I can’t say when it was I decided I was lost, too. It was the scenery, characters, eye-candy and action that pulled me back in even after I had lost continuity from one episode or season to the next. You always wanted to see everything turn out all right. You always wondered who was behind whatever turmoil was bothering the survivors of Oceanic flight 815. They took a lot of pains to explain each character and make you understand them. But you never really understood the show.
It had all the right elements, though. Right down to the second each episode ended, and you realized you had stayed up too late watching this thing, and you still didn’t understand what was going on, so you said whatever it is you say when you know you’re still hooked and you still don’t know what’s going on. You wondered why the writers did some of the things they did, and I’ll tell you, I’m sure it was to keep you watching.
People spent man-decades trying to comprehend this program. There were fan blogs. One of the popular bloggers, a potty-mouthed single mom in her 20s in Tennessee, on the now-lost journalspace, created a separate blog just to air her logic on the meanings of each installment. LOST had wide appeal, for all the obvious reasons, including that it made people speculate what the hell was going on.
Someone speculated that LOST is the Star Trek of the 2000s. I see why. But the original Star Trek only lasted two seasons because people didn’t get it. LOST lasted SIX seasons because people didn’t get it but couldn’t let go of it. Star Trek spawned a recurrent Enterprise 🙂 that surfaced over and over for a few decades. Somehow I don’t see that happening after the final episode of LOST, now that we know all the survivors of Flight 815 are really dead. They killed that one.
But I see why LOST might be the Star Trek of the 2000s. The ethnic diversity, the characters, the action, the mystery, boldly having gone where no one has gone before except for some crazy French broad who’s been stuck in a cabin for 16 years like Rousseau. But it’s still better to look at the merits of LOST apart from the merits of Star Trek.
I shudder to think of the real world implications of a program called "LOST: The Next Generation," when this generation and the previous one are so scrambled.
Maybe after everyone has had a few years to completely gorge themselves on the season DVDs, someone might ressurect the dead survivors again. I was surprised to see Shannon, who was shot early on and died, basically killing half my interest in the program; Charlie, who drowned; Jin, who was on the ship that exploded to smithereens; Juliet, who fell into a deep shaft and detonated a hydrogen bomb with a rock; and apparently John Locke, who got along so well with the island and the smoke monster that he maybe never really did die, and maybe never will. An afterlife would be the only way to put everyone back on the same screen again, so that part makes some sense. To me. A little.
But I’m just as inclined to go with my original assessment of entertainment for the sake of entertainment, no matter how little sense it makes, and accept that when they say "final episode" and everyone is dead that they are done with this. Frozen in time, the end of an era, seasons on DVD, legions of fans speculating, OK. Let’s put LOST in a bottle, and stick a cork in it, and throw it into the sea. There. Done. Or so you think. Or so you hope.