Ask Matt questions for Lost

2006/04/03:

Question: Your point in your March 20 column about Lost reruns following the usual rerun pattern is well taken. However, I think we need to acknowledge that Lost is not a normal network show, so the "normal" rerun pattern is a poor fit. Lost is an intricately plotted serial, each episode built upon the last, so the dribbling out of a new episode here, followed by a rerun from last season and then a couple of reruns from this season followed by a couple of new episodes, can make the story hard to follow. I think the best way for ABC to handle reruns is to air a block of new episodes, then rerun those episodes in order, then air another block of new episodes, and so on. I think Sci Fi handled it well with Battlestar Galactica, airing the 20 new episodes in two blocks of 10, and I think Lost would work well using a similar model, maybe using four blocks of six episodes to cover the sweeps periods, as long as they reran those episodes in order. — Robyn

Matt Roush: Of all the discussions I've read regarding the Lost rerun situation, this makes the most sense. Maybe not in the specifics of the math, which are beyond me, but I do think ABC (and the other networks, should they ever be lucky enough to land a show as compelling as Lost) needs to consider a way to use the inevitable reruns to its, and to the show's, advantage. With an asset as valuable as Lost, maybe the network and the show's producers could find a way to get us through the long stretch of reruns by repackaging the episodes or by tweaking them in the manner of a DVD extra to give them some added value. Watching Lost is like playing a game, and ABC should find a way to keep the game going even during periods when the supply of new episodes dries up.
 
2006/04/24:

Question: I read that Lost's ratings the week of the Rose-and-Bernard story were the lowest ever (coming in at around 15 million viewers.) I realize that's still high for most shows, but for a megahit like Lost it seems terrible. Do you think the writers will take the hint and make adjustments to the plot next year? I know most people complain about the reruns, but they don't bother me as much as the fact that after almost an entire season, the plot hasn't moved an inch. What's your opinion of the obviously lost plotlines of this year's biggest drama? Will next year change things up? — Brandy

Matt Roush: For me, the Rose-Bernard outing was a near-perfect episode of Lost. Psychologically, emotionally, suspensefully, it had it all. If Lost's numbers aren't what they should be, consider that American Idol is now one of its competitors. I'm not worried by — or, frankly, interested in — any of this. What would horrify me is if the producers of this unique show began reacting to ratings ups and downs, or to chronically impatient "fans," by rushing this dense, strange story toward some contrived climax. As was made clear in the most recent episode, only two months have passed in the lives of these characters since they landed on the island. Bernard's frustration with the survivors settling in for the long haul instead of looking for a new escape route illuminated that very point. There are still so many stories to tell on this show, stories that can enhance the mysteries of the island without explaining them just yet. I'd like Lost to run for years and years. I don't know why they'd try to fix what ain't broke just yet.
 
2006/05/01:

Question: I have been an avid fan of Lost for a long time now and must say that Michael Emerson (Henry Gale) is one of the best villains I have seen on television in recent years. My husband and I just began watching 24 faithfully in the past few weeks, and while we are enthralled with the suspense of the story line, we are unimpressed with Gregory Itzin's portrayal of President Logan as the villain. But Emerson's Henry is extremely intimidating and creepily believable; he's a wonderful character whom we love to hate. What do you think it takes to create a truly creepy and convincing villain? Do you think this is more reliant on the writing or the actor's abilities? Thanks. — Molly H.

Matt Roush: A bit of both, surely. The best villains are also often the most enigmatic, and Henry Gale (at least up to now) certainly fits that bill. Michael Emerson was also amazing in a recurring role on The Practice way back in 2000, as the supercreepy serial killer William Hinks. But comparing this character to Gregory Itzin as Charles Logan is a bit unfair. And for what it's worth, Itzin has been enjoying quite a bit of acclaim (all deserved) for his sinister about-face. Logan is a bad guy, for sure, but this one's played more for pathos. Here's a guy who's in way over his head, caught up (don't ask me how) in a bizarre scheme that spiraled way out of control and claimed the life of a former president and a current secretary of state. Logan, despite his position of power, is essentially weak and pathetic, and he knows it, as do we. Whereas Gale is still a total mystery to us, and he seems to enjoy toying with everyone who comes in contact with him in the hatch. All we know for sure is that he's scary as all get-out. Both actors are doing breakout work this season, they're just doing it differently.

