If it was just a repeat of Lost it would be original like Lost. However if they did something completely off the wall and totally unlike Lost, then it would be totally like Lost.

Feel me?

I don't even know what "the next Lost" means. A new mystery show? A new ensemble show? A new show with flashbacks?

Seth'n'Spectrum: DamnYankees: I don't even know what "the next Lost" means. A new mystery show? A new ensemble show? A new show with flashbacks?

In the context of the article, it probably means a serialized drama that attracts viewers from all niches and generates high numbers compared with everything else on air, including procedurals and sitcoms.

So "the next Lost" just means "the next popular serialized show"? Seems like you don't need to compare it to Lost if that's all it means.

Seth'n'Spectrum: DamnYankees: I don't even know what "the next Lost" means. A new mystery show? A new ensemble show? A new show with flashbacks?

In the context of the article, it probably means a serialized drama that attracts viewers from all niches and generates high numbers compared with everything else on air, including procedurals and sitcoms.

That's an incredibly rare thing, though, and oftentimes it doesn't have anything to do with how good the show is. Look at "24" for f*ck's sake. That show had nearly the same kind of following "Lost" did and it was awful.

"Lost" was a really good show that was really popular. But the fact that it was both good and really popular doesn't make it a show against which all others must be judged. I think that's where the author is confused.

Television is in better shape now than at any other point in history. Lamenting the fact that there isn't a great mystery show that is also a pop culture phenomenon seems like just looking for something to complain about.

Hell, there hasn't been anything even remotely like Twin Peaks on television in the 20 years since it ended. That doesn't mean there haven't been great shows, or shows that broke new ground.

I think they mean shows that have underlying storyline and are well made. The problem is, of course, that most TV shows have so many variables you cannot hope to navigate the waters on a formula.

For example: Heroes first season was great television. The problem was, the concept of the show was to have different characters and stories from season to season. Except the show was so wildly popular, the fans wanted to see what happens "next" to those characters. So the producers thought, "Well they like the slow build up last time, lets do that again" Which pissed everyone off because it was going soooo slooooow.

Or like many shows, where an important character has to be replaced because the actor's life/career changes things. Or what's worse a majority of the "Story Arc" have no idea how things worked or where their story was going...

Seth'n'Spectrum: sigdiamond2000:
From the viewers perspective, the offerings on tv *have* actually improved drastically over the last two decades. But all the great shows on cable aren't the money-makers that the producers are looking for (I'm guessing).

The medium itself: Television, is a lot like the Newspaper. It provides content for where everyone else is at: The Internet. I still remember that Brocast Networks countered that since they were "Free" cable would never get a big foothold.

I thought Breaking Bad was the new "water cooler" show. I don't watch it (Yes, I know--I should. Right after I catch up on a dozen other shows) but reviews across the board are good and a LOT of people watch it.

I don't agree w/the author's example of Game of Thrones, though. That's got a built-in audience and, from my own personal observations, is not creating too much of an audience outside the Tolkein/D&D crowd who would have eventually gotten around to reading the books, anyway. Walking Dead DID have promise, even for the non-zombie fan, until the show completely went off the rails this past half-season (Ooo, let's stomp around the farm some more and talk about how we should be looking for Sophie).

You can't have another Lost. Lost was a new way of story-telling not seen on TV. And, even then, it went off the rails in the last season (because the writers were making shiat up as they went along & it showed). But the mysteries, flashbacks, its willingness to kill off major characters--that was new and engrossing. At the risk of sounding like too much of a geek, BSG took note and took a hokey 70s space show and turned it into compelling drama.

Other shows have tried to be the new Lost (The Event & Flash Forward come to mind) but they tried too hard and it showed. Networks should stop trying to force a new Lost and just greenlight good scripts. Have an interesting storyline with realistic, sympathetic characters, and the audience will watch it.

brigid_fitch: I thought Breaking Bad was the new "water cooler" show. I don't watch it (Yes, I know--I should. Right after I catch up on a dozen other shows) but reviews across the board are good and a LOT of people watch it.

Breaking Bad averaged 1.9 million viewers an episode in its best season (season 4).

Lost average 11 million viewers an episode in its worst season (season 6).

So, I don't think that's what they are looking for as a replacement.

Wow. People actually get paid money to write shiat like this. I'm in the wrong business.

Oh, and Lost was on NBC. Breaking Bad was on AMC. Kind of a big difference.

DamnYankees: Breaking Bad averaged 1.9 million viewers an episode in its best season (season 4).

Lost average 11 million viewers an episode in its worst season (season 6).

Water cooler show does not necessarily mean highly rated. Breaking Bad gets netflixed, rented, Ituned and generally Blu-Reyed. And it's also a show that is very critically acclaimed.

Darth_Lukecash: DamnYankees: Breaking Bad averaged 1.9 million viewers an episode in its best season (season 4).

Lost average 11 million viewers an episode in its worst season (season 6).

