"Genre Producers Distances Themselves From Lost" [ARTICLE]

ixoy

Found this article on zap2it detailing how other shows are learning from the mistakes of 'Lost' and providing answers to mysteries instead of dragging them out. I've left in the relevant bits:

It wasn't so long ago that every network wanted its own "Lost" and every new show wanted to mimic ABC's hit drama.

Those days are in the past.

For a variety of reasons, ratings for "Lost" are at an all-time low. Rightly or wrongly, there's a perception in the industry that Damon Lindelof and company have squandered both audience good faith and narrative momentum on three seasons of complicated mythology with nary a satisfying answer in sight.

With "Lost" in danger of becoming another cautionary tale and networks canceling serialized dramas with impunity, the race is on to establish a new paradigm, to be the show that actually supplies answers, that stands out as the anti-"Lost."

Speaking to still enthusiastic crowds at the weekend's San Francisco WonderCon, producers on freshman genre efforts "Jericho" and "Heroes" made repeated promises about resolutions and closure and giving audiences what they want. Nobody mentioned the "L"-show, but how can you not think of Jack, Sawyer, Kate and company when reading the following quotes?

"One thing we knew from the beginning is we didn't want to frustrate the audience by not paying off mysteries, by not answering questions, because we know."
.... SNIP
Jeph Loeb, a veteran comic writer and co-executive producer on NBC's "Heroes" and former supervising producer on "Lost," said that the show's early pick-up and unusual pod structure has actually provided an incentive to reach the end of certain things.

"It was very important to us, unlike a lot of serialized shows -- and I think some of that has to do with the people who came on the show from places like 'Lost' and 'Alias' -- that we want our audience to know that when Tim [Kring] started out by staying this was chapter one or volume one, that is exactly what it is," Loeb emphasized. "When we get to the end of the season, almost all the questions that were asked at the beginning of the season will be answered, so that when you start back next season, some of the cast may have changed, certain problems that were encountered in the first season will have been resolved and there'll be new sets of problems and a new plot and a new driving element that's gonna take you into this new set of stories so you don't feel like you're constantly trying to catch up with the show."

Satisfying to see that producers are learning from the problems that this show seems to making for itself. I know a good few people are growing very tired with this season and have been dropping out. I'm still in there but growing ever more irritated - it ain't clever to drag the audience this far along and it won't be rewarding if noone's there to see the payoff.

Whereas, with "Heroes" as mentioned above, it's clear the execs have a plan and that we're getting answers and seeing visible progress. Maybe "Lost" will start to learn a bit, no longer being the "it" show?

Nalz

it takes alot for people to fully leave lost, despite how annoying it is. Cant deny the facts I suppose...the ratings are down. But Im tellin ya know, I'll be across that Altantic with rage before anyone can say "4-8-15-16-23-42" if Lost ends all of a bang

Crucifix

Maybe I'm alone here, but I'm enjoying Season 3 much more than Season 2.

JLemmon

I think the number of episodes is a big problem
like 24 a year is stretching it out and we get padding then like the Hurley ep
last week and other ones like that in which the main story arc is moved on very little.
I think 12 eps is the to make and screen, like HBO shows sopranos etc..
it's gives the audience what they want quicker and with more quality.
J

Deliverance

Does anyone see lost as a creative writing process? Every episode at the start provided twists but the momemtum is being gradually lost as the series goes on. It'll end in tears that's all I can say. I think lost has to many questions and to many twists pointing to a huge answer which will be garbage at the end of the day, what's the betting that it will end suddenly with a really bad ending like they are all in purgatory or part of an experiment etc. whatever way it ends they will leave huge holes in the story or it will be just plain daft. I hope I'm wrong.

ixoy

I, and obviously an increasing number, have a horrible fear that you're right Deliverance. The final answer can't possibly satisfy and won't be able to explain all the twists/questions without giving a blanket answer (e.g. "It was all a VR experiment so all the anamolies are glitches in the matrix..").

I completely agree with JLemmon - shorter, tighter seasons would work in a plot-heavy show like this. It works superbly in "The Wire" and I'm anticipating BSG S4 to work better because of, not in spite of, a shorter season. These types of shows don't do well from inflated episodes - people watch them to see the mysteries expand but also be explained. Stalling the main story so much isn't healthy, as the viewer numbers testify to, and trying to introduce a degree of mysticism (tarot cards, mysterious tattoo artistes, etc) is just an excuse not to get on with it...

Anima

I dunno if you can have less episodes in a series like Lost. They're barely fitting in all the characters these days. How would they do it with half the amount of episodes? Its not possible. I think they just need to stop "tap dancing" as Lindelof said and get on with the main plot lines.

Season 1 was all about the main story arc with the characters stories on the side. It seems to be all about a select few characters these days which is a shame because they're not interesting.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

i personally don't care if they reveal nothing at all until the last five episodes of the last season, all I want is an assurance that they have everything planned out. So long as they are not making it up as they go along, but have a set story I will accept the annoyance of not knowing what the hell is going on.

sadly, this ain't the case with lost but maybe some new show will do it. Heroes sure as hell won't, that show is gona crash and burn something awful.

