The great TV show Lost may already have begun fading a bit from the cultural waters after its much-discussed finale, but it’s been on my mind a lot lately. I thought I’d take a slight detour from our normal topics into the world of television and culture. (Spoilers below and all that, but seriously, you’ve had enough time now.)
The first season of Lost in 2004 was a tour de force – it combined the chills and thrills of classic suspense and sci-fi television with the promise of deeper characters with relevant and complex backstories. While HBO had been experimenting with more intelligent TV and the DVD/Tivo era was affording more narrative possibilities for serial shows, Lost was really unlike anything that had been attempted on network television.
In case you have never seen the show, it revolved around castaways who crashed on an extremely mysterious tropical island with a strange smoke monster.
I loved the Walt!!! out of this show. The elements that elevated it above X-Files meets Gilligan’s Island were twofold:
1. The flashbacks, which interwove the events on the island with the mysteriously intertwined back-stories of the characters.
2. The mysteries, which layered upon further layers and folded back on each other like a Matryoshka doll wrapped in a seashell buried in quicksand on a planet where EVERYTHING IS MINDBENDING. There is a massive website devoted to keeping it all straight.
But if there was one signature element of the show, above all else it was the WTF moments: strange, unexpected, thrilling, out-of-nowhere moments that added to the mystery and blew our minds. Whether it was the discovery of a hatch on the island, then a light coming through the hatch, other people on the island…. all the way to time travel and immortality, these WTF moments were the show’s fuel. But not all of the mysteries ended up being solved.
The High Price of WTF
Introducing a shocking mystery in a TV show (or any story) is kind of like borrowing from the future – the viewer gets a jolt of excitement in the short term with the expectation that they’re going to be repaid with an explanation down the line. When a polar bear comes running through the forest on a tropical island, you naturally think, “WTF!! How did that get there!!” And then you keep watching/reading until you’re told how it got there.
Thus, the price of a WTF moment is that the storyteller owes you an explanation. They’ve borrowed, narratively, from the future.
But throughout the entire run of Lost, just when it looked like the characters were on the cusp of figuring out something meaningful and giving the viewers some answers, BOOM, the writers hit the audience with another mystery. Jacob! Time travel! Russian with an eyepatch! Walt is soaking wet! Ben is good! Evil! Good! Evil! Good! Meek! Giant statue with four toes! OMG the island is at the bottom of the ocean!
The writers spun mysteries upon mysteries upon mysteries, all the while maintaining the illusion that there was a master plan, that they had everything under control, that there was an explanation for it all, and the mystery would be solved in the end. Pretty soon the number of mysteries had exploded and snowballed to the point that I was tuning in just to see how in the world they were going to explain it all.
And when the debt came due in the final season, rather than spend the precious final episodes tying things together and giving the viewers the explanations they had been craving for six years, what did they do? Introduced further mysteries!!! The “flash sideways”, and a light at the center of the island with a giant stone cork.
In the end of the show: sure, there were some nominal explanations involving beams of light and chosen ones and saving the world and all the rest, but at the very end the characters were literally left in church, staring at a white light, waiting to escape purgatory via multi-faith divine intervention.
Basically: throughout the show, the writers kept borrowing against the future. When in doubt they introduced another mystery. And when the bill came due and it was time to give the viewers all of the explanations they expected? Well, the writers couldn’t quite pay, as this College Humor video demonstrates all too well.
Not that I needed to know who built the four-toed statue in order to still love the show. (Okay, it kind of would have been nice to know who built the four-toed statue.)
A Show for Our Times?
And in that sense, what show better encapsulated the aughts, the decade when we overspent and overextended ourselves, and when the bill came due found ourselves hoping for a miracle? And ya know, at the close of this decade does it not feel a bit like Purgatory, what with a lingering recession and a bunch of oil in the Gulf of Mexico?
Smoke monster? Meet the Great Recession.
