what made Lost so great?

[Temis the Vorta]

Let's try to assemble a checklist of attributes that any show could follow, in creating a show as great as Lost.

1. Characters who appear to be "types" but who defy our expectations as they are developed and emerge as highly individual people.

2. Wide-ranging ambition; not afraid to go crazy, imaginative places.

3. Conversely to #2, the ability to corral all the craziness into a basically coherent and emotionally satisfying narrative.

4. Characters who are written and acted to have a lot of personality, humor and charm.

What else?

 

[McCoy]

It can't be done. The best shows in tv history were originals, not copies.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

It can't be done. The best shows in tv history were originals, not copies.

I don't mean content, I mean qualities, things that many good stories possess. Like: characters you can relate to. That covers everything from Greek myth to Dexter.

Also, there's a lot of great TV that's un-original in key ways. DS9 for instance was a spinoff of a spinoff! TOS in turn was based on Westerns and Forbidden Planet, which in turn was based on The Tempest and Shakespeare probably stole that from somewhere, too. Nothing's original, when you dig into it.

 

[Mr Light]

1. Mystery. Revelations.
2. Multi-layered story with tons of twists and turns and complications.
3. Fascinating supernatural story.
4. Government/military/scientist conspiracy.
5. Really great character scenes.
6. Action.
7. Unique setting.
8. Gorgeous location filming.
9. Good use of comedy within the story.
10. Large cast of many characters with many stories.
11. Extremely dense continuity and arc-y storytelling.

 

[DonIago]

Showing, not Telling. Or Telling, but then Showing.

Avoiding for the most part black-and-white storytelling/characterizations. See what I did there?

Using, but not over-using, showing the same plot development from multiple perspectives.

 

[Orac Zen]

Fortuitous casting.

It's remarkable how well the Lost cast seemed - to this viewer, at least - to just "click" from day one. A lot of the shows I've really enjoyed seem to have that in common. Think of just about any combination of Lost characters and how well they worked together, and how thoroughly their respective actors / actresses seemed to inhabit those characters. For mine, that was a big part of the show's appeal and success.

 

[RoJoHen]

Absolutely agree. The cast was awesome.

 

[McCoy]

Characters are number one consideration in any TV show. Viewers will forgive a lot if the characters are engaging.

 

[Kelso]

It was consistently entertaining. Most shows can't say that.

 

[Starbreaker]

Fish biscuits.

 

[startrekwatcher]

Ambitious storytelling on many levels--

It essentially took the one hour mystery episode and mapped it remarkably onto an entires series thereby taken the Mystery to the Nth Degree.

Very tightly written seasons chocked full of lots of interesting revelations.

Very effectively pulled together a myriad of pieces established in the first 4 seasons and tied them together beautifully. I loved how all these disparate threads that initially didn't seem connected would over time have these surprising and satisfying connections and you never saw them coming. Some of the show's coolest moments where when those partitions began falling and you sat back and thought, "oh that's why they kept holding off in spilling the beans!".

Every episode felt possessed and driven–fast-paced covering a mind boggling number of threads constantly leading to a single episode of LOST feeling like an episode-and-an-half or two. In fact, there is so much material and so much going on that the writers couldn't cover everything so there were a lot of times the viewer had to supply some of the margins and fill in the details with their imagination.

It feverishly provided exposition.

It introduced an extraordinary number of characters with unique well developed backstories and the expansive cast nicely contributed to a multitude of unique perspectives leading to a much richer universe. Even more impressive was how the writers kept track of who knew who, who knew what and they always supplied the appropriate character reactions for the characters--it is a minor thing but I really liked it. It was also sorta neat how the writers would not have a problem removing a character from the show for entire seasons if they weren't needed for that particular part of the storyline or volume.

In a day and age where shows are so formulaic LOST managed to continuously surprise me and keep me offguard and their twists and cliffhangers were satisfying in how they teased what was to come and just weren't there for pure shock value. Its mysteries were also intriguing,

The show itself is a stunning example of complex narrative structure introducing the idea of non-linear, highly interconnected, collision, objective storytelling. I also appreciated immensely the way they pulled off for the most part in how they went about assembling it. Because when you stop to think about it it could not have been easy contending with a series-spanning, highly interconnected mythology. L/C had to map everything out, determine what to address each season and also make sure it could be appreciated as a self-contained season long story itself and not just a season of episodes that existed just to seed future plots.

Yes I'll be the first to agree that the series drew things out but in hindsight you can see why it was necessary–the show is so interconnected that the writers had to methodically time when they revealed things otherwise it would have spoiled what was to come. The writers had to introduce something and stop short of going any further, set it aside and then proceed working on another part of the Big Picture then set it aside and work on yet another section and in that regard I would call them architects. And as the show continued over the years you could see how carefully everything was mapped out in the writers' minds–they knew what they wanted to cover in each season and when the revelations should be unveiled to the audience. You can see how they carefully almost Tetris-like would drop in place a key piece of the puzzle that suddenly unified several seemingly disparate threads and smoothed the frayed edges by bring them in line settling a particular unfinished piece of the puzzle. To me that is truly impressive.