MisterAnarchy

The more I watch Lost the more I'm convinced they are making it up as they go along.
Even watching how the show was created in such a short timescale makes me more convinced.

cooker3

There must be some definate answer to this question. Have they actually planned out what is happening to the end, yes or no. Someone must know?

ixoy

cooker3 wrote:

There must be some definate answer to this question. Have they actually planned out what is happening to the end, yes or no. Someone must know?

I think they know why the people are on the island. After that, the 10000 other questions, are up for grabs (i.e. the writers are gonna have to make it up). So why there's ships and plane on the island, why there's people hiding in a cave, why the island monster is smoke and machinery, why Walt was so special, why etc etc has not been properly planned.

JLemmon

"I dunno if you can have less episodes in a series like Lost. They're barely fitting in all the characters these days. How would they do it with half the amount of episodes? Its not possible. I think they just need to stop "tap dancing" as Lindelof said and get on with the main plot lines."

It's because they have so many eps that all the characters exist, they bring in characters to pad out the season with "bottle" eps, Star Trek is famous for these bottle eps and touching on arcs at the beginning and end of season but the nature of that show allowed it. Lost doesn't, people on an island, theres' alot of people on it now.
Interesting point, David Lynch wanted season 2 of twin peaks to finish with no resoluation to any stories, just end and not give anything out only bemusement :-)
Twin Peaks season one is a great example of what a short season can deliver.

jor el

Anima wrote:

I dunno if you can have less episodes in a series like Lost. They're barely fitting in all the characters these days. How would they do it with half the amount of episodes?

Well they could cut out half (if not more) of the flashback material and save loads of time. Jacks recent Thailand flashback was pointless, the Juliette one was similarly wasteful and Sayid's this week could have been cut by half and not effected the story. They don't need these 'morals learned from past experiences' to advance the story, as they're not doing anything for it.

My biggest fear for Lost is that, if the ratings continue to plummet, that ABC will simply cut their losses and pull production before it ends. Either that or they'll give a short deadline for finishing it and we'll get a hasty finale that doesn't answer half of what went on.

I think it would definitely benefit from a shorter run, but when a single plot is the shows entire story it's hard to see how they can answer anything without answering everything and hence ending it.

I'll continue watching it till the end as I do like the show (and once loved it) and not only need to see how it ends, but also how they get there. It doesn't stop me from being annoyed with some of the stupid stuff that happens though.

Killaqueen!!!

Flashbacks have always been an essential part of Lost and nobody complained about them the first 2 seasons why should they suddenly cut back on them in the third series just because you're not enjoying it?

I agree that Jacks flashback was hopeless and I foun Juliette's quite boring but it gave us important information IMO and even when we think it doesn't it probably does!

The reason Lost is going downhill is not the amount of episodes or characters it's the episode writing. I am loving season 3 right now and I don't give a crap about getting answers, but you have to admit it's not a touch on series 1. Why? Yes it's partly because they're not answering questions - mostly it's because they're not giving satisfactory answers to older, smaller mysteries from the first 2 seasons. But it's also because they are focussing on a select few characters and insisting on giving flashbacks to them alone (and not very interesting ones at that).

I'm glad they gave Hurley a flashback in the last episode - that episode was some light entertainment which set us up for the next storyline (which better be interesting!)

It's hard to explain but in the first 2 seasons the episodes were...'fuller'. All the characters seemed important and interesting - there weren't many confusing jumps from scene to scene yet everyone got a part in that episode. Even when they focussed on scenes with only a few characters (i.e hatch scenes would origionally only have Locke, Jack etc.) it worked.

Lost has lost the mystery and magic it used to have.

But I'm still interested and loving season 3 and I have hope that all you doubters will love it by the end of the year!

Kinda went off topic there didn't I...

cooker3

I wonder for some people is the reason they seem to like it less due to them watching the first and maybe second series on dvd or on computer over 1 weekend etc while with season 3 they have to wait another week for the next episode and get impaitent and not quite into it as before.

It does make a differance imo. I just watched the whole of prison break in 2 weeks and found season 2 equally as compelling and couldn't get enough of it while when I read this forum the consensus seems to be that season 2 is nowhere as good as season 1.

Just a thought.

steveland?

Killaqueen!!! wrote:

Flashbacks have always been an essential part of Lost and nobody complained about them the first 2 seasons why should they suddenly cut back on them in the third series just because you're not enjoying it?

If the audience isn't enjoying them then that's reason enough to cut back on them.

Lost isn't exactly an arty type of show where it's the artistic integrity of the directors that drives how the information is presented. It's a widely watched TV show being produced for a network that probably call a lot of the shots on it.

It's different to a movie where the director's artistic footprint is put on it and the audience are presented with their vision of it. It's a plodding storyline that goes at a "one episode a week" pace. In a movie they don't have the convenience of being able to consult with the audience, read their reactions to episodes or discussion threads on the web. They have to just make the movie, maybe show it to a group of people to get feedback and then release it.

