perceive you as snobbish, arrogant or rude.
Intelligent people quickly learn these lessons. Instead of using
their intelligence, they just stay quiet and follow the crowd – even if
it is off the side of a cliff. In the short term this pays off. Things
get done, everyone’s lives are easier and people are happy. But in the
long term it can create poor decisions and lay the foundations for
disaster.
This line of thinking helps explain the vexing problem on LOST when we used to yell at the screen why characters did not ask simple questions to other characters to gather basic information in order to adopt a meaningful response or plan of action. When characters came back from a mission or a dangerous encounter, rarely did the beach campers ask what was going on. They preferred to remain as quiet as sheep. And when they learned about the Hatch and its safety against the Others, no one questioned why the top leaders kept the place to themselves.
They did not challenge authority because it could make them look stupid in front of the group. But the majority of the group was in the same holding pattern - - - stay quiet and follow the crowd mentality. But this also was a bad plan because those characters who spoke up to be leaders, such as Locke or Jack, did not have enough practical intelligence to make the correct choices. They thought their analytical intelligence was superior to the other castaways. Again, it was confusing one skill set from another - - - more practical one needed to assess survival options to craft solution to major problems.
Showing posts with label questions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label questions. Show all posts
Thursday, June 30, 2016
Saturday, April 16, 2016
THREE QUESTIONS TO A SOLUTION
A BBC.com article posed the solution to any problem. The author postulates that it takes a person only three answers to find a solution for a personal or professional problem.
If you think of any problem you are dealing with right now — a difficult colleague, changes to your business wrought by the digital revolution, or even, say, the struggle to get into better physical shape —and honestly ask yourself these three questions:
Are you really willing to change what you’ve been doing?
Can you think of a better strategy or idea than the status quo?
Can you execute on your chosen solution?
Nothing gets done until you say “YES” to "are you willing to change what you've been doing." Otherwise, you are just spinning your wheels in self-pity.
Everyone struggles to adapt to changing conditions; most are held back almost entirely by their own unwillingness to change. It’s not that people cannot change, it’s that they’re unwilling to do so.
How about your own life? That colleague who is congenitally uncooperative? He’ll keep doing it until he has a reason not to. Are you prepared to take him on? If he works for you, are you prepared to reassign him, or fire him if necessary? It might take a lot of work, but if you’re not willing to do it, then stop complaining.
By this point, you should be able to connect the dots on the third example: improving your physical health. Despite all the excuses we come up with — too busy, we don’t really have a problem, I’ll get to it later — the reason we choose not to go to the gym or select a healthier diet is because we don’t really want to.
All of us — individuals and companies alike — could be well on our way to better personal and corporate health if we were willing to recognise that things could be better and have the guts to do something about it. There is no replacement for the courage to say yes.
Can you think of a better strategy or idea than the status quo?
Even if you are willing to change, you’ve got to come up with a solution to your problem. In some cases, it’s quite easy. Becoming healthier by improving your diet and doing more exercise is not exactly a secret or a revolutionary solution.
Other times, however, it is more difficult. The writing was on the wall for some time for mom-and-pop video and Blockbuster stores when digital streaming became a better solution for more people than heading to your local DVD store. Blockbuster did have choices — buy Netflix when they were still quite small and run them as an independent entity, create their own “Netflix” business, retrench into a small niche player doing what you’ve always done for the tiny market that might still prefer to browse the shelves, or selling out to another company better — or dumber — than they were. Blockbuster made an attempt, too late, to create its own version of Netflix, but ultimately collapsed under the weight of change.
On a personal choice, if one wants to lead a healthier lifestyle, then one has to map out goals and how to achieve it. If you want to lose 30 pounds, then write out a plan: join Weight Watchers, get a calorie intake calculator, plan out weekly meals in advance, impose limits on snacks or sweets, start an exercise routine, and/or join a gym.
The point is, when you are open-minded, curious, and creative, you’ll have options to tackle your problems.
Finally, the Big Question: can you execute on your chosen solution?
You may understand your problem. You may have a brilliant solution. But if don't get off the couch and take action, nothing will happen. No matter how great your strategic idea, if you can’t execute on it you’re doomed. All of this is hard work, something that runs counter to your current habits and behavior.
