Ask Matt questions for Lost

[Lost News]

questions for 2005/01/17

Question:
Matt, maybe you could explain something to me. I am an avid fan of Lost who is content to sit back, watch and enjoy the mystery without trying to overanalyze every single detail in every single episode. Yeah, I like to indulge in some speculation, but I don't see the point in obsessing about it. I know some fans of the show were disappointed in the first episode of the new year when, after four weeks of reruns, it didn't come back and answer all or even any of the cliff-hangers from the "All the Best Cowboys Have Daddy Issues" episode. All over the message boards you see people saying that the show is taking too long to provide answers or that it has jumped the shark. Lost is only 12 episodes old. Isn't it a bit early to want to know everything? Can't we give the creators and writers a little credit for knowing what they are doing and just enjoy the ride? You have to understand where I am coming from. I love genre shows and I have been burnt to a crisp by the networks in the last few years as I watched Haunted, Miracles and Firefly bite the dust because the networks refused to give them any promotion or support. I am still half-convinced that Lost will suddenly disappear from the schedule, killer ratings or no. Please, Matt, reassure me my show is safe. — Christine S.
Matt:
Are there support groups for people who spend too much time on message boards? Just asking. Anyone who thinks Lost has jumped the shark, or is in any danger of doing so anytime soon, is misreading the tea leaves and should occupy their 8 pm/ET hour on Wednesdays watching something else. (I hear NBC is running a Sports Illustrated reality-show contest for swimsuit models in the same time slot that surely won't test anyone's patience.) Keep the faith, Christine. Lost is going to be with us, and let's hope stay popular, for a good long time, and we'll get resolutions to these cliff-hangers and maybe even some of the island's mysteries when the producers feel like delivering the goods. I am mystified, and honestly quite put out, by the inability of some armchair quarterbacks to just enjoy a show that is executed this brilliantly. As you noted, we have all endured a long dry spell — since the height of the X-Files frenzy, in fact — during which genre programming was regarded as, at best, a cult thing, and became very much an endangered species. Now that we have an honest-to-God mainstream hit to chew on that dwarfs even the X-Files fandom, we're supposed to worry it to death? Not in my living room, thank you. (At the same time, at least Lost is interesting enough to generate debate, so I guess we can be thankful for that. Just don't let the naysayers harsh your buzz.)

[Ed note: If they were revealing major secrets already, there would be major criticism that the show had "jumped the shark" because they had revealed everything way too soon. Take the X-Files. Even at the end much was up for grabs (did the producers know the answers? good question). Lets just say it's a good thing these fans aren't watching Carnivale. They don't have the patience. Too bad for them--they're missing out.

BTW . . . things with "killer ratings" don't just "disappear from the schedule." :lol:
]

 

[Milferd]

Seams like lots of people what Lost to be a miniseries not a long running series. I have learned to enjoy a well delayed answer like in a great novel. Once the mysteries are all gone Lost will have a great amount of trouble staying good. So I want my mysteries answered a crumb at a time. I would not expect to learn much of anything first season, a little second season, and meat finally in season four or five.

Babylon 5 suffered in my opinion by having the climax to the main mystery the shadows in season three leaving the rest of the series a slow clean up of shadow initiatives. I do like a good amount of stuff after the climax as in Lord of the Rings but I don’t think more than one season could be good after Lost climaxes.

 

[Alias_Gay]

I don't want answers right away ... I wanna keep on watching and guessing each episode ... thats the suspense this show gives us, since we are not sure whats gonna happen next ...

"Lost" is not going anywhere ... we might have "lost" for many more seasons ...

 

[Lost News]

Questions for 2005/01/24:

Question:
Have you noticed that ABC shows are not ending on time? I've missed the end of several episodes of Lost and Desperate Housewives because they ran over the hour. And it's an arbitrary time each episode. Most recently, Lost ran four minutes late. Luckily, I was also recording Alias, but that also ran over by two minutes. This not only interferes with other shows, but causes people to miss the end of the ABC shows and maybe, eventually, tune out. I think it's obnoxious, especially since Lost is only 42 minutes to begin with. They must be padding extra ads on top of the increase of three minutes this year. — Kathy
Matt:
TV is such an ugly business, and this really is a top pet peeve. This trend of letting hit shows bleed over into another time period began, I'm pretty sure, with NBC and its once-upon-a-time Thursday "must see" lineup. Friends would often run long and ER even now starts a minute early, all attempts to foil people who time-shift from network to network, and it can also really screw up TiVo users. The idea is to keep viewers from switching to a rival network, but it presumes a pretty shallow view of one's TV habits. And it's mainly just annoying, especially if you aren't home to monitor things. What you have to ask yourself is whether you'd rather miss the last minutes of a show like Lost or Alias or the first minutes of whatever show starts next. Whenever I'm still setting a VCR for a hit show nowadays, I always allow an extra minute or two just to be safe. I hated it when NBC did this, and it's aggravating to see ABC capitalizing so greedily on its new hits after such a long drought. This practice is an insult to viewers. As Kathy notes, it's not like we're getting extra content because the episode runs long.

