:rolleyes:

I hate to admit I was watching this, but Entertainment Tonight had a blurb last night about Michelle Rodriguez joining the cast. Now that the news is "official", is it still a spoiler?

I guess by the strict definition of "aired in an episode or preview" it is.

Appearing on Entertainment Tonight does not "official" make. :rolleyes:

This news about Michelle joining the show has been all over the media, in dozens of forms, for months now. In no way, shape, or form does that knowledge represent a spoiler. This is getting ridiculous. It's like saying that reading about who's going to be in the cast of a new show before it first airs is somehow "spoiling" that program.... personally, I kind of like to know who's going to be in the show before I tune in.

This information, for example, posted today in the "Hot Off the Press" thread by fredfa, might constitute a spoiler, depending on one's level of analness:

At an ABC party Wednesday night, "Lost" writer and executive producer Carlton Cuse was mum on upcoming plotlines. But he did say that next season would be built around the tension between two characters competing to lead the island's castaways, Jack ( Matthew Fox ) and Locke ( Terry O'Quinn ).

The former, Cuse said, represents "rationality and empirical thought," while Locke represents "spirituality and faith..the relationship between those two ways of seeing the world defines what the series is about."

Cuse added that neither character would be defined as strictly good or evil, but that they would "move between each pole, depending on the circumstances...If you were to sort of poll the audience, I think there would be a split as to the perception of who's a follower of Locke and who's a follower of Jack."

Now, several of us had "speculated" on just such an evolution of the show months ago when this thread was active (and boy, was it active!). Now, the question is: Does this info, given by an Executive Producer on the show to wide distribution (not to mention appearing here on this very Forum in another thread), constitute a legitimate "spoiler"? I think not, but what say you, my fellow Lost addicts?

Why don't we do this. Someone create a brand spanking new thread titled "LOST- Season 2 news/Possible Spoilers" That should end this discussion real quick

There's already a thread for any news or information that was obtained from any source other than the aired shows or previews.

It doesn't matter how many times you've heard a spoiler, from what source (other than the show or preview), or from how many sources - it is still a spoiler as defined and agreed upon here for this thread.

Is there some stigma attached to the spoiler thread that prevents people from wanting to post there instead of here?

Is there some stigma attached to the spoiler thread that prevents people from wanting to post there instead of here?
I have always wondered the same thing myself since that other SPOILER thread was opened. ?????? I guess since this is a really popular thread they want it to be seen.

Yea, it's just a little baby thread, not a 7500 post super thread! :rolleyes:

The other thread is the "red-headed stepchild"; this thread is where the fun and action are. I think the more germain question is whether the same "rules" (i.e. not posting anything not seen in a broadcast episode or in the official previews for next week) are valid here in the off-season when entertainment reports about the upcoming season are prolific.

There are no current episodes to discuss; we've seen them all. If this thread is going to continue to be active, then those "rules" that CP was referring to do not apply right now. They make sense during the season, and they will make sense again when the season starts back up. They don't make sense now as is clearly evident here when we're arguing over whether or not a new cast addition constitutes a spoiler! That's just nuts, IMO.

If this argument is going to continue, and people are going to be chastised for something as innocuous as commenting on new cast additions, then perhaps we do need a new thread as mx6b suggested above, and this thread can go back into hiatus until the new season starts. I'm not recommending that, mind you, just throwing it out there for discussion.

We don't need another thread - WE HAVE ANOTHER THREAD - USE IT.

If the result is that the other thread becomes the "hot" thread during the off-season, then so be it. Trying to change the rules mid-thread will only serve to alienate a large number of members who have accepted the guidelines as specified.

There's no logical reason to change the setup in order to artificially keep this thread "active" - if it slows down until the season starts, who cares? Let the other thread become more active if that is the natural result of the conversation. If there are only a handful of members that wish to disuss LOST with spoilers and the thread does not stay active - that doesn't justify posting spoilers here just because you feel the desire to discuss it with more people.

I agree with archiguy. I visited the other thread but it seems so limited; kind like a "spoilers only" thread. I never post spoilers (too much hassle) but I don't mind spoilers either. I appreciate why spoilers bother some folks but I am truly amazed why those folks visit here during the off season. What could anyone be discussing during the summer except what those non-spoilier folks consider spoilers?

Oh, and I bet a buck we will see previews that cover everything in that article and more before the season starts.

tall1 - Thank you, for you are the Voice of Reason. :)

I doubt you'll get any of those folks who are claiming that mention of a simple cast addition constitutes a spoiler (I'm still in disbelief over that one) to take you up on your bet. Everything else in that article was already speculated on and discussed to death months ago in this very thread.

To paraphrase a famous presidential candidate from a few years back: "I know spoilers. Spoilers are no friend of mine. And you, Ms Rodriguez, are no spoiler." :p

Aw shucks, I wanna "chastise" some more people.... :p :D

... mention of a simple cast addition constitutes a spoiler (I'm still in disbelief over that one) to take you up on your bet. Everything else in that article was already speculated on and discussed to death months ago in this very thread.


Rodriguez appeared in the final episode and the speculation ensued that she would become a cast member in season 2, IIRC. Now, unspoilerized, we learn not only that this is true (I agree, this fact alone is not a spoiler) but also that she was seated in the rear of the plane giving confirmation to lots of other speculation posed in this thread. As speculation, I find that well within the rules of the thread. The confirmation of that speculation coming not from an aired episode is what I believe constitutes the spoiler nature of this news.

I hereby join the keenan camp! :D

Okay, try this logic on for size: We've "agreed" that officially sanctioned previews composed and broadcast by the ABC Network are not spoilers, right? So why do officially sanctioned press-releases or comments coming from an ABC Executive Producer (can't get much more official) during a media event now constitute spoilers? And if these very same comments then end up in a broadcast trailer for the coming season (as the powerfully prescient 'tall1' predicts), will they somehow instantly become "un-spoilerized"?

Chew on that one, spoiler-boys! :D

And if these very same comments then end up in a broadcast trailer for the coming season (as the powerfully prescient 'tall1' predicts), will they somehow instantly become "un-spoilerized"?

Yes they will. The minute they become broadcast as a preview on ABC for LOST it is not a spoiler. Not sure what's so hard to understand. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and it was drawn.

More importantly, a thread exists for both camps. The only issue here is why do some feel compelled to impose their varying definitions on the rest of the membership?

Simple -- the comments made by the ABC Executive Producer haven't been broadcast on ABC during regular programming. So it's a spoiler.

And back to the first bit that I complained about, there are more spoilers in there than just the mention of a cast member. If you're told that what you think what might be going on is definately not the case, that is a spoiler. I would have watched the upcoming episode looking for bits and hints to support my theory and now that's been ruined for me. Isn't that exactly what a spoiler does? Also there was something else that was rather strongly implied in that quote that would also be a spoiler. . .
Namely that someone on the raft does not survive.

And out of curiosity, if a bunch of people started hitting the Report Post function on spoiler posts, would that draw enough attention to get a mod appointed?

I visited the other thread but it seems so limited; kind like a "spoilers only" thread. ...
What could anyone be discussing during the summer except what those non-spoilier folks consider spoilers?...
Oh, and I bet a buck we will see previews that cover everything in that article and more before the season starts.

You may be right (I don't read the spoiler thread), and I expect that a thread that spoiler lovers and spoiler haters both post germane speculation into would be larger and more robust and more entertaining than one cutting out part of the population.

We could be discussing anything during the summer: speculation, analysis of past episodes, nit-picking editing mistakes, or just yapping. Anything but things that are part of the much discussed and fairly easy to understand definition of spoiler for this thread.

When they put it out in the preview, well and fine, then it will be fair to discuss it. Anything else is rude and uncalled for behavior, and a fair measure of the thoughtfulness of the poster.

Unfortunately, it only takes one post - mistake, oversight, or otherwise - to spoil a plot point and reduce the entertainment for non-spoiler folks. And it does reduce the entertainment for me no matter what anyone else may perceive. And in this non-spoiler thread with a clear definition, that boundary should be observed by all.

In the best case, someone will come in and post something they found cool without thinking of others, be questioned, and edit/tag to respect others. Keenan himself did just this thing recently in one of the BSG threads and I support and respect him for it.

But, once challenged, human nature tends to take over and the defense of the act begins, since most do not wish their actions to be judged as creating offense. Others wishing to change or impose their opinion or influence the consensus usually add-on to this defense. No matter how many times or how many justifications used, it is still the base desire to self-justify, to win, to influence the world, to compare [screen] size.

Non-spoiler folks have as much right as anyone else in here to have an engaging speculative discussion free of offensive material, whatever the definition of offense. If the definition is really too restrictive, it will wither away and the looser definition will become the [place to be].

Ideally, the spoiler folks could post speculation in the common thread, and respect others in the community with tags or a link to their spoiler posts and discussions in the other thread. The other thread may still be a smaller, less prodigious or prestigious place, but kept relevant by association.

v/r,
C-F

And out of curiosity, if a bunch of people started hitting the Report Post function on spoiler posts, would that draw enough attention to get a mod appointed?
The spoiler you captioned is definitely informacion non grata IMO.

I don't think we need to go the Report Post route, I believe most of us are adults here, I think...? :p :)

Don't report post - it's a PITA. I'm only a somewhat part-timer now, but there's also 3 other Mods in this forum. There is no "assigning" of threads.

I'll start keeping a closer eye on this particular thread - assuming there's no overwhelming change of heart regarding the definitions. We don't have the option of moving an individual post from one thread to another (except for an extremely cumbersome work-around) so spoiler posts will simply be deleted. Just re-post in the spoiler thread.

Don't report post - it's a PITA. I'm only a somewhat part-timer now, but there's also 3 other Mods in this forum. There is no "assigning" of threads.

I'll start keeping a closer eye on this particular thread - assuming there's no overwhelming change of heart regarding the definitions. We don't have the option of moving an individual post from one thread to another (except for an extremely cumbersome work-around) so be warned that spoiler posts will simply be deleted. Just re-post in the spoiler thread.

If you think there might a spoiler in something you have heard, read, seen, post it in the spoiler thread. Simple enough?

Don't report post - it's a PITA. I'm only a somewhat part-timer now, but there's also 3 other Mods in this forum. There is no "assigning" of threads.

Just an FYI, there is really one one active mod for this forum, Ken H. Alan never posts here as far as I can tell, SonomaSearcher has been missing from the forum since Feb, and fredfa doesn't have editing abilities.

If you think there might a spoiler in something you have heard, read, seen, post it in the spoiler thread. Simple enough?

I think that's the thrust of the argument; it's not that simple. One person's speculation is another person's spoiler. It may have come from something they read, but since it's been several months since the last new episode aired, they may think that it was something they saw. Everything that's been posted in the last two pages that some are claiming are spoilers has already been speculated upon in an earlier, more innocent life of this thread.

Damon Lindelof telling the world that we're going to find out what's down the hatch in the first few episodes is not the same thing as him telling the world what it is. Now that would be a spoiler and I think we could all agree on that. If someone somehow finds that out, no one posting to this thread would want to know about it, but posting it on the other thread would presumably be fair game.

