its
― cutty, Monday, 18 May 2009 13:48 (fifteen years ago) link
via former ilxor gradski http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b226/rlmoonyk/21n012t.gif
― Get a life you owned motherfuckers. (ice cr?m), Wednesday, 20 May 2009 01:21 (fifteen years ago) link
LOOOOOOOOOOOL
― cutty, Wednesday, 20 May 2009 01:24 (fifteen years ago) link
locke & ben especially hearty real life lols
― mermaphrodite (nickalicious), Wednesday, 20 May 2009 07:00 (fifteen years ago) link
Smokey's presence is a good slow-burn lol
― SQUIRREL WITH A PEOPLE FACE (╓abies), Wednesday, 20 May 2009 07:05 (fifteen years ago) link
what kills me is that's just how john locke dresses (dressed?)
― excuse me coop while i try my hand at a little counter esperanto (nickalicious), Wednesday, 20 May 2009 07:16 (fifteen years ago) link
this one kills me too
http://mcdorky.net/lj/gifs/lost-jackisgob.gif
― Roz, Wednesday, 20 May 2009 07:32 (fifteen years ago) link
Bloopers and continuity errors During Kate's flashback to the 1980s, bottles of Malibu Tropical Banana and Absolut 100 Black can be seen on the shelf. Both products were not introduced until 2007.
When you're fucking around with time travel & multiple timeline stories you really should try to avoid shit like this.
― go and put your f'kin torn jeans on (onimo), Wednesday, 20 May 2009 11:48 (fifteen years ago) link
eh. the biggest offense was juliet's flashback anachronism. what the fuck were they thinking?
― cutty, Wednesday, 20 May 2009 11:55 (fifteen years ago) link
Yeah, same with that one. It was like they couldn't be arsed setting up another vintage looking set.
― go and put your f'kin torn jeans on (onimo), Wednesday, 20 May 2009 12:03 (fifteen years ago) link
or setting up a fuckin vintage hairstyle?
― cutty, Wednesday, 20 May 2009 12:19 (fifteen years ago) link
I definitely thought it looked too contemporary, but I'm not sure I could pinpoint how.
― Bianca Jagger (jaymc), Wednesday, 20 May 2009 12:44 (fifteen years ago) link
clearly Juliet is from the future. And so is her sister. And..ok that doesn't work.
― scottpl, Wednesday, 20 May 2009 12:49 (fifteen years ago) link
Couldn't pinpoint how? I'd say that pretty much everything about the scene, from the interior design of the home to the way people were dressed, was pretty 00's.
― mh, Wednesday, 20 May 2009 13:30 (fifteen years ago) link
That flashback was so WTF with regard to design/context that I still suspect it wasn't accidental.
― Johnny Fever, Wednesday, 20 May 2009 13:34 (fifteen years ago) link
That whole flashback was pretty much the dictionary definition of "half-arsed". It's almost like they didn't bother because they knew everyone would just go "fuck off" and fast forward through it/go and put the kettle on.
― Enormous Epic (Matt DC), Wednesday, 20 May 2009 13:36 (fifteen years ago) link
I fast forwarded jin/sun's wedding vows.
― Local Garda, Wednesday, 20 May 2009 13:39 (fifteen years ago) link
I'd say that pretty much everything about the scene, from the interior design of the home to the way people were dressed, was pretty 00's.
Well, yeah, that's my point, though. There was nothing in particular I could single out and say, with certainty, "that blouse would never have been worn in the '70s." Perhaps I need to review a screencap.
― Bianca Jagger (jaymc), Wednesday, 20 May 2009 13:47 (fifteen years ago) link
nothing in particular? everything about the scene/set/character design was wrong.
― cutty, Wednesday, 20 May 2009 13:52 (fifteen years ago) link
it infuriated me even more on 2nd viewing
Duh everyone knows if a scene takes place in the 1970s, people need to have afros, bellbottom jeans and mood rings and be sitting in a den with fake wood panelling and a fucking Twister board on the floor.
― congratulations (n/a), Wednesday, 20 May 2009 13:54 (fifteen years ago) link
http://i39.tinypic.com/kbr3g5.jpg
― Bianca Jagger (jaymc), Wednesday, 20 May 2009 13:55 (fifteen years ago) link
Artwork should be Farrah Fawcett poster, shell should be a pet rock.
― congratulations (n/a), Wednesday, 20 May 2009 13:57 (fifteen years ago) link
Couch should be a beanbag chair, sticks in a vase should be a lava lamp.
― congratulations (n/a), Wednesday, 20 May 2009 13:58 (fifteen years ago) link
yay, juliet died.