Lost encapsulated the aughts: a great deal of running around with the sense that something ominous was lurking in the forest until it all caught up with us and we ended up hoping for a miracle. It was the decade when America, individually and collectively, lived for the present at the expense of the future and is now left hoping for divine intervention, which unfortunately hasn’t yet arrived. (Still waiting, Chuck Norris! I thought you had this under control!!!).
People, we are all Oceanic Flight 815.
Now if I could just get this polar bear out of my office…
Wow. Can I be Jack? He's always been my favorite. Although, I actually want to end up with Kate, not just get a final "I love you," before I go off to die.
So what would you rather have, a hundred WTF! moments with many of them not being resolved, or a handful or WTF! moments that find their resolution?
Even if LOST didn't find the resolution you were expecting, you can't say it wasn't a great ride.
And if another show ever came along with as many WTF! moments, you KNOW you'd watch, because it makes for great entertainment.
Just the title of this post is golden. And I managed to not feel completely disappointed by the finale. I notice that I've practically forgotten to care about the Losties, though, and I think if there had been more answers I'd still think of them. I like the idea of not owing my readers this much when I write The End.
Very insightful. I love the first comment, too: "if only they could have passed a Lost Bailout". This really is the era of coming to grips with the mess we've made.
This is one of the things that annoys me most in fiction. IF YOU CAN'T BACK IT UP, STOP TRYING TO BE SO CLEVER. Ergh.
Arthur Conan Doyle came up with mind-bender after mind-bender, and ever time there was a devious, intricate solution that gave the reader a thrill at the end when they found out how it all REALLY went down.
Lost is what happens when some punk kid from the MTV generation decides he can do that too… well he CAN'T. Go do your homework, go get an education, go figure out what it all really MEANS, and THEN write the story.
Yes, Lost is a fine metaphor for the decade. How I loved the mystery and freshness of the first two seasons. I had trust, then, that all would eventually be revealed and was willing to settle in for a long thrilling ride.
Then, somewhere, I got an impression that that there was no master plan. In fact no plan at all. Sensationalism — yes, that's what the writers were after. Keep the buzz going, any way possible, no matter who/what had to appear, disappear, die or return from the dead.
The sudden demise of Mr. Eko, after a wonderful story of his life, a story that made me care for the character, angered me so much I ended my romance with Lost.
How aptly named this show was — this viewer spent much time lost and needed to come out of the wilderness.
Didn't miss it, either.
I did tape the grand finale for old time's sake. May even watch it one day.
It's why I gave up watching long, long before the end.
You need to redeem some promises part way through a story or your viewer/reader will start to believe that you don't know what you're doing.
That's what this viewer started believing, anyway, and it looks like I was right.
Of course there was no master plan. Not in the beginning, at least.
If the entire show had been set up with a set number of seasons from episode one, it would have been a different story.
LOST was written as a serial, like nearly every TV show ever written. For the first three seasons, the writers were just trying to tell one hour of entertaining story at a time, and keep the viewers coming back as long as they could, possibly for years. They were stretching out a story, not writing to an end point. They also can't go back and edit earlier episodes when something falls (or doesn't) fall into place later in the series.
Was LOST perfect? No. It was experimental, and might open the door to a future show that will be better designed as a complete story from the beginning.
It was also the last scripted show I've had any interest in watching.
I've always felt the comparable cultural event to LOST was Harry Potter, another long running series with a cast of thousands and seemingly endless offerings of mystery after conundrum after puzzlement.
The difference between the two was that Rowling was quite open about couching Harry Potter in the traditional hero's journey, whereas the LOST authors were so enamored with the "never quite seen that before, have you?" vibe of the show that they sought out any and every occasion to subvert our expectations.
As a result, they had to resort to pablum for an ending they didn't really earn. LOST was always at its best when it was just telling the story, but the story they ended up telling wasn't a satisfying payoff to what had come before, whereas in Harry Potter, you really felt like you'd been taken from A to B to C.
