Not again!

The proof will be in the pudding, so we will just have to wait and see. I am judging this show on its own merits, but I admit I DO have some concern that I/we will once again invest time and energy into caring about characters in another intriguing drama with layer upon layer of mysteries, to paraphrase Joshua.

We'll see. You're not Damon are you?

Hey! No questions by the viewers allowed! There are not going to be answers, unless Patti utters them, but we still won't know anything more than we observe ourselves without her "supernatural" insight. I like Ann Dowd's performance, just not her dialogue and current role. It seems as if her ghostly character was…

More ambiguity? We don't need any more ambiguity at this point, but I have a feeling that for as long as we watch the show, there will be LOTS of ambiguity with little or no explanation. "If anyone should know by now that there is danger in layering mysteries upon mysteries, it's Lindelof". That's not my quote, but…

Touché. A bit of both, I think.

I am. However, I liked a lot of LOST - so much it made my head hurt. I did not like the end, specifically since Lindelof told us in an interview during Season 1(when we were looking for all the Easter eggs we missed, the book titles, the recurring number sequence, the "countdown clock", the Mamas and the Papas…

LOL

I agree with most of what you said. I, too would expect that the major mysteries introduced this season and last should be resolved. If the "big reveal" remains a mystery and the rest of the story can sustain itself with some satisfaction, then that would be worthwhile. Having said that, if the story remains as much…

I think not ever explaining what caused the original 2% to "depart" is a cop out ). Why create another mysterious and unexplainable event, and now even more subsequent mysterious and unexplainable events, then create a TV drama about it, but never explain it? Just to make money? How about making art, which I realize…

I'm with you on just about everything you said, including your last sentence.

I guess I am not thinking hard enough. Can you compare and contrast the overriding events that make you feel that way?

I hated it because it was dishonest.

"sometimes it argues that faith is indeed necessary and sometimes it argues that faith is harmful." Very "Lindelof-like". Good vs. Evil; Black vs. White; God vs. The Devil, Jacob vs. The Man in Black and so on.

Is Oprah still around in this show, or did she, well …… depart?

"Whiplash" is also an influence.

I know, what's up with that? It sounds like an "in your face" to his LOST critics like me whose biggest gripe about the show was that he lied to us from day one, when he knew he couldn't deliver, then continued to do it for as long as he could, and wrote that lame ending.

Agreed, re: it's only been a couple of episodes so far this season, which is obviously a reboot of last season, and I will give it a fair chance. My point is that the show is dangerously close to reaching the point from which it can't credibly return by raising so many fascinating and amazing questions and mysteries…

I would love for them to "stick the landing", too. I guess you are more optimistic than I am that there have been "lessons learned" for a variety of reasons, and that a more "modern" tight story telling format will keep the show from "spinning out of control". I guess you are acknowledging the failings of LOST, but…

You missed my point. It's not about getting answers within "1.25 episodes" (that would actually be ten episodes, as last season ended with some pretty big questions). The trend is starting to feel familiar to me (I don't seem to be the only one in here who feels this way), and I expect that we will get few, if any…