And what I find so impressive is how beautifully intricate the show is when you step back and retrace all the various character paths and histories. YOu can examine them individually or how they were woven into the Big Picture.

I also enjoyed how just as you started wondering about something the writers acknowledged and addressed it.

I'd also add what made LOST great was the heavy serialization. I had long bemoaned shows like DS9 doing an occasional arc they visited usually during sweeps or season finales--but here everything was tied into the arc of the series and so you never felt like you were wasting time--it was naturally the next step in serialization's evolution. You didn't have a lot of filler and because the series was interconnected the threads were all usually interesting as opposed to the traditional serialized drama where you'd have several independent parallel storylines and one or two were not very interesting.

I also loved the realistic touches like having a press conference for the Oceanic Six or that the 6 survivors actually would get a nickname dubbed by the media. Also what made LOST so good was the clever ways they would facilitate information or reveals in the most unexpected ways but the most plausible or organic like how Jack found out about Claire being his sister or how Sayid would reunite with Nadia. When these secrets first came out you figured it would be impossible how the writers could broach these issues and get stuff out in the open but they did.

I also loved the visual side of the show as well-not only the gorgeous on-location shoots but the memorable images the show provided i.e. the Others POV of the plan breaking up, the reveal of the statue, the island as it vanished etc. It also did a good job in creating atmosphere. And the show had a remarkable number of settings adding to the feel that this was a real world--of course helped by a healthy budget.

I also loved that they embraced time travel and made it such an integral component of its storytelling and that they thought out the groundrules of how it works and conveyed it to the audience. It also constructed a very comprehensive history and timeline of events for the series that the viewer could assemble from all the dates and info sprinkled throughout the series.

I also loved its musical selections--whether the orchestral stuff or the pop music like Mama Cass, Three Dog Nights, Sarah MacLachlan, Oasis etc.

So while I did have issues with the series this last season and wasn't particularly satisfied with how things were wrapped up I will say I'm afraid it very well has spoiled me to the point where I can't tolerate a lot of stuff I probably would have once upon a time if I hadn't watched LOST. It has ruined me. I sometimes think that the disappointment I have now with a lot of tv is the direct result of having been exposed to something as brilliant as LOST.

 

[auntiehill]

It also had a stunningly fantastic score. The music was beautiful, haunting, and unique and elevated even the most simple situations to something rather sublime.

 

[FormerLurker]

I remember flipping channels, planning to eventually end up looking at Lost to see what the hype was about, when I found this really engaging show about a plane crash on the beach of a tropical island. I figured I'd watch it until the opening credits came up, go look at Lost, and if it sucked, come back to this other show.

Of course, the show I found was Lost, so I didnt' bother looking for anything else to watch.

That was a magical feeling I've only ever experienced a few times. Seeing just a few seconds of a new show, and it grabbing me by the shirt-front and screaming "WATCH ME!" I love it when a show does that.

 

[startrekwatcher]

That's another thing other shows could learn from LOST--you can't anymore start out slow and plodding and be given time to find your footing.

You have to be sure-footed right out of the gate. Sure they'll be missteps along the way but if you grab people from the pilot and have a really good first season so people know that it is worth investing your time in such a complicated and demanding show it'll be well worth it.

That was what hurt to some degree in my opinion shows like V, Flash Forward and Caprica.

LOST also demonstrated that a tv series didn't need to be shallow to be enoyable nor did it need to be a brooding bore that was overly proud of its supposedly sophisticated storytelling--with the close up camera shots of Intense Facial Expressions[TM], its over-the-top angst and its always taking the predictable depressing route which became its own cliche.

 

[Orac Zen]

Characters are number one consideration in any TV show.

Agreed completely. Characters are certainly my top priority if a show's going to get and keep my attention; if I'm not interested in (a majority of) the characters, I won't be able to give a damn about what they do. Needless to say I had no problems in that area with Lost. (Well, except Paolo and Nikki, obviously.)

To expand a bit on my earlier remark about the fortuitous casting, I don't know if that's something that any show can do (to address Temis's point for a moment). Casting directors can assemble good actors but whether or not those actors "click" is probably more luck than anything absolute and quantifiable. Lost really lucked out with its cast, IMO.

auntie's point about the music in the show is another good one. Absolutely brilliant, always.

Seeing just a few seconds of a new show, and it grabbing me by the shirt-front and screaming "WATCH ME!" I love it when a show does that.

Agreed again. After about 10 minutes of the pilot I almost felt I had no choice but to keep watching.

 

[McCoy]

Yup. Character development is a work-in-progress compromise between writer and actor. Both must be right or ya got nothin'. Case in point: the development of Henry Gale into Ben Linus and the ongoing complexity of Ben.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

I agree about the fortuitous casting. Lost had a whole lot of highly talented, charismatic actors who were cast in the right roles for them. So many shows fall on their faces with the casting. Sometimes the actors can be good but just miscast - Joseph Fiennes in FlashFoward being one example.