Question:
Why do you think Lost is getting overlooked for awards? It lost People's Choice and the Golden Globes, and didn't even get nominated by the Screen Actors Guild. Are the other shows really more worthy? — Lin B.
Matt:
It's not that they're more worthy. It's that the other shows are more normal, less weird. Getting nominated has to be considered something of a triumph for a show that's so outside the box. It almost never happened for Buffy, for instance. In Lost's favor, though, is its immense popularity. That could get even some Emmy voters' attention. But as I've often said (it's almost a mantra): Don't look for Hollywood awards to validate your affection for certain types of shows.

 

[Lost News]

2005/03/25:

Question:
Since Lost was basically snubbed by the Golden Globes, I was wondering what you think its chances are of getting an Emmy for the acting. I think Terry O'Quinn should be nominated. Who do you think should be? And who do you think has the best chance of winning? — Matt S.

Matt:
See the first question of this column for a reminder of how difficult it is for actors in high-concept genre shows to break through. Terry O'Quinn is definite Emmy material, as are at least half a dozen of his costars; I'd put Yunjin Kim at the top of my list, but I'll stop there so as not to encourage others to pile on. Lost is a show that will probably have to survive quite nicely without Emmy love, but if it gets the notice it deserves, I'd be happy to be surprised.

. . . [more, regarding other series, see TV Guide Online]

 

[Lost News]

Ask Matt questions for 2005/5/15:

Question:
I'll probably be struck down by Lost fans everywhere for asking this, but why is everyone so upset at Boone's death? I love the show and watch it every week, and I really liked him in the first few episodes, but then he just became an angst-y, annoying character to me. Please give me a clue to why people are so upset at his passing! — Saralyn S.

Matt:
I'm surprised I didn't hear more backlash against this episode, given the advance hype that surrounded it (which itself generated a number of complaints in the mailbag). While the death of Boone wasn't all that surprising — especially given the circumstances of the previous week's mishap in the downed plane — his death deserves to be mourned, and I expect it to have a major effect on the other castaways. He may not have been among the show's most fascinating characters, which is why he was expendable, but his relationships with Locke, Shannon et al. leave resonances behind. And the drama of Jack's desperate attempts to save Boone, reflected through Jack's own flashbacks to his marriage to a woman whose life he once saved, was highly dramatic, as is just about everything on Lost. Why fight it?

 

[Lost News]

Ask Matt question for 2005/04/22:

Question:
Is my family the only one that will not watch Lost again after ABC's playing games with new shows vs. repeats? We have totally "lost" interest in this show and its characters. What are your thoughts on this show and others like it? — Marilyn

Matt:
I love Lost, and repeats haven't diminished my ardor. (Speaking selfishly, I can actually enjoy a week off here and there, although I know where you're coming from when the repeats are so insistent.) Complaints about repeats during the regular season are common in my mailbag, and while I empathize, it's hard for me not to "lose" patience with people who seem not to understand this very basic reality of network TV. To Lost's credit, the show aired its first 11 hours consecutively, with only one break for Thanksgiving, and ran with few interruptions through January and February. The breaks in March and April have been the longest and most frustrating, but to give up on a show just because it won't feed you every week seems an awfully fickle attitude. Would it be better if, like Alias and 24, Lost aired straight through without repeats? Of course it would. But ABC isn't going to bench a hit like this for months, even at the risk of turning off its more restless fans.

 

[Lost News]

2005/05/31 (see also this post in Alias Ask Matt questions):

Question:
I'm sure you're gonna get slammed with Lost e-mails, but I figured I'd give it a shot... Am I the only one who thinks that the raft sequence would have been a better ending-scene then Jack and Locke looking down the hatch, yet we still don't see what's in it? I though the cliff-hanger ending was supposed to be "epic," but the fact that there's a ladder in the hatch doesn't really surprise me. I feel kind of cheated by that. That said, I almost couldn't breathe when those weirdos showed up, kidnapped Walt, shot Sawyer and blew up the raft. That was possibly the best scene of the year; how the hell are they gonna get out of that one? I kind of thought the show would end with Jack running into Michelle Rodriguez, indicating that the tail-section people are in fact alive. That would have ruled. Anyway, what'd you think?? — Mike