Even going to the gym and eating better doesn’t happen by itself. Maybe you need a personal trainer to keep you motivated (and raise the embarrassment factor if you quit or the financial strain if you have to pay for a missed training session). If you don’t have the personal discipline to stay away from those wonderful high calorie desserts, there’s an entire industry that has sprung up to help you execute on your eat-healthy strategy: diet clubs, diet programs, diet apps galore.
Every step of the way is challenging, from having the courage to change, to creatively developing a new way of doing things, to actually making it happen. But these three questions will always be at the heart of any solution. Problem solving need not be so confusing, complex and overwhelming.
The author concludes, "When you really think about it, you’ve got everything you need to solve your problem."
It really is sound advice.
If you think of any problem you are dealing with right now — a difficult colleague, changes to your business wrought by the digital revolution, or even, say, the struggle to get into better physical shape —and honestly ask yourself these three questions:
Are you really willing to change what you’ve been doing?
Can you think of a better strategy or idea than the status quo?
Can you execute on your chosen solution?
Nothing gets done until you say “YES” to "are you willing to change what you've been doing." Otherwise, you are just spinning your wheels in self-pity.
Everyone struggles to adapt to changing conditions; most are held back almost entirely by their own unwillingness to change. It’s not that people cannot change, it’s that they’re unwilling to do so.
How about your own life? That colleague who is congenitally uncooperative? He’ll keep doing it until he has a reason not to. Are you prepared to take him on? If he works for you, are you prepared to reassign him, or fire him if necessary? It might take a lot of work, but if you’re not willing to do it, then stop complaining.
By this point, you should be able to connect the dots on the third example: improving your physical health. Despite all the excuses we come up with — too busy, we don’t really have a problem, I’ll get to it later — the reason we choose not to go to the gym or select a healthier diet is because we don’t really want to.
All of us — individuals and companies alike — could be well on our way to better personal and corporate health if we were willing to recognise that things could be better and have the guts to do something about it. There is no replacement for the courage to say yes.
Can you think of a better strategy or idea than the status quo?
Even if you are willing to change, you’ve got to come up with a solution to your problem. In some cases, it’s quite easy. Becoming healthier by improving your diet and doing more exercise is not exactly a secret or a revolutionary solution.
Other times, however, it is more difficult. The writing was on the wall for some time for mom-and-pop video and Blockbuster stores when digital streaming became a better solution for more people than heading to your local DVD store. Blockbuster did have choices — buy Netflix when they were still quite small and run them as an independent entity, create their own “Netflix” business, retrench into a small niche player doing what you’ve always done for the tiny market that might still prefer to browse the shelves, or selling out to another company better — or dumber — than they were. Blockbuster made an attempt, too late, to create its own version of Netflix, but ultimately collapsed under the weight of change.
On a personal choice, if one wants to lead a healthier lifestyle, then one has to map out goals and how to achieve it. If you want to lose 30 pounds, then write out a plan: join Weight Watchers, get a calorie intake calculator, plan out weekly meals in advance, impose limits on snacks or sweets, start an exercise routine, and/or join a gym.
The point is, when you are open-minded, curious, and creative, you’ll have options to tackle your problems.
Finally, the Big Question: can you execute on your chosen solution?
You may understand your problem. You may have a brilliant solution. But if don't get off the couch and take action, nothing will happen. No matter how great your strategic idea, if you can’t execute on it you’re doomed. All of this is hard work, something that runs counter to your current habits and behavior.
Even going to the gym and eating better doesn’t happen by itself. Maybe you need a personal trainer to keep you motivated (and raise the embarrassment factor if you quit or the financial strain if you have to pay for a missed training session). If you don’t have the personal discipline to stay away from those wonderful high calorie desserts, there’s an entire industry that has sprung up to help you execute on your eat-healthy strategy: diet clubs, diet programs, diet apps galore.
Every step of the way is challenging, from having the courage to change, to creatively developing a new way of doing things, to actually making it happen. But these three questions will always be at the heart of any solution. Problem solving need not be so confusing, complex and overwhelming.
The author concludes, "When you really think about it, you’ve got everything you need to solve your problem."