~~

Question: It was recently announced that a certain cast member of Lost joined a pilot for CBS in the fall (as a guest star), and it caused massive speculation in the entertainment press. Lately I've gotten weary of these kinds of announcements — the same thing happened to characters on 24 and The Sopranos. I know actors can sometimes star in two different shows at the same time, but given that Drea de Matteo's character, for example, seemed in peril on the show, I couldn't help but figure that her character was a goner sooner or later anyway. With shows like 24 and Lost, I know that anyone could die, but are you getting tired of the rush to scoop the next person, and is revealing vital information getting in the way of enjoying a good show? — James

Matt Roush: As both a provider and consumer of entertainment news and commentary, I can only say that this subject is a minefield. For every person who (like you) seems to despise spoilers, there's someone else who lives for them. I fall in between. There's no way, for instance, we could avoid reporting on something as basic as Drea de Matteo joining the cast of Joey, no matter what speculation that might raise about her role on The Sopranos. But did that spoil it for me when Adriana met her maker? Not a bit. I didn't know when, how or even if it was coming (for all we knew at the time, she could have escaped into witness protection). News is news, and that includes entertainment news. Where I have a bigger problem is in knowing too many plot details on the shows I love. Working here, I can't tell you how many times I've plugged my ears during a story meeting so I could stay in the dark about an upcoming assignment. Case in point: We had a story ready to go on Gregory Itzin following the plot twist on 24. I knew something was happening, but I didn't know what. And I would have been furious to have known about it in advance. That's why we put spoiler alerts in front of items, as best we can, if we think it's going to ruin a twist. But I also have little sympathy for those who have yet to watch an episode that has aired and who then gripe after visiting a site like this that there wasn't a spoiler alert in any discussion of said episode. Once something has aired, it's fair game. Before that, I'm like you. I'd be cautious about what reporting and speculation I read. But it's getting harder and harder to stay completely in the dark, I'll give you that.
 
2006/05/08:

Question: I have to say that I share Jason's fears that Lost will decline in quality next season with the continued absence of J.J. Abrams and the reduced involvement of the current show-runners. Not only will it be difficult to keep up the intricate mythology and character development that have been critical to Lost's success, but I have noticed a trend where dramas often suffer creative declines in their third seasons. I've noticed this in some of the best shows of our times, including The Sopranos, Six Feet Under, Alias, West Wing, 24, Nip/Tuck and The Shield. All of those shows suffered huge drop-offs in quality after two amazing seasons. The Wire has been one show that seemed to buck this trend, and hopefully Rescue Me, Deadwood, Battlestar Galactica and Veronica Mars (if it gets renewed) will follow in The Wire's footsteps. Do you think this has to do with creative burnout, or apathy, or is it just next to impossible to continue creative excellence beyond just a few seasons, though 24 and The Sopranos seem to have rebounded in subsequent seasons. Maybe the Brits have it correct in limiting shows to six to 10 episodes per season. Having 20-plus episodes on the network and even 12 episodes or so on cable seems to be too much hubris. — Tom

Matt Roush: I'm not so sure this is a question of sustained excellence as much as of sustained attention span and of a public tendency (exacerbated by fans' habit of overanalyzing everything in this 24/7 Internet age) to grow weary of what no longer seems fresh. While it's true that a show's flaws become more noticeable the longer it stays on the air, and the incredible balancing act required for keeping a show compelling week after week never gets easier, there's no rule (or even trend that I'm aware of) that the third year's a jinx for any given show. Reading Michael Ausiello's chat with Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse last week, I'll take them at their word that their film duties won't get in the way of their running Lost. The fact that they have now publicly stated that they're not changing the way they're telling their stories, and the canvas of characters they're creating in and around this island is only expanding, gives me hope that the third season will live up to our expectations, the way I feel the second season most definitely has.
 