Bottom line: Some folks are taking this waaaaaay too seriously. They could suck the fun out of a box full of puppies. :(

CANNON-FODDER - that was a lot of preaching to the choir. I am not sure how my comments got you goin' and blowin' but I know and respect the spoiler rule, I have never posted a spoiler and I never will. In fact, I don't even comment about previews because those are more of a spoiler than the spoilers posted by those nutjobs at The Fuselage or any one of those Lost fansites. I am a spoiler agnostic; I just don't care. But I will always play by the spoiler rule because I don't want to ruin the viewing pleasure of a fellow Lost fan. I felt like you were accusing me of something I did wrong. I was making an observation of how spoiler haters continue to visit this thread when they know there are folks like me who don't care about spoilers, people who make mistakes and idiots who post obvious spoilers. This thread is "public". When you go out in public, sometimes bad things happen. If I were a spoiler hater, I'd unsubscribe the thread and pick it up in September.

One other observation: I find it strange that spoiler haters will begin reading a post, like the article above, which by definition has multiple spoilers, and continue reading it! And then post how they found several spoliers in the article! Here's a tip: STOP! Don't continue reading the article!

Damon Lindelof telling the world that we're going to find out what's down the hatch in the first few episodes is not the same thing as him telling the world what it is. Now that would be a spoiler and I think we could all agree on that. If someone somehow finds that out, no one posting to this thread would want to know about it, but posting it on the other thread would presumably be fair game.
:(
Yes, but he also said what will not be found in the hatch. That is a spoiler for the folks speculating that those things might be found.

Rodriguez appeared in the final episode and the speculation ensued that she would become a cast member in season 2, IIRC. Now, unspoilerized, we learn not only that this is true (I agree, this fact alone is not a spoiler) but also that she was seated in the rear of the plane giving confirmation to lots of other speculation posed in this thread. As speculation, I find that well within the rules of the thread. The confirmation of that speculation coming not from an aired episode is what I believe constitutes the spoiler nature of this news.

I hereby join the keenan camp! :DThat wasn't speculation that she was seated in the back. She told Jack at the bar she was seated in row 42.

ANA LUCIA: I hate flying. And they stuck me all the way in the back of the
plane where the wheels come down right under your damn feet. (Jack chuckles as
he takes another sip.) So where are you sitting?

(Jack takes his ticket out and checks.)

JACK: 23-B.

ANA LUCIA: 42-F. Want to trade?

I think that's the thrust of the argument; it's not that simple. One person's speculation is another person's spoiler.
Bottom line: Some folks are taking this waaaaaay too seriously. They could suck the fun out of a box full of puppies. :(

Respectfully, yes, it is. Speculation is not a spoiler. Printed or tv interviews about what has not happened yet on TV but will be seen is a spoiler.

Examples:
Rodriguez on the shows next season, not a spoiler since she has already been on the show.
Reading somewhere and then me saying her and Charlie get in on and then she cuts his right leg off, spoiler.
Me speculating that she was dreaming, not a spoiler. (After the episode has aired)

Funny, you should mention puppies (shameless plug) I am selling pure bred border collies that are ready to go home, http://www.sugarplumgals.com/puppies.htm If anyone is interested let me know

Respectfully, yes, it is. Speculation is not a spoiler. Printed or tv interviews about what has not happened yet on TV but will be seen is a spoiler.

You're not thinking this through, mx6 - What one person views as pure speculation may indeed be a spoiler to some. Of course it can, and has.

Example: I speculate that based on logical extrapolation of what happened last year when we saw the magic numbers etched on the side of the hatch, that the numbers will have something to do with what's inside and that Hurley will freak out about it. Perfectly reasonable assumption, no? Well, we can see from the "controversial" press release that Mr. Lindelof says that "Whatever is in there will involve those mysterious numbers that led to Hurley's lottery win and streak of bad luck in that character's famous backstory." Someone might then view my speculation as a diabolical spoiler even though I may not even have seen the press release. One man's speculation then becomes another man's spoiler. See what I mean?

Funny, you should mention puppies (shameless plug) I am selling pure bred border collies that are ready to go home, http://www.sugarplumgals.com/puppies.htm If anyone is interested let me know

Tell you what - if you agree that at times the line between speculation and spoiler may indeed become blurred, I'll buy one of those darlin' little puppies! :D

It doesn't matter how people may interpret anything. If it is speculation, it's OK, if it is info from another source, it is not speculation - it's a spoiler.

CANNON-FODDER - that was a lot of preaching to the choir. ...

I felt like you were accusing me of something I did wrong....

I was making an observation of how spoiler haters continue to visit this thread when they know there are folks like me who don't care about spoilers, people who make mistakes and idiots who post obvious spoilers. This thread is "public". When you go out in public, sometimes bad things happen. If I were a spoiler hater, I'd unsubscribe the thread and pick it up in September.

Tall1, Respectfully, I do not believe I was [preaching to the choir]. I did not accuse you of any direct act, and it was not my intent for you or anyone to interpret the post in that manner. My disagreement is with one of your stated positions and not any [acts of spoilage] as such. /Tall1

The post was not meant to be solely directed at any one person, rather it was aimed at a position that many espouse, namely: that anyone who does not want to see a spoiler should [unsubscribe/not view/go away].

Why should we? We are in a thread specifically devoted to spoiler-free speculation on one topic, with a clear definition. I agree that there will be the occasional mistake, or unintended slip, that can and should be corrected for the benefit of those who have not yet seen the information. This can and has been accomplished here and other places without accostment or denigration.

I completely disagree with the notion that I should expect to see spoilers in here at any time, or that anyone should allow spoilers to remain. There are other places for that information, and the ability to create a new place. Why should non-spoiler folks have to leave a designated non-spoiler zone?

The question should be: Why should anyone tolerate posts in this thread which do not respect the no-spoiler rule?

I disagree with the notion that this thread should change the rule or tolerate rule-breaking because someone might not understand or agree with the rule. That path leads to a point where there is no usefulness in having a spoiler-free thread. Violations should be handled in a respectful manner, but should not be accepted.

Technically - this thread is not 'public', but even in public, I should not expect to encounter boats in a boat-free swimming zone, nor to be molested on the public street. I certainly should be prepared for and aware of the possibility of others who may intentionally or unintentionally break societal rules and laws, but I heartily disagree that I should ever tolerate, or circumscribe my life for fear of them.

I completely agree with the position that any non-spoiler person should stop reading a post or article as soon as they identify a spoiler, or take personal responsibility for any further spoilers they encounter. This does not however excuse or justify posting untagged spoilers in a spoiler-free area or thread.

v/r,
C-F

It doesn't matter how people may interpret anything. If it is speculation, it's OK, if it is info from another source, it is not speculation - it's a spoiler.

I understand that. All I'm saying is that someone may post an innocent speculation and someone else may view that as a spoiler. Same words, different interpretation, next thing you know there's some chastising going on.

I've been thinking that maybe we need to expand our definition of what's permitted without spoilerizing to include anything official from ABC. That would include the infamous press release we've been blathering on about. Think about it..... They produce the show, we talk about it. They produce the trailer material, we talk about it. They create fake websites, we talk about it. If the Executive Producer is discussing the show at an official ABC press event, why shouldn't we be able to talk about it? He's not going to give anything earth-shattering away, and anything he says, they want you to know in order to get you thinking about the show and anticipating the second season premiere. How can that be any more spoilerish than the previews of next week's show?

There'd be a lot less chastisin' going on is all I'm sayin'. ;)

Archiguy,
But what reason would someone have to chastise anyone over anything clearly marked as speculation? I think this argument is disingenuous.

I see the danger that someone may be unfairly persecuted for guessing right, but only if spoiler folk attempt to enforce the non-spoiler rule using information that they have gained by reading spoilers.

This argument does not work for non-spoiler folk, who would just think that the speculator was right.

Unless [posting spoilers as speculation] becomes commonplace in the thread or by an unethical poster desiring attention and praise, it would be a non-issue to those who do not know the source of the facts.

v/r,
C-F

-Not retiring from the discussion, but gone to wife's birthday dinner tonight.

-Not retiring from the discussion, but gone to wife's birthday dinner tonight.


Happy birthday to the wife..... :cool:

It doesn't matter how people may interpret anything. If it is speculation, it's OK, if it is info from another source, it is not speculation - it's a spoiler.I'll tell you what's a spoiler:

All these periodic arguments about what is or is not a spoiler! :(

Archiguy,
But what reason would someone have to chastise anyone over anything clearly marked as speculation? I think this argument is disingenuous.

I see the danger that someone may be unfairly persecuted for guessing right, but only if spoiler folk attempt to enforce the non-spoiler rule using information that they have gained by reading spoilers.

This argument does not work for non-spoiler folk, who would just think that the speculator was right.

Unless [posting spoilers as speculation] becomes commonplace in the thread or by an unethical poster desiring attention and praise, it would be a non-issue to those who do not know the source of the facts.

v/r,
C-F


Uh.......my head hurts. :p

Tell you what - if you agree that at times the line between speculation and spoiler may indeed become blurred, I'll buy one of those darlin' little puppies! :D
Agreed, which one do you want. :)

I do agree to an extent, but a speculation shouldn't be a spoiler. I have read this thread from the first post, except the spoiler ones of course, and there have been many speculations during the season. Those are fun to read if someone believes that when they go down the hatch and see Rupert playing cards, but if they read on a website or saw on tv that Rupert really is down there playing cards and say that then that is pretty shady.

Puppy Pimp ;)

Bobby C,
She sends her thanks.

v/r,
C-F

If this argument about what is or is not considered a spoiler is all we have to talk about, I think I'll just tune out of this thread until September.

All I have to say is I am getting Bell Express Vue Satellite hooked up on my 92" PLV-Z2 for 2 reasons. Number 2 is Hockeys back and the Number 1 reason is for Lost in High Def BABY!!!!!!

The post was not meant to be solely directed at any one person, rather it was aimed at a position that many espouse, namely: that anyone who does not want to see a spoiler should [unsubscribe/not view/go away].

Why should we? We are in a thread specifically devoted to spoiler-free speculation on one topic, with a clear definition. I agree that there will be the occasional mistake, or unintended slip, that can and should be corrected for the benefit of those who have not yet seen the information. This can and has been accomplished here and other places without accostment or denigration.

The question should be: Why should anyone tolerate posts in this thread which do not respect the no-spoiler rule?

I disagree with the notion that this thread should change the rule or tolerate rule-breaking because someone might not understand or agree with the rule. That path leads to a point where there is no usefulness in having a spoiler-free thread. Violations should be handled in a respectful manner, but should not be accepted.


I think some frustration from the "spoiler" posters comes from the fact that there was no vote on what is a spoiler, but rather what CPanther has defined as a spoiler based on his opinion. To say that a preview that is aired on TV is OK, but one that is aired on the Internet via the official web site isn't sounds pretty arbitrary to me, as it does to many others. Stating that a MR signed on doesn't really give anything away, and while technically it may be a spoiler it is most certainly nit-picky. If they stated that Sawyer was only recast for a single episode, but Michael and Jin were cast for the full season, then that would be a spoiler in that it would imply (almost prove) that Sawyer has died.

I suppose we need to make a decision like all NBA refs do when a game starts: are we going to call every ticky-tack foul or let the players play the game? Either way is technically OK, but the vast majority of fans do not like ticky-tack fouls.

