Ooh, good one. The CC one, I mean - I wouldn't expect much of an anwer on the first, though, yeah.

(Not that I won't pass them all along - I so will. But I'm thinking there are some more likely to make the cut than others. IJS.)

Juliebird, interesting. I suspect that's kind of key here, though maybe something they don't want to acknowledge? But I think that's an angle Sarah might want to - hint at, if not ask outright?

I stopped watching after the first season, so I wouldn't want to weigh in. (More from a combo of scheduling and...I dunno. Scheduling wouldn't have kept me away from Angel or some other shows, so there must have been more to it.)

But like I said - I (we) got her to ask Bamber about The Arms. Even though she's writing for the mag you get with your cable subscription, she'll go anywhere in the questions, and wants to get the fannish perspective out there. You don't know what people might say. It's an opportunity to put the hard (or, okay, silly) questions out there.

they were definitely asked this outright in the EW article I read, and even though they seemed hedging confident in their responses that they thought they were walking that line with as much regard to the creative process as they could, I have absolutely no faith in that.

I think they're success has made them a slave to the machine, and that they've lost all creative integrity in the process. Which, yeah, may not be they're fault, but still means that their success was their downfall. The network wants to keep a hit on the air as long as possible, even if, to keep the show a hit, means that the pacing and information dealt leads to a much more definitive and immediately finite story. If that made sense. I'm one former fan that hopes that she doesn't care enough to watch by the time Lost comes back on out of some pathetic completism.

They might garner my interest if they show some balls and kill some major characters, namely someone from the Big (Gag Me) Three (S/K/J). Otherwise they're just pulling punches. So far they've compromised for the networks. How about the networks compromise some security in the name of integrity for a change?

/rant

Well, let's see how far they can walk that line. Either they'll have solidified their response or they'll spill more - we shall see.

This should be an easy one... Where are Walt & Michael?

Seriously? I'd ask whose responsibility it is to keep track of dangling plot threads and character arcs so that they aren't forgotten when breaking new stories.

Of course, I'd ask in a tone that made it clear I regard the existence of such a person in much the same way as that of the Tooth Fairy.

Holy shit, I just read the EW story with Lindelof, Cruz, Abrams, and King. That was some seriously depressing shit. No wonder the good shit is on HBO and Showtime. How do true writers who care about their craft put up with network interference like that?

"Dave" (the Hurley ep from last season) had to be rewritten because ABC thought it might advance an explanation for the whole show (e.g. it is all happening in Hurley's head).

I still think D&C are hacks (this is mostly because of the podcasts - they are assholes on the podcasts), but I'm disturbed by just how much ABC interferes. I know networks could be bad, but I didn't realize they were this bad.

Is the EW story/interview online?

I don't think it is. I just looked on ew.com.

that's the one! The King interview in EW where they're basically admitting that the show is no longer theirs (or maybe that was "in between the lines").

The impression that I got was that if they decided to take the show on a more end-in-sight path (and where I'd assume would mean getting the show back on track and worthwhile), they'd be sacked. Or overruled.

Okay, I just convinced myself to stop watching someone else's job security.

So long, Lost!