WandererInFog
New member
Ironically, the EW interview where Abrams and Lindelhof mention the writers bible they developed before the show is one being conducted by Stephen King, where they talk about how his style of developing stories heavily influenced how they worked on Lost.
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,1562722,00.html
Abrams: It was a network saying, ''We want a show about people who survive a plane crash, and we want the final product in 12 weeks.'' Damon and I, who had never met until ABC brought us together, began writing an outline. After five days, there was one. They greenlit it, and we started writing scenes just to cast the thing. We would meet actors. We would write characters based on the actors, and it went from there. During the period of preproduction, production, and postproduction, we worked on a bible of the series. Ideas have fallen by the wayside or haven't happened; some ideas actually have. But for the most part, it was a leap of faith. It was beginning something that had a lot of big ideas, and believing in an ending.
King: That's the way I work. I just start writing a story. It doesn't make any f---ing sense to me.
Abrams: I'm so happy to hear you say that! A leap of faith — that, to me, is the essence of the show. Just embrace the absolutely over-the-top absurd nature of the story. Because when that kind of story is told with respect for the characters, the story, and the audience, you'll buy into it. That's my favorite thing about your work. You could argue that it's pulp stuff, but told with conviction.
King: That's the way I work. I just start writing a story. It doesn't make any f---ing sense to me.
Abrams: I'm so happy to hear you say that! A leap of faith — that, to me, is the essence of the show. Just embrace the absolutely over-the-top absurd nature of the story. Because when that kind of story is told with respect for the characters, the story, and the audience, you'll buy into it. That's my favorite thing about your work. You could argue that it's pulp stuff, but told with conviction.
Yes, there was writer's bible as they started writing the show, but it started falling by the wayside almost immediately, starting with the pilot. They had actually originally intended, for example, to kill of Jack Shephard at the end of the pilot episode:
Abrams: Do you ever make big shifts in your writing, Stephen? Or do you map out enough so you kind of know what you're going to be doing? Because in our show, Kate wasn't originally going to be ''the convict,'' and Jack was supposed to die.
Another example of the story changing on them based on how things were received by the fans:
Lindelof: My father was into the Illuminati and the number 23, so he was a big reader of Robert Anton Wilson. So there was some intentionality behind it, but we had no idea, no grand design behind the Numbers. But suddenly, the No. 1 question stopped being ''What is the Monster?'' and went to being ''What do the Numbers mean?'' This isn't to say that the Numbers don't mean anything. We just had no idea it had this potential to get totally out of control.
Knight said:
Because I don't actually see it, in a general sense, as a criticism of the show. The fact they've been able to reach back and tie things together in ways they didn't initially envision actually represent some pretty adept show running. This is something that's pretty common to any serialized drama from TV shows to comics to novels, and the writers/producers of Lost have handled far more adeptly than most.
I actually find it interesting that people who are watching the show all in one big run do see it as having a great deal of continuity, whereas having watched for years along with reading analysis of the show along with interviews from the writers/producers, I tend to see more seams.