Water cooler show does not necessarily mean highly rated. Breaking Bad gets netflixed, rented, Ituned and generally Blu-Reyed. And it's also a show that is very critically acclaimed.

But the whole point of this article and this topic of the "next Lost" is that Lost was incredibly highly rated. To say "X is the next Lost" if X doesn't get a lot of viewers is a non-starter.

People are pissed off about Lost because the writers didn't have any idea what they were doing and everyone watching it felt like assholes for sticking with it that long. Everyone at the very beginning guessed that the characters were really dead or in purgatory and the writers said that they weren't dead or in purgatory and it turned out that they were dead and/or in purgatory.

DamnYankees: But the whole point of this article and this topic of the "next Lost" is that Lost was incredibly highly rated. To say "X is the next Lost" if X doesn't get a lot of viewers is a non-starter.

Stop with your logic, it has no place on FARK. :-)

DamnYankees: But the whole point of this article and this topic of the "next Lost" is that Lost was incredibly highly rated. To say "X is the next Lost" if X doesn't get a lot of viewers is a non-starter.

Too bad. TV executives need to man up and admit that *no one* is going to get those numbers anymore. That's not how people are consuming the product now. The sooner they learn to embrace Tivo'd numbers, iTunes numbers, streaming numbers & rental numbers, is the sooner they can work with the way things have been the last few years. Things are going to continue in this manner in foreseeable future.

2 million viewers is the new 11 million viewers.

Wasn't The Event billed as "The next LOST"?



Yeah,that turned out really well.

titwrench: I thought American Horror Story was the next Lost.

American Horror Story = Nip/Tuck + Poltergeist

titwrench: I thought American Horror Story was the next Lost.

Actually, American Horror Story had a pretty good resolution, in just one season.

Mad_Radhu: It wound up bring a little too Beetlejuice for me, but they tied up most of the loose ends pretty nicely.

Yes, it was a bit Beetlejuiceian. But it did teach that death is really the best therapy for any married couple.

CowboyNinjaD: Darth_Lukecash: For example: Heroes first season was great television. The problem was, the concept of the show was to have different characters and stories from season to season. Except the show was so wildly popular, the fans wanted to see what happens "next" to those characters. So the producers thought, "Well they like the slow build up last time, lets do that again" Which pissed everyone off because it was going soooo slooooow.


The problems with Heroes didn't start in the second season. I think there was a collective feeling of being kicked in the nuts with the first-season finale. The entire series had been building up to the knock-down, drag-out fight between Peter and Sylar. Like they were going to be throwing cars at each other with telekinesis and someone was going to turn into a nuclear man and entire city blocks were going to get wiped up. And then we get a small tussle with Hiro stabbing Sylar with a farking sword.

Absolutely. That Sylar lived through the finale was the beginning of the end.

I remember years ago working for a publisher of childrens books about wizards and asking WHY we kept publishing more books about child wizards in hopes of having the "next original title about wizards." I said, "don't you realize, the next success like that will be about anything BUT wizards? Because you've already had the successful wizard and nothing will stack up to that for ages, so look for something else."

You'd have thought I said "I am going to murder your families tonight while they sleep" with the looks I got. Seems like common sense to me that rehashing the same thing will not get you the same success as the original.

HotIgneous Intruder: The whole hook of the show that's not revealed until the end?

THEY'RE ALL DEAD.
Bwah-hahahahaha.

/Spoilers ahead.

As someone watching lost for the first time now, it's really obvious by the end of the first season that they all died. They hint at it in almost every episode.

Mad_Radhu: It's not nearly the quality of Breaking Bad or Homeland, but it is good trashy fun. It all really starts coming together around the Halloween episode, and becomes a lot of fun. Zachary Quinto as a flaming gay ghost was an amusing addition to the cast, and Jessica Lange is just awesome.

On recommendations from people, I watched "Homeland" on Demand and couldn't stop. I watched the whole season in two days. That's a show that had the potential to be awful (and didn't look so hot from the commercials) but in the end, kicked a ton of ass. And while I thought it would neatly wrap up in one season, there is a lot left for a second one.

I hope it isn't like "Damages" which was great for one season and then slowly faded and died. I watched season 2 with lessening enthusiasm, and maybe 1 or 2 of season 3. But season 1 of that show was phenomenally written and impossible to miss an episode.

Mad_Radhu: Homeland was great. I especially loved how flawed the characters were, especially Claire Danes. The whole cat and mouse game between her and Damian Lewis was great, especially the way she found out he was beating the lie detector test.

Yes, and not being able to say anything at that moment. When her flaws were revealed, she really showed herself to be a hell of an actress, I might add. I really believed everything that was going on with her, every step of the way.

I also want Mandy Patamkin to be a really nice person in real life . I think it's because of how he was in that show, and in "Dead Like Me." The knowing, and stern, but kind mentor type. I have no idea if he's actually like that, but it's just an impression I got.