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.