But perhaps in 10 years that's what people will remember about LOST. That it never conformed to our expectations of what a story should do and followed its own star. I'm just not sure this sort of open-endedness is satisfying in science fiction/fantasy…
Never seen Lost but some Jodi Picoult books, for example, give you a WTF moment right at the end. A friend of mine said she threw a recent Picoult book across the room in anger when she read the unrealistic twist at the end.
So, in novels you lead the reader toward a certain expectation. You'd better deliver it at the end.
The high price of WTF?
Gawd, you crack me up.
Great post.
Awesome post, especially since I just watch episode 1 of Season 2 (thank you instant streaming from Netflix!) I like jumping on the bandwagon late. My hubs and I just watched the Sopranos from start to finish. I'm enjoying the show, but some things just aren't working for me. I think I've been watching too much HBO. The symbolism is a little heavy-handed for my taste and I'm sensitive to that. I could never get into Jodi Picoult for that very reason. Lost takes itself a little too seriously.
However, I think the character back stories are incredible. They're almost more interesting than the "real time" narrative.
I love that you found a subtext within the subtext. I've always loved the idea that stories and characters have a life and meaning of their own long after the creator sets them free. Forget what the author intended–what does it actually mean?
I think the fact that you're still thinking about it and people are still talking about it proves the writers accomplished something great. Good or bad, perfect or not, the story touched a lot of people.
Never watched "Lost" and now I'm glad I didn't. I hate having a complex series of interesting things built up without tying them off. One reason The Count of Monte Cristo is my "plot example" book is his incredible ability to tie his many diversive strings into a cohesive whole.
I love tidy. I don't mind having a few unanswered questions. I don't mind a few little mysteries, especially if I know follow-ons will be coming, but I want to feel the end of a book or movie or series is finished, that I feel sated.
What you describe, however successful it has been, is cheating to me. I don't like to be cheated and sure don't want my readers to feel that way.
Nathan, you scare me. Your analysis makes a hell of a lot more sense the series ever did.
Too many questions and not nearly enough payout for this viewer. Plus I couldn't care about the characters. I gave up on it years ago.
Every time I watched Lost, it actually made me angry! Here's one thing they made clear at the end – the writers were just winging it the whole way!
Excellent post, Nathan. It was indeed an extremely frustrating show.
I'm going with Nathan on the never-been-done-before-on-TV. Twin Peaks was great as was Buffy, but they bore little resemblance to Lost. They both did things that hadn't been done on TV before.
Anyhow, I'd argue that the Lost ending's problems were more structural, not so much a WTF-debt problem. As others have noted, there weren't many questions they didn't answer. And having read some compelling essays on what Cuse & Lindelof intended to get across with the ending, it makes intellectual sense. It just didn't feel like an adequate ending. Emotionally, it resolved Jack, but not so much the others. It also felt like it tied up the issues of the last season, but not so much the other seasons (though I'd argue that most issues were addressed, it just didn't feel satisfying).
I, uh, missed the boat on LOST. I've never seen an entire episode!
I've recommended this before, but for a show that captures the post-Aught "Bills are DUE NOW!" gestalt, I suggest AMC's "BREAKING BAD." Only three seasons in, so easy to catch up. Try to watch it in order.
The second season is maybe not as spectacular as the first, but it's still great. The third season was absolutely amazing.
@other lisa on Breaking Bad: that show is excellent. AMC has the best programming on network TV for my money.
My wife and I loved Lost. The first season was one of the best ever in television history. We watched the first five seasons straight through on DVD, which was really the way to do it.
I felt sure they wouldn't answer every mystery, but I got invested in the characters in a way I don't normally do in a television drama. There were very big themes at work in Lost, and I think I was more interested in seeing how those played out instead of whether every mystery was solved. Faith vs reason, good vs evil, sacrifice vs self-interest. In Lost, these themes played out on a huge, sprawling canvas in a way you don't see on typical dramas.