Matt:
It's probably not a huge surprise that I was OK with it as it was. The raft scenes were amazingly suspenseful, but taking us back to the island, and the shot taking us down and down and further down into the bowels of whatever lurks in the hatch, was suitably creepy and mysterious for me. If I was disappointed by anything in the Lost finale, it was in the depiction of the monster with just noise and smoke. I really did expect something more, although the circumstances of the latest attack were hair-raising.

~~~

Question:
I'm a really big fan of Lost, but I have to ask: Whatever happened to Rose? She started out as a very important character and then she was lost. I'm wondering now if she was ever on the plane initially. — Shawn

Matt:
All I know is that the actress (L. Scott Caldwell) spent some time this spring giving an acclaimed performance in an off-Broadway play. She's not a regular on Lost, and no doubt had other things to do in her career besides wait around for her next scene in Hawaii, but I'm hoping they'll find some use for her again. She's terrific.

 

[Lost News]

2005/06/03:

Question:
I hate to write in with just a crude shriek of disagreement, but when you wrote that you were "slightly worried" that Deadwood would win the Best Drama Emmy over the "more deserving choices" 24 and Lost, I almost fell out of my seat! Deadwood is a rich and thoughtful dramatic work, laced with wry humor and complex human behavior. The writing is excellent and the cast is absolutely perfect. Lost and 24 are both fun and nail-biting thrillers, but they suffer from the same "uneven casting" that you complain about with a show like The 4400. They feature fun twists and turns in their story lines, but often resort to clichéd characterizations and "types" in the place of real human behavior. I don't mean to bash them, but I'm somewhat stunned that you would feel either of them would be robbed if a great show like Deadwood got the Emmy. What is so wrong with Deadwood that would cause it to sink so far beneath 24 and Lost in your esteem? (Written not as an "angry" fan, please be assured, but as a genuinely curious person who likes all three shows but is perplexed at your ranking of them.) — Ryan J.

Matt:
I wouldn't be the least surprised, or really even dismayed, if Deadwood won the Emmy this year. It had a sensational second season, better than the first. And the Emmys' love for all things HBO is well documented, which is part of why I would be slightly disappointed by the predictability of its win. It's certainly deserving, and I can't argue about Lost and 24 being rife with the implausibilities and imperfections that come with the territory of producing a weekly thriller, as opposed to a more intimately scaled revisionist Western. But I'll keep making an argument for these shows because I don't believe that network drama gets any better or more purely entertaining than what we saw in the riveting last season of 24 and in the remarkable and innovative inaugural year of Lost. This year, broadcast breakthroughs and comebacks were the story of TV, not what was happening on HBO. (But there's no question that Deadwood is HBO's best series, comedy or drama, from the last season.) Thrillers and genre-based series in general get little respect from awards shows, which is why this particular year, they would get my vote, even over a gem like Deadwood.

 

[Lost News]

05/09/19:

Question: Which Lost backstory (about the characters' lives before the crash)  did you find most interesting from Season 1? Least interesting? — Dave

Matt Roush: That's a tough question. I'll go with my first impulse and say that the episodes about Sun and Jin are the ones that have lingered most with me since first seeing them (I haven't had time to watch more than the extras on the DVD, but I'm dying to). I also loved the twists and turns of Sawyer's back story. And who could forget Hurley and his cursed lottery numbers, But my No. 1 episode of last season was "Walkabout," the early episode that revealed Locke's precrash condition. So many of the stories took me to completely unexpected places that it's hard to pick a favorite, but the performances of Yunjin Kim and Daniel Dae Kim were so emotionally intense that I give them top honors. Least interesting: No reflection on her character, but Claire's story was probably the least developed, so I'll pick that one.

 

[Lost News]

05/09/26:

Question: After last season's Lost finale, a handful of viewers swore off the show because they didn't learn the contents of the hatch. They were furious that things weren't being exposed on their timetable. I have to wonder how those same viewers (you know they watched) felt after Wednesday's premiere. What was in the hatch? More questions. They must be losing their minds. Can you imagine if this season's premiere had been last year's finale? The shark-jumpers would have even more to complain about. As for myself, I loved every second of Lost's premiere. There was more information packed into that one hour than any episode I can remember, and I love the confidence the creators show with their slow but deliberate pacing. I can't wait for next week. And to all those shark-jumpers out there, I can only say this: At least we only have to wait seven days for more answers to Wednesday's episode. If they had gotten what they wanted during last season's finale — the contents of the hatch — we'd have four months to wait to find out how Jose Canseco ended up in the bottom of the hatch. — Phil R.

Matt Roush: Couldn't agree more. If this indeed was what (and who) they intended from the start to be in the hatch, revealing even a little would have been worse than nothing at all. For more of my day-after thoughts on Lost, check out my Dispatch from last week. So far, I'm happy to note, the so-called shark-jumpers have steered clear from my mailbag, where all the Lost mail has been gushing. So far.

~~~

Question: Not so much a question as a comment. You wondered why people tempered their excitement with cynicism regarding Lost and the other new shows. I'll give you two reasons: The X-Files and Twin Peaks. It became almost immediately clear that as brilliant as Peaks was, none of the writers had a clue where it was going. X-Files took five years to do the same thing, which made it even more heartbreaking and maddening. For every Buffy the Vampire Slayer (which did an excellent job of creating season-long arcs) and Babylon 5 (the only show in history to pull off a multi-year arc successfully, even if the show wasn't actually that great), there are literally hundreds of shows that start with a great premise but don't plan beyond the next two or three episodes. I truly hope the main factors in the mythology — the boy, the baby, the hatch and the Others — have been planned out and have a satisfactory conclusion, but that doesn't mean I trust it completely. After the convoluted mess that X-Files devolved into, I don't think I'll ever be foolish enough to trust another show completely again. — Tommy M.

