I thought last night's episode was very good. The back story was one of the best that I have seen and the island story progressed a little bit (Charlie's secret stash revealed, Claire-Charlie on the outs, Walt contacting Michael).

It is still must-see for me.

Last night's episode was pretty good, but I don't get very excited about Lost anymore. They killed the momentum.

They talked in the podcast about how they only have the capacity to film 24 episodes and the television season is 35 weeks long so they basically have three choices:

1. Start the season in September and evenly space out the off weeks so you get something like 2 new, 1 rerun, 2 new, 1 rerun
2. Start the season in September and try to clump episodes so you get something like 4 new, 2 rerun, 4 new, 2 reruns
3. Start the season in December and run episodes straight through May, but then have 7-8 months off

They implied that ABC took #3 off the table and that they prefered #2 to #1 because they felt it was less confusing to the viewers and less disruptive to the story since they could tell it in bursts of new episodes. It sucks to have so many off weeks, but given the quality of the show and the length of the television season I'm not really sure what they could do differently.

I'm thinking that the idea is that they are nano robots like in the book Prey by Michael Crichton

I'm sure the answer is obvious, but why not shoot 35 episodes?

Good theory. Hadn't thought of that. Now how did they beat those nasty little nano robots again....?

Why not start working 58 hour weeks? Jumping from 24 to 35 is a big jump.

I guess the droughts don't bother me as much as they bother other folks. I do get annoyed at how long Bill Maher's show goes on break.

Well, I think the point is that there seems to be a fundamental flaw in the concept of the TV season. The viewer gets totally screwed.

I think one of the networks really just needs to step it up and say "fuck the traditional season concept, we're going to bring you new entertainment every week all year long."

I would agree. You could rack in the ad revenue through sweeps, at least initially, because many other channels will be playing reruns and crappy new shows.

I wish football was all year round.

Let 'em take off a month for the draft and free agency, then right back at it. And no exhibition games!

hey, what's the Three Company formula?

Hey Cap!

Anyways, I'm starting to fall into this. At first when I saw a few episiodes I thought, "Wow, a network show that 'gets it'" like so many of the HBO series do. I thought that the amazing plot (which looks to be turning out to be not so amazing) combined with use of internet sites, etc. was really, really cool.

Then I found out that the writers are pretty much making things up as they go along, and not only that, they don't even know what the significance of the numbers is - and say they don't know yet how they'll explain it!

I agree with your line about manipulating the audience. Pretty weak.

Every episode of Three's Company was based upon a misunderstanding of some sort; a lot of times they used Jack Tripper's "gayness" with his various landlords (Don Knotts, etc.).

I think a lot of people feel this way. Why the continual stopping and starting? They started milking this one WAY too early.

They can't do 35 episodes because according to the producers they already work 52 weeks a year just to get the 24 episodes out. I imagine they could do it if they sacrificed a good bit of quality (both creatively and production-wise), but I doubt they really consider that a valid option.

I guess the delays don't bother me too much. This is one of the few non-HBO shows I watch so I'm used to 10-13 episode seasons followed by 1-2 years of downtime.

I believe this is the key. Everyone wants to compare this to a HBO original. I love Curb your Enthusiasm, the Wire, and Deadwood. But if people want to compare, lets compare. Deadwood goes for 13 weeks and then takes off 1 1/2 years. Lost goes for 12 weeks, takes off a month, and then does 12 more. I guess everyone here would rather it to end November and not start again until next year.

I don't understand why Lost gets so much flak for this. Last season they had 23 original hours of programming, the most of any network drama (most have 20). Most start in mid-september, and spread out the 20 episodes over 8 1/2 months (with new stuff always in November and May). Lost does this, and everyone thinks they are "dragging out" the show. Nah, they are just following the network's schedule.

Are you counting the extra 8 minute episode they had?

Doesn't more hours mean that you're dragging out the show? Especially when you close very few storylines.

Actually, I think it was "You need to con..."

This thought crossed my mind and I think you may be right. Because when Locke (I think it was Locke) tried to type before the alarm started going off the computer would not accept anything he was typing.

Did I miss something in this video? Does something important happen here that I am not picking up on?

Locke is one of the "Others" just like the other group had an outsider in their group I think Locke is one.

You're gonna have to explain that one further. What about his backstory or lack thereof?

But the main group had one too. Ethan.

The sound and the core of the smoke when they showed the overhead shot made me think that whatever it is is supposed to be some sort of snake. I have no idea what that, if anything, is supposed to signify, but i think that's obviously what it is.

Lower your gun, brother.

Sorry, I thought this was a video clip of Michael typing to answer the question previously asked in the thread. I was busy at work so I couldnt watch it, but from thetailsection.com, it looked like it could answer the question.

I have a question for you.(Don't you hate that? Answering a question with a question) Who is the one who discovered that Ethan was one of the others?(I never watched the first season) I remember reading that he use to be a cripple(bad word I know but right now my spelling is weak) how was he able to walk again? I have watch all of the second season and he is the only person who comes off as atleast to me as different. He has some sort of understanding like he knows exactly what is going on.

Ethan was not a cripple. The original survivors were taking note of the names (hugo?) and they found out that one guy who was not on the manifest is part of the group, thus meaning, he was there on the island before (like goodwin).

Yeah after someone was attacked(Claire I believe) Hurley decides that he needs to find out who is who. They discover Ethan isn't on the passenger manifest just before he kidnaps Claire and Charley.

