As has been discussed in another thread, TV shows with Central Mysteries have a long history of sucking really bad, because in an effort to stay on the air, they drag their mysteries out past any hope of not shark-jumping and become silly and stupid. “The X-Files” is the perfect example of this phenomenon.
“Lost,” of course, had quite a few mysteries, all centred around - what the hell is up with the island?
As Season 2 begins, though, I get the sense that if this dramatic arc were to be played properly, we should be at least halfway to solving all the riddles. They’ve gotten into the hatch. The “others” have already attacked. There’s plans to add still more survivors to the cast. If answers are not soon forthcoming, the show ill eventually suck.
This just cannot be drawn on for five, ten years. So should they say “This season is it. It’s a 48-episode show, and the story will be over.”?
I think they can probably run three years. In Entertainment Weekly’s fall tv preview issue, Stephen King had a little article at the back about this very subject. It’s a question of hoping to Og that the writers recognize when the story is over, and don’t try to bring more crap in.
I thought Stephen King’s EW column was spot on, and I agree with youRickJay - treat LOST like an extended mini-series. Please don’t milk it beyond its ability to produce…
I suppose it all depends on where they are going…if they even have a clear idea themselves where this story is headed for. Certainly if they just try and drag things out then I would agree that a time limit needs to be in place. However, if they are constantly moving the story forward, solving this set of mysteries perhaps but bringing up new ones, or maybe just moving the story in unexpected directions…well then I would be more than happy to follow along for years, as long as it stays interesting.
Yeah, these sort of shows should certainly be limited. At least with x-files, there interesting stories that weren’t related to the arc. In Lost, everything centers around the big story.
In fact, I’ve already stopped watching. One season was enough for me. They were good episodes, but I’ve just lost interest in the arc.
It may turn out that they’re stretching things too thin, but I don’t think that it’s a certainty at this point. All the comments I’ve come across from the writers seem to indicate that they do have the over-arching plot line in mind for about a 5 season run, with at least a rough timeline for major plot points to be revealed. I do agree that with the way the show has built up the mystery of the hatch, it seems like the Lostaways should be close to finding answers to some of the major questions. However I think it’s possible for the writers to continue things or create further mysteries without making things ridiculous.
I’d compare this to the show Prison Break, where I really don’t see how they can stretch things over more than a season or so.
The OP asks the wrong thing. “Cancelled” is not the same thing as “ending.” Personally, knowing the people behind this show, it should be good for 4-5 years. But they should definately not be afraid of pulling the plug before it sours.
Frankly, they can milk the series another 4 years easily by the introduction of more Easter Eggs, cameos and coincidental forgotten meetings of the primary characters in upcoming episode flashbacks and expanding on themes foreshadowed earlier, like the mummified couple in the caves and how exactly the island was constructed. We haven’t even significantly delved into the backgrounds of some of the secondary cast members yet. They can always stoop a favorite stunt of sci-fi series: seeing flashbacks of our main cast when they were snot nosed kids.
I think 5 years would be too long, it’ll start feeling like Robert Jordan is the writer. One season to set the stage, one season to dig into the mystery, one season to discover the answers. Milk it longer than that and it will be clear that you are stringing us along. I don’t want this to become an x-files, where I felt the fool for sticking around until the end.
Don’t they try to get at least three seasons out of a series so it can hit syndication, where the money trees live? I thought that was why Enterprise limped along well past its best-by date.
I haven’t watched Lost, but from what I understand of it, the show will be hard pressed to continue too long. It seems to fall into the same sort of category as Twin Peaks which is to say it is a show with a limited lifespan. Once the central mystery is resolved than the majority of viewers will likely lose interest. The ratings for Twin Peaks nose-dived when Laura Palmers murder was solved it will most likely happen with Lost as well.
Perhaps these sort of shows should be in a new category called Limted Run Series
I dunno. I think they could solve all of the mysteries and still have an interesting show built around this set of characters trying to get off the island or creating a society thereon.
I don’t think that this rule applies anymore. Family Guy, for example, went into syndication with only three seasons of shows (before rising from the ashes).
Personally I don’t like the introduction of the hatch. I liked the isolation feeling of the first season as well as the “how do we survive?” aspects that I don’t think were fully explored.
The hatch, and its introduction of technology, distracts from both. There are still good stories because most great shows are about relationships.
Oh, and about syndication. I can’t imagine “Lost” will be a great draw for a network during its second run. I say this mainly because each episode builds on a mystery and doesn’t really stand on its own in the way, say, Friends, Seinfeld, or even NYPD Blue does. Once everyone knows what’s in the hatch, will it spoil the
fun of watching it again?
Besides, given the robust DVD sales (#1 at Amazon; did I read somewhere that “Lost, S1” has already sold 500,000 copies?), I’m not sure if the producers have to rely on syndication dollars to make them gazillionairres.
On the contrary, I think that Lost is well-written enough that it will hold up well with repeated viewing. It’s loaded with subtle little details and deferred significance. Even for the Obsessive Doper viewership, when we go back over the DVDs (or syndicated repeats, maybe) we’re going to catch little things that we’ve forgotten about because they didn’t seem important.
Most people haven’t had the benefit of participating in post-episode dissections with the smartest, hippest people on the internet (plus a few total dipsticks.) Even though we try to wring every last drop of juice out of each installment, and then suck on the pulp until our gums start to bleed, we’re missing stuff that only becomes clear when we have the advantage of later puzzle pieces. It still has repeat value for me, anyway. There are things I wouldn’t have got on the first go-round if they weren’t discussed here. How much truer would that be for folks who watched it without wading through a huge colloquium after each episode?
Besides, it’s as episodic as most series with an overall story arc. It’s not like a mini where there’s really only one story going on, broken into one- or two-hour chunks.