Matt Roush: All good and fair points (and kudos for acknowledging the triumphs, and limitations of Babylon 5), but I'm still a firm believer that part of the fun of watching episodic TV is taking that blind leap of faith and enjoying the ride while we can without spoiling it with the taint of past experiences. (I suppose I could trot out that Charlie Brown/football analogy I used last week in my post-Emmy angst, but let's not.)

~~~

Question: Do you think writers on shows such as Lost have the entire story crafted and the mystery solved before putting pen to paper, or do they make it up as they go along? — Jillian W.

Matt Roush: I honestly don't care as long as shows like Lost continue blowing my mind the way it did in its season opener. But seriously, it's probably a bit of both. Shows like Lost tend to have an endgame in mind as part of a series-long or at least season-long bible, but TV series are rather like a living, breathing entity. Things evolve in unexpected ways as the writers get a measure of their actors and see what works and doesn't work as they go along. This can create continuity problems for purists who pore through each episode looking for discrepancies, but often there's also an exhilarating sense of discovery as a show finds its footing and takes us to places even the show's creators might not have envisioned when it all got started.

 

[Lost News]

2005/10/21:

Question: Matt, help me out here. I could swear that we saw a little bit of Bernard on Lost last season on the airplane, and he was black. Now he's white. I don't really care either way, but isn't this a continuity issue? Or maybe this is actually part of the plot. What's up?! — Jenny

Matt Roush: I thought the same thing and turned to an editor here who's one of the resident Lost experts (I watch too much to be obsessive about any one show, and I purposely don't go to the Lost fan sites). She replayed the pilot and tells me he wasn't seen, though I could swear I'd seen him, too. Regardless, Sam Anderson (who's now playing Bernard) is a terrific character actor, so I'm at peace with it. And if I and my editor/friend are wrong, I'm sure someone will let us know instantly.

 

[Lost News]

05/10/24:

Question: Good Day, Matt. I love Lost. I really do. But what I don't love so much these days are all these Internet sites popping up with hints and clues and "what you missed last night" deals. I enjoy watching it with my husband and trying to figure out the mystery by watching the show carefully and discussing it. I don't have time to check all these websites and spoilers. Am I going to miss out on the full effect of the show if I don't read into all those "Easter eggs" people discover each episode? Can't I just watch it and enjoy it and not worry about everything everyone is reading into it each week? Won't the producers tell me everything I want to know when the time is right? — Jackie

Matt Roush: Bless your heart. You're my hero. And you're watching Lost in exactly the way it's meant to be watched: for your own personal satisfaction and with a bit of realistic perspective. Like you, I'm aware of the spoilers and obsessive madness where each and every detail of this show (some hidden, some not) are concerned, and I have to at least try to keep up with some of this for professional reasons, but for the most part, I love Lost for its own sake. I'm glad it has a following that makes The X-Files fandom look lazy, but you're not missing a thing by just taking Lost at face value and enjoying it for what it is: an astoundingly entertaining and engrossing show. Which brings me to a related topic.

Question: Hi, Matt. Question for you: Why do TPTB leak major spoilers to viewers via the press? I understand that they want to build excitement and hopefully attract more viewers to their shows, but what about all the viewers who enjoy a surprise once in a while? I feel like there is too much information out there that ruins major upcoming plot developments — and I'm not even referring to the numerous spoiler sites or message boards. Most news and gossip outlets are now chockful of spoiler goodies that, in my opinion, go too far. Instead of fun teasers, they are full-fledged reveals that take away the true entertainment value of these shows. C'mon people, ignorance really is bliss! — Kate

Matt Roush: From your fingertips to TPTB's ears. It's a messy situation for all involved. First, there are the TV reporters and columnists who share the curiosity of millions of viewers and fans and are digging for scoops and exclusives. They walk a fine line between how much to reveal and how far they can go before burning bridges with their sources and maybe even their readers. And then there are the fans themselves who desperately want to know what's happening next and then beat themselves up for having it ruined for them when they learn too much. Why do you think they call them "spoilers"? It's part of the entertainment culture right now, and it's a very competitive business, to put it mildly. I will tell you that I have attended story meetings at the magazine that I have later regretted, because of the information we're sitting on that I would rather have experienced when the episodes actually aired. Comes with the territory. [repeated in Alias questions because it applies. ]

 

[Lost News]

2005/11/04:

Question: In regard to Monday's question about killing off characters, I wanted to add my two cents. I think there was one instance when spoilers actually helped a show's suspense rather than hurt it, and it had nothing to do with the death itself. Last season on Lost, the creators made no secret of the fact that somebody wasn't going to make it. And while Boone's death was shocking only because it wasn't really all that shocking, there was a moment many episodes before that tore me up. When Jack and Kate found Charlie hanged by Ethan, I couldn't breathe until he did. And I don't think that would have happened (to as great a degree, anyway) had I not been advised by the creators that a major character was going to die. Instead of thinking, "not Charlie," I would have been thinking, "they aren't really going to kill him." I really thought Charlie was dead, and I have the spoilers to thank. That being said, I'm less enthused about the upcoming death on Lost. Letting us know it's coming is one thing, but telling us exactly which episode... eh. They'll really have to pull a rabbit out of their hats to make that move pay off. — Phil R.