06/05/15:
Question: I am amazed at the new Lost-related websites springing up. The Oceanic site last year was cool, and then the Hanso site, but now there is a site for the Valenzetti Foundation, which is somehow related to the new book Bad Twin and the site for Windmore Laboratories, the makers of the Dharma food and Sun's pregnancy test. Oh, and let's not forget the new Hanso phone number (which, I admit, I did call). How involved are Lost's creators in the info going up on these sites, and is it necessary for the avid Lost fan to scour these sites for a fuller appreciation of the show? — Brooke

Matt Roush: From what I gather, the producers are very involved in these offshoots, all of which sounds like a great deal of fun for anyone with the time to indulge their Lost obsession. It reminds me of my early days on the TV beat, back in the low-tech pre-Internet days, when the legendary Twin Peaks issued a number of products, including the late Laura Palmer's diary, to tease the audience into trying to solve the mystery. You didn't have to do the extra homework back then to appreciate the show, and the same applies now. I personally haven't had the time to go to any of these Lost sites (except, between the first and second seasons, the Oceanic site, out of curiosity), and I don't honestly feel I'm missing anything. But I envy the true obsessives who are soaking all of it up, because I'm betting it's a blast to play along.

On another Lost front, Jorge asks: "From the comments that I've read in your column throughout this season, it would appear that your interest in Lost has fluctuated somewhat. It was strong at first, and then somewhere in the middle of the season, you talked about the show being fantastic still, but said you were thinking it maybe wasn't going to be part of your "Best Shows" lineup at the end of the year. With these last few episodes, the questions you've answered related to the show have been increasingly positive, with the last episode that aired (the one with that shocking finale) even getting its own Dispatch. So how about now? What's your opinion on the show for this (almost wrapped) season? Did it deliver, improve, not live up to its freshman year? Which episodes did you like the most and which ones did you think were bad? That's a lot of questions, but I enjoy reading your opinion on the shows that I like. Keep up the fantastic work!"

If memory serves, I only noted that because there was a period of time when Lost was out of sight/out of mind, it might not end up at the top of my top-10 list as the No. 1 show as it has the last two years. That still might be the case, but mainly because I feel The Sopranos has been so remarkable and challenging. There's no way Lost isn't on my personal top-10 list. The second season may not have exceeded the novelty of the first, but with of all the twists involving the hatch, the tailies, the Others, Henry Gale, etc, I have never lost my love for Lost. I'm not going to single out "bad" episodes, because I've either forgotten them or there haven't been any. But off the top of my head, my favorite episodes to date have included the backstory of Bernard and Rose; anything involving Sun and Jin (including her supposed kidnapping); the first Mr. Eko flashback; "The Other 48 Days," recapping the first months of the tailies' life on the island; and the "Lockdown" episode, in which Locke and Henry Gale were trapped in the hatch.

06/05/19:
Question: Why is Lost trying to mimic 24 and kill off main characters every five minutes? I think it's stupid on 24, and I think it's even stupider on Lost. I find it insulting that shows think the only way we'll watch them is if they have huge explosions and sad deaths every episode. Then they have to outdo themselves and have two big explosions and three sad deaths. I like shows that are about the characters, like Lost. With them continually killing those characters off, I think that takes away from the show. We've lost four characters in only two seasons, and I wouldn't be surprised if they killed off a few more in the next episodes. I hope they'll take it easy for a while, and I hope the actors will be sure not to get in trouble with the law. ;)Julie

Matt Roush: Sigh. This time I couldn't disagree more. On shows like 24 and Lost, the very fact that almost every character is potentially expendable ratchets up the dramatic stakes and intensity. If you look at every character death as a cheap-shock plot twist, that's your problem, not the show's. It's certainly not stupid, although I will admit to being a bit weary of watching characters get shot during these May sweeps. Still, it's in the DNA of serialized adventures and thrillers, at least the good ones, to put major characters in peril. If everyone in these shows was invincible, where's the suspense? That said, the writers do need to try to make each death count — which isn't to say, especially on 24, that we or the characters need to dwell on each loss. But there should be a sense of loss, or what's the point?