Perhaps the best thing to do is to ask the people in the thread if they feel that official announcements and press releases should not be considered spoilers. The plain truth is that all of this will be put out in official previews well before the start of the season but they are not out yet.

I was always under the impression that a spoiler is something that will spoil your enjoyment of watching something like telling who/what Rosebud is. However, these "spoilers" will become not only common knowledge, but even put into previews before such episodes air. All we are doing is effectively saying: "this conversation cannot take place until 2 weeks before the first episode of the next season." Does anybody really think that MR will not be in a single preview before the season 2 premier starts?

We already have a rule in place that once a show airs on the east coast, it is fair game even though the west coast hasn't seen it yet. It is such a stretch to allow official press releases that offer vague details but nothing specific to be discussed?

All I have to say is I am getting Bell Express Vue Satellite hooked up on my 92" PLV-Z2 for 2 reasons. Number 2 is Hockeys back and the Number 1 reason is for Lost in High Def BABY!!!!!!

Hockey is back! Man, you ruined it for me! I was hoping to be surprised when I turned on the TV at the beginning of Hockey season.

Just don't let me know what is going to happen at the Star Trek convention. I want to get my picture taken with James Doohan and don't want anything to spoil my surprise. ;)

I think some frustration from the "spoiler" posters comes from the fact that there was no vote on what is a spoiler, but rather what CPanther has defined as a spoiler based on his opinion. To say that a preview that is aired on TV is OK, but one that is aired on the Internet via the official web site isn't sounds pretty arbitrary to me, as it does to many others. Stating that a MR signed on doesn't really give anything away, and while technically it may be a spoiler it is most certainly nit-picky. If they stated that Sawyer was only recast for a single episode, but Michael and Jin were cast for the full season, then that would be a spoiler in that it would imply (almost prove) that Sawyer has died.

I suppose we need to make a decision like all NBA refs do when a game starts: are we going to call every ticky-tack foul or let the players play the game? Either way is technically OK, but the vast majority of fans do not like ticky-tack fouls.

Perhaps the best thing to do is to ask the people in the thread if they feel that official announcements and press releases should not be considered spoilers. The plain truth is that all of this will be put out in official previews well before the start of the season but they are not out yet.

I was always under the impression that a spoiler is something that will spoil your enjoyment of watching something like telling who/what Rosebud is. However, these "spoilers" will become not only common knowledge, but even put into previews before such episodes air. All we are doing is effectively saying: "this conversation cannot take place until 2 weeks before the first episode of the next season." Does anybody really think that MR will not be in a single preview before the season 2 premier starts?

We already have a rule in place that once a show airs on the east coast, it is fair game even though the west coast hasn't seen it yet. It is such a stretch to allow official press releases that offer vague details but nothing specific to be discussed?

Very reasonable, the problem is, where do you draw the line? The current, airing and next week preview as being the standard, with everything else being a spoiler, may seem draconian, but it makes it simple and leaves no room for doubt. Previews over the summer, internet sites, news releases leave a lot open to interpretation.

Bottom line is folks are going to do what they want anyway...

...
Stating that a MR signed on doesn't really give anything away, and while technically it may be a spoiler it is most certainly nit-picky. ...

I suppose we need to make a decision like all NBA refs do when a game starts: are we going to call every ticky-tack foul or let the players play the game? Either way is technically OK, but the vast majority of fans do not like ticky-tack fouls.

Perhaps the best thing to do is to ask the people in the thread if they feel that official announcements and press releases should not be considered spoilers. ...

The plain truth is that all of this will be put out in official previews well before the start of the season but they are not out yet....

However, these "spoilers" will become not only common knowledge, but even put into previews before such episodes air. All we are doing is effectively saying: "this conversation cannot take place until 2 weeks before the first episode of the next season."...

We already have a rule in place that once a show airs on the east coast, it is fair game even though the west coast hasn't seen it yet. It is such a stretch to allow official press releases that offer vague details but nothing specific to be discussed?


The issue as I remember was over the additional information about the character's role. For your more limited example, I agree that arguing over the signing of the actress might be considered a pole-vault over a mouse-turd.

Notwithstanding the presupposition, I agree that most people reading this thread may not like contentious posts over what is or is not a spoiler - when it stops the thread and breaks the continuity as in your 'foul' comparison. However, in contrast [and another bit of presuming], I think most would not pay much attention to posts #77 (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=5924897&&#post5924897) , 78, 81 on the BSG thread, I have to guess this is more like a warning from the referee (I do not watch basketball). That example of mutual respect is what I am advocating, far to often a vigorous defense or a contentious [pole-vault] follows a relatively minor lapse. Since there is nothing much going on now, I believe a discussion over this issue is healthy and not really obstructing much of anything.

I have to side against a vote on this thread [and a hopefully similar one for season 2] because I think that anyone with the rights to create a thread such as this should have the freedom to create and enforce restrictions on it. I have seen nothing preventing anyone disagreeing from creating a separate [looser] thread. I do not believe that anyone or group should force a looser standard on this thread while those of us who agree with the more restrictive terms are still active. I might even look at the [Slightly-Looser than CPanther95's No-Spoiler Lost Thread] and decide I like it better.

Again, I think there might be a bit of presumption in projecting what will or will not appear in future previews, but if they do it would be appropriate to post of it then.

As for the EST vs PST rule, it is not an issue for me, but I would have to make a decision on the worth of the thread against the submission of my freedom to conform to it. I have decided that reading and posting in this thread is worth that as well as the self-censorship and self-restraint required to respect the other posters. There are other threads and forums that I do not frequent because I do not wish to conform to their [standards].

As both CPanther95 and Keenan mentioned: a line had to be drawn, he drew it, and I can live with it, so I stay. If a looser definition of spoiler becomes paramount, then I may leave, but again I do not believe that anyone should be forced to change the terms while there exists plenty of room for the [Slightly-Looser] thread.

v/r,
C-F

I think some frustration from the "spoiler" posters comes from the fact that there was no vote on what is a spoiler, but rather what CPanther has defined as a spoiler based on his opinion.
SLAP.

Give it up, man.

You know damned well what a "spoiler" is. If you want to post spoilers, do it over in the spoiler thread.

Sheesh....

—Dan

Even though I don't want to see spoilers, I think I'd now prefer reading spoilers than reading all this talk about spoilers!

How about just ending this discussion and start talking about the show again? This is rediculous already.

Again, I will submit that prior to the start of the season, anything "official" from ABC is fair game for discussion here on this thread. If it comes from the Network, you know it will not contain any true spoilers (as in revealing some key piece of information that will "spoil" any surprises for you). If you still think that knowing whether someone joining the cast is a spoiler, then I'm not sure you should be visiting this thread because that sort of thing is about all anyone has to discuss during the summer haitus. If you come across a real spoilerish piece of inside info not coming directly from the Network, then that needs to be posted in the other thread.

Simple and clean. When the season starts, then we can revert to the "in-season" rules which are well-known. This should keep everybody happy.

See ya when the season starts. SLAM

Simple and clean. When the season starts, then we can revert to the "in-season" rules which are well-known. This should keep everybody happy.
Reading the last page or 2 I think people are still confused by what a spoiler is. Maybe we should rename spoiler to "If it hasn't happened on the show yet"
[if it hasn't happened on the show yet] there is a season 2 [/if it hasn't happened on the show yet] Doesn't really have quite the same ring to it.

I totally agree archiguy. I know what I would do if i was afraid of reading potential spoiler info. I would stay away until season 2 in Sept.
During the "offseason" what else is there to do here but speculate - Is there anyone in the hatch? I think yes. Someone else reads this and thinks Spoiler!!!! But it isn't, its just me and a hunch. Or is it? Did I read it somewhere?? Its a losing battle for those soooooo concerned about spoilers. Only remedy....stay away!

So could one of these folks that are complaining about the spoiler discussion post a non-spoiler so we have something to talk about? I'd be really curious to read a non-spoiler that hasn't been discussed already but I think we may have to wait until the previews begin.

Well, this was posted on the "Hot off the Press" thread this morning - a question that was posed to Alan Sepinwall, an ink-stained wretch who just got back from the press tours:

Gentlemen: I very much enjoy the show "Lost," but would appreciate just a little more attention to detail.
My personal pet peeve is haircuts. How does Matthew Fox maintain that closely cropped haircut? Did his hair stop growing when the plane crashed? For being on that island for a few months, everyone's hair is the same length it was in the opening episode!

-- Judith Smegelski, Lakewood

Alan says: Season one of "Lost" took place over a few weeks, not months, with most of the episodes taking place the day after the previous one. Still, you would think Dr. Jack's buzz cut would have gotten just a wee bit fuzzier in that time. I bet that, as an in-joke, sometime in season three we'll discover that one of the castaways we haven't met yet is a barber back home whose scissors were in his carry-on bag.
The show's timeline, by the way, was conceived in part to deal with issues like hair growth or Hurley's lack of dramatic weight loss, but assuming our heroes ever rescue young Walt from the clutches of The Others, it'll be interesting to see how the show deals with the fact that Malcolm David Kelley is approaching puberty and should be growing 10 inches any day now.

I know it ain't much, and I'm going to scream if the spoiler-phobic find anything to whine about with this posting (WHAT? How dare you tell us that the youngling who plays Walt is going through puberty? GAAA, now my enjoyment of the show is ruined, you bastard!), but that's all I got. It's the off-season, ya' know? ;)

Two things that have been said before and bear repeating are: CPanther's definition of a spoiler came when he was a moderator. If you want to become a moderator and change the rules, I'm sure there's someone you can bug to get a moderator title. And if your reason that it's okay to post a spoiler just because we're in reruns, then you should be ready to go back and delete those spoilers posts once the regular season comes up. They'll still be spoilers during the regular season until it's been broadcast.

So could one of these folks that are complaining about the spoiler discussion post a non-spoiler so we have something to talk about? I'd be really curious to read a non-spoiler that hasn't been discussed already but I think we may have to wait until the previews begin.
How about watchomg the reruns and talking about details that have a lot more meaning now that all of Season 1 has aired. Take tonight's episode for example and Walt in particular. Pay attention to Walt's answer about where Ethan's from and the backgammon. They're spot on knowing what we know now. Maybe the Others just wanted Walt for his winnings? Maybe Michael would have warmed up to Walt faster if he knew. . .

I have to side against a vote on this thread [and a hopefully similar one for season 2] because I think that anyone with the rights to create a thread such as this should have the freedom to create and enforce restrictions on it. I have seen nothing preventing anyone disagreeing from creating a separate [looser] thread. I do not believe that anyone or group should force a looser standard on this thread while those of us who agree with the more restrictive terms are still active. I might even look at the [Slightly-Looser than CPanther95's No-Spoiler Lost Thread] and decide I like it better.

While that sounds reasonable, it is infact not possible. Threads started by others have been merged into this monster thread and the rules set forth by CPanther have been forced on them. The alternative is to post in a thread where massive spoilers are posted. I don't want to read about exactly what is inside the hatch, what the monster is, where the others came from. I do like to read about what the general themes of the next season are going to be and what new cast members are going to be joining the show. Where can I do to discuss that? Nowhere on AVS Forum. If you care to peruse back about 200+/- pages you will see some "threads merged" mentionings.