Matt Roush: I wish I were more in the dark as well. But that's the media culture we're living in (and, for some of us, operating in) these days. And I agree about the impact of Charlie's hanging. I truly feared they'd actually gone for it and taken away such an instantly beloved character that quickly. I was happy to have been wrong.

 

[Lost News]

2005/11/18:

Question: I have been wondering what your thoughts were on the Nov. 9 episode of Lost. I haven't seen any talk about it and I am wondering if I am the only one who is mad about it. I have to admit that I disliked Shannon at first, but the character started to grow on me, especially after she and Sayid got together. Now she's gone. Why kill Shannon right after Boone? It just seems too easy. Can you help me understand this one, Matt? — Maria

Matt Roush: I was traveling on business last week and wasn't able to see the episode until the weekend, by which time I knew exactly what was going to happen (I'd known for weeks who would bite the dust, courtesy of working here, where there are few secrets and spoilers kept, regardless of how hard you try). Even so, I thought it was pretty powerful stuff, as I almost always do where Lost is concerned. For an explanation of "why," pick up the Nov. 21 issue of TV Guide. You may not agree with their reasoning, but it worked for me. Someone's gotta die — they've made that clear — and Shannon's exit may have been made more effective (as in: tragic) by the writers humanizing her, both in the relationship with Sayid and in her flashbacks. If a death on Lost had no impact, it would mean the show was failing in the area where it arguably works best: in its character development, something this show does better than anything else I can think of on TV.

Lisa also wrote in to express her unhappiness in losing Shannon and Maggie Grace from the show. An excerpt: "When Boone died, it was tragic but I was OK with his end, especially knowing that Shannon was still on the island so we could learn more about Boone through her (and we did get to see a bit more of Ian Somerhalder in last week's Shannon backstory). Now it seems as though we won't really be able to learn much about these two characters anymore (although it is J.J., so anything is possible). I did and didn't like the way Shannon was killed. I thought it was interesting to have Ana Lucia shoot her, thinking she was one of the "others." And how this horrible accident brings everyone to the same side of the island. That should allow for some good tension. And I'm always up for that, but Shannon didn't get to say goodbye. Boone at least got an episode to say goodbye. Obviously, life on the island will go on and there is no way I'm going to stop watching, but I just wanted to put it out there that someone was upset to see Shannon go. And since I just realized that this wasn't actually a question, let me ask you: How did you feel about Shannon's death?"

I'm at peace, especially knowing there will be consequences as the tribes merge in next week's episode.

 

[Lost News]

From Matt's 2005/11/30 dispatch:

Nothing gets my critical pulse racing more than when a show I already love switches around the formula, telling a story from a different angle or in a different style. That happened several times during November sweeps, which is why these are my three favorite episodes of the last month.

. . .

Lost, "The Other 48 Days" (Nov. 16): It's hardly unusual for Lost to switch narrative styles and tones week in to week out, but even by this wonderful show's incredibly high standards, the episode propelling us through the first weeks in the life of the "tailies" (what was happening on the other side of the island during the first season, in short) made for riveting television. Twists, turns, new clues and new mysteries, told with a blistering pace and a deft, impressionistic sure hand. One of the best episodes yet in what is still hands-down the best and most original show on TV.

2005/12/02:

Question: I'm one of those who has loved Lost from the beginning. Someone (maybe you?) likened it to reading a novel, and I felt that way, too. I loved the flashbacks and I loved learning more about the characters, especially the bombshell things, like Locke's wheelchair. My husband, however, has insisted from the beginning that he felt the writers were making it up as they went, throwing in every unbelievable and unexplainable thing possible, and would never be able to tie it all together. After reading Michael Ausiello's interview with the executive producers, I find that my husband may be right. One made the statement that it "boggles (his) mind" when people ask what the numbers mean because he doesn't think that question will ever be answered. I mean, excuse me? They put the numbers in everything imaginable and they are mystified that people wonder what they mean? Don't get me wrong: If I know there's a payoff to be had, I'm willing to wait. I'm not demanding resolutions right now, but it would be nice to be assured that there will be resolutions eventually. There's a big difference between going along for a wonderful ride and being taken for one. I guess as someone who loved Twin Peaks and The X-Files, my guard is up, and I'm enjoying the story a whole lot less this year. Heck, if I just sat around and thought of improbable events and made no effort to tie them together, I could write for one of the top shows on television. Help me, Dr. Matt; am I just being paranoid? — Mickey