It really is sound advice.
Friday, April 10, 2015
WHAT MYSTERY ARE YOU?
The answers included:
"What are these rules of which you speak, Charles Widmore?"
"Michael Abbadon, who are you?"
"What the fuq did that bomb do?"
"WTF is the island?"
"What's up with the statue?"
Thursday, July 17, 2014
DOES?
Does LOST work as any of these genres?
1. Action series?
Yes and No. There was plenty of action including memorable explosions such as the Hatch, the ambush of the Others in the beach camp, Artz handling the TNT and the endless running through the jungle scenes. But some of the explosions or action sequences were unrealistic or mere twists to jump start a sagging plot line. The whole Jughead detonation to reboot the time line only accomplished a cliffhanger.
2. Adventure series?
No. An adventure series is where the protagonist(s) have to overcome a series of challenges, events, villains in order to reach a specific goal. The Indiana Jones films are clear adventure series where the lead is setting forth on a quest to find something. Even Michael Palin's travel shows are his adventures in strange lands and cultures which leads him to his final conclusions on the people and places he encountered along his journey. LOST had a series of "missions" that the main characters went on, but very few had a clear focus (except "rescue" missions). Some people considered the mission creep in the series as filler to keep the characters moving and exploring the island but the characters rarely used any of the knowledge gained to better their situation. A bunch of disconnected adventures does not make an adventure series.
3. Romantic show?
Yes but more no. Characters liked and disliked each other. Some had passionate affairs, some had personal regrets. When Sayid spent years pining over his life's love, Nadia, but winds up with his very short hook up partner in Shannon in the sideways ending, viewers were both confused and angry. Likewise, when Jack wound up back with Kate, it seemed more like she was the last one standing than the passionate love of his life. Only Rose and Bernard seemed to have a lasting, true love which was sealed prior to their island life.
4. Mystery series?
No. Mystery shows construct complex story lines filled with clues so the viewers have a chance to figure out the mystery before it is revealed in the ending. In LOST, the writers-producers set out to intentionally raise mysteries and questions without the intellectual bargain to give viewers their solution in the end. It cannot be a mystery series if the mysteries are not solved.
5. Science fiction series?
Yes and no. It did have many sci-fi elements like the smoke monster, and scientific references to unique electromagnetic properties, but extrapolated science principles into credible sci-fi canon was diluted when supernatural elements without explanation overwhelmed the plot lines. The immortal beings of Jacob and MIB was so different than the Widmore-Dharma-Others scientific questions and quests to control the island that it clouded the stories and facts of the first five seasons. A true sci-fi series like Star Trek or Star Wars sets forth a clear vision of the story's universe and keeps true to it. LOST had so many continuity issues within the overlapping story lines to have no clear vision of its own universal structure.
1. Action series?
Yes and No. There was plenty of action including memorable explosions such as the Hatch, the ambush of the Others in the beach camp, Artz handling the TNT and the endless running through the jungle scenes. But some of the explosions or action sequences were unrealistic or mere twists to jump start a sagging plot line. The whole Jughead detonation to reboot the time line only accomplished a cliffhanger.
2. Adventure series?
No. An adventure series is where the protagonist(s) have to overcome a series of challenges, events, villains in order to reach a specific goal. The Indiana Jones films are clear adventure series where the lead is setting forth on a quest to find something. Even Michael Palin's travel shows are his adventures in strange lands and cultures which leads him to his final conclusions on the people and places he encountered along his journey. LOST had a series of "missions" that the main characters went on, but very few had a clear focus (except "rescue" missions). Some people considered the mission creep in the series as filler to keep the characters moving and exploring the island but the characters rarely used any of the knowledge gained to better their situation. A bunch of disconnected adventures does not make an adventure series.
3. Romantic show?
Yes but more no. Characters liked and disliked each other. Some had passionate affairs, some had personal regrets. When Sayid spent years pining over his life's love, Nadia, but winds up with his very short hook up partner in Shannon in the sideways ending, viewers were both confused and angry. Likewise, when Jack wound up back with Kate, it seemed more like she was the last one standing than the passionate love of his life. Only Rose and Bernard seemed to have a lasting, true love which was sealed prior to their island life.