What was your favorite episode??
I'm looking for the comments about how Lost and the narrative price of eyeblink spectacle and surprise coincidence what the's influence and reflect existence in this prospecting for post Postmodern chaos aftermath outcomes era. Hmm.
Lost, for me, makes a commentary challenging creative perceptions and expectations. Pits tradition and convention against questioning authority and challenging absolutes, tests predertimation againts free will and vice versa, and, like Postmodernism, raises more questions than it answers.
I did expect a finale that left a lot of major-minor complications hanging, but the main story arc complication is answered. Who will or won't survive the island.
I thought Lost was basically garbage after the first few episodes, and gave up during the first season. It was clear that the writers had no real plan and were pulling the early-seasons-X-Files approach of "Do weird stuff, do more weird stuff."
Unfortunately, if you stripped out the incoherent weird stuff, the rest of the show was Survivor.
Clearly, my opinion and all that, but I was almost immediately disappointed by a show that took a pretty nifty high concept and some fun elements of execution (the flashbacks especially) and trashed it all right away.
Or, to go with the language Nathan's original post, it seemed to me that the writers weren't even borrowing against the future – they were just forging checks using a photocopier.
(Which is also too bad, as there were a lot of writers I like working on that show.)
Awesome post Dude.
I was focusing on the same issues in the tighter confines of The Sopranos ending.People still want the writers verdict on whether Tony got blasted in the head at the "Fade To Black" moment.
Those two 2000 Something shows are true time capsules of our culture because in the end we decide which ending is the true ending. I liked the way you tied all the social currents together in that post.
In Sopranos there was the musical selections in the final episode that were a mini sub script encapsulating the ending. Plus a man possible assassin in a "Members Only" jacket; a troop leader with three "Cub Scouts" two black youths (infinite circuit symbol); a trucker with a USA cap on and finally the statements that influence the viewers decision. Tony says, "It was Carlo, he's going to testify." and Carmelo says "Meadow…(near infinity futures) went to the Doctor to get some new birth control." So it all depends on whether Carlo testified and Meadow got her new birth control whether the show closed as just another day in the life of a gangster playing out the roles of god and the devil to suit his circumstances or whether his dream came crashing down in one final "Fade To Black" moment. LOST was the antithesis a "Fade To White" moment with Desmond playing the role of god and devil to suit his circumstances letting go of all the connections he could. I'm with Ben at this point who says, "I still have things to take care of here." Great Post! Keeping it in my style box folder as succinct overarching commentary.
Awesome post Dude.
I was focusing on the same issues in the tighter confines of The Sopranos ending.People still want the writers verdict on whether Tony got blasted in the head at the "Fade To Black" moment.
Those two 2000 Something shows are true time capsules of our culture because in the end we decide which ending is the true ending. I liked the way you tied all the social currents together in that post.
In Sopranos there was the musical selections in the final episode that were a mini sub script encapsulating the ending. Plus a man possible assassin in a "Members Only" jacket; a troop leader with three "Cub Scouts" two black youths (infinite circuit symbol); a trucker with a USA cap on and finally the statements that influence the viewers decision. Tony says, "It was Carlo, he's going to testify." and Carmelo says "Meadow…(near infinity futures) went to the Doctor to get some new birth control." So it all depends on whether Carlo testified and Meadow got her new birth control whether the show closed as just another day in the life of a gangster playing out the roles of god and the devil to suit his circumstances or whether his dream came crashing down in one final "Fade To Black" moment. LOST was the antithesis a "Fade To White" moment with Desmond playing the role of god and devil to suit his circumstances letting go of all the connections he could. I'm with Ben at this point who says, "I still have things to take care of here." Great Post! Keeping it in my style box folder as succinct overarching commentary.
