Crazy 'Lost' recipe made television exciting

The most exciting television show in the history of television, or at least in the years I’ve been watching it, will come to an end Sunday, May 23.
The series finale of “Lost” is set to air on ABC that evening, capping six crazy seasons no other television show has even come close to duplicating, all while retaining a mass audience it should have lost its second episode when it became obvious this show was more about creating questions than answering them.
“Lost,” for those who don’t know, is one part “Gilligan’s Island,” as it focuses on a group of passengers on an airliner who are stranded on an island after it crashes; one part “Land of the Lost” (and not the crappy film version that came out last year), as time travel is frequently involved; one part “Star Trek,” as the science-fiction element of this show often addresses moral subjects, including religion and free will, that the best “Star Trek” shows and films also tackled; one part “Memento,” a film that is nothing but flashbacks, a narrative device “Lost” took one step further with flash-forwards and flash-sideways; and one part LSD or some other hallucinogenic drug, as show creator J.J. Abrams and producers Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse must have ingested a lot of them when they came up with this recipe.
This recipe shouldn’t work.
But it does. And here’s why:
It makes viewers think, unlike 95 percent of the other television shows out there. While shows like “CSI,” “Desperate Housewives,” “American Idol” and “How I Met Your Mother” can be highly entertaining, none of them are challenging. Other than an occasional cliffhanger, each episode of these shows is contained in itself, and all of them follow a set formula that’s kind of ridiculous if you really think about it. “Lost” requires viewers to see every episode, and it thrives on making sure it has no set formula.
“Lost” is a great “water-cooler” show. People who watch it love to talk about it. At my previous job, the day after “Lost” aired, we spent entire breaks talking about it, with each person giving their own theories as to what’s happening on the island. Most of the staff at The Gazette had not watched the show when I arrived here three years ago, but thanks to high praise from the two of us that did and the availability to catch up with the show through DVDs, a few more became fans.
Now, Wednesdays are spent talking about the Tuesday night episode. We’re already looking for potential substitutes now that it’s ending, but ABC’s attempts to create them with “Flashforward” and “V” have been big disappointments.
The cast is nearly perfect. For six years “Lost” has excelled at casting actors and actresses in both main and secondary roles who are the right match for their characters. And it’s not afraid to kill characters off, despite the fact the actor or actress may be a fan favorite. When the show killed Charlie, played by Hobbit Dominic Monaghan, off in the season three finale, I was upset it took him away from us, but at the same time it was a great moment for the show – one that was recreated for this season’s best moment so far. Character comes before actor/actress on “Lost,” a philosophy I wish other shows followed. Seeing Bree die an unexpected death on “Desperate Housewives” could be refreshing for that show, as opposed to the boring death Edie suffered because the actress playing her, Nicole Sheridan, was fired from it.
“Lost” is a great show to watch with someone else. My wife and I have been watching it together since day one. I like to pause the program to talk about events that take place, and sometimes, god-forbid, talk about them as the show is happening, much to her annoyance. But we both like to look at each other’s reaction when big moments occur, and there are a lot of them, to add to the experience. This doesn’t happen with other shows, unless rolling my eyes at the numerous stupid moments in “Bones” counts.
“Lost” will be missed, but a lot hinges on Sunday’s finale because quite a few questions still need answering. If the finale goes out with a whimper, leaving many of those questions unanswered, then getting over the loss of “Lost” might not be so difficult. But if it goes out with a bang, and I’m hoping it does, television programming will have a big void to fill.

Team Edward or Team Jacob: Some choices are tough

Edward or Jacob?
Jack or Locke?
Packers or Favre?
The thousands of Orcs who were just doing their job or those pesky Hobbits who were literally hell-bent on destroying a nice-looking piece of jewelry?
Once in awhile, life forces people to choose sides, even if making such a decision isn’t easy or clear.
The most obvious example in which people have to choose sides is the whole Team Edward or Team Jacob debate stirred up by the “Twilight” films and books. I’ll proclaim I’m above reading those books, as I can’t imagine devoting any of my schedule to doing so, but when it comes to films I’ll admit that taking two hours out of my schedule for a good laugh isn’t below me
The first two films in the “Twilight” series are great entertainment in that they can suck a person in quickly, just by watching a minute or so. My wife, Jenny, fell victim this way when I noticed the first film was on Showtime and I teased her that she wanted to watch it. When I tried to change the channel, she wouldn’t allow me, forcing me to watch it a second time. (The first time I did so was to review it for The Gazette. For the record, I gave it passing marks, but barely).
Since the second film was available to rent, she tricked me into renting it, simply by asking me if I were for Team Edward or Team Jacob. Jacob only had a minor role in the first film, so I chose Edward. She was all about Jacob, and this clash of opinions, which I’m always a fan of when it occurs, caused me to pick it up at the video store.
It was just as cheesy as the first film, with special effects so bad they made the ones in the 1970s television show “Buck Rogers in the 25th Century” look like “Avatar” by comparison. But the story, much like the shows on Telemundo and some of the dying soap operas on American television, is told in such a way people not only want to see what’s next, they develop a need to see the next development.
The same applies to the other examples I provided at the top of this column. Fans of “Lost,” many who have probably been lost for the last four years while watching this show, are now learning they have to choose between Jack Shepherd, the man of science, and John Locke, the man of faith. The show, in its final season, has made it seem as though Shepherd is the correct choice, but a big part of me believes the writers are going to turn it around at the end to show the man of faith is the right one.
The Packers or Brett Favre debate is one of loyalty vs. fandom. Does one commit to the team he or she has been loyal to since birth, or does one stick with the person he or she has followed fervently since 1992? I went with Favre in the debate, because the Packers will be there the rest of my life while Favre’s football playing years are probably limited (I say probably because, well, you never know with him).
With my “Lord of the Rings” example, people assume the Orcs are evil and don’t even deserve consideration, but they only did what they were created to do, which was to be evil. I guess the Hobbits had a right to fight back, but they probably could have lived the rest of their lives in the corner of their world without much disruption from the Orcs. Then again, the Orcs may have murdered them in their sleep, played football with their carcasses and then eaten them for breakfast.
People who make wrong choices are sometimes unwilling to admit it. No one likes to admit he or she is wrong, and when there is no definite answer, people don’t necessarily have to, even if others make more convincing arguments for an opposing side. That’s why I’ll never like a Hobbit again.