4. Mystery series?
No. Mystery shows construct complex story lines filled with clues so the viewers have a chance to figure out the mystery before it is revealed in the ending. In LOST, the writers-producers set out to intentionally raise mysteries and questions without the intellectual bargain to give viewers their solution in the end. It cannot be a mystery series if the mysteries are not solved.
5. Science fiction series?
Yes and no. It did have many sci-fi elements like the smoke monster, and scientific references to unique electromagnetic properties, but extrapolated science principles into credible sci-fi canon was diluted when supernatural elements without explanation overwhelmed the plot lines. The immortal beings of Jacob and MIB was so different than the Widmore-Dharma-Others scientific questions and quests to control the island that it clouded the stories and facts of the first five seasons. A true sci-fi series like Star Trek or Star Wars sets forth a clear vision of the story's universe and keeps true to it. LOST had so many continuity issues within the overlapping story lines to have no clear vision of its own universal structure.
Friday, April 25, 2014
THE BIG QUESTION
The producers at the Paley conference indicated that they wanted to finish the show with the big question, "what is life?" How the sideways world ending answer that question in itself is clouded in mysterious contradictions.
For science is trying really, really hard to answer that question.
Before her death in 2005, Hendrikje van Andel-Schipper of the Netherlands was the oldest woman alive. She lived to be 115 and three months old.
Surprisingly though, CNN reports that when she died, her brain was still in good shape - no sign of Alzheimer's or other diseases typically associated with old age.
Scientists wanted to know her cause of death, and by implication how she lived so long. They now say it might have to do with dying stem cells.
Scientists at VU University Medical Center in Amsterdam say at the time of van Andel-Schipper's death, she had just two blood stem cells.
Blood stem cells are what your body uses to replenish your blood. Humans are typically born with around 20,000 of these cells, and on average about 1,000 work to keep your bloodstream pumping.
But this study suggests over time our stem cells weaken and die out, which might actually limit the ability of your stem cells to replenish your tissues.
"Once the stem cells reach a state of exhaustion that imposes a limit on their own lifespan, they themselves gradually die out and steadily diminish the body's capacity to keep regenerating vital tissues and cells, such as blood," the study states.
Although it's not known for sure whether van Andel-Schipper died because of this exhaustion, this study does reveal her white blood cells were mutated, leading scientists to wonder if some genetic mutations are actually harmless.
The scientific community will debate whether it could mean that "Genetic mutations may hold the key to a long life."
The researchers, whose findings were published in the journal Genome Research, say more studies are needed to investigate whether dying stem cells can cause death at extreme ages.
Likewise, medical science still does not know why certain people get cancer (the mutation of cells which destroy vital cells and organs) and other people with the same environmental factors do not. The human body is a complex bio-chemical-electric factory of inter-related factors which creates a living human being.
At some point, medical science will try to inject substitute blood stem cells into patients to see if that treatment can prolong their lives. Immortality is something that human beings have dreamed about for ages, since the fear of death (and its unknown) has been culturally significant throughout history.
For science is trying really, really hard to answer that question.
Before her death in 2005, Hendrikje van Andel-Schipper of the Netherlands was the oldest woman alive. She lived to be 115 and three months old.
Surprisingly though, CNN reports that when she died, her brain was still in good shape - no sign of Alzheimer's or other diseases typically associated with old age.
Scientists wanted to know her cause of death, and by implication how she lived so long. They now say it might have to do with dying stem cells.
Scientists at VU University Medical Center in Amsterdam say at the time of van Andel-Schipper's death, she had just two blood stem cells.
Blood stem cells are what your body uses to replenish your blood. Humans are typically born with around 20,000 of these cells, and on average about 1,000 work to keep your bloodstream pumping.
But this study suggests over time our stem cells weaken and die out, which might actually limit the ability of your stem cells to replenish your tissues.
"Once the stem cells reach a state of exhaustion that imposes a limit on their own lifespan, they themselves gradually die out and steadily diminish the body's capacity to keep regenerating vital tissues and cells, such as blood," the study states.
