Proof that the Others arent that bad afterall!

[Murgatroyd]

Slightly loving the idea that the Lost producers would never contemplate going down an avenue of fiction and implausibility. It's a laugh of a show, but I think plausible is one of the last words I'd use to describe it. How plausible is it that there were so many ex-models on the 'plane? Or that Shannon found somewhere to plug in her hair straighteners?

I hope they don't expect us to believe that Alex has inherited a set of unbreakable moral values either. My worry stems from the fact that Claire had just expressed her appreciation of Rousseau's attempting to rescue her prior to her recalling Alex's role in her rescue as well: she quite distinctly linked the two acts, and I think it fairly likely that the audience was expected to do the same. Luckily, the audience ain't that dim and instead asked why Alex had decent morals when she was brought up by kidnappers and murderers. Good for them.

There are some other good explanations coming along as well now though - the idea that Alex had a particular appreciation of the need for a mother, or that her ethics hadn't previously been tested to such an extent, or that someone quite unconnected to the Others had got to her. I could go along with one of those.

[D-Roc]

Originally Posted by Murgatroyd

Slightly loving the idea that the Lost producers would never contemplate going down an avenue of fiction and implausibility. It's a laugh of a show, but I think plausible is one of the last words I'd use to describe it. How plausible is it that there were so many ex-models on the 'plane?

Very actually. Because for one thing, there arent any ex-models on the plane..ive seen a doctor, a dentist, a millionaire etc..but nope, no models...

But dont worry, i know what you mean. But personally it's still not that implausible..i mean who fine are the lines betweem fate and coicidence? Is it that unlikely that 6 or 7 good looking people would board the same plane? Boone, Shannon, Jack, Sawyer, Ana, Kate, Claire i presume are those you class as the 'ex-models'..but to be honest 7 out of 50 is a pretty unsuprising figure. Wouldnt that be the expected figure of good-looking people to be found in any random group of 50 people?

I hope they don't expect us to believe that Alex has inherited a set of unbreakable moral values either. My worry stems from the fact that Claire had just expressed her appreciation of Rousseau's attempting to rescue her prior to her recalling Alex's role in her rescue as well: she quite distinctly linked the two acts, and I think it fairly likely that the audience was expected to do the same. Luckily, the audience ain't that dim and instead asked why Alex had decent morals when she was brought up by kidnappers and murderers. Good for them.

Thats actually a good scene reference to support your view that the creators may be watering down plausibility in favour of fiction. I suppose the audience was expected to make the same conclusion as Claire in that Alex' good deed was linked to that of her mothers by more than coicidence. As you say the Lost audience are a clever bunch and dont often take things at face value.

However, i still like to think that the creators arent expecting us to believe that Alex is 'good' because Rousseua is. (despite that Rousseau/Claire scene) Surely the writers can't expect us to believe that Roussuea herself is 'good'. Let alone expect us to buy into the idea that 'goodness' is a genetic trait rather than a result of social interaction and influence. Had Alex been taken at a later stage..perhaps when she was 10 or 12..then maybe her mother couldve influenced her development and her morals. But the fact that she was taken as a baby..with no memory of Roussuea and certianly no chance to bond with her and feed off her morals (good or bad), tells me that Alex is a product of the others. Yes the others 'may' have an ugly side to them..but since when was good 100% good. Never in my lifetime, thats for sure.

There are some other good explanations coming along as well now though - the idea that Alex had a particular appreciation of the need for a mother, or that her ethics hadn't previously been tested to such an extent, or that someone quite unconnected to the Others had got to her. I could go along with one of those.

Such explanations seem like quite a stretch to me. Certainly moreso than the Others simply not being as bad as many of us think. Im quite comfortable with affording the others more time to proove themselves before wholeheartedly doubting them.

The thing is Murg, whilst those explanations are 'possible', wouldnt any influence on Alex' 'goodness' have to be over a long period of time? I mean people (especially children) who are influenced to the extent that Alex has been must surely be the result of prolonged factors (influences)..which means that the things or people that have helped her manifest a sense of decency must surely be a mainstay in her life....indeed, they must be an other..since i doubt that the others keep her for 4 months of the year and then send her to 'grace school' for the other 8 months

My view is that the Others have morals and honour..they have principles and codes of conduct which they (apart from Zeke perhaps) adhere to. They are essentially like our losties, with good and bad traits. No-one is completely good and no-one is completely bad. We have seen one side to the others..undoubtedly there are more sides to them - a side which promotes goodness and ideals but like all such entities, good is often associated with doing bad or not so good things. Are they the good guys? They perhaps are the good guys when relative to the other island residents. Afterall, these days it could be said that the only true way to measure if something is 'good' is to compare it to other acts. Who knows who else roams this island

[Murgatroyd]

Originally Posted by KoRevo,November 09, 2006 11:05 am

Very actually. Because for one thing, there arent any ex-models on the plane..ive seen a doctor, a dentist, a millionaire etc..but nope, no models...