google jammed me please delete duplicate
I am glad I never really got into the show. I get irritated when things aren't really explained. But that's just me 😛
I love that people are still talking about Lost! I had a great deal of fun blogging about what I thought worked and didn't work after the finale, and I think you hit it on the head with Lost borrowing from the future (and to turn it into an economic metaphor? Genius!). I thought the main problem was that the creators had the beginning mapped out and an idea for the end, but didn't know how long the middle would be. As a result, they kept adding things in to keep the viewers interested and up the sense of mystery that addicted so many of us, and then at the end had too many loose ends to tie up. They were left scrambling. (However, I do think they answered more than most people give them credit for doing, but some of the explanations are just heavily implied rather than directly stated.) The good thing for us writers is that most of us don't publish stories in serial format, so we can plot out and make sure to tie everything up beforehand.
Yeah, my wife was sure the writers had everything planned from the get go and would tie things up…. I laughed and told her they didn't have a freakin' clue (maybe some big pic things, but otherwise they're just writing one scene at a time). Great show for suspense/mystery, but almost impossible not to be letdown in some regard.
Did you watch Alias? It prepped me for greatness, minus answers. 😀
Brilliant analysis, Mr. B!! The financial world calls it "the lost decade" for entirely different reasons–most investments ended up with growth at zero–but you've shown how "Lost" embodied the decade in all its aspects.
"Mysteries are borrowing from the future." Superb line.
I think the best "WTF moments" are those that have been foreshadowed so they make sense as they occur and yet still manage to be shocking anyway.
In this way I guarantee you that HBO's A Game Of Thrones will be far superior to Lost. Guarantee it.
Oh it's been way more than a decade that America has been borrowing against its future. I remember clearly, back in the day, in the 80's when Walter Mondale was preaching about this during the election and sounding the alarm. You see what happened to him. He's probably sitting somewhere saying "I tried to warn you people."
As for Lost, I never watched the show and I'm glad I didn't. It's kind of funny how the writers essentially screwed the audience over. They pretty much played everyone for suckers and wrote such convoluted, nonsensical plot lines, that they gave up and knew all along they were going to leave people hanging.
It's really not funny though. They knew that by the time everyone found out they'd been had, the show would be canceled and they'd get away unscathed…sounds like another group we all know…familiar with Wall Street?…It just never ends.
There must be something in the air or water because this topic seems to be popping up all over the place lately, even on fanboards for TV shows that are nothing like LOST at all.
I'm not so sure there are as many questions left open as people think there are. Most of the show was based on assumptions that turned out to be half-truths at best, and I think that was the point. Everyone was so certain they knew THE truth. Each character put his/her faith in something. All those somethings proved fallible.
Jacob's psycho foster mom believed he was the "special" one, to the detriment of MIB; she was wrong.
Richard believed that Jacob had all the answers and an almost omnipotent purpose; he was wrong. He was also wrong about John Locke.
The DI believed that the island was the key to hippie happiness in a jungle commune; they were wrong.
Locke believed his destiny was to follow the will of the island to some great end; he was wrong.
Desmond believed that his jumping into the EM field would save the universe and get him to his happily ever after with Penny; he was wrong.
Sayid and Sawyer believed themselves beyond redemption; they were wrong.
Claire believed she'd followed her father; she was wrong.
The Others believed they were the good guys and everything they did was justified by the end; they were wrong.
Hurley believed bad things wouldn't happen to good people just on principle of it being out of balance; he was wrong.
Kate and Jack were often wrong about many things.
Even the audience put their faith in the assumption that the questions would all be answered, and they were – IF you don't mind taking "there are no correct answers, only the answers that are correct for you" as an answer.
Yesterday you posted a question about literary fiction's place in the world, and I think it sort of applies to LOST. LOST by far is the most "literary" television show I have ever come across. The narrative strategies used in this series alone could give a narratologist plenty to ponder. I wrote a paper in my capstone class about Ricouer's theory of time in literature and how it plays out in the show.