Again, I will submit ... ...
Simple and clean. When the season starts, then we can revert to the "in-season" rules which are well-known. This should keep everybody happy.

Again, I will rebut. Spoiler tags consume 19 characters and would end the debate.

I care far less about the network press release spoilers than for the repetitious call to re-define the rule. Lots of presupposition that "There can be only one" [thread]. After every one of these debates there are still people who wish to have a place to go to see speculation without encountering [this thread's spoiler rule].

Without vigorous intervention, eventually entropy will drag down the definition anyway and those folks will have to go elsewhere.

A concerted attack only brings this faster, in spite of the ability to post the [Summer 05 Lost Speculation and Semi-Sweet Spoiler - please return to the old post at the start of the season - Thread]

When the campaign to overthrow the rule is successful from sheer agonizing repetition and [the collective you] have forced people to leave/abstain from this thread to avoid offensive material (including this re-hashing), would [you] enter another strict spoiler thread if it becomes popular?

Where does this whole campaign to change the rule come from? So, far, I have only memories of three general categories:
Folks who mis-stepped and are defending themselves for pride or because they were treated badly by a responder.
Folks who do not wish to take the time to observe a rule and add the tags.
Folks who have seen an opportunity to make a mark on the world and change something.


I have only seen one argument that does not fall short when considered against the presence of the other thread and the simplicity of the tags. That argument is that the thread would die out over the summer. And that is based upon a huge presupposition: Why shouldn't this strict no-spoiler thread die down during the hiatus? Because it did. And was briefly revived. And it died again. And then revived. And then someone dropped a match...

v/r,
C-F

How about watchomg the reruns and talking about details that have a lot more meaning now that all of Season 1 has aired. Take tonight's episode for example and Walt in particular. Pay attention to Walt's answer about where Ethan's from and the backgammon. They're spot on knowing what we know now. Maybe the Others just wanted Walt for his winnings? Maybe Michael would have warmed up to Walt faster if he knew. . .

So, um... what happened, exactly? It's not a SPOILER to discuss this. It's already aired. But I didn't watch tonight, and I can't remember.

Enlighten me! (at least it gets us away from this ridiculous argument)

While that sounds reasonable, it is infact not possible.

Sorry, for the second post, but I hate crossed postings.

I have been here from the beginning, and I did not connect the mergers to this until you reminded me. There are several BSG threads, I thought the Lost stuff was merged mostly because it's starter was a moderator.

So, I do not know exactly what prompted the mergers. I do not think a [Summer 05 Lost Speculation and Semi-Sweet Spoiler Thread] would be challenged, given the level to which this debate has progressed. If so, that is something that I believe is worth a shot at challenging. Who would I ask?

I would start the thing myself if I thought it would preserve the [Stricter than your preacher no spoiler Thread] and allow participation for those who like it that way.

v/r,
C-F

Did they skip an episode (or two) tonight?

I didn't watch during the regular season, so I'm catching up now, but I guess without enough weeks in the summer run, they had to skip?

What I miss!? lol

Did they skip an episode (or two) tonight?

I didn't watch during the regular season, so I'm catching up now, but I guess without enough weeks in the summer run, they had to skip?

What I miss!? lol



I noticed that too, very disappointing.

Just checked it, they skipped Episode 10 "Raised by Another"

you can read about it here.

http://abc.go.com/primetime/lost/episodes/2004-05/10.html

Tonight's episode (which is airing at now at 10), there are two Walt things I noticed. First thing was when Walt was telling Sawyer the news about Ethan kidnapping Claire, he got the situation exactly right and Sawyer just blew him off and claimed Walt had a wild imagination.

As for the backgammon, Walt was "gambling" with Hurley and despite the fact that Hurley finished 17th in some competition, Walt "won" $20,000. Hurley, made some silly comment like, "You'll get your money." IIRC, this was before we knew Hurley won the $156 million lottery.

This is also the episode where Hurley said something like, "Back where I'm from, I'm known as something of a warrior." I don't think this has been fully explained yet, has it?

I think some frustration from the "spoiler" posters comes from the fact that there was no vote on what is a spoiler, but rather what CPanther has defined as a spoiler based on his opinion.


Read back posts and get a clue. :rolleyes:

I only went with the consensus opinion. Personally, I thought the Oceanic "preview" should be fair game here after the season ended since it was the equivalent to a preview of the next show. Once I suggested that, it didn't take long to realize that you can't stretch that line a little bit without someone trying to stretch it further - so I went to the spoiler thread instead.

For better or worse, the definition, as it pertains ONLY to this single thread, has been defined for everyone's benefit. ANYTHING outside of that can be posted in the other thread. Continually trying to redefine the definition at this point is asinine. There's over half a million threads on AVS, find another or start your own.

GregT, thanks for that link. Helps fill in the blanks a bit.

I noticed that too, very disappointing.

Just checked it, they skipped Episode 10 "Raised by Another"

you can read about it here.

http://abc.go.com/primetime/lost/episodes/2004-05/10.html
Skipping the pissing contest regarding spoilers for a moment, what the heck is going on with skipping an episode? I guess this means we can't depend on ABC to rerun all 24 episodes leading up to season 2. What a waste of time to expect to get caught up on Season One via actual network broadcasts. And the stupid network execs wonder why they can't hold an audience. :rolleyes:

Regarding skipped episodes, I found the following info posted on a message board at the 'Lost' site on ABC.com:

As I posted in the "Buy the DVD" thread, they are skipping four episodes in total-----10, 12, 13 and 15.
Beginning Aug 17th they will show two hours each Wed until Sept 14th. New season begins on Sept 21st.
All need to be seen but #12 is a MUST.
I wrote ABC last week in Lostlinks.net announced they would not be showing all the episodes since I have many friends watching it for the first time this summer.

So there you have it. Official suckdom. Makes me wish I had ignored the hype and ignored this show. Now I'm thinking I'll just wait for the DVD release at the rental store in order to see ALL the first season shows. What morons.

This whole spoiler thing is getting ridiculous, and now some people are getting a little testy. Look, this whole argument over the last few pages was predicated on the assumption that what some executive producer said at a press junket contained spoilers. We've now determined that it did not; even the most anal amongst us has admitted that discussing new additions to the cast cannot, in a rational world, be considered a spoiler. Thus, this whole argument is basically moot. Nobody has violated the sacred rules. :rolleyes:

We all know what a spoiler is, fercryinoutloud. And none of the regular posters to this thread will reveal one; certainly not intentionally. Anything coming from an official ABC source IS NOT going to contain anything spoilerish, but will give us something to discuss while we're waiting for the season to start. People just need to use good judgement and stop this silly arguing over nothing. And, with that, I've had my last say on the subject. This catfight can continue without me.

And, I'm not going to reveal what Evangeline said to me last night during "pillow talk" regarding her character's brutal death in the first new episode. Some might consider that a spoiler! :eek: :D

Joseph, would you rather have them play those 4 extra episodes for you and delay the start of the new season for 4 weeks?

Archiguy, the problem isn't that we know what is and what isn't a spoiler - the problem is that some people believe that any information not seen in the actual episode or a preview from an episode is a spoiler, regardless of how little information it contains. Michelle Rodriguez signing on for season 2 is a spoiler in their minds. You could try and change the rule, but that has been rebuffed continually by people who think that opens the door to any and all spoilers via the camel's nose theory.

The common response from such people is to start a new thread to discuss such things, even though it wouldn't have anywhere near the participation since it would lose all the subs that this thread has.

Look, this whole argument over the last few pages was predicated on the assumption that what some executive producer said at a press junket contained spoilers. We've now determined that it did not; even the most anal amongst us has admitted that discussing new additions to the cast cannot, in a rational world, be considered a spoiler. Thus, this whole argument is basically moot. Nobody has violated the sacred rules. :rolleyes:Sorry, but you'll have to call me anal, or irrational, because I do think it violates the rules of this thread.

For a normal show, cast additions wouldn't be a spoiler. But this is an isolated group of people, with the appearance of complete isolation. Knowing that there will be cast additions most definitely gives information germane to the future storyline. This is especially true when the cast member in question has already appeared in the show and given specific information about their character. Just knowing she's joining the cast means she didn't die. That in and of itself, at least until it appears in a preview, is a spoiler.

(All of this from someone who chooses to read all the spoilers, but wouldn't want to spoil (pardon the pun) anyone else's fun.)

Xesdeeni

Joseph, would you rather have them play those 4 extra episodes for you and delay the start of the new season for 4 weeks?No, smarty, but they could have EASILY doubled up to two episodes per week prior to August 17th and avoided this altogether. And not just for me, smartpants, but everyone they are supposedly trying to cultivate by showing the reruns.

And the stupid network execs wonder why they can't hold an audience. :rolleyes:
If LOST didn't have so many breaks in between new episodes they would have been able to rerun the entire season. I think there were what, 10 weeks total when they showed reruns?

That's why I like 24 and summer shows, they don't have 3 weeks off at a time showing reruns.

As far as the spoiler stupidness, why doesn't everyone just stop posting to this thread? Geez..... This thread is to the point where if I see the word spoiler anywhere in a post, I skip right over it.

Archiguy, the problem isn't that we know what is and what isn't a spoiler - the problem is that some people believe that any information not seen in the actual episode or a preview from an episode is a spoiler, regardless of how little information it contains. Michelle Rodriguez signing on for season 2 is a spoiler in their minds.
No. The problem is that there were other spoilers revealed by Lindelof in that mediavillage piece. Yet you insist on setting up the strawman of "Michelle Rodriguez" to argue your point. This is exactly the reason why the "no spoilers" rule exists -- because people can't see the difference between the two, none of them are allowed.

No. The problem is that there were other spoilers revealed by Lindelof in that mediavillage piece. Yet you insist on setting up the strawman of "Michelle Rodriguez" to argue your point.

Huh? And what would those be? I've read that article numerous times and can't find a single thing that could legitimately be described as a spoiler. I wanted to remove myself from this ridiculous non-discussion, but comments like this keep pulling me back in (said in my best Al Pacino voice).

No, smarty, but they could have EASILY doubled up to two episodes per week prior to August 17th and avoided this altogether. And not just for me, smartypants, but everyone they are supposedly trying to cultivate by showing the reruns.

Maybe they're trying to cultivate DVD revenue. ;)

And just for the record, I'm in the spoiler-phobic group.

Huh? And what would those be? I've read that article numerous times and can't find a single thing that could legitimately be described as a spoiler. I wanted to remove myself from this ridiculous non-discussion, but comments like this keep pulling me back in (said in my best Al Pacino voice).

Your problem isn't that you can't find any ligitimate spoilers but that you refuse to agree to what the definition of a spoiler is in this thread.

Just knowing she's joining the cast means she didn't die. That in and of itself, at least until it appears in a preview, is a spoiler.
Exactly, it confirms that there are other survivors on the island, something we didn't know for sure at the close of the season.

(All of this from someone who chooses to read all the spoilers, but wouldn't want to spoil (pardon the pun) anyone else's fun.)


