Lost: Reid's Theory of Finite Awesomeness

"Lost" wraps up their season next week, and season five was very weird. Good, but weird. Much like a McGriddle.

To me, the renewed appeal of "Lost" is wrapped up in one sentence.

 

I know "Lost" will end in May 2010.

That's it. I know with as many questions as "Lost" brings up, in a year it will all be over. Every episode will lead to that point, and the series is on the clock until then.

After a meandering third season, "Lost" announced it would run six seasons, then end. The fourth season picked up the pace tremendously, and made the show fun again. Then, they blew it all up again and started over with parallel storylines in different decades for this season. No matter how strange it gets, I know they can't just string us along.

 

I think having a finite lifespan is a big bonus to a show that's going to tell a story. Perhaps shows like "According To Jim" can go on forever with no distinguishable drop (or rise) in quality, but when you have a show based around a premise that asks questions, you really should let the audience know you're going to eventually pay off.

It's "The Shield" versus "Prison Break," for example. "The Shield" set a deadline, and you knew with every week, the situation was getting more and more intense. Anything could happen, because after a certain date, they didn't have to have enough characters left to put on a show. Vic Mackey's story was going to end, and so you knew eventually, you'd get some sort of closure.

On the other hand, "Prison Break" could have been a really good one-year show. After a few years the novelty of breaking into prison, then breaking out of prison, then breaking back in and out of prison just kind of gets to you. If they're going to pull a prison break one way or another in every season, it kind of takes away from the novelty of the concept.

"Heroes" is another good example. The first season was great. The second season was fairly awful, and the third season was even worse. The show is floundering badly in a retread of every plotline that ever worked, and I'm rapidly losing interest. "Heroes" started by answering questions rapidly, sort of the anti-"Lost." Since then, they've stretched things out to ridiculous lengths because there's no end in sight for the show.

 

The same applies to soap operas, especially night time ones. After a little while, unless there's an ending to the show, the bodies start to pile up. More people have probably died at County General Hospital ("ER") and on Wisteria Lane ("Desperate Housewives") than in the civil war.

With "Lost," the payoff on the investment of your time is guaranteed. I can respect that. I'd rather have a finite number of quality episodes than a show that meanders forever.