Did it answer everything? Of course not. That's what makes it so damn great. That's what makes it "literary". It has become a narrative that can be analyzed and analyzed—what does this show say about media narratives? what does this show say about story time and discourse time? what does this show say about us as readers/viewers.
Was it ambiguous in its ending? sure. that's my fav part. My favorite books play with similar ideas of ambiguity and the uncanny.
and I doubt we'll see another show like this for a long time.
Bravo! Standing ovation! I still love it.
The movie INCEPTION is another case in point. Nice post, Master Bransford!
This blog, it seems to me, is directly related to the blog from the day before.
This business of creating suspense for the sake of creating suspense is something that's virtually non-existent in literary fiction.
I don't think it's a coincidence that as literary fiction declines in popularity, writers are resorting to using one of the oldest tricks in the book.
Did Hemingway, or Conrad, or Fitzgerald, ever stoop so low as to create suspense for the sake of creating suspense – no they did not.
Arguably, this is all that Dan Brown ever does. Almost every chapter of his will end in false suspense. The characters will be breaking into a museum, or something, in the middle of the night, and suddenly a shadow will appear on the wall, forcing the characters to duck into cover. A primitive part of you will want to know what the shadow is all about, but Brown, instead of quenching your thirst, so to speak, will shift the plot in the next chapter so that you'll momentarily forget about the shadow on the wall.
He'll end this new chapter with more suspense, and then, in the next chapter, return to the previous characters and the shadow on the wall.
By this time, you're more focused on the new suspense he's created – therefore when you learn that the shadow on the wall belongs to the night custodian you're less inclined to feel cheated.
But actually, this is what happens when you allow literary agents to have so much power in publishing. When the bottom line is ALWAYS about money… money, money, money… then it's highly likely that the only books that will ever get published will be the ones that appeal to the masses. The simple fact is that the vast majority of people just can't read. If all that the people in publishing care about is making money then the rest of us, I'm afraid to say, are going to end up living in a Dan Brown world, whether we want to or not.
Consequently, there will be no more Hemingways, or Conrads, or Fitzgeralds, of Forsters.
That, my friends, is the result of allowing the literary agents to take over the world.
Sorry, but you're either a part of the problem or you're part of the solution.
the show was called Lost. Why did anyone think the writers would know where they were going?
Your use of the Royal Prerogative is interesting, Nathan, and uncharacteristic. The decade when we overspent and overextended ourselves? Who's 'we'? Certainly not me!
And you always sound so level-headed. Do you have a wildly extravagant secret lifestyle we haven't heard about yet? Do tell!
I can't criticize the LOST polar bears, because my WIP has giant Yetis in an equatorial jungle. Seriously. I'm not joking. Really. Though I DO have an explanation for them.
Madeleine, Anton Chekov is PIROUETTING in his grave! I am nearing the end of my aforementioned WIP and therefore firing the last of the guns I put on the wall in Act One, and taking down a few I've decided not to fire. Now all I have to do is avoid shooting myself in the foot.
What a great analysis.
I once read an interview during season 1 or 2 where the LOST writers stated they had no idea where the show was going or what they would write from episode to episode. They joked about taking inspiration from the hardcore fansites and viewers who saw symbols and clues interspersed during a show, of which there were none. (Supposedly.)
So to answer a question from a previous commenter: yes, that's what they would have us believe.
Absolutely brilliant post, Nathan. Glad you shared your frustrations. But I do like the polar bear mayhem finale, a la flight 815 downed in our living rooms.
The day after Lost's last show my son paced the house, seriously demented and pulling at his hair. "How could they do that? Those people shouldn't be allowed to write screenplays. They can't do that. It's not fair!"
"Boo-hoo," I told him. "If you're a producer and you know the show is ending you can let the writers slop gobbledy gook on the screen because you know well over a million-plus people will be watching (= advertising dollars) no matter what and you don't have to explain a thing since there will be no more Lost fans to answer to." [pant-pant]
"I don't care," he wailed. "It's not right–the last show should have answered SOMETHING."