Hurley found the flight manifest and did a "census" to find out who all had survived. Ethan said he was on the flight and from Canada, but didn't show up on the manifest. Everyone else checked out.

So far, Locke's ability to walk has been a miracle of the island.

Sorry,couldn't think of his name until someone mentioned it (hurley).

And we've seen this ability nearly be taken from him 1 (or two?) times during the show so far. When he went out to the plan with Boone he kept having trouble walking and eventually couldn't at all at one point.

The cripple I was speaking of was Locke. I think he is a pawn for the "others" in exchange for him helping he was given the ability to walk.

So you are saying the "others" planted him on the Oceanic flight???

I think so...

For those who haven't been able to see the "smoke" in frame by frame, check this video out:


http://www.lostannex.com/lost_2.10_smoke.fly.bi.avi

Didn't they use a computer virus to kill the nanbots in Prey?
 

That was one incredibly exciting book! It was over 500 pages and I read it in three nights!! Could not put it down! :eek:

How about 24 on Fox template?
 

I think Fox has the right idea with the way they present 24 in January for 24 stratight episodes in like 19 weeks (4eps in the first week and 2 in the last). This is a great idea. Then in the other half of the season they show Prison Break.

Another great idea is how SciFi shows it's wonderful Friday Night shows, Stargate SG-1, Stargate-Atlantis and my favorite Battlestar Galactica, by breaking up the seaon in 2 halfs with a break in the middle. Each half has a "cliff hanger" which I really like, then 3 months later (give or take a few weeks) they continue the season for another 10-13 weeks.

Both of these examples beat the heck out of having 3 new eps and two weeks off or the 6 week break during the holidays which is really inexcusable.

I have a question though: How did the older TV series like Dallas and TOS manage to get 30-35 episodes done in a season? Did they just work "smarter" back then? Are today's shows really that much more labor intensive?

The ending was outstanding!
 

My wife and loved the ending, we both teared up, well I did and she actually busrt into tears, hearing The Lords Word on live TV!! Wow! The 23rd Psalm is one of my favorite passages in the Bible!

Truly Most AWESOME!!!

Lost does have quite a bit of Spirituality in it :D

Just checked an episode guide for Dalles, and it was more like 26-27. Things have not changed as much as people think.

I actually think that the decrease in number of episodes is network-driven - they order less episodes to cut costs, and don't lose as much in revenue from reruns as they save from running it.



Lost actually had 24 hours of original programming, compared to the typical network drama of 20-22 episodes. Both took 35 weeks to air. How is 24 hours over 35 weeks more spread out than 20 episodes in 35 weeks?

Well actually....
 

[quote=Samdari]Just checked an episode guide for Dalles, and it was more like 26-27.Dallas averaged 28.1 episodes per seasons over the first 10 seaosns of the show!! Things have not changed as much as people think.

I actually think that the decrease in number of episodes is network-driven - they order less episodes to cut costs, and don't lose as much in revenue from reruns as they save from running it.




Star Trek, the original aired 29 episodes in it's first season!

I think you are right, it all comes down to money! Perhaps today's actors are making a tad too much money. Hey in sports the athletes are making more money but they are also playing more games (as compared with the 60's and 70's). So why not actors huh? I know it's an hourly thing, but should it be!?

...and Star Trek isn't exactly a show know for its production quality either. They're trying to film a television series with the production quality of a major motion picture. I'm sure they could do more episodes if they lowered the standards. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a show produced with the standards of Lost (both in production and creativity) that does more episodes. As mentioned above the closest would be HBO shows like Sorpranos or Six Feet Under and they run half as many episodes in twice as much time.

The cloest examples I can think of on network TV are 24 and X-Files. 24 runs the same number of episodes, but the network allows them to run straight though starting in January (ABC apparently does not allow Lost to do that). X-Files ran 20-25 episodes per season as well.

Stra Trek was quality for it's time!
 

I would strongly disagree with you about Star Trek being a quality production. In the 1960's it was one of the if not most expensive and quality of TV shows. Samething for TNG, DS9 and so on. Perhaps your tastes run different and that is ok. I am not so concerned with the number of episodes in a season as how they are released on TV. I think Fox has it best with 24 and ABC is losing fans for Lost by having the 6 week hiatus along with other 2-3 week breaks. That along wiht the deliberatness of the show is not a good combination. My wife and I watched season 1 on DVD (though I had watched seaosn one last yera, mostly in groups as I taped all the episodes to later watch at my leisure). The show was much more enjoyable seen consecutively wiht minimal breaks (a week or less) and we were hooked. Now in seaosn two what wiht the slow pace of many of the episodes and then the 6 week break with other smaller ones, my wife has almost "lost" interest (pardon the pun). I imagine that thousands of other fans are feeling the same way. ABC needs to pay attention to what Fox is doing with 24! :rolleyes:

Proof?

Would you like to meet the people?
 

I have many friends that have dropped out of watching it. I suppose you would want their names addresses, social security numbers, birth certificate.

Asking for proof is very silly. I suppose you like the 6 week hiatus? That would make you and maybe a very few others on this board. That was my point, but I suppose you'll want proof of that too..... :rolleyes:

Any show is bound to lose some viewers over time, but from the ratings released, your statement of "its losing fans" may hold true within the selected sample you have provided, but it doesn't look like that is true in looking at the larger scale.

No, but I'd like some numbers that ABC execs would actually give a damn about.