On a similar topic, this from Lyle: "I was thinking about your comments about the latest episodes of Lost, and realized I only half agree with you. I, like you, was not overly shocked by the death of Ana Lucia, since, as you said, she has had a target on her since killing Shannon. But I have to disagree with you on the killing of Libby. Yes, she was underwritten, but that is the reason her death bothered me. She was the only underwritten character on Lost, and it almost felt like bad writing to kill her off before we even got a chance to know her. I keep thinking about the potential in her character that is now, well, lost, and think about the many mysteries that will never be discovered about her, the biggest being why she was in Hurley's mental asylum. At least after the deaths of Boone, Shannon and even Ana Lucia, I felt a sense that we saw everything about them. I have a sneaking suspicion that we have not seen the last of Libby in some form or another, and that this underwritten feeling is part of some bigger plan."

It's already been discussed in other forums and interviews that Cynthia Watros will still be reoccurring in Hurley's flashbacks, so you're right on that count. She may not have had enough backstory to merit her staying as a full-fledged regular, but I'm betting before we're through with Hurley, we'll know a lot more about Libby. And chances are, we'll feel the impact of her death a lot more at that point than we do right now.

~~

Question: I'm a bit confused. Everyone's predicting that Lost's Terry O'Quinn (John Locke) will get an Emmy nomination for outstanding supporting actor. Are they all watching the same show I am? John Locke has been the most important character this season, from his discovery of the hatch to his tragic backstory to his loss of faith. Plus, he's appeared in every episode (a feat for Lost, considering its enormous cast), save for the amazing "Other 48 Days" episode. In what world is this a "supporting" role? Do you know whether or not he'll be submitting himself in the lead or supporting categories? And if he doesn't submit himself as a lead actor, what gives? — Marcus D.

Matt Roush: Lost is such a true ensemble series that it makes sense to me for nearly everyone in the cast to be considered a supporting player. (Matthew Fox, as the symbolic doctor/leader of the group, is exempt from this, I guess, though I'm not convinced he should be.) Terry O'Quinn was nominated in the supporting category last year, and that's where I imagine he would go again this year. I don't understand the fuss. The only problem is accommodating all the other great actors on this show, especially when the even hotter Grey's Anatomy is going to be vying for slots. (As long as Chandra Wilson and T.R. Knight make the cut, I'll be satisfied. They're the heart of that show.)
 
06/05/30:

Question: Matt, I keep reading that the numbers are down for Lost this year. While it is normal for a series to show some loss over the yearsyears, I am wondering how much the various venues to watch Lost affect the Nielsen numbers. Now viewers can watch entire episodes the next day via abc.com, download it from iTunes or simply watch it the next day via TiVo. Is there a way to track all this? I feel like the viewers of Lost are pretty techno-saavy and might be using these venues a lot more than people realize. I know for myself I will end up watching Lost on Thursday via abc.com as the American Idol and Amazing Race finales are on at the same time. I can only TiVo so much! Do these venues get counted towards total viewers? — Pam D.

Matt Roush: The good news about Lost is that its success no longer has to be measured entirely in Nielsen numbers, at least where ABC is concerned. (Good thing, too, with American Idol plaguing it the last half of this season.) These alternate delivery systems enhance the show's exposure, in some cases providing new revenue streams (and advertisers must love it when people watch the show on ABC's website, because there's no way, I understand, to fast-forward through the commercials). This trend of making shows available in other formats will only escalate as time goes on, but as the execs kept saying during the upfronts: It doesn't matter how many places you make a show available for viewing if the show isn't any good. There's a reason Lost is in the forefront of this trend. It deserves to be seen by as many people as possible.