A TV show has about a week between airing one episode and airing the next and then a lot longer between wrapping up the shoot for one season and then progressing to the next.

The Lost execs and writers should be guaging public interpretation of the series and see that a lot of people just plain don't like the snails pace at which it moves and the pointless backstories and filler episodes that add nothing to an already bloated storyline.

Don't get me wrong though, I'm enjoying this series, a lot more than the last. It seems to be very, very, very slowly creeping back up the slope it cartwheeled down last season, but I'd still like to see some resolutions to some of the smaller mysteries (for example "Adam and Eve", the Black Rock, the horse, Libby & Hurley in the mental home, Libby with Desmond, Penny and her arctic adventurers, etc. etc. etc.) before they start introducing newer ones that are likely to drag on as long like Charlie and Desmond's "encounter".

I know the biiiig resolutions like why they're there, who are the others etc won't be answered for a long time and I'm happy with that, it wouldn't be worth watching if we were told everything straight away, but watching it at the moment is starting to become tedious and very, very unrewarding

cooker3 wrote:

It does make a differance imo. I just watched the whole of prison break in 2 weeks and found season 2 equally as compelling and couldn't get enough of it while when I read this forum the consensus seems to be that season 2 is nowhere as good as season 1.

I agree with this completely. I remember wandering around upstairs in Chapters one day a few years ago and finding the 24 Season 1 box set on VHS for some low, low price. Brought it home and failed my first year of college because I was hooked and used to come home during lunch to watch it and just not go back...

I guess though this works a lot better with a show of 24's format. You know that 24 episodes into it you're going to have all your answers and you're secure in the knowledge that there won't be loose ends (well, apart from why Jack could go on for 22 episodes after apparently breaking his rib in the second episode of the 4th series.........)

Deliverance

I think that the makers are waiting for Hurleys lottery numbers to come up in a real lottery then the big gamble will pay off and they get big headlines bigger viewing figures and big advertising revenue. Even more than that they can then go 'ooooh' we told you lost had substance, lol. The person that wins though will probably develop a complex and believe that they are cursed and will never fly again.

Or maybe they'll end the show suddenly with Hurley coming out of a diabetic induced coma after eating to many cakes at a lottery winning celebration, where he will have lost ten stone. Sounds like a happy ending to me. Any other wacky theories?
Oh yeah and I bet the real ending will be even more daft than that. A definate sudden death for lost I think.

steveland?

Very nearly happened here last year

4, 8, 5, 16, 23 and 24... there was 298 people got 5 numbers that week and only won €341 each when they'd win well over a grand for that many numbers :P

Deliverance

Ha ha nice one. So near yet so far, just like lost.

pickarooney

I have to say I'm fine with it. The strategy at least, even if the execution has been sub-par of late. The danger with answering too many questions is losing audience interest from one season to the next. This is the case, for me at least, with shows like Veronica Mars. Big mystery plot, all tied up and ready by episode 22, with the producers needing to come up with some new major hook by the beginning of the next season. I haven't even got round to watching season 3 of that yet, mostly because there's no real what-happens-next factor.

The other danger of wrapping up too neatly is that you need to, in essence, put all your eggs in one basket. Lost has a big bag of eggs, some of them rotten, some of them Fabergé, but the myriad different aspects of the show appeal to a wide range of viewers - the sort of non-linear appeal that works well in video games like Grand Theft Auto and World of Warcraft.

Lost, from the beginning, was always intended to be a character-based show, and it worked brilliantly, with its flashbacks and forced interaction between people from various backgrounds. The mysteries and questions were not the most essential element in bringing in viewers - they piqued interest, but everyone really kept coming back for the characters. The problem now is really that the more popular characters are hogging the screen, we know enough about them (and Kate/Jack/Sawyer never had the most interesting flashbacks to begin with) and are now expecting them to go do something on the island to keep us enthralled. Conversely, previous crowd favourite Locke is barely getting any screen time and has become an irritating caricature, a far cry from his is-he-isn't-he, visionary or misguided fool persona of series one. And who doesn't want Charlie to just die already now?
It was an extremely bad idea, IMHO, to bring in a set of new characters and slaughter them one by one. This is where the second series shot series three in the foot. We got no time to get interested in Ana-Lucia, Libby, Eko before they were worm-food so what was left for us but the action which was still continung at its normal pace, or even quicker as of late, but which was now expected to carry the show.

We've settled into a pattern of a couple of weeks of hot Kate/Sawyer/Jack action followed by a comedy cameo from Locke the über-tool and Hurley organising a frisbee match, to the extent that viewers are finding themselves polarised between the action-junkies wanting the good-looking losties to save the day and solve the riddles and the old-school viewers who just want to know more about what makes John and Sayeed tick.

Hopefully there won't be (m)any new characters brought in and we can start enjoying the old ones again. For all I care they can give us fifty more unanswered questions about the island if the character development goes back to its strong beginnings.