"Something?"
"Yeah, like all the mysteries."
And so in the end I did sympathize with him. In my writing circles we called it the Blue Sweater factor, or WTF in your vernacular, Nathan. You can't throw a Blue Sweater off the roof and never explain that to a reader. It ain't kosher, not fair, nope, nuh-uh. Human beings should maintain ethical standards of writing if they really want to be regarded as superb storytellers. And leaving readers in the dark, not explaining a blue sweater flying off the roof of a house, just ain't ethical. That's like bailing on a work day and neglecting to call and explain to your paycheck toting boss why you aren't producing anything today.
And WTF moments in entertainment just ain't ethical, either, unless you're into theatrical torture of your audience.
Love it!
Someone important once say if you introduce a gun in the first act, you had better use it before the end ot the third act.
LOST left lots of unresolved clues behind. WTF is good, but endings always come due.
rose
I admit I watched LOST. Until I felt the writers got lost.
A problem with WTF is that it's related to "jumping the shark," in that after too many or too often seeing a WTF event in an episode, I began to find myself laughing at–as I believe Mira so aptly put it–the blatant manipulation of viewers, especially with every season premier and season end.
In the beginning, I suspected there was a definite plan, a definite plot, a modern-day televised allegory related to perhaps the possibility of rebirth, karma, and opportunity to undo past wrongs, to relive as a contributing member of society.
I got very excited.
At a time when we were still reeling from 9/11, from the Washington snipers, from the anthrax mailings, the invasion of Afghanistan, of Iraq, and all the other elements of the "oughts," here was a brave television show, and writers, willing to suggest that the idea of "redemption" might in fact be more widespread than just the Christian faith.
You had Walt, who couldn't walk before. You had the Haitian (?) priest, returning to God after making is escape. You had Claire and all the others, dropped out of the sky, alive, onto an apparent purgatory. And "Doc," who'd had it with apparently his father's world.
We didn't need "The Monster," which basically disappeared for a number of seasons–except when needed for WTF or Shark Jumping excitement.
But when "the island" MOVED, that was it for me. Enough. I can believe someone or something placed essentially the mechanism for the world to keep turning, time to keep going, people to have a chance at a "do-over." I can believe in religion, faith, even "mysteries." I have a hard time believing an island can be moved with enough people turning it. Or that they want to. Or why.
So, I agree with Locusts and Wild Honey. Except I don't think in the end even a bailout would have worked. It was beyond episodic. It was "what should we have them do today?" Little logic. Little real reason for character development. Pure power. Pure manipulation. Even the "finale."
I lost the time I spent watching lost. I got it back when I stopped watching…
But I thoroughly enjoyed thinking about it, particularly as an emblem, as well as a product, of its times. Like "The Prisoner"? Which was unquestionably the sequel to "Secret Agent Man"?
("They're giving you a number, and taking away your name….")
("I am not a number! I am a free man!")
🙂
I admit I watched LOST. Until I felt the writers got lost.
A problem with WTF is that it's related to "jumping the shark," in that after too many or too often seeing a WTF event in an episode, I began to find myself laughing at–as I believe Mira so aptly put it–the blatant manipulation of viewers, especially with every season premier and season end.
In the beginning, I suspected there was a definite plan, a definite plot, a modern-day televised allegory related to perhaps the possibility of rebirth, karma, and opportunity to undo past wrongs, to relive as a contributing member of society.
I got very excited.
At a time when we were still reeling from 9/11, from the Washington snipers, from the anthrax mailings, the invasion of Afghanistan, of Iraq, and all the other elements of the "oughts," here was a brave television show, and writers, willing to suggest that the idea of "redemption" might in fact be more widespread than just the Christian faith.
