Uhm, not a ringing endorsement.
Yes, we'll hook you with a cracking first season, tease you along with all sorts of mysteries and unanswered questions, then fart it all away with a giant deus ex machina, and a conclusion with all the emotional punch of a weepy Hallmark card.
Wow really?
share[deleted]
the idea of lost was cool. Survivor but for real but its a show. Then it was a big hit and they started throwing all this crazy crap in there.
The Crossing sounds like lost mixed with under the dome mixed with all this other crazy crap. Let's throw in jesus and some aliens and a tidal wave, and of course everyone has a secret, and there is a corrupt sheriff and someone's weird daughter.
YEEESH!
Nobody wanted to get burned again with shows that piled mystery upon mystery only to see it end on such a lame note. Most of them were cancelled after one season despite some excellent ratings.
Outside of diehard LOST forums, LOST is generally regarded with derision and as the punchline for jokes.
I think everyone -- even those of us who eventually gave up on it -- agrees that the first season of LOST was some of the best television ever produced. I enjoyed the mystery aspect like a lot of people.
However, my 'willing suspension of disbelief' started to kick in with the "using an uncalibrated donkey wheel to make the island space/time travel" thing. I hung in there, hoping it would get better, but once Season 6 started I knew things were going downhill fast. That's when they just started flailing about, trying to fill up the season and throwing out ludicrous explanations for the some of the minor mysteries.
I had the impression they must have spent the months before production sitting around a pool with strippers and blow, and not giving a s##t about how to end the series.
I think one way they COULD do a spin-off would be to do it as a meta- comedy. David Cross would play/parody Lindeloff as a hack Hollywood writer who pitches a half-baked LOST-concept to the network in desperation. To his surprise, the series becomes a monster hit. Frantically, he barely keeps ahead of production in writing new material. To buy himself time, he starts to throw in all sorts of mysteries with no clear plan how to end it all.
Now he has a tiger by the tail, but no way to end it without exposing his mediocrity and facing expulsion from Hollywood. He spends the series discretely trying to tap various actors and better writers for ideas and ways to end his series and avoid the wrath of network and fans.
To make it even more meta, fill THIS series with all sorts of background mysteries that distract him from his mission.
Re: Riverdale. Yes, on the advice of a friend I watched the first episode... and gagged. It was like a YA (Young Adult) version of Twin Peaks. Twin Peaks for Dummies. I honestly thought it was going to reveal itself as a parody. I've never watched it again and I made a mental note to never take TV-viewing advice from this particular friend.
Speaking as someone who watched Lost from beginning to end, my first worries about the show occurred in season 3 when it was became obvious that certain episodes existed for no other reason than to pad the story and fill up the episode commitment to the network. In that sense, I blame ABC as much as Limpenoff and Cooz because both groups knew they'd stumbled upon a cash cow...and were going to try as hard as possible to keep the bucks flowing in. Now, that doesn't necessarily mean the show is going to suck because of it. But, in Lost's case, it did.
When I really turned on the show and knew the "creative" minds behind it never had a real ending in mind for the story after all, and we're just making things up as it went, was during season 5. And my negativity was confirmed with season 6--a terrible travesty of a season. When people who haven't seen Lost ask me about it and whether I recommend watching it or not, I always tell them to watch up until the end of season 5--when the bomb goes off and (it seems) everyone on the island has been killed--and stop there. It's a more fitting ending for the show than the silly twaddle that transpires in season 6.
And since Lost, Limpenoff has shown what a no-talent hack he really is by having his name of two pieces-of-shit...Ridley Scott's Alien prequel Prometheus, and HBO's series The Leftovers (which ends in the same annoying and frustrating way that Lost did, just reaffirming what a loser writer this guy actually is).
Cooz's output has been a little better, imo. He was the showrunner on Bates Motel which was a decent thriller series, for commercial (basic cable) television, anyway. It probably could have told its story in 4 seasons instead of the 5 it took to do so, but at least it was obvious the creative group knew where the story was leading from the start and worked towards that goal.
Yeah I saw that commercial. ABC also brought us General Hospital and The Bachelor. Does this mean the Crossing will be like those shows too?
shareIt's not a bad start and an interesting premise. Kind of predictable and I have doubts it will stay interesting fore a long time.
But I'll give the show a chance.
Spoiler alert: If you haven't watched this show, look away!
Did you watch the same thing I did kabukiarmadillo? It looks like they're taking the exact opposite approach to Lost. I'm sure there are going to be characters with secrets and groups with hidden agendas, but they seem to be laying out the backstory right at the start and letting the plot sustain the show rather than a gradual reveal of hidden mysteries. We know the exact nature of the future these people were fleeing. We know the character of Reece (and presumably the little girl Leah) is one of those genetically engineered Apex humans - but doesn't appear to be a bad guy, as she could easily have killed that dude on the dock and yet she didn't.
And we know about the shadow organization formed by an earlier group of time traveling "normals". The assumption being that their goal is to prevent the rise of the Apex, although they haven't confirmed it yet. But there's none of that holding the cards close to their vest and raising more questions than they answer nonsense. I can't say whether the show will stay interesting or not. It's not structured anything like Lost though. And it does have potential, if it's developed properly.
[deleted]
Yeah, the heydey of the "Big Three" is long past now. Most of their primetime programming is garbage that panders to the lowest common denominator. If reality shows and talent competitions aren't your thing, that eliminates half their content right there. Cable and streaming services are where most of the good stuff is being produced these days. The old networks still have a few good shows though. This could end up being one of them. The season preview they've shown looks interesting, but a mashup of dramatic moments designed to grab your interest doesn't always tell you much. Guess we'll see.
shareI came here to create this topic, but you beat me to it. Well, as Andrew Marvell wrote, “Wit is nature to advantage dress’d/What oft was thought. . . .” I just saw the promo for the first time on tonight’s Once Upon A Time, and thought, “What kind of a coked-out ABC marketing department soon-to-be-fired intern buttplug asshat thought an association with LOST was a GOOD thing?! “From The Network [not the team] That Brought You LOST [and The Mickey Mouse Club and OUAT]”?! As well say, “From The Network That Fucked You,” although, happily, I never watched LOST, so I am a straight man who can still sit comfortably. I just know that LOST is, in itself, a one-word joke.
shareI was kinda-sorta looking forward to checking out this show...
But now that you mentioned ABC's lame-brain promotion of the show as akin to Lost, it makes me wary. I'm still gonna DVR it, but I think I'll keep it on a shorter leash than I was going to originally. Thing is, there's just not as many must-watch shows on this spring as there have been the last few seasons because they've been pushed back to the Fall (or later) for their premieres: Better Call Saul, Humans, Snowfall, GOT...
lol...i thought the same thing.
share[deleted]