It's appreciated. :)

Huh? And what would those be? I've read that article numerous times and can't find a single thing that could legitimately be described as a spoiler. I wanted to remove myself from this ridiculous non-discussion, but comments like this keep pulling me back in (said in my best Al Pacino voice).
Archiguy, you and I, in many ways are of similar minds on many things, but I don't understand why you continue to press this issue. If it's that important to you to discuss Lost during the summer, there is another thread, or start a Lost Season 2 Previews and Spoilers thread. I'll bet for every 10 people who post here there is another 100 that just view the thread, and I'll also bet that a large majority of them appreciate the non-spolier nature of the thread.

umm... Can somebody tell me what a spoiler is?

thanks

(sarcasm)

Et tu, Keenan? ;)

Look, I'm not advocating including spoilers in this thread; I hate 'em as much as anyone and avoid them when I can. I've also not posted anything that might be considered one (and, I'm sorry but I must disagree with you; cast additions simply don't rise to the spoiler level). What I was trying to do was inject a little common sense into this debate, hopefully with a little humor to keep it all in perspective.

And that's what's been "lost" here, IMO: common sense and perspective, not to mention humor. I will continue to not do what I've been not doing, and that's not revealing anything that would reveal answers to secrets that the show has established and which would thus spoil anyone's enjoyment. Nobody can accuse me of posting spoilers in this thread; never have, never will. I don't want to use the spoiler thread for non-spoiler discussions, that's all; and nobody reads it anyway.

To not discuss things like the website (which I believe we discussed to virtual death) or an official press release from ABC is taking this thing to ridiculous extremes that only a grumpy few have advocated. That's all I've been trying to do; some get it, some don't. But I do agree that this discussion is getting awfully stale; time to put it to rest.

Based on the early definitions and the context of the show, I'd consider cast additions from people in another area of the plane a spoiler. For instance, if someone identified who the actor was portraying the black woman's husband in season 1, then posted that that actor signed on for a major non-flashback role in season 2 - that would be a spoiler.

Michelle signing on for Season 2 then would be considered a spoiler. HOWEVER, practically speaking, is there really anyone out there that actually thought that they got Michelle Rodriguez to join the cast only for the couple minute segment aired in Season 1? As far as I'm concerned, that casting (in Season 1), in and of itself, told us that there would be additional survivors.

They could have just as easily introduced a non-known actor to portray the person having that discussion with Jack - or that conversation could have been between Jack and "Michelle" in restroom stalls and we saw nothing but distinctive shoes that could be identified in Season 2. ;)

- or that conversation could have been between Jack and "Michelle" in restroom stalls and we saw nothing but distinctive shoes that could be identified in Season 2. ;)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v637/keenanj/s.jpg

Sort of uncomfortable for a plane ride, even worse on a tropical island... :D

But not running around a starship saving the galaxy. Didn't '7 of 9' where shoes like that on ST: Voyager?

Yeah, I think she did, although I'm not sure as my attention was focused about 4' higher than the feet... :eek: :D

umm... Can somebody tell me what a spoiler is?

thanks

(sarcasm)

Revealing that Hurley is actually played by a set of identical twins.

Yeah, I think she did, although I'm not sure as my attention was focused about 4' higher than the feet... :eek: :D


She wore shoes? I never noticed. I was always distracted by those two nice eyes, yeah, eyes, that was it.

Revealing that Hurley is actually played by a set of identical twins.Or that he ate a set of identical twins.

Or that he ate a set of identical twins.


lol - that's funny!

She wore shoes? I never noticed. I was always distracted by those two nice eyes, yeah, eyes, that was it.

Don't be so sure you were seeing what you thought you were seeing. The Star Trek production designers were famous for padding the costumes of the female leads in, um, all the right places. Remember how voluptuous Terry Farrell (Jadzia Dax) looked in 'DS9'? When she switched series to 'Becker', it became painfully clear that her assets were all courtesy of the costume.

Don't be so sure you were seeing what you thought you were seeing. The Star Trek production designers were famous for padding the costumes of the female leads in, um, all the right places. Remember how voluptuous Terry Farrell (Jadzia Dax) looked in 'DS9'? When she switched series to 'Becker', it became painfully clear that her assets were all courtesy of the costume.This gives new (but sad) meaning to the word "spoiler". :(

This gives new (but sad) meaning to the word "spoiler". :(

Hey, I just said I'd never post any Lost spoilers! :D

Regarding skipped episodes, I found the following info posted on a message board at the 'Lost' site on ABC.com:



So there you have it. Official suckdom. Makes me wish I had ignored the hype and ignored this show. Now I'm thinking I'll just wait for the DVD release at the rental store in order to see ALL the first season shows. What morons.


Thanks so much for this info. I thought I really messed up the Tivo somehow. But now I'm giving up on this series.
Forget you ABC!

This thread got to nearly 7500 posts because people like talking about the show, speculating, etc.

And because people like "discussing" what a spoiler is and isn't.

For those of you who are watching the show for the first time (like me) and are dissapointed that ABC is skipping episodes....I got two words for ya....BIT TORRENT. I am caught up and ready for next week :). PM me if you don't know where to find them.

When's the season 1 DVD coming out? Why did they wait until so close before the 2nd season starts, unless there are spoilers in the extras or something? You would think people would be buying that to catch up and be ready for the 2nd season.

September 6, 2005

Any word on when season 2 starts?

Sept. 21, Wed at 9PM

:eek: :p :D

Spoiler! Spoiler!


...oh wait.. I'm just so used to seeing that in this thread that I overreacted.

:p

Feels like a 'Lost' déja vu

By William KeckUSA TODAY

KAHUKU, Hawaii — The stars of the hugely successful TV drama Lost gathered Tuesday night in a tropical jungle on Oahu's Turtle Bay Resort to herald the Sept. 6 release of the ABC series' first season on DVD.

The setting of the party, thrown by Buena Vista Home Entertainment, was a re-creation of the plane crash that started the series. Having already "survived" that crash of the fictitious Oceanic Airlines Flight 815, the cast arrived to the tiki lamp-lit party in grand style.

First to step out of his chauffeured car: Matthew Fox (who plays Jack), dressed in a pink shirt and black suit, smoking a cigarette and escorting his wife of 14 years, Margherita, a former model.

"I thought we were going to be inside," marveled Fox as he started down the dirt carpet arrivals line. "I hope everybody brought bug spray."

Impressed by the party's theatrics, which included flight attendants, a tram and the eerie metallic clangs of the show's mysterious monster, was Terry O'Quinn (Locke), who "thought we were just going to come and have a few drinks in the woods."

"Powerful" was the word Naveen Andrews (Sayid) used to describe a local cover band performing in front of a large section of plane wreckage.

Female cast members were advised to wear sensible footwear. "It's Hawaii," reminded Maggie Grace (Shannon) in gold, strappy sandals. "No call for high heels."

Evangeline Lilly (Kate) arrived looking like a '60s-era go-go dancer in a super-short, vintage, yellow tweed dress with white, knee-high boots that were "made for walkin" the treacherous terrain.

Asked to comment on the vintage Batman T-shirt her party companion and cast mate Dominic Monaghan (Charlie) was sporting, Lilly simply said, "That's pretty cute."

Also looking tropical chic: Emilie de Ravin (Claire) in an elegant gown by Aussie designer Lisa Ho and Yunjin Kim (Sun), wearing a casual striped dress by Penguin.

Jorge Garcia (Hurley) brought his girlfriend of four months, Malia Hansen. The two are raising a rescued Chihuahua /dachshund puppy.

Missing from the party: young Malcolm David Kelley (Walt), who was not due on the island to shoot his scenes until later in the week, and new cast members Michelle Rodriguez (Ana-Lucia) and Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje (Emeka).

"Michelle wanted to hang back and let the Season One guys be in the limelight," explained Lost co-creator Damon Lindelof, who said he is close to signing a veteran female actress to play the role of a third new regular in the second season.

As cast members are added, Daniel Dae Kim (Jin), who is about to purchase a house on Oahu, hopes his character remains.

With Kim's character set to develop his use of English, the actor has been taking lessons to learn how to speak English with a Korean accent.

Barely making it to the party was an exhausted Josh Holloway (Sawyer), who arrived after 10 because he was filming scenes for the second episode.

At the party, Lindelof disclosed that Episode 3 will be the show everyone will be talking about.

"We go into the hatch in the first episode (airing Sept. 21) and sort of see what's in there, but it isn't really explained to us until the middle of Episode 3," he teased.

"That episode is going to blow away anyone who has ever said, 'You guys don't give enough answers.' "

I thought ABC was goiing to start showing 2 episodes a night on Aug. 17. I only saw one last night, and my DVR only shows one scheduled for the 24th. I really hope that they are not planning on skipping even more episodes. Anyone know wtf is going on?

Feels like a 'Lost' déja vu

By William KeckUSA TODAY

At the party, Lindelof disclosed that Episode 3 will be the show everyone will be talking about.

"We go into the hatch in the first episode (airing Sept. 21) and sort of see what's in there, but it isn't really explained to us until the middle of Episode 3," he teased.

"That episode is going to blow away anyone who has ever said, 'You guys don't give enough answers.' "

We'll see

I had ET or one of those entertainment magazine shows on while I was eating dinner last night after work, and they were showing clips of interviews they did with some of the actors at the DVD release event. Both Fox and Lilly made reference to the "answers" that would be forthcoming in the new season. Evangeline went so far as to say that season II was going to be "all about" answering the questions season I posed (and dragged out). Fox also made reference to "within the first three episodes" a lot would be revealed. Truth or just a little hype to pump the ratings for the beginning of season II? As dm145 said, we'll see. I take all that with a few grains of salt, and I'm sure there'll be more than a few new questions raised to replace the "answered" ones anyway. But now I do think some of the basic stuff will be laid out finally (maybe :D).


ron

...and Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje (Emeka).

I haven't been watching reruns, so maybe my memory's just shot...but who is this?

.

I haven't been watching reruns, so maybe my memory's just shot...but who is this?

Ohmygawd, here we go again! :rolleyes: :D

New cast member. And no, that's not a spoiler since we have no idea in what capacity he will serve, whether he was on the plane, whether he's one of The Others, nothing. It's all speculation at this point.

Me? I think he's from the tail-section group, but too young to be Rose's husband.

I thought there was a black guy in the OTHERS? Is that him? (NOTE how I skillfully put this into speculation....):)

Must have been, since imdb lists him as LOST (2004) not 2005.

Must have been, since imdb lists him as LOST (2004) not 2005.

That's exactly what prompted my question...didn't remember seeing him last season.

Spoilers be d@mned!...but wait...if he was in an episode that's already aired, it can't be a spoiler. ;)

Was he one of the Others on the boat that bombed the raft? Maybe in the background? I didn't notice and didn't save the episode, but I know one of you cool dudes is bound to have it still.

I thought ABC was goiing to start showing 2 episodes a night on Aug. 17. I only saw one last night, and my DVR only shows one scheduled for the 24th. I really hope that they are not planning on skipping even more episodes. Anyone know wtf is going on?

Anyone?
Anyone?

When and where did you hear ABC was going to reshow all the episodes this summer?

When and where did you hear ABC was going to reshow all the episodes this summer?

On the previous page of this thread, it was stated that ABC was going to skip episodes 10,12,13 and 15 (which proved to be true) and then begin to show 2 episodes a night started Aug. 17th (which seems to not be the case). I went to great lengths to download and watch the four episodes that i missed and I do NOT want to tune into the next episode and find that I have missed one.