Matt Roush: Maybe a wee bit. I loved your line about "a big difference between going along for a wonderful ride and being taken for one." The way I feel about Lost, the ride is so wonderful that I'm not in the least concerned for now about the ultimate destination because my hope is that we won't get to the bottom of the island's mysteries or, more important to me, to the roots of the psychology of these fabulous characters for seasons to come. Besides, when it comes to something like the numbers, what kind of explanation could there be that would matter or would satisfy anyone without becoming as mystifying and ultimately impenetrable as The X-Files' mythology turned out to be? Look up "McGuffin" in a Hitchcock glossary. Some plot points exist solely for the purpose of taking us on the ride. What they mean (like, say, The 39 Steps to use a classic example, or anything in the backstory of North by Northwest) isn't as important as what they trigger. And do I think these writers know what they're doing? I most definitely do. Everyone should be as lost as these guys. And now that the "tailies" have caught up to the original cast, maybe the chronically impatient among us will get back with the program. I will admit to having a short fuse about griping where Lost is concerned. I can't imagine a show being better produced, written, cast, etc., than this one. The payoff for me is in the experience of watching these gripping hours of TV. Wherever they lead, I'm still following.

2005/12/05:

Question: I love Lost. It's one of the best weekly shows that I have enjoyed and stayed loyal to. But my question is about Michelle Rodriguez's character, Ana Lucia. We know she is a tad high-strung and a little crazy, but what I would like to know is why no one has just hit her back. She has smacked, whacked and punched so many of them, and no one has turned around and just landed one on her. I sit there and watch and yell at the TV for someone to just hit her once to cure her of her issues. Thanks for letting me vent. — Patty

Matt Roush: You're welcome. And maybe you'll get your wish before long. She does tend to bring out the worst in people. You actually come off rather kindly toward her, compared to some of the hate mail I've received about the actress and character. Excerpting a longer rant from Jennifer C.: "The character is written and played so broadly it's excruciating to watch.... And it's not a matter of a character you love to hate, it's just hate-hate due to clichéd "bad girl" writing and limited one-expression acting skills. Don't believe me? Check out the various Lost message boards! Do they honestly think that abandoning the characters who have carried the show so far in favor of shoving this new chick down fans' throats is a good idea? How can they be that dense? Or is it just arrogance that they believe they are so popular that the audience will take anything?" Ouch! Personally, I don't mind Ana Lucia so much. Now that the whole cast (original and new) are united, we should see more of a balance, and I think she'll add something provocative to the mix. But that's just me, and as usual, I don't give a fig what they say on the message boards, because rarely do you hear a positive word there. And I'm all about accentuating the positive on Lost.

 

[Lost News]

2005/12/09:

Question: There isn't going to be another new episode of Lost until January, a six-week wait. I think it is a little much, but since I love the show so much, I'll be there waiting for a new episode. It was only a month ago that we had to wait three weeks for a new episode, and now it has doubled. Do you think that ABC executives are taking advantage of the loyal viewers by making us wait that long? The show is such a hit, it seems like they are going to do whatever they want. Other shows spread out the new episodes, so it doesn't seem like such a gap. What are they thinking? And are they worried about losing viewers? — Melissa

Matt Roush: Déjà vu. I seem to recall going down this same whiny road last year. Face it, most network shows take periodic breaks, some longer than others, for repeats, in this case acknowledging the fact that viewing levels go down in December as people's lives get busier in advance of the holidays. (I know mine does.) Six weeks is a long time, but with Lost, I think it's fair to say that absence makes the heart grow fonder and the anxiety for the next episode grow stronger. I would also argue a show like Lost may actually play more effectively when its new episodes are lumped together in batches, instead of the one-week-on, one-week-off pattern you might find among CBS's stand-alone procedurals. This means longer breaks, but it also can mean longer periods of sustained originals. No question this is an imperfect system, but if Lost is to be on the air from September to May — and it's in ABC's best interests to schedule it that way — these breaks are inevitable and not a case of the network "taking advantage" of a captive audience, whatever that means. And while I'm sure ABC is always worried about losing viewers, regardless of the circumstance, with Lost I don't think it's that big of a problem. Yet.

Also on the Lost beat, this from Seanna, and I'm happy to note there were others like it in this week's e-mailbag: "Thank you sooo much for speaking on behalf of those of us who love the fact that Lost does not talk down to its audience by patronizingly having to tie everything up! There are those of us who love 'not knowing' and I have almost had it with those who gripe that things are not nicely explained in a couple of shows. Its the rough edges that count in life and make quality television. When they actually felt they had to apologize to the fans at the Emmy awards for not 'explaining everything,' I was saddened to think that they might change the show to dumb it down. Happy to see that they have not. I love not knowing — it's just like life!!"

I'm not sure I watch Lost because it's "like life," but I appreciate the sentiment.

