All this week I've been watching the second season of LOST on DVD. I couldn't help it as the third season starts in a few weeks and I wanted to be reminded of what all happened last season. Not only have I picked up a number of matters that didn't get in my first pass, but I've often thought about why people had such an adverse reaction to this season. I argue that there has been no dipping in quality, intrigue or character development, but still I think about why people were rather disappointed with certain episodes and the season in general.
I will admit it -- there were several times during the second season where the preview/trailer was more exciting than the actual episode. Locke, Sawyer and Jack meet the Others? Awesome! But all I got out of the meeting was vague information and a decent flashback on Jack. However, knowing where the rest of the season goes, this episode was a nice little taste of what was to come. This was the case for a number of other episodes. Yet people were crying foul and ready to quickly jump ship after appearing to be big fans. When asked why, I rarely could get a definite reason other than "I don't know."
As a whole, this show is meant to be seen on DVD. Both seasons make up for a really long, drawn-out story that pays very close attention to its continuity. I really enjoy that aspect of the show; the ones who are paying close attention get the most benefits. It's something that really keeps me going even when I don't fully "get" an episode right away. Plus, the acting and characters are so fleshed out that the mystery element is more or less icing on the cake.
Yet I get the feeling that speaking so highly of LOST Season 2 will generate more negative responses than positive ones. People will groan about episodes like "The Long Con" and "Fire + Water" are up for the prize of the "Worst. Episode. Ever." People will talk about how the character of Anna-Lucia made the show "jump the shark." Complaints are plenty, but I wonder why people take the time to vocally vomit out their complaints with cheap and quickly dismissive claims. Were the same people that praised the show in its first season as the "Best. Show. Ever." just waiting for the first slip to cry, "It's jumped the shark!"? How can you convince me that this waiting for the first sign of possible failure is a form of fun? Moreover, what exactly did people not like about the second season and why? Do these naysayers have standards so high that they don't to be around when something might crash into the ground?
Like I said in my previous post on "jumping the shark," people love to pick apart the aspects that seem so easy and flimsy. Yet there are people that seem to live squarely in this flimsy, fast-food-like world. Yes, I could be a valuable team member on a Trivial Pursuit game about '80s pop culture. Yeah, I get my kick out of Jose Luis: Sin Censura and Secretos Houston, but they are not shows that I take a major vested interest in. In the case of LOST, I have a lot of interest in so many aspects with the show. As long as there are characters that I can identify with and stories that I can get into over many different episodes, I'll keep watching. I'm not on some stupid deathwatch sharpening my pitchfork, mixing a bucket of tar and looking for feathers. Somehow I doubt that the naysayers do this, but why do they talk/write like they have been whenever an episode doesn't immediately make sense to them?