So, once again, does anyone know if ABC plans to skip anymore episodes? If so, which ones?

Jeff, I'm in the same boat as you. I had been relying on that post from the previous page. I spent a lot of time obtaining the 4 skipped episodes and caught up. Only was one episode this week and only one scheduled next week.

How are they going to get caught up and if not, what other episodes will be skipped?

.

I haven't been watching reruns, so maybe my memory's just shot...but who is this?

He also played Simon, about the baddest dude in Oz.

Reshowing all the episodes in a quick fashion like that will hurt the DVD sales.

I'll go out on a limb and put him into the role as someone else they run into on the island (not the Others). After getting to know him and winning his trust he'll help our castaways. He'll have a surprising amount of knowledge, and it'll turn out that he was part of the Black Rock cargo. The thing he wanted most when chained up was to live and that's what the island gave him -- he's still alive today.

One of the themes has been black versus white. Good versus Evil. We've seen evil (aka the Others). It's time to introduce some good. A fairly common plotline.

Hey, good thinking there O2C! That's what we've been missing from this thread this summer whilst we've been arguing about what does and doesn't constitute a spoiler - some good ol' fashioned speculation.

But some weenie will probably think that's a spoiler too. ("How could you have thought of that before I thought of that?! Way to ruin it for me!") :(

O2C I like that theory.. especially the ominous, "he's still alive today" dun dun daaah.

I must have replayed the scene with the two boats a half dozen times, I don't think he was on the boat either. I am going to speculate he is trapped in the hatch and will go postal on everyone when discovered and allowed to go free.
My gut tells me he'll play an evil character. With all the build up on this hatch, there has to be people alive and breathing in there. Anyone else think so?
Again, purely speculation here.

I'll go out on a limb and put him into the role as someone else they run into on the island (not the Others). After getting to know him and winning his trust he'll help our castaways. He'll have a surprising amount of knowledge, and it'll turn out that he was part of the Black Rock cargo. The thing he wanted most when chained up was to live and that's what the island gave him -- he's still alive today.

One of the themes has been black versus white. Good versus Evil. We've seen evil (aka the Others). It's time to introduce some good. A fairly common plotline.

I like this idea!

However, IMDB still lists him as a 2004 cast member. So where was he last season? In the background somewhere? Or maybe in scenes that didn't make it to air?

On the previous page of this thread, it was stated that ABC was going to skip episodes 10,12,13 and 15 (which proved to be true) and then begin to show 2 episodes a night started Aug. 17th (which seems to not be the case). I went to great lengths to download and watch the four episodes that i missed and I do NOT want to tune into the next episode and find that I have missed one.

So, once again, does anyone know if ABC plans to skip anymore episodes? If so, which ones?

FWIW, I found confirmation that season 2 begins on 9/21: http://www.abcmedianet.com/DNR/2005/doc/Premiererelease2005.doc

That leaves 4 Wednesdays until the premiere, and there are 8 episodes left, so maybe they will double up these last 4 weeks. The only problem with this theory is the final episode is 2 hours, so unless the final show was considered episdodes 23 & 24, I don't see a way to get it all covered. I'm going to keep digging to see what I can find.

This post seems to confirm my theory: http://www.mediablvd.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=21683

Must have been, since imdb lists him as LOST (2004) not 2005.
He shows as Emeka (2005-) when I look it up.

We have definitely not seen this guy before, he was great in OZ though..

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v637/keenanj/Adewale.jpg

Looks a little young to be Rose's husband, too.

This post seems to confirm my theory: http://www.mediablvd.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=21683

Ok, but why don't online guides like yahoo and zap2it list the 9pm episode on Wed? My DVR doesn't have a 9pm eposide listed either.

Maybe because they moved the timeslot to 10PM? Wasn't there also something about ABC losing HDTV for a bit? Hope that doesn't mess any of you up.

And the "(2004)" following Lost in IMDB entries refers to the year it premeired. If you look up Jennifer Anniston, she'll probably have a listing for "Friends (1994)" and not "Friends (1994-2004)".

Finally, if any TV Execs or writers liked my idea, I should let you know I'm full of them and will gladly pick up and move to Hollywood to write for LOST if you'd like. I'll even be willing to move to Hawai'i to help with any last minute script revisions. Just let me know. . . :)

Ok, but why don't online guides like yahoo and zap2it list the 9pm episode on Wed? My DVR doesn't have a 9pm eposide listed either.
I have no idea. It's very frustrating to try to find out what is going to be shown. It's stupid on ABC's part to make this such a mystery, when presumably they should be trying to add viewers for the show via the reruns.

I'm not an expert, I just want to see all the episodes if possible via the network. I won't be surprised if they don't broadcast 2 shows next Wednesday, since the only info I've been able to find is anecdotal. OTOH, I'll check out the net at 9:00 to make sure I don't miss anything.

He shows as Emeka (2005-) when I look it up.

We have definitely not seen this guy before, he was great in OZ though..

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v637/keenanj/Adewale.jpg


If they are going to kill me, they better kill me dead! :D

He also played Simon, about the baddest dude in Oz.He's also 'dude' (I forget the character name) from The Mummy & The Mummy Returns.

Ok, but why don't online guides like yahoo and zap2it list the 9pm episode on Wed? My DVR doesn't have a 9pm eposide listed either.
My DVR is saying two back to back episodes starting this Wednesday (I'll have to check at home to be sure if it's this week or next week). Of course this is on my SD UltimateTV unit. I don't have an HD DVR so I can't compare guides.

My HD-Tivo shows (for this Wednesday):

8pm - Brat Camp
9pm - Brat Camp
10pm - LOST

Sure doesn't look like 2 Lost episodes on 8/23. Just the one at 10 according to all the guide sites and ABC.com

Looks like it'll be episode 17, which is what we'd expect.

Does anyone know their true plans for the rest of the repeats?

This really bites, Lex. Sorry the info I've been able to find hasn't been accurate.

Does anyone know their true plans for the rest of the repeats?
Yes.

Their true plan is to skips some so you're dying to see what you missed. As a result, you end up running out to purchase the Season 1 DVDs before the season premiere. :D

Sure doesn't look like 2 Lost episodes on 8/23. Just the one at 10 according to all the guide sites and ABC.com

Looks like it'll be episode 17, which is what we'd expect.

Does anyone know their true plans for the rest of the repeats?It won't be in HD either. No ABC HD 8/23 through 8/26 (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=570007)

It won't be in HD either. No ABC HD 8/23 through 8/26 (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=570007)

Bummer, that's one of only two (also #18) that I don't have recorded in HD! :mad:

So, who caught tonight's rerun? It really is interesting seeing these again -- I catch a lot the second time around and I really do appreciate the writing.

Did you notice:
1) Hurley brought Jin fishing poles to try to integrate him? We find out later in this episode that Jin was desparate to escape the life he had growing up in a fishing village.

2) The reaction from the man Jin visits (and gets the dog from) makes a lot more sense. The guy was scared witless because he thought Jin was sent to kill him (ala the second visit). On a side note, white is a traditional Chinese color for mourning -- the Korean gangster's white suit is a bit more ominous if that's the case in Korea too. We again have white vs black in that scene too (with Jin wearing the black suit and saving that guy's life).

3) Jin's really not a bad guy at all. His actions are totally misinterpreted to be a lot worse than they were. He came home with bloody hands because beating the guy was a way to save his life, not because he wanted to take a life. He ran into the forest with burnt hands because he tried to save the boat, not because he set it on fire.

4) Walt's winnings from Hurley went up to 83k. And the kid's not even a teenager yet.



Also, did anyone record the new teasers for the upcoming season? Tonight's the first time I've seen them. If you missed them, they're of shot of a single character from the show with them describing what they think is happening. IE Jack's is saying he doesn't know why they're on the island. Locke's is that he thinks everyone's on the island for a purpose. . .

Yahoo lists episodes 18 and 19 next week. That's good as there's no more skipping, so far.

Make sure those DVRs pick up both the 9pm and 10pm episodes next week.

My friend translated what Jin was trying to explain to Michael. (right before Sun speaks english)

He says, "I burned my hand with water I was boiling..."

He is going to translate more of the episode for me, too.. once the DVD comes out. :)

Does anyone know WHY there was no HD last night? It was still broadcasting in 5.1, despite the SD picture. I thought that was weird.

Another "second viewing" thing I noticed. When Jin went to the visit the bureaucrat, did you notice that his daughter was watching a news report on TV.. about Hurley?

This is still a no spoilers thread, so I don't want to say more... but it's a clip which will make sense next week.

Does anyone know WHY there was no HD last night? It was still broadcasting in 5.1, despite the SD picture. I thought that was weird.

ABC is doing some kind of work to their HD equipment. I think it goes thru the weekend. There is a thread on here about it.

Does anyone know WHY there was no HD last night? It was still broadcasting in 5.1, despite the SD picture. I thought that was weird.

It was explained here. (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=570007) Also referenced 5 posts back.

Another "second viewing" thing I noticed. When Jin went to the visit the bureaucrat, did you notice that his daughter was watching a news report on TV.. about Hurley?

This is still a no spoilers thread, so I don't want to say more... but it's a clip which will make sense next week.

Yes; that was a nice little touch they used to tease us about Hurley, which was later expanded upon when he had his flashback episode, as you inferred. It was discussed extensively in this thread back during the original broadcast. And because of that, it's fair game for further discussion and would not be considered a spoiler.

I figured as much, spoilerwise... but I do have some friends who are just watching for the first time, and I'm guessing that some poor souls might wander into this thread and not realize it.

It's one of those things... exactly HOW long do things need to be kept secret?

I guess the solution to the "Rosebud" mystery still comes as a spoiler to some, right? :-)

I'm watching these for the first time. I thought that was Hurley, but I wasn't sure and just figured I must have been mistaken. Still not sure why he was there, but I guess I'll find out. I've seen some of the spoilers in reading the thread here, but it's still just as entertaining, even though I know some of what is to come.

I'm watching these for the first time. I thought that was Hurley, but I wasn't sure and just figured I must have been mistaken. Still not sure why he was there, but I guess I'll find out. I've seen some of the spoilers in reading the thread here, but it's still just as entertaining, even though I know some of what is to come.

There are many occurences of cameo appearances and character cross referencing going on in Lost. Every episode has at least a couple of them. I think it's just JJ Abrams having and sharing some fun with his audience. I believe that most (but certainly not all) of them have no ultimate meaning.

Those who also watch Abrams' other series, Alias, might remember an airport scene in that show last season where in the background airport noise you can here an announcement of the boarding of "Oceanic Air flight 815." It was a subtle and clever cross reference between his two shows just for the pure fun of it.

As was the playing of the Driveshaft song when Sidney had a party early in the season.

www.livejournal.com/users/theizzy/142972.html

Check this out

Gives directions to see a preview from the Season 2 Pilot.

Cool clip - now I really can't wait.

How'd we miss this one:http://www.tv.com/story/story.html&story_id=571[/url]"]
Writer sues Lost creators
By Colin Mahan | more stories by this author
August 25, 2005 at 02:00:00 PM

A television writer alleges fraud and breach of contract in a lawsuit directed at ABC and the creators of the hit sci-fi show Lost.
Is Lost an original idea?

