WE'LL GET TO IT ALL AFTER THE TITLE FLIES THROUGH: So, pop-up video on Lost. I'm thinking it may have engendered some divergent views. Me, I thought it was kind of fun. Best to watch with a DVR, though, as some of the more interesting observations (of which there weren't many, although the whole enterprise had an amusing we-love-the-fanboys tone to it -- which isn't so surprising given the excellent Mo Ryan-Damon Lindelof interview of the other day) were offered during some of the more relevant plot points.
I'd really forgotten how densely packed the finale was, and how well executed certain plot points were. The poetry of Charlie's farewell, the customary end-of-season WHA?, the moment when we were sure that we had lost three survivors -- great stuff.
Which kind of leads to the biggest question in my mind going into this fourth, game-changing season. For the last two seasons, I've been defending Lindelof and the gang against gripes regarding the show's pace and stinginess with the doling out of actual plot-advancing information. (Read the Mo Ryan interview to hear Lindelof's thoughts on such nailbiters as Jack Goes to Vietnam!) But now they've got themselves a finite endpoint and a known number of new episodes until they reach that endpoint, and so I am done making the argument that the showrunners don't know how long the show's going to go on and thus need to pace it accordingly just in case the damn thing runs for ten years. No more excuses. Either you can write a great show episode in and episode out, or else you're Tim Kring and you can't figure out how to both start and finish a satisfying arc to save your life.
I have faith (and thus perhaps I lack some science), and I, for one, am very excited for tomorrow's Season 4 premiere. Bring on the other other others!
p.s. According to that Which Lost Character Are You? quiz, I am, naturally, Sawyer. Feel free to chuckle.
No comments:
Post a Comment