Otherwise, I think it boils down to imagination + discipline - two very different modes of thinking that doesn't seem to be combined often enough into one writing/producing staff. Either you get plenty of imagination and no discipline, resulting in a godawful mess like Heroes, or you get plenty of discipline and not nearly enough imagination and daring, resulting in inert, formulaic shows like V and The Gates.

I also loved its musical selections--whether the orchestral stuff or the pop music like Mama Cass, Three Dog Nights, Sarah MacLachlan, Oasis etc.

I loved the way Lost had its own unique style. It wasn't afraid to be very strange. The old computers from the 70s, the bizarre orientation videos, all the hilarious, offbeat little touches, right down to the books the characters read. It was a fully fledged universe of its own. Compare those to the very humdrum style that most network shows adopt. Only on cable do you see the likes of Dexter, Breaking Bad and Mad Men, which create a distinct style.

Two favorite completely off-kilter moments: the fake Dharma Initiative ad placed in the commercial break and the USS Enterprise zooming thru the LOST logo.

That's another thing other shows could learn from LOST--you can't anymore start out slow and plodding and be given time to find your footing.

...

That was what hurt to some degree in my opinion shows like V, Flash Forward and Caprica.

Too many times, I find that first impressions are the right impression. Of all the shows I've tried that seemed like misfires, they pretty much stayed misfires, till I gave up or the show got cancelled. Caprica seems to be coming around to what I wanted it to be from the beginning, but overall, it's just not worth it to hang on for a show that doesn't seem worthwhile right away.

As for V, I'll keep watching because I'm desperate for any semi-decent sci fi on TV and it won't get a third season anyway so I might as well watch it while I can.

To expand a bit on my earlier remark about the fortuitous casting, I don't know if that's something that any show can do

It seems to be a function of budget. ABC probably gave Lost enough money that they could lure top talent to Hawaii (oh the humanity! But LA is where the action is, and going elsewhere is an inconvenience if not a career risk), not to mention the budget to shoot in Hawaii in the first place.

For the counter-example, look at Persons Unknown - the writing isn't bad, but many of the actors are mediocre to awful. That show is obviously being shot on the cheap, which is probably why they're filming in Mexico. How good a cast can you expect to get, under those conditions? With Lost-caliber actors, that show would be immensely improved.

 

[stj]

Literally, the question is just wrong. Lost wasn't great. It was a disaster. The real question is, how did it suck in a fair number of viewers and keep them to the bitter end?

1.Start with a bang. Fan boys love shows where someone is sucked into a jet engine in the first episode. Don't know why TV producers don't do it more often.

2.Serialize. If you can't make it good all the time, at least keep them coming back. It's called intermittent reinforcement in behavioral psychology. Have no shame.

3.Mindboggling. Lost was genuinely creative in amazing twists. True, combining mindboggling and serialization destroyed the coherence of the plot but those who last til the end would be too embarrassed to say so. Have no shame.

4.Soap, more soap, Castile soap with distilled water. And a bubble machine, too. Lost's famous flashback structure was devised for the soap. (The flashforwards and the fake flash sideways were creative ploys in #3.) Do a love story, break the pair up, repeat. Have characters experience an epiphany, give them amnesia, repeat. Find an interesting back story for a character, then repeat with variations. Establish characters as supercool villains, then rewrite them as just stupercool. None of it adds up to anything, but the constantly paddling the plot churns up soap suds like you wouldn't believe. Have no shame.

5.Steal from the best. Example: Sawyer's backstory came from David Mamet's House of Games (starring Lindsay Crouse and, of course, Joe Mantegna.) Have no shame.

Summarizing it all: Gall.

 

[startrekwatcher]

LOST's greatest flaw was it didn't come together as one unified whole complete story in the end where all the various storylines went somewhere and came together--rather it ended up being a series comprised of a myriad of different smaller storylines developed to varying degrees.

So I think one can look at LOST and say it failed when it came to the Big Picture but succeeded wildly when you view the many plotlines on their own in a vacuum. I will agree that it isn't the sign of great writing when a show just counts on hooks, teasers and cliffhangers to get the job done. Those things should be the start of something more and a place to build and develop something from.

LOST did a fairly good job of doing this especially in their middle years but failed when it came to S6. Heroes S2-4 also had a bad habit of using twists and cliffhangers as gimmicks and then the viewer soon discovering they didn't add up to a whole lot. I also saw it in True Blood.

LOST was far from perfect but it certainly wasn't a disaster.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Even with its flaws, Lost was infinitely better than Heroes! Lost attempted to take a wild, wooly, epic story and cram it into a coherent narrative - which, in general, it did. There were a lot of loose threads in the wool but no show that I've ever seen has done close to what Lost did. The successful coherent stories tend to be much shorter than six seasons.

After S1, Heroes started to be written with a shocking level of incompetence. They couldn't even do basic things like "characters behaving with consistent or at least understandable motivation," "plotlines that eventually pay off," or "not boring the spit out of the audience." Lost at least was entertaining.