Scots Taffer on 4/8/2008 at 21:40
Quote Posted by Brethren
I have to wonder, to all the Lost haters out there - what TV _do_ you like? Lost isn't perfect and has many faults, but to me it's the only interesting thing that network TV has had to offer in years.
That's why people pay for HBO. Nearly every show, with a few exceptions, they've produced over the past decade has been the best around: The Sopranos, Six Feet Under, Oz, Rome, Deadwood, The Wire... that's about it.
I'm not sure if we're talking network when we say Showtime or Fox, but they have Dexter and Arrested Development, two fantastic shows.
In its heyday, 24 was even more engaging than Lost. At least they understood that sooner or later the audience has to be given something other than continual cocktease, even if it's ludicrous shit like amnesia and highly deadly mountain cougars.
Heroes also had potential, but I found the finale so impotent that I resolved not to watch any more of them after they pulled their punches so grossly.
Stitch on 4/8/2008 at 21:50
Quote Posted by Brethren
In reality, I'm guessing the haters out there just hate everything under the sun, as usual.
Glad to see you're prepared to discuss this in an even, respectful manner.
BrokenArts on 4/8/2008 at 22:09
I don't hate it, just didn't do much for me. Yes, I do like things, I like lots of things, I like cake.
The_Raven on 4/8/2008 at 22:49
I'm more of a pie person myself.
WAREAGLE on 4/8/2008 at 22:58
Quote Posted by New Horizon
Oh, I see. You've gone on a Lost marathon and watched all 24 Season 1 episodes since you posted
this...
yeah i did. how hard is it to watch 24 episodes of a show that doesnt last an hour in a few days when you have nothing else to do? So why are you being such a prick to me anyways? did i do something to you? cool the attitude, no ones attacking you
edit: also, new horizon, theres a time gap between posts... i love how you quote a post i made before yours and then told me i missed your point
Gorgonseye on 5/8/2008 at 02:29
I remember back in the day, when the TTLG folks flamed people for all the right reasons.
Good times. Good times...
Thirith on 5/8/2008 at 06:57
Quote Posted by Scots Taffer
In its heyday, 24 was even more engaging than Lost. At least they understood that sooner or later the audience has to be given something other than continual cocktease, even if it's ludicrous shit like amnesia and highly deadly mountain cougars.
To be honest, I only found
24 more engaging when comparing, say, the first 2/3 of
24season 1 to the middle of
Lost seasons 2 and 3. What keeps me interested in
Lost is that I enjoy watching many of the characters. By comparison,
24 simply didn't have much in the way of watchable characters IMO, and they killed off the character I liked most halfway through season 2.
It's usually in the middle of the seasons that
Lost loses its way and turns in circles. The last thirds of seasons have much better pacing and the ratio of cockteasing to revelations gets much better. Again very much IMO, of course. And I think season 4 is much improved in that respect, because they simply didn't have that much time for treading water due to the lower number of episodes. (Yes, the Kate episode was largely superfluous, as was the Sun/Jin episode, but I enjoyed the rest of the season a lot.)
Edit: I'm saying all of this as a great HBO fan, by the way.
Lost isn't close to
The Wire or
Six Feet Under or
Deadwood, but at its best it's fun, intriguing and well made popcorn TV. Sometimes I want
haute cuisine but sometimes I want a good burger.
Lost is often the latter.
Muzman on 5/8/2008 at 08:29
I've always wondered if the crushing US schedules are something of a problem with these shows. I mean 20-odd episodes a season is at once impressive but quite brutal. Very few shows manage a full season of good shows or even consistent ones. For instance, Battlestar's seasons could have been the tightest, say, 14 eps in sci-fi-dom. At the same time it did seem like there was enough stuff going on they could have explored to fill things out but, for my money, they didn't. So I dunno.
Lost's first season even had plenty of filler, but gave the impression it knew where it was going. Then that impression disappeared, to be replaced by Gilligan's Island.
(according to some folks it picks up again, I know. Probably when it convolutes itself enough that the premise no longer matters that much. So I'll have a look sometime.)
Thirith on 5/8/2008 at 08:42
To some extent I think we're more aware of this because of many big series only having 12 or 13 episodes per season. In the '80s and '90s I don't remember thinking, "Man, I wish Star Trek: The Next Generation, The X-Files or Buffy only had, say, sixteen episodes per season, because so much is filler!" Added to which, series back then didn't tend to have story arcs that went beyond the occasional double episode.
Once you've got shorter, tighter seasons to compare to and once you have story arcs that should at least pretend to go somewhere, you get more impatient of stand-alone episodes, because the story's supposed to be going somewhere. That's when stand-alones become filler eps. (It doesn't help that with most of the arc-heavy series the stand-alone episodes also tend to be weaker in a number of ways.)
nicked on 5/8/2008 at 11:28
In England, we typically have six episodes per series of a TV show, so American shows are marathons by comparison. That's why I usually like to watch them on DVD so I haven't forgotten the first episode by the time I watch the finale six months later.