― #/.'#/'@ilikecats (g-kit), Wednesday, 20 May 2009 13:58 (fifteen years ago) link
Mom should be Donna, Dad should be Eric.
http://i39.tinypic.com/347jko2.jpg
― Bianca Jagger (jaymc), Wednesday, 20 May 2009 13:58 (fifteen years ago) link
http://i42.tinypic.com/104ngyb.jpg
― Bianca Jagger (jaymc), Wednesday, 20 May 2009 14:01 (fifteen years ago) link
Everyone knows ottomans weren't invented until 1988, what a boner.
― congratulations (n/a), Wednesday, 20 May 2009 14:08 (fifteen years ago) link
i think it's the camera/lighting. period stuff is usually given a bit of a tint.
― s1ocki, Wednesday, 20 May 2009 14:14 (fifteen years ago) link
back when the whole world was kodachromed
― congratulations (n/a), Wednesday, 20 May 2009 14:14 (fifteen years ago) link
basically! old stuff is always a bit yellowish, to make it seem like a faded photo.
― s1ocki, Wednesday, 20 May 2009 14:15 (fifteen years ago) link
seriously are n/a and jaymc defending this scene?
― cutty, Wednesday, 20 May 2009 14:39 (fifteen years ago) link
no i think jaymc is just trying to figure out WHY it seems new. it is kind of interesting to unpack what specifically makes a scene look old.
― s1ocki, Wednesday, 20 May 2009 14:41 (fifteen years ago) link
No, I'm making fun of you.
― congratulations (n/a), Wednesday, 20 May 2009 14:41 (fifteen years ago) link
wait, of me?
― s1ocki, Wednesday, 20 May 2009 14:42 (fifteen years ago) link
if you didn't detect anachronisms in that scene then you are fucking idiot
― cutty, Wednesday, 20 May 2009 14:42 (fifteen years ago) link
― s1ocki, Wednesday, May 20, 2009 9:42 AM (46 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
Naw.
― congratulations (n/a), Wednesday, 20 May 2009 14:43 (fifteen years ago) link
lol YOU ARE FUCKING IDIOT.
― s1ocki, Wednesday, 20 May 2009 14:43 (fifteen years ago) link
;)
― cutty, Wednesday, 20 May 2009 14:44 (fifteen years ago) link
― cutty, Wednesday, May 20, 2009 9:42 AM (35 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
Give some specifics dude, because everything in those pics looks like stuff that could have existed in the '70's. I agree it seems vaguely "wrong" but on the other hand I'm not seeing anything definitely anachronistic.
― congratulations (n/a), Wednesday, 20 May 2009 14:45 (fifteen years ago) link
guys I know it's hard but we'll get through these long months without Lost by sticking together and analyzing flashback wigs
I for one don't feel those branches-as-decor were very 70s, to me. But I wasn't around in the 70s..
― she started dancing to that (Finefinemusic), Wednesday, 20 May 2009 14:45 (fifteen years ago) link
the lady's top really doesn't look '70s.
― s1ocki, Wednesday, 20 May 2009 14:46 (fifteen years ago) link
http://forum.lostpedia.com/juliets-flashback-really-flash-forward-t36977.html?s=7bcbe7d03d6f14166391a1d76bcade54&p=1633805
― cutty, Wednesday, 20 May 2009 14:46 (fifteen years ago) link
― she started dancing to that (Finefinemusic), Wednesday, May 20, 2009 9:45 AM (12 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
But this is what I'm talking about. Maybe "branches as decor" wasn't a "thing" in the 70s but there was nothing stopping someone from getting branches and using them as decor.
― congratulations (n/a), Wednesday, 20 May 2009 14:46 (fifteen years ago) link
the husband and wife in particular, the hairstyle, the children's clothing, everything is wrong. nothing is brown or orange, like it should be in the 70's.
Sista Stranded Join Date: Feb 2009Posts: 42
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This really stood out to me. I am 30. I assumed Juliet is older than me. This set does NOT look like anything from the late 70s or early 80s, which is when Juliet would've been this age, in my opinion. Especially the parents' clothes and hairstyles, as someone else pointed out.
That whole scene was just weird. I hope there was a point to it; otherwise this is a glaring and distracting anachronism. The whole thing felt really "off" to me - I didn't like it.
SISTA!
― cutty, Wednesday, 20 May 2009 14:49 (fifteen years ago) link
The slipcovers on the couches. No such thing, in that form anyway, existed in the 1970s.
― Johnny Fever, Wednesday, 20 May 2009 14:49 (fifteen years ago) link
Uh so basically you're saying it's "wrong" because there aren't enough obvious '70s signifiers? Also I'm not sure why I'm the fucking idiot when you don't understand what "specific" means.
― congratulations (n/a), Wednesday, 20 May 2009 14:49 (fifteen years ago) link
THE HAIRSTYLES AND THE CLOTHES. I SAID IT. SPECIFIC?
― cutty, Wednesday, 20 May 2009 14:52 (fifteen years ago) link