You had Walt, who couldn't walk before. You had the Haitian (?) priest, returning to God after making is escape. You had Claire and all the others, dropped out of the sky, alive, onto an apparent purgatory. And "Doc," who'd had it with apparently his father's world.
We didn't need "The Monster," which basically disappeared for a number of seasons–except when needed for WTF or Shark Jumping excitement.
But when "the island" MOVED, that was it for me. Enough. I can believe someone or something placed essentially the mechanism for the world to keep turning, time to keep going, people to have a chance at a "do-over." I can believe in religion, faith, even "mysteries." I have a hard time believing an island can be moved with enough people turning it. Or that they want to. Or why.
So, I agree with Locusts and Wild Honey. Except I don't think in the end even a bailout would have worked. It was beyond episodic. It was "what should we have them do today?" Little logic. Little real reason for character development. Pure power. Pure manipulation. Even the "finale."
I lost the time I spent watching lost. I got it back when I stopped watching…
But I thoroughly enjoyed thinking about it, particularly as an emblem, as well as a product, of its times. Like "The Prisoner"? Which was unquestionably the sequel to "Secret Agent Man"?
("They're giving you a number, and taking away your name….")
("I am not a number! I am a free man!")
🙂
On a related note, I think there's a cost when a writer kills off a character whose story had been developing.
Specifically, in the Song of Ice and Fire books (which are awesome, regardless), George R. R. Martin develops these amazing characters with super-intriguing story arcs–and then kills them off.
I always feel like I've been suckered. I cared for that character, and was paid back with zero resolution.
It was fascinating how the writers developed an alternate world without explicitly telling its audience. They created a "Treasure Island" which was not really an "Island", a "wonderland" which we were not sure was Alice's territory and a land of good and evil like William Golding's "Lord of the Flies" which we were not sure really existed. The constant guessing allowed the audience to become part of the plot; the detective that solved the mystery. Now we are in the post "Lost" era does that mean we have been found?
Right from the start, I figured Lost was going to be dreadful and never made it to episode two.
But if your theory is right, that somehow this series caught the mood of the aughts (and I do wonder why we bought it), what's looking like a seller in this new decade of enforced austerity? Will we want grim reflections of What Is — tales of family breakups against a backdrop of debt and riots; aliens invading, then promptly buggering off because there's sod all wealth to plunder and the population is too miserable even to enslave — or plunges into ridiculous depths as yet undiscovered: new genres to whisk us away?
Wow–I didn't expect you to end with that kind of philosophical thought, but you're absolutely right. Our society spent years borrowing against the future, and finally the future caught up to us… which is a nice little time travel trick, when you think about it.
Lost also suffered from a recurring bout of JJ Abrams. As a longtime fan of his shows, I have been beaten up enough times to understand that he really only enjoys those WTF moments. Sometimes he has a plan to explain them, but mostly he likes writing them, he likes shooting them, and he likes thinking about all of us sitting at home with our eyes bugging out. Think back to the first season of Alias, when every single episode ended with a cliffhanger, and usually had one in the middle of the hour as well. He kept us glued to the screen for an entire year, right from Shirt and Glasses pulling Syd's teeth at the beginning of the pilot to "Mom?"
At first, he did have a plan and I'm sure there was a vague plan for Lost as well. However, he got bored with the show, with the concept, with constantly having to actually… you know… explain things. He moved on from Alias to Lost and the quality of writing on the first went downhill. Lost went from one shocker to another, and before he A) got bored with it, or B) came up with an explanation for everything/anything, he moved on to Star Trek, which, thank God, is only two hours long and thus did not allow for the convoluted styling he'd inflicted on two fandoms.
Bitter much? Yes, a little. However, I hope it is because I am doing what you suggested, and examining what he did well as a storyteller, and what his weaknesses are. My plan is to be a fiscally conservative writer, borrowing from the future only when necessary and paying off the debt as soon as I possibly can.