2005/12/12:

Question: Do you think there is some gender bias involved in the outright hatred many Lost fans have for Ana Lucia? For my money, she is the first female character to match the emotional baggage and personal flaws that the best of the male characters on that show bring to the table. People adore Locke (who is kind of unbalanced and whose actions led indirectly to the death of Boone), Sawyer (needlessly aggressive at times and a former con artist), and Sayid (has tortured people as recently as a month and a half ago), but Ana Lucia has been vilified almost from the start. I think the fact that her character is deeply flawed and has already made some huge mistakes on the island makes her an interesting character to watch: not a villain, but a compelling and captivating dramatic character. But to hear many fans talk about her, I keep hearing the word "bitch" thrown around, and I have a hard time believing the outrage would be so pointed if there was a badass new guy on the show. Am I totally off base here, or is there some truth to this? — Ryan J.

Matt Roush: Ooh, what a great love/hate debate. I was rather taken aback by how much hate mail I got about the character (much of it personally aimed at the actress, Michelle Rodriguez), and I agree that one thing Lost needed (and now has) is another female character besides Kate (another source of constant bickering) — one who can literally take prisoners and yet, for those with open minds, who may eventually be able to earn viewers' sympathy. I find her intriguing, not nearly as off-putting as so many seem to. But Ryan isn't alone.

From Karen B.: "I disagree with Jennifer C.'s comment that the Ana Lucia character is 'written and played so broadly.' Whether or not Michelle Rodriguez deserves to win an award, I've known people who were very much like her. To draw on my introductory psych course (cough), she seems to have a borderline personality disorder, and having known a couple of people who have the same, I'd say it's a fairly realistic depiction. These people tend to see things in black and white, become very angry at people who disagree with them at all, and tend to try to get what they want through rage or charm or whatever it takes, but they are also deeply unhappy people. Sound familiar? Of course, this is Lost, so what we think we know about a character now can often change after a few episodes." Well, that much is true.

From Lauren: "Sure, she had to be tough on a lot of people, but that toughness of hers just may have saved everyone's lives. So why is there so much hate directed towards her?"

From Joyce L.: "I get the feeling that a lot of the viewers are transferring their dislike of Michelle Rodriguez and the characters she's played in her movies to this character. I had no preconceived notions because I had never heard of her until they made such a big deal over her being added to the cast. Anyway, I've tried to give her a chance based on what her group of survivors have gone through since the plane crash. Someone had to step up and take the lead so the group would survive. The backstory on the next episode after "The Other 48 Days" explained her issues but didn't make me feel warm and fuzzy about the character. I think she will shake things up a bit and add something to the mix of characters we know. Not sure I'd want to be around her all the time, though. And whoever wondered why none of our people have hit back yet was right. She needs a dose of chill pills. Now, the character who does intrigue me is Mr. Eko. Can't wait until they tell us more about him. And Desmond, too. They're both really great additions to the cast."

Couldn't agree more about Eko, and it sounds like they've already started working on his backstory as well.

 

[Lost News]

05/12/16:

Question: I've just about had it with people who religiously read the Lost message boards and search the Internet for any scrap of spoilers they can find, and then complain that the episodes are predictable! Of course they are, if you insist on knowing in advance what will happen. Why can't people just enjoy watching the show as it unfolds? — Kristen

Matt Roush: I can tell you from experience: It's much more fun watching this way, without ruining things in advance. I'm all for giving readers broad outlines of where a story is heading. I'm excited, for instance, to know that Mr. Eko will be getting his own Lost flashback soon, but beyond that, I don't want to know more until I see it. My favorite is when people read a rumor or a spoiler and then ask me to comment on it in advance. My rule is: Don't judge until you've actually watched. And it helps if you give it a moment's, or maybe a day's, thought before you rush to judgment.

06/1/20:

Question: What a great episode of Lost (Jan. 11)! Kate and Sawyer are my favorite characters, but Mr. Eko's story blew me away! And coming off the heels of Kate's backstory episode, that's two wonderful hours of entertainment in a row. Funny how all those knee-jerk haters who said Lost was jumping the shark at the beginning of the year are strangely silent now, eh? But seriously, Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje's Mr. Eko seems to be the breakthrough character this year in much the same way Terry O'Quinn's Locke was last year. There's not one bad performance on Lost, but I'm hoping Emmy voters remember Adewale later this year. — Mike K.

Matt Roush: With a large ensemble like Lost's — not to mention the fact that many still consider it a genre show — I fear quite a few deserving souls from the cast will be snubbed at the Emmys (especially in a year when The Sopranos is back in the running). But Adewale was magnificent, and the episode was a brilliant way to return from the long holiday hiatus.

