The Great Lost Debate, What Makes a Comedy a Comedy, Award-Show Snubs and More!

Thanks to Sarah for the info.

Question
If the powers that be at ABC believe airing the eight Lost episodes already in the can as potential stand-alones serves anyone but their own bottom line, they're delusional. Did they learn nothing from the placement of last season's six-episode mini-arc? (And just for the record, having just reviewed them on the DVD release, I still can't understand why so many critics had a problem with their content. They were absolutely essential in order to take us inside the world of the Others and lay the foundation for the rest of the season.) Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse have recently been making all the PC comments of late vis-à-vis ABC's decision to air them, as well as acknowledging the fan base who were left wondering how we'd make it all the way to February 2008 after that still-amazing season finale. As much as I can't wait to get even more Lost, I would rather they'd decided to delay running them until such time as all 16 episodes of the next chapter are ready to air consecutively than to deal with yet another interrupted season of a series that is best served by going with the original plan for the sake of dramatic continuity and intensity. I may be in the minority, but I believe that there will be a near-audible collective howl of discontent among the faithful after Episode 8 airs without any more to follow for who knows how long. Lost is a unique property that requires special handling. The network already admitted as much by going with the revised 16-week, no-repeat schedule. It seems to me their decision to proceed with a strike-mandated arrangement is a slap in the face to both fans and the J.J. Abrams-Cuse-Lindelof team. In this latest skirmish of the eternal battle between art and commerce, the score is now Commerce 2, Art 0. Your take on both ABC's plan and the long-term effect on our beloved show? Is it conceivable that ABC will give us 24 (!) uninterrupted episodes beginning in late 2008 to play catch-up? What other scenarios do you see as possible or practical?— Daniel E.

Matt Roush
Clearly, this is not anyone's first choice on how to handle Lost this season. As with so much that's happening in the wake of this extended strike, it's a regrettable mess. But can you really be so surprised that when it comes to a hot property like Lost, business interests trump the creative? The high-profile scheduling of Lost on Thursdays, filling in for Grey's Anatomy after it exhausts its run, shows how much ABC values and depends on the show. The showrunners let it be known early on that they would have preferred the season to run intact, even if that meant a 24-style delay of the entire season, but the network has chosen otherwise. I can't blame them for wanting to exploit one of their key assets during months when prime-time viewership is typically at its height. I'm ambivalent about the decision, in part because I haven't seen the episodes. I desperately want my Lost fix, even if it's not a complete fix. This seems to me a different situation than last fall's six-episode pod, which was criticized primarily because of its too-narrow focus on the prolonged captivity of major characters by the Others. I doubt these eight episodes will feel as forced. And while it will be frustrating to have the run cut off midstream, if in fact no more episodes are able to be produced by season's end (which is yet far from a sure thing), there's nothing new about Lost fans issuing what you call "collective howls of discontent." That comes with the territory. We're all smart enough to know why this is happening. We can forgive the show, if not the network, for however we're left hanging and for however long.


Source: TV Guide