Is Lost an original idea?
Hollywood writer Anthony Spinner filed a lawsuit Friday claiming that ABC and Lost creators J.J. Abrams and Damon Lindelof stole an idea he pitched to the network in 1977.
Lost tells the story of a group of plane crash survivors who find themselves on a mysterious island. They are beset by giant polar bears, villainous people, a frightening wraithlike creature, and, worst of all, their own personal demons.
Spinner says in that in 1977 he was hired by the producers of Land of the Lost to create a show for ABC. The pilot he wrote was called Lost, and it involved a plane crash that stranded people in a mysterious place filled with peril and strange creatures.
ABC has not made any comments regarding the lawsuit, but this is the second high-profile lawsuit the network has been slapped with in recent weeks, as Simon Cowell and the network were sued for allegedly stealing the idea for Cowell's upcoming show, The Million Dollar Idea.

Xesdeeni

That's one hell of a stretch. If I see one of those stupid Land of the Lost creatures show up on Lost, I'll throw a brick through my screen.

Next they'll say it's ripping off Gilligan's Island.

i think i say a slaystack (sic?) in the woods few episodes ago...


(ducks and runs...)

Next they'll say it's ripping off Gilligan's Island.

That's exactly what Michael Eisner said when he saw the pilot. When he found out that the President of ABC had picked up the series despite his disapproval, Eisner fired him.

Given the episode last season called "...in Translation," I think it would appropriate to have one this year called "Land of the..." :-)

Xesdeeni

Don't know if this was posted before (I'm not checking 7,656 posts):

Did you know that the numbers (4, 8, 15, 16, 23, 42) are all numbers that have been retired by the New York Yankees? In order, Gehrig, Berra/Dickey, Munson, Whitey Ford, Mattingly and Jackie Robinson.

Don't know if this was posted before (I'm not checking 7,656 posts):

Did you know that the numbers (4, 8, 15, 16, 23, 42) are all numbers that have been retired by the New York Yankees? In order, Gehrig, Berra/Dickey, Munson, Whitey Ford, Mattingly and Jackie Robinson.

Nope, I've been following this monster thread since its birth and think that's a first. Good catch!

Don't know if this was posted before (I'm not checking 7,656 posts):
Did you know that the numbers (4, 8, 15, 16, 23, 42) are all numbers that have been retired by the New York Yankees?
Yes it has been posted a couple of times.

fyi...there is a "search this thread" tool.

Okay, my bad. Must have been originally posted when I was on vacation or something. :o

Okay, my bad. Must have been originally posted when I was on vacation or something. :o
Like you I've been with this thread since post 1. There's some things I remember better than others.

Yes it has been posted a couple of times.

fyi...there is a "search this thread" tool.

Are we going to start a season 2 thread? If so, will facts brought out in the season 1 thread bring scorn if forgotten or overlooked and posted in the season 2 thread? Maybe a new season of freash programming will help chase away the negative vibes I'm feeling lately. No, not just here but all over AVS.

I hear ya on the season 2 clip, its great and I can't wait.

I agree about the negative vibes. It amazes me that people personally attack others becuase their opinions differ on some subject related to entertainment, services, etc. I personally like to enjoy my hobbies rather than be made miserable becuase of perceived injustices related to TV or audio/video equipment. I hate to even read the D* threads anymore...

I am pumped about the upcoming season of Lost though. All of the talk from the writers/producers about providing some answers is making me antsy.

Are we going to start a season 2 thread? If so, will facts brought out in the season 1 thread bring scorn if forgotten or overlooked and posted in the season 2 thread? Maybe a new season of freash programming will help chase away the negative vibes I'm feeling lately. No, not just here but all over AVS.
I'm pretty sure there will be a season 2 thread opening up before the new series premiere.

I'm hoping that my reply wasn't taken as a bad vibe. It wasn't meant to be. I was just answering his question and also gave him the tool he could use instead of searching through 7k+ posts

I thought you guys were going for some new mega-thread record.

If all of you would just post what the new thread is called, so I can find it again. :)

There are people who think that a new thread would be in order so they wouldn't have to deal with the 7600+ posts that this thread has, but they will have to deal with the 5000+ posts the new thread will contain.

Since it will be a monster thread anyway, why not just keep them together.

Since it will be a monster thread anyway, why not just keep them together.
Agreed.


archiguy, the Yankees numbers were secretly encoded in a post about arguing about spoilers.... :p :D

I thought you guys were going for some new mega-thread record.

"You guys??" Dude, you've contributed your fair share! With 410 posts, you sir are the "leader in the clubhouse". :D

Agreed.


archiguy, the Yankees numbers were secretly encoded in a post about arguing about spoilers.... :p :D

Gosh, you'd think I'd have noticed that since I wrote most of those... ;) :p

400 of my posts were simply repeating the definition of a spoiler to people.

And some people still don't know!! :D :p :D :eek:

Just to post something I'm absolutely positive no one else knows. . .

Did you know that I went to high school with one of the producers (I counted 17 of them) and writers (of the dozens of writers from last season, he is credited as one for Episode 22) of Lost?

Just to post something I'm absolutely positive no one else knows. . .

Did you know that I went to high school with one of the producers (I counted 17 of them) and writers (of the dozens of writers from last season, he is credited as one for Episode 22) of Lost?

That should have been enclosed in spoiler space. Now you've revealed that this is just a SHOW. Next you'll be telling us that the people are just ACTORS. :)

I saw a show concerning Gilligan's Island and the producer Sherwood Schwartz claimed that the Coast Guard actually got calls from people wondering why the castaways weren't being rescued. Are these the same people who sit on juries and elect presidents?

I wonder if the Coast Guard has gotten any calls concerning the Lostaways.

They actually become presidents... ;)

Are these the same people who sit on juries and elect presidents?

Yeah, I guess all the intelligent people don't bother voting. :rolleyes:

Yeah, I guess all the intelligent people don't bother voting. :rolleyes:

That would explain a lot of things. ;)

Moving back on topic, I definately need to pay more attention the first time these episodes air. Given the numerous hints, I still somehow managed to miss the fact that Hurley was institutionalized. They never told us what he was sent away for right? I mean we can probably rule out anorexia nervosa or bulimia. . .

Crud. They're pre-empting the second Lost episode for a Katrina special? Wow, I feel sorry for those of you who missed the first airings. . .

. . .

Crud. They're pre-empting the second Lost episode for a Katrina special? Wow, I feel sorry for those of you who missed the first airings. . .

Dude, did you just say that out loud?

Yup. Media overload doesn't really help the situation. What additional news will they be able to throw together for a 1 hour newscast that hasn't already aired? Since it's all about ratings, I'm in the camp that they're pumping it for the Neilsens. I'd half expect to see them provide a link so you can buy this news special on DVD.

Don't get me wrong, I think this storm is one of the worst natural disasters to have hit the country in recent times. The final death toll will be horrible. New Orleans may take months to rebuild. I just feel that media coverage hasn't been the best.

Still trying to catch up on this season's re-runs for the first time (for me).

According to yahoo, next week will be episode 20 and "exodus". I presume those will be the last 2 before the new season starts.

It says exodus originally aired on 5/18/05.

Anyway to know for sure if that's Exodus Part 1 or Part 2? I'd have to assume it'd be part 2 they'd show, no?

Need to figure out which missing episodes to track down.

Looks like 21, 22 and either 23 or 24. Anything else I'm missing? Was there an episode 25? I've seen references to it, but nothing about it here:
http://abc.go.com/primetime/lost/episodes/2004-05/1.html

The Wikipedia Lost page has an episode list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_(2004_television_series)#Season_1:_2004-2005). It looks like 25 was the second hour of the season finale.

I see. Exodus was 3 parts. Don't know why the ABC site isn't listing 25.

I just was going to watch the 2nd hr on my DVR. Didn't realize it was pre-empted. I'll add 19 to the list too.

If yahoo is listing the episode they'll play next week as "exodus" having originally aired on 5/18/05, I guess that's part 1 and they'll skip parts 2 and 3.

Looks like I need to find 19, 21, 22, 24 and 25 on my own and 20 and 23 will air next week.

That sound right then?

That sound right then?

NO

They said the new season starts in THREE weeks, meaning that we have TWO more "double episode" Wednesdays. I bet the last Wed. of re-runs will be episodes 24 and 25.

I think you (and me ...lol) need to bit torrent 19,21 and 22. I am off to look for them right now.

On second thought, I just realized that the dvd comes out this coming Tues. I will be at Blockbuster that morning :).

NO

They said the new season starts in THREE weeks, meaning that we have TWO more "double episode" Wednesdays. I bet the last Wed. of re-runs will be episodes 24 and 25.

I think you (and me ...lol) need to bit torrent 19,21 and 22. I am off to look for them right now.

Ok, must have not been listening closely. That makes a lot more sense. Obviously they'd want to show Exodus 2 and 3, so I guess that's what's on it 2 weeks.

Yup. Media overload doesn't really help the situation. What additional news will they be able to throw together for a 1 hour newscast that hasn't already aired? Since it's all about ratings, I'm in the camp that they're pumping it for the Neilsens. I'd half expect to see them provide a link so you can buy this news special on DVD.

Don't get me wrong, I think this storm is one of the worst natural disasters to have hit the country in recent times. The final death toll will be horrible. New Orleans may take months to rebuild. I just feel that media coverage hasn't been the best.

Your post conveyed you felt more sorry for the people who would be missing Lost

I saw a TV Guide with a small CD attached that said it had a season 2 preview, some behind-the-scenes features, a Driveshaft song, and some pictures. Is all this available (legally, of course ;) ) on line?

Xesdeeni

NO

They said the new season starts in THREE weeks, meaning that we have TWO more "double episode" Wednesdays. I bet the last Wed. of re-runs will be episodes 24 and 25.

I think you (and me ...lol) need to bit torrent 19,21 and 22. I am off to look for them right now.

For those of you missing episodes, just check out the Showcases on your DirecTivo. There they are showing the whole last season in 22 minutes.

Disclaimer: I have not yet watched it.

A Season 2 Pilot preview (very short) is available online - see a few posts back. Haven't seen the other items.

Well, yes. I saw the online version after jumping through all the annoying hoops, although I'd like to be able to download it and show it offline. From the description, the one on the CD is probably the earlier one on that site, that was completely nondescript. But what about the other stuff?

Xesdeeni

Your post conveyed you felt more sorry for the people who would be missing Lost [bold are my emphasis]
I don't know where you are getting the "more" from.

If you'd like to misinterpret or read more into what I posted, feel free. Reread what I wrote and maybe you can pull out even more. Maybe I meant that I felt sorry for those of you who misser the first time ABC pre-empted normally scheduled programming to air a Katrina special (LLWS extra innings?).

Whatever.

Can someone post a direct link to the actual preview?

So your question keeps the reply it deserves in this thread, you can see directions to see the two previews in this post of mine (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=6126981&&#post6126981) that got moved over to the spoiler thread. Apparently using spoiler tags to say that "Ethan Rom" is an anagram for "other man" is enough to get a post moved over to the other thread.

It appears that using spoiler tags will get your post moved. But post spoilers without them this thread and nothing happens. Of course spoilers belong in the other thread, and spoilers should be kept out of this thread.

