Sometimes, in between my annoyance and frustration, I give the Lost folk the benefit of the doubt. I know they went to the ass-pull school of storytelling, but I figure it must be damn near impossible to handle a survival story with so many characters (with their respective development arcs and inter-relationships), while progressing the overall arc of the show without it getting tedious.
Then I watched Jericho.
Well, Jericho did drop a bunch of stuff in the second season.
Then I watched Jericho.
Not having watched Jericho, I'm confused: Was it more or less ass-pully than Lost?
Well, Jericho did drop a bunch of stuff in the second season.
Hard to address everything in 7 episodes, especially when your budget shrinks so half your regulars become recurring or less. Also, I didn't notice them dropping all that much of significance, but that could just be me.
Not having watched Jericho, I'm confused: Was it more or less ass-pully than Lost?
I guess my point was that it can be done, and it can be done well. As proof, see Jericho.
Jericho was one long adrenaline rush second season - they had to make decisions to concentrate the storyline and only allow in things that would move it forward.
Jericho was one long adrenaline rush second season - they had to make decisions to concentrate the storyline and only allow in things that would move it forward.
That should be every show's objective - all the time.
But that does explain how it was so awesome.
And our love for it explains why it's over.
sniff
I still maintain that if Lost was two seasons long for it's entire run, it would have been considered one of the greatest TV shows ever.
I neglected to look at the masthead of that article until I was finished reading it. I thought perhaps it was an April Fool's joke, and then I saw it was from the Onion.