Although it's not known for sure whether van Andel-Schipper died because of this exhaustion, this study does reveal her white blood cells were mutated, leading scientists to wonder if some genetic mutations are actually harmless.
The scientific community will debate whether it could mean that "Genetic mutations may hold the key to a long life."
The researchers, whose findings were published in the journal Genome Research, say more studies are needed to investigate whether dying stem cells can cause death at extreme ages.
Likewise, medical science still does not know why certain people get cancer (the mutation of cells which destroy vital cells and organs) and other people with the same environmental factors do not. The human body is a complex bio-chemical-electric factory of inter-related factors which creates a living human being.
At some point, medical science will try to inject substitute blood stem cells into patients to see if that treatment can prolong their lives. Immortality is something that human beings have dreamed about for ages, since the fear of death (and its unknown) has been culturally significant throughout history.
Monday, January 6, 2014
THE BIG QUESTION
The next part of the leaked LOST writers guide used to sell the show to the ABC Network dealt with the concern on whether the series could deliver on what it promised to executives. ABC had to have some real doubts on how the show would present its stories and characters so that it could capture and more importantly, maintain a audience.
The guide emphatically promised:
THE BIG QUESTION- IS IT SELF-CONTAINED OR SERIALIZED?
Self-contained.
Seriously.
We promise.
Yes - the mysteries surrounding the island may serve an ongoing (and easy to follow) mythology - but every episode has a beginning, middle and end. More importantly, the beginning of the next episode presents an entirely new dilemma to be resolved that requires NO knowledge of the episode(s) that preceded it (except for the rare two-parter).
Yes - character arcs (romances, alliances, grudges) carry over the scope of a season, but the plots will not. Viewers will be able to drop in at any time and be able to follow exactly what's going on in a story context.
This is not lip service- we are absolutely committed to this conceit. LOST can and will be just as accessible on a weekly basis as a traditionally "procedural" drama.
The first issue is whether LOST was going to be a series of long, interrelated episodes or whether each episode would be self contained. For example, in a crime story drama, you will have the same characters show up week to week, but they solve one crime or mystery within each weekly program. There is no holdover - - - where the viewers would need to have seen last week's episode to know what was going on in the current week. This is important to network executives because traditionally "serial" programs tend to lose viewers quickly because it becomes too much work to follow a long narrative.
The network was sold on self-contained adventure episodes. The creators promised that each episode would be self-contained - - - requiring NO knowledge of the episodes that preceded it.
Nothing was farther from the Truth than that broken promise.
Viewers could not just drop in on a random episode to determine what was going on between the characters. Individual story lines were carried forward through multiple episodes and seasons, cut up by the over use of back stories and new characters. To this day, fans will continue to debate what actually happened on the series. There was no clear beginning, middle or an end to any episode, let alone any season. (For example, Season 5's cliffhanger with Juliet and the bomb. Did it go off? Did it re-set? Did it create the sideways world? Why didn't she die if the bomb went off? Is dead really dead?)
What changed to torpedo this promised episode expectation? Perhaps, the writers got caught up with the stylized editing of the show - - - throwing bits and pieces of characters back grounds then trying to mirror those personal issues in future episodes (like trying to hide Easter eggs in an overgrown back yard). Perhaps, the show runners wanted to do the opposite as a way of trying to "hold" the audience over from week to week. The addictive substance they threw on the screen was more mysteries and questions from new clues at the beginning of each new episode. Some could say that the writers turned into clue-pimps trying to prime the pump of on-line blogs, reviewers and posters. The clues then turned into tangents, red herrings and outright continuity errors and lies. The answers were the last thing TPTB wanted viewers to know. Keeping fans in the dark became the real conceit of the show.
The one thing that LOST failed to do more often than not was actually resolve an issue. For example, what did we see in all the episodes prior to the End which would guarantee that Kate would go back to Jack?
All the truly Big Questions still remain unresolved. What was the island? Who was Jacob? What was his real role? Were the survivors dead on arrival? Why is there no past, present or future in the sideways world? How was the sideways even created and by whom? What were the moral lessons of LOST? Why were criminals and sinners never punished? Was the drama all dreamed up inside a character's head?
