Lost in ABC's Serial Bowl
So far, I'm on board with everything ABC is doing with and saying about
Lost these days. As I've said before, I think the network is right to move the show to 10 pm/ET when it returns from hiatus on February 7- gets it out of the way of
American Idol, provides a solid lead-in to the late local news, which the affiliates care about (although history tells us that many of the fans will ditch the TV to go straight to their message boards and fan sites), and keeps the network from worrying about what poor loser show will next have to follow
Lost and fail to live up to expectations.
But what really jazzes me was ABC entertainment chief Steve McPherson's suggestion at ABC's TCA day over the weekend that next season,
Lost will air in
24 style. Start to finish without a break, so we won't again be frustrated by something like this fall's six-season episode pod that, especially where our captive characters were concerned, felt like it was treading water more than usual. (Still, if only for introducing us to the lovely and mysterious Juliet, who will be the focus of the first episode back, I forgive the shows its flaws, as usual.) If this means keeping
Lost out of the fall lineup, delaying its premiere until the midpoint of the season to ensure an uninterrupted stream of episodes, so be it. It works for
24. Why not for the other most creatively thrilling show on TV?
I also applaud the idea of
Lost's creators giving us a solid answer about the series' endgame: perhaps in 100 episodes, as the show's creators suggested at press tour (which means a five-season run); or, as some analysts have suggested, possibly a season or two longer, fulfilling the stars' original contracts. Whatever the case, Damon Lindelof is absolutely right that the reputation of
The X-Files (a huge influence on
Lost) suffered by staying on the air at least two seasons too long. And unlike, say,
The Sopranos, once these guys let us know when it's going to be over, I hope they stick to their guns.
As for McPherson's statements about ABC backing away from serial dramas next season, who can blame him after the debacles of
Day Break, Six Degrees and the should-have-been-better
The Nine (which I still believe was the best drama pilot last fall, but not as it turned out the best drama series, an honor that now falls to NBC's struggling
Friday Night Lights). Still, it's not like ABC is bereft of serialized programming (think
Grey's Anatomy, Ugly Betty, the steadily improving
Brothers & Sisters and
Men in Trees, and of course
Desperate Housewives). It's just that replicating the gripping experience of
Lost is harder than it looks.
Another thought about ABC's serialized shows, which came to me as I watched
Housewives and
Brothers this Sunday night. Just like last season, when
Grey's Anatomy became the show I looked most forward to on Sundays, with
Housewives something of a chore if not a speed bump, I'm now enjoying
Brothers & Sisters much more than the more popular show it follows. Not only is it better acted and more adept at juggling multiple and sometimes even believable storylines, it's actually funnier than
Housewives these days, and I would never have predicted that from the morose opening episodes that dealt with the death of the family patriarch and the financial mess he left behind.
Brothers & Sisters is also a sexier show, allowing its multigenerational cast to shine- and to glow- whether they're single, married, straight, gay or (in the case of the wonderful Sally Field) of a certain age.
As for
Housewives, after the terrific hostage episode during November sweeps, the show has settled back down in a hit-or-miss groove with uneven, mostly uninspired storylines that waste the potential of this great cast. And where, I ask you, is the sex appeal that should be bursting from this saucy series? This soap needs some serious lather, and I'm afraid that Dougray Scott (as Susan's jealous flame), Kyle MacLachlan (as Bree's creepy spouse) and even young stud Josh Henderson (as Julie's cheating boy toy) haven't raised the temperature much on Wisteria Lane.
The show can still get off some good lines. Examples from this Sunday's episode: From neighbor Mrs. McCluskey (the invaluable Kathryn Joosten) to Lynette, once again meddling in her husband's affairs: "It's bad enough you cut off his cojones. Now you want to juggle 'em?" Gaby to her young stalker Zack (who despite his fortune doesn't appear to be able to afford a flattering haircut): "Don't hijack the Ferrari if you don't know how to drive." (That one was given away in the promos.) Bree in despair: "I don't know how I'm going to bake my way out of this one." Orson to Alma (in perhaps the dreariest current storyline): "The novelty of not being a corpse can't last forever."
Neither, I think, can the novelty of
Desperate Housewives's brilliant premise ensure lasting or enduring success, if it continues to allow itself to be upstaged in the quality sweepstakes by its companion show (first
Grey's, now
Brothers).