And . . . Roush's dispatch on the finale:

How ironic. Just when I couldn’t be more lost, the Lost tribe is found.

(Or at least tracked by two guys in an arctic-looking outpost, monitoring electromagnetic anomalies.) The finale to end all finales — literally, it was the last finale to air on the last night of the official TV season — was mind-blowing. Also mind-boggling. I think I need a vacation just from trying to sort out the finale of Lost. As usual with this show, especially in the episodes that presume to parcel out a few answers while advancing the bigger picture (never my favorite part of the Lost experience), I was entertained and dazzled, but more than ever mystified, almost to the point of frustration, but never to the point that I was tempted to push my own button: the “off” button, as it were.

How about that moment when Locke looked fearfully at Eko, as the hatch was crumbling around them in a magnetic maelstrom while Desmond was preparing to turn the key and theoretically blow it all to kingdom come. “I was wrong,” Locke admitted about causing the latest system failure. Was he ever. Everything was real, after all. Surreally real. (The last time there was such a system failure, on September 22, 2004 — the night Lost premiered on ABC — the electromagnetic pulse sent Oceanic Flight 815 crashing down.)

So while we wonder if Locke and Eko survived that eerie blast, which sent the Quarantine hatch cover soaring in the air to nearly cream Bernard and Claire, we’re also left wondering so much more. Like what did non-Henry Gale mean when he answered Michael’s question of the day, “Who are you people?” with “We’re the good guys, Michael.” Compared to whom? The Others still have lots of explaining to do. And where exactly is Sayid lying in wait as the Others take their bound captives (Jack, Kate and Sawyer) back to their camp? And Sun and Jin, for that matter? Still back on Desmond’s boat? And will Michael and Walt actually be able to steer their boat to a place of rescue, or will they find themselves turned around, like Desmond, in a kind of Bermuda Triangle-like bubble? And how many island inhabitants did Libby actually meet before crash-landing herself? (It’s her boat, named Elizabeth by her late husband, that Desmond was sailing around the world.) Not to nitpick, but why did no one go back to the hatch to look for Locke and Eko once Charlie returned to camp, ears ringing from Eko’s desperate dynamite charge? And what to make of the giant four-toed stone foot, all that’s left of some fallen ancient statue? And where exactly is that frigid outpost where the two men were looking for signs of electromagnetic activity, so they could tip Desmond’s beloved Penny Widmore (of the enigmatic Widmore Corp/Labs empire), “I think we found it.” And now that they’ve found it, how will Penny react when and if she learns her beloved Desmond has (presumably) been vaporized? And speaking of vapor, I’m still trying to make sense of that black-smoke entity we saw earlier in the season, which (unless I’m forgetting something) hasn’t been spoken of or seen since.

All of which is a way to reiterate, and I’m not afraid to admit it, that I’m completely lost at this point. Part of that is my fault. I watch and enjoy too much TV to focus obsessively on any one show, so I’m sure I’m not making crucial connections about Clancy Brown’s character of Kelvin Inman (the same CIA guy who crossed Sayid’s path in the Gulf War flashbacks?), and about the Widmore family’s connection to the Hanso Foundation and the Dharma Initiative, if there is one. And so forth. But honestly, I’m not in this for the exposition and answers, which would probably just confuse me anyway. I’m in it for the adventure, and few shows deliver on that as spectacularly as Lost. I just hope that by opening up some of these new avenues of mystery and conflict, the show won’t lose its focus on the marvelous core characters who have captured our imagination over these two seasons. Part of me worries that “Dharma” is just another word for “Rambaldi.” [:lol: ~ ed.] If the island’s secrets ever upstage the human dynamics, all truly will be lost.
 
Back
Top