But dont worry, i know what you mean. But personally it's still not that implausible..i mean who fine are the lines betweem fate and coicidence? Is it that unlikely that 6 or 7 good looking people would board the same plane? Boone, Shannon, Jack, Sawyer, Ana, Kate, Claire i presume are those you class as the 'ex-models'..but to be honest 7 out of 50 is a pretty unsuprising figure. Wouldnt that be the expected figure of good-looking people to be found in any random group of 50 people?

How many of those 50 people are part of the speaking cast? Sorry, but I'm fairly certain the main cast contains so many conventionally good looking young people (as well as the above, I'd add Sun and Jin, Ms Klugh, Desmond and Sayid, and Michael's not exactly hard on the eyes either) with an unrealistic penchant for personal grooming even in such dire straits because the casting directors know that pretty people equal high ratings, not because it's a realistic cross-section. Much as I enjoy the programme and appreciate its very high points in writing terms, it can also be very hit and miss, and the people behind Lost are not flawless: I don't consider them above that sort of spin. Ergo realism is in no sense a given.

However, i still like to think that the creators arent expecting us to believe that Alex is 'good' because Rousseua is. (despite that Rousseau/Claire scene) Surely the writers can't expect us to believe that Roussuea herself is 'good'.

Yeah, it's very hard to tell with Rousseau because you need to break through the layers of, to put it politely, issues before you can tell where you are with her. In her defence, her killing sixteen people et al happened, I think, after she'd, as Sayid politely put it, 'been here a long time', and she was deluded enough - or not, as we don't yet know what this 'illness' was - to think it necessary.

And yes, maybe that kind of defence can come into play with the Others as well. Perhaps they're deluded enough to think what they're doing is necessary; perhaps they have the sickness. Perhaps they're very, very desperate. They may have some description of mitigating circumstances. But, whatever the background and whatever the ultimate goal, they think their situation entitles them to abduct and to murder. Alex seems to have concluded that her situation does not entitle her to stand by and see Claire slaughtered - that's a line of thinking that I find hard to believe came from any Other we've met thus far.

My view is that the Others have morals and honour..they have principles and codes of conduct which they (apart from Zeke perhaps) adhere to. They are essentially like our losties, with good and bad traits. No-one is completely good and no-one is completely bad. We have seen one side to the others..undoubtedly there are more sides to them - a side which promotes goodness and ideals but like all such entities, good is often associated with doing bad or not so good things. Are they the good guys? They perhaps are the good guys when relative to the other island residents.

It's arguable that downright ammoral people have traits in them that can objectively be deemed 'positive' or at least not offensive in themselves: loyalty, for example, or kindness to at least their own set. Alex may have learned a form of kindness or regard because she's observed, for example, Henry's love for Goodwin or everybody's worshipful esteem for 'the good people'. This doesn't negate the fact that the creation of 'good people' versus 'bad people' in such straightforward terms is the first step on the road to genocide (we may argue that the Others themselves cannot be deemed either wholly good or wholly bad, though it's precisely how they've divided up the world, seemingly rather arbitrarily - Claire's a dull character sometimes, but that doesn't mean she ought to be killed).

So I'm not arguing that all the Others are 100% bad or irredeemable or any such thing any more than I'd argue Sayid or Locke or Ana Lucia are 100% in the wrong, or that Jin or Claire are pure unadulterated goodness. But they have, as the Losties have too, done some appalling things, and I'll be impressed with the justification that can convince me Henry's insistence that he's a good person is anything other than a barefaced lie.

[D-Roc]

Originally Posted by Murgatroyd,November 09, 2006 12:52 pm

How many of those 50 people are part of the speaking cast? Sorry, but I'm fairly certain the main cast contains so many conventionally good looking young people (as well as the above, I'd add Sun and Jin, Ms Klugh, Desmond and Sayid, and Michael's not exactly hard on the eyes either) with an unrealistic penchant for personal grooming even in such dire straits because the casting directors know that pretty people equal high ratings, not because it's a realistic cross-section. Much as I enjoy the programme and appreciate its very high points in writing terms, it can also be very hit and miss, and the people behind Lost are not flawless: I don't consider them above that sort of spin. Ergo realism is in no sense a given.

Aha, but Desmond and Klugh werent on the plane

You have a point though, as i had forgotten about Sun (how could i? she's gorgeous!), Jin and even though he doesnt get tongues wagging i too think Mike is a decent looking chap :P

So lets say we have a plane of 50 survivors..around 10 of then are fairly hot..thats 20%..like i said, you have a point but for me 20% is about right :winky:

You're right in suggesting that the lost creators arent flawless..indeed, in an age where networks throw their weight around they have perhaps had to succombe to pressure and thus fill certain 'quotas'..hence the cute blonde and the flirty brunette :winky: (and im talking about Sawyer and Jack! ) . Seriously though, i think that the creators would want to keep things as realistic as possible..but they have to adhere to ABC's quotas and interfering..