So your question keeps the reply it deserves in this thread, you can see directions to see the two previews in this post of mine (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=6126981&&#post6126981) that got moved over to the spoiler thread. Apparently using spoiler tags to say that "Ethan Rom" is an anagram for "other man" is enough to get a post moved over to the other thread.

It appears that using spoiler tags will get your post moved. But post spoilers without them this thread and nothing happens. Of course spoilers belong in the other thread, and spoilers should be kept out of this thread.

After 5 PMs you still don't get it? :rolleyes:

As I explained - I do not read the spoilers. Your post was moved to the spoiler thread because it contained a spoiler (at least you posted it as such by enclosing it in spoiler tags). The fact that it was not only a non-spoiler, but contained info previously discussed here means that you should not have used spoiler tags. Whining that somebody was dumb enough to trust your judgement is downright silly.

You can't even protect people from themselves. :rolleyes:

Just a reminder (typing slowly so it is crystal clear):
Spoiler thread - has spoilers
Non-Spoiler thread - has no spoilers

If you have any doubt, post it in the spoiler thread.

I'm not whining because somebody was dumb enough to trust my judgement. I'm whining because I had to send the first PM and 4 more after that to figure out why you decided to move the post. And I still don't know why other posts with spoiler tags that also weren't spoilers (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=6045854&&#post6045854), posts with spoiler tags that did hide spoilers (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=5982416&&#post5982416), both by other people (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=5954491&&#post5954491), and ones by me (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=5955705&&#post5955705) weren't moved.

If these new rules are just going to apply to me, then PMs to me are sufficient. If they're going to apply to everyone, shouldn't everyone know?

Not everything is caught and if people would just stop posting them it would be a whole lot easier to take care of.

The majority participating within this thread have requested a place to discuss the show without spoilers. A second thread was established for those that wish to discuss them. You may participate in one, both, or neither. A little cooperation would be appreciated. If you can't figure it out, start a new thread.

If you still don't understand - don't know what else I can say.

CPanther95, if my spoiler quotes are going to cause someone any consternation, feel free to zap them into oblivion, send them to the Island maybe... :p :D

The hatch contains spoilers! We don't want them to open the hatch!!!

That was a good one... :D

Not only do some shootings take hours, but the bright lights and working conditions can often make it very hot. Ice is not good to use on a set.

Unless of course it's dry, and your name is Michael Bay. Then the sky is the limit!

(Sorry, finally just saw the last few episodes, and watched the Island the other day too :D )

You can't even protect people from themselves. :rolleyes:

Just a reminder (typing slowly so it is crystal clear):
Spoiler thread - has spoilers
Non-Spoiler thread - has no spoilers

I get it now! :D If only it was really that simple. :rolleyes:

When does Season 2 premier? I don't watch many ABC shows to catch the ads.

Sept. 21st.

2 weeks from yesterday.......

A week from Wednesday sounds better.

As of 1PM PDT...320 HRs sounds even better...

320 Home Runs!?!? It would take years for that many!

When does Season 2 premier? I don't watch many ABC shows to catch the ads.

For those who want to know down to the SECOND! Here is the Lost Clock...

LOST CLOCK (http://lost-clock.50webs.com/)
or http://lost-clock.50webs.com/

I'm surprised....not one post that Lost won the Emmy for best dramatic series? Well, I'll just sit back for the first complaint that that information wasn't enclosed in spoiler space.

For those who want to know down to the SECOND! Here is the Lost Clock...

LOST CLOCK (http://lost-clock.50webs.com/)
or http://lost-clock.50webs.com/
This clock isn't right, FWIW...

For those who want to know down to the SECOND! Here is the Lost Clock...

LOST CLOCK (http://lost-clock.50webs.com/)
or http://lost-clock.50webs.com/
51 bottles of beer on the wall.....

I'm surprised....not one post that Lost won the Emmy for best dramatic series?
Emmies schmemmies!

J.J. won an award for directing the pilot which also won the award for best editing. It wasn't even nominated for cinematography, probably because the show doesn't look good on people's 26 inch NTSC televisions.

I'm surprised....not one post that Lost won the Emmy for best dramatic series? Well, I'll just sit back for the first complaint that that information wasn't enclosed in spoiler space.

Did everyone here just assume "Lost" was the odds-on favorite to win?

I love "Deadwood", but didn't think it had a realistic chance at the win...thought "Six Feet Under" might pull out the sentimental, the-series-is-over win...and West Wing definitely got its mojo back last season (best one in a long time).

Congrats to "Lost" for winning over some tough competition...no kudos for the individual actors though, just the writers/producers/directors.

I'm looking forward to the beginning of season 2, BIG TIME.

There's going to be a recap of last season at 8PM, season premiere at 9PM, and then the season premiere of Invasion at 10PM.

There's going to be a recap of last season at 8PM, season premiere at 9PM, and then the season premiere of Invasion at 10PM.
I'm looking forward to the evening. I wonder if they will show the same recap from last season, just adding a little to it, in SD.

I am amazed nobody even mentioned the spoiler that was posted on ABC's website. I didn't read it, but supposedly somebody watched the filming and told what he saw.

Did everyone here just assume "Lost" was the odds-on favorite to win?


I did. It had the biggest buzz, and that's what the Emmy's are all about - "rewarding the buzz". I like the show so I don't have a problem with it. Deadwood is a more intellectual show, and whoever votes on the Emmy's aren't exactly intellectual people; that much is clear. I guess they figure The Sopranos is already a lock for next year and they're probably tired of giving HBO all the big awards. ;)

But Ian McShane not winning best actor was a farce; he so ruled! :mad:

I am amazed nobody even mentioned the spoiler that was posted on ABC's website. I didn't read it, but supposedly somebody watched the filming and told what he saw.
Well, this is a non-spoiler thread.

But Ian McShane not winning best actor was a farce; he so ruled! :mad:Bunch of co#Ksu$Kers...

Originally Posted by mollerup
For those who want to know down to the SECOND! Here is the Lost Clock...

LOST CLOCK
or http://lost-clock.50webs.com/


This clock isn't right, FWIW...

Doh!! I thought it was right when I first saw the link..but it is definitely off now. I'm very glad too considering it says that the new ep isn't for four more days!

Oh well, we all know it's tomorrow night and nobody can wait!!! I haven't been this psyched about a season premiere in a long time. Sure hope it lives up to the build up.

I wasn't expecting people to divulge the spoiler. I just thought that with talk of Emmy's and the Lost clock making the thread, the web site snafu would have at the least been been mentioned before now.

Yep, this thread is back up to speed. Another season of the "Cult of Locke".

Paul

I wasn't expecting people to divulge the spoiler. I just thought that with talk of Emmy's and the Lost clock making the thread, the web site snafu would have at the least been been mentioned before now.

Didn't hear about the web site snafu, but I just went through the boards there and someone had posted a spoiler describing the whole episode. I started reading it but made myself stop before I got to the part describing the hatch.

so I'm back on this thread now that S2 starts tonight. Are we going to continue to post here on S2 or start a new thread ?

I think we should just keep the same thread.

Agreed. It is a bad enough with the Lost with Spoilers and Lost No Spoilers!

Who is the moderator?

CPanther95 still has mod abilities as far as I know and he contributes a lot in this thread so we should be in good shape.

I think the vast majority have figured out the spoiler/non-spoiler definitions, so hopefully it will be a non-issue as the second season unfolds - but we'll take care of it if issues arise.

I think there should be just one thread period. If you have not watched the most recent episode then stay away from threads with "Lost" in the title. If you do not want to hear "rumors" see above.

Some people want to discuss spoilers - if we eliminated the spoiler thread, they'd have only one place to post.

AVS can handle 2 Lost threads among the half a million active threads at any given time.

This is gonna be great! Less than 6 hours to go and we can have something to discuss. I have watched the preview a few times and I'm dying to hear opinions and even though it technically isn't a spoiler to discuss a preview on ABC, I know there are folks probably avoiding the previews as well. It's going to be nice to see Kate and Shannon again ;)

Less than 6 hours to go
6 bottles of beer on the wall, 6 bottles of beer, take one down........

I definitely thought Ethan was still breathing...








:p

Woo Hoo! Season II comin' right up!


ron

Breathing, YES - Dead, also YES. :)

Breathing, YES - Dead, also YES. :)


He's not dead! I just saw him the other day. He was on a naval ship. The crew on the naval ship saw a UFO of some sort. Somehow he is being converted to an Alien human hybrid now. Government guys shot him too. He didn't die then either. :D

I'm a Lost newbie, gonna be trying to follow along this season. Will I be Lost? ;) :D

I only saw 2 repeats from last season, the one with the numbers and the finale....

Tonight is the BIG night... and from what the previews show...

It's not looking good for "Kate" down in that hole... :eek:

bgall-watch "Destination Lost" an hour before the "Lost" premiere. Program description courtesy of TitanTV.com

A "Lost" primer recaps the first season, previews the second and explores the main characters' back stories via flashbacks to their lives before the crash of Flight 815.

The article in today's USA Today about the season premiere and the Emmy win described a doozy of a scene in the jungle tonight. Totally unexpected...I can't wait.

I will be disappointed if the last season recap show on first is not in HD.

I will be disappointed if the last season recap show on first is not in HD.
My HDTivo says it is.

I watched the 22 minute narrated Season 1 summary via Tivo - not a bad way to get somewhat up to speed.

I saw that too, it was cool. A friend lent me the season 1 bonus materials dvd. That should be kinda fun.

6 bottles of beer on the wall, 6 bottles of beer, take one down........
You're only drinking one botter an hour!?! :eek:

Step it up man! :p

You're only drinking one botter an hour!?! :eek:

Step it up man! :p
I've been drinking since the 300 some odd hour mark. I'm broke now. I was gonna take a drink after every post that was a question about the definition of a spoiler, but I woulda been HAMMERED. :D

I'm a Lost newbie, gonna be trying to follow along this season. Will I be Lost? ;) :D

I only saw 2 repeats from last season, the one with the numbers and the finale....

Record tonight's episode. Then get the Season 1 DVD set ($35 @ certain stores)and have a Lost marathon this weekend to catch up. It's worth it. You'll be glad you did.

I vote for a Season 2 thread too. Can anyone think of a good reason not to?

I've been Lost free all summer , I'm Looking forward to season two but I bet we get precious little in the first show...

I second a new thread for Season 2.

Just lock this thread to eliminate confusion...

~Dan

Ok I tried to catch up somewhat by watching the recaps on abc.com

Just from that i'm pumped for the new season!! Can't believe I missed out on all that last year :(

I watched the 22 minute narrated Season 1 summary via Tivo - not a bad way to get somewhat up to speed.I happened to catch that on one sunday nearly 2 weeks ago. Excellent summary.

On the subject of a second thread, maybe it's a good idea to keep extending this one. The new season starts just 18 minutes from the end of the last one; we can just keep on talkin' here on this massive mutha' of a thread. There's lots of information, speculation, adulation, reiteration, and spoiler-constipation on this thread. Be a shame to lose it. :p

My worst fear, thunderstorm warning weather alert on my local ABC affiliate! Is it in HD? Awww forget it, they just interrupted again :( Unreal!

Is anyone else getting a screwed up HD broadcast of the re-cap? Pic keeps freezing, sound cuts in and out. OTA on WJLA-DT in DC.