Another take on the episode, from Erin: "I'll admit my interest in Lost had been waning since the beginning of this season. Last week changed that. Eko is by far my favorite character now. How intense was that staring match with the mysterious smoke? I hope we will see this character develop much more as the season goes on. How do you feel about his struggles with evil deeds and the greater good he seems to be striving for? And on what side of the good-vs.-evil list, which Goodwin implied the Others had, do you think he would be on?"

If Lost is, as many have theorized, an allegory of redemption, a place for lost souls to confront their pasts while they attempt to survive an uncertain present, then I think Eko would have to be seen as one of the more heroic, even majestic, figures of the reconfigured tribe. And yes, the showdown with the smoke was astonishing.

 

[Lost News]

2006/03/06:

Question: I love your column and your candid insights. Matt, do you share my opinion that Lost is on the verge of Twin Peaks-ing itself into oblivion? The first season of Twin Peaks was so awesome and must-see. By the second season, they seemed so full of their own cleverness and press that they forgot what made their show compelling to begin with: awesome, mysterious plotlines and various twists and turns. With Lost, the second season is having the same problem. The show that I ordered all of my friends/family to watch this season has morphed into a scattered, disjointed, meandering story with barely any of the wonderful features of Season 1. Just as Twin Peaks suffered a premature death, I think Lost is headed there as well, particularly when they keep going on hiatus and bombarding us with reruns. 24 blows away all competition for me in the drama department, not only because of the fast-paced action but because I can tune in and rest assured I will never see a rerun. Lost is on the verge of not being TiVo-worthy for me anymore! — Laura

Matt Roush: I think we're watching different shows. Just since the new year, the Mr. Eko episode, the Sawyer episode with those reversals involving the faked kidnapping of Sun and the control of the island arsenal, the Sayid episode with the capture of the mysterious Mr. Gale (and the heart-stopping moment when we thought they weren't going to "push the button" in time), all were completely absorbing and added new layers to my enjoyment of this show. I honestly don't know what people expect from Lost, except a new episode each and every week, which (sorry to say) is too much to ask. Because ABC isn't going to take such a monster hit off the air for half the year — it just isn't going to happen. If it were a cult show, yes. If ABC were more of an alternative network like Fox, yes. But Lost is the very opposite of Twin Peaks, which was more about mood and atmosphere than story. Which made Twin Peaks great when there was that one great mystery tying the bizarre fabric together, and not so great when it was just being surreal for surreal's sake (and I kinda loved it even then). Lost is all about story, about character, about mystery. It's doing its thing deliberately, carefully, with a view of continuing the story for many years to come, not going there fast enough to satisfy many, but not in such a way that it is too oblique to enjoy. With shows like The Shield, 24, Battlestar Galactica and the astonishing new season of The Sopranos (more on that in future columns) to contend with, I'm not sure Lost will end up at the top of my top-10 list for a third straight year. But it's still a contender.

 

[Lost News]

2006/03/27:

Question: I think I know why people are so infuriated with all these Lost reruns. Never mind the fact that reruns interrupt the momentum of the show. Never mind that the September-May season has been around for decades. The reason so many people are mad at Lost is because, simply, many of the people who watch the show aren't normal TV viewers. A lot of people discovered the show on DVD, watched it in a week's time, and are now watching Season 2 televised — quite a chore compared to watching it at one's own pace. Lost fans who don't normally watch TV aren't as familiar with the September-May season, and don't get what all the reruns are about. What do you think? Has Lost discovered a new type of fan — the anti-TV fan — and is it now being punished by these fans for following the TV season? (Subquestion: Any chance ABC will cave in to all the complaints and start the next season in November like The X-Files used to do? This would erase two months of reruns, while still holding the show over a huge period of advertisers' time.) — Angelo S.

Matt Roush: I still don't see ABC delaying the start of Lost until November, even if it does lessen the load of repeats, which would make fans happy. (I'm betting that now that we're in all-originals mode again, the average Lost fan will forget what they were ever bitching about.) Part of what fuels the outrage is that for its first two seasons, Lost has aired roughly nine consecutive original episodes at the start of the season, spoiling us into thinking that that's the way it's going to be for good. Since the new year, only six episodes aired between January 11 and March 22, and for the avid fan, and especially for the more casual TV watcher, that's just not acceptable. Angelo has a point that Lost fanatics who don't watch TV in high volume are especially disgruntled by a repeat pattern that isn't really that unusual. Me, I'm selfish and overextended in my TV habits. So I always look at a repeat as a bit of a vacation. I simply don't share the angst.

I will say, though, that with Lost less prevalent on the weekly schedule, I find it somewhat easier to forget about, especially in a winter that has brought us terrific new seasons of shows like 24, The Shield and The Sopranos. I've begun to think that for the first time since it premiered, Lost will not top my best-of-the-year list when the time comes. But we'll see how we feel in December, after we've experienced another early-season string of first-run Lost episodes (and 24, Shield and Sopranos will have been off the air for half a year already).