All the story line plots were supposed to have a clear and definite end after each episode. That did not happen. The only thing that the writers envisioned that would overlap season to season would be the character's personalities (their romances, grudges, struggles and alliances) as applied to new weekly dilemmas.
It could be the instant critical acclaim and success took TPTB by surprise. However, they indicated to the network that they had dozens of stories already in mind when the guide was written. The immediate success must have changed the conceit to contempt - - - someone was now the smartest man or men in the room so all rules or constraints did not apply anymore. A hit series needed to be cleverer and more mysterious than any other show on television. And when that page was turned, the writer's guide promises were clearly lost.
The guide emphatically promised:
THE BIG QUESTION- IS IT SELF-CONTAINED OR SERIALIZED?
Self-contained.
Seriously.
We promise.
Yes - the mysteries surrounding the island may serve an ongoing (and easy to follow) mythology - but every episode has a beginning, middle and end. More importantly, the beginning of the next episode presents an entirely new dilemma to be resolved that requires NO knowledge of the episode(s) that preceded it (except for the rare two-parter).
Yes - character arcs (romances, alliances, grudges) carry over the scope of a season, but the plots will not. Viewers will be able to drop in at any time and be able to follow exactly what's going on in a story context.
This is not lip service- we are absolutely committed to this conceit. LOST can and will be just as accessible on a weekly basis as a traditionally "procedural" drama.
The first issue is whether LOST was going to be a series of long, interrelated episodes or whether each episode would be self contained. For example, in a crime story drama, you will have the same characters show up week to week, but they solve one crime or mystery within each weekly program. There is no holdover - - - where the viewers would need to have seen last week's episode to know what was going on in the current week. This is important to network executives because traditionally "serial" programs tend to lose viewers quickly because it becomes too much work to follow a long narrative.
The network was sold on self-contained adventure episodes. The creators promised that each episode would be self-contained - - - requiring NO knowledge of the episodes that preceded it.
Nothing was farther from the Truth than that broken promise.
Viewers could not just drop in on a random episode to determine what was going on between the characters. Individual story lines were carried forward through multiple episodes and seasons, cut up by the over use of back stories and new characters. To this day, fans will continue to debate what actually happened on the series. There was no clear beginning, middle or an end to any episode, let alone any season. (For example, Season 5's cliffhanger with Juliet and the bomb. Did it go off? Did it re-set? Did it create the sideways world? Why didn't she die if the bomb went off? Is dead really dead?)
What changed to torpedo this promised episode expectation? Perhaps, the writers got caught up with the stylized editing of the show - - - throwing bits and pieces of characters back grounds then trying to mirror those personal issues in future episodes (like trying to hide Easter eggs in an overgrown back yard). Perhaps, the show runners wanted to do the opposite as a way of trying to "hold" the audience over from week to week. The addictive substance they threw on the screen was more mysteries and questions from new clues at the beginning of each new episode. Some could say that the writers turned into clue-pimps trying to prime the pump of on-line blogs, reviewers and posters. The clues then turned into tangents, red herrings and outright continuity errors and lies. The answers were the last thing TPTB wanted viewers to know. Keeping fans in the dark became the real conceit of the show.
The one thing that LOST failed to do more often than not was actually resolve an issue. For example, what did we see in all the episodes prior to the End which would guarantee that Kate would go back to Jack?
All the truly Big Questions still remain unresolved. What was the island? Who was Jacob? What was his real role? Were the survivors dead on arrival? Why is there no past, present or future in the sideways world? How was the sideways even created and by whom? What were the moral lessons of LOST? Why were criminals and sinners never punished? Was the drama all dreamed up inside a character's head?
All the story line plots were supposed to have a clear and definite end after each episode. That did not happen. The only thing that the writers envisioned that would overlap season to season would be the character's personalities (their romances, grudges, struggles and alliances) as applied to new weekly dilemmas.
It could be the instant critical acclaim and success took TPTB by surprise. However, they indicated to the network that they had dozens of stories already in mind when the guide was written. The immediate success must have changed the conceit to contempt - - - someone was now the smartest man or men in the room so all rules or constraints did not apply anymore. A hit series needed to be cleverer and more mysterious than any other show on television. And when that page was turned, the writer's guide promises were clearly lost.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
