Mythology
By Martin Felipe
April 29, 2009
BoxOfficeProphets.com

Moments later, the smoke eats him. That's not even a joke.
One trend that really bugs me, and this is by no means limited to mythology shows, is sophomore season backlash. Almost without fail, once a show breaks through and has a particularly strong impact on the zeitgeist, the next season the Internet community laments a drop in quality. The poster boy for this phenomenon is Heroes, a show that was the classic embodiment of a water cooler hit in its first season, only to become a bit of a punchline ever since. But whatever, I don't think Heroes was all that good to begin with, so I'm not so sure that it really got worse, it's just that people started to realize how mediocre it had always been. No, the backlash that still annoys me to this day is the one that plagued Lost.

As most will remember, Lost debuted in 2004 to great acclaim and excellent ratings. It won the Emmy for best drama and, along with Desperate Housewives and Grey's Anatomy, was credited with ABC's comeback to relevance. Then season two rolled around and the grumbling started. People complained about the show's slow pace, the flashback structure, the piling on of mysteries, and Ana Lucia. The ratings started to sag, and the show wasn't even Emmy nominated, let alone did it repeat its win. Then came the almost show killing season three mini-season.

The first six episodes of the third season aired without interruption before a long break, after which the remaining episodes would also air uninterrupted. Well, those six got lambasted with such disdain that when Lost came back, the ratings plummeted and, to this day, haven't recovered. A strange thing happened, though. When Lost came back, opinions started to reverse. With the exception of the Jack tattoo episode and the Hurly van episode, the word-of-mouth started turning positive again. People really seemed to respond to the Desmond "you're gonna die, Charlie" story, they loved Juliet disrupting the endless Jack-Kate-Sawyer triangle, and Ben evolved into a fascinating villain for the ages. Even the derided addition of Nikki and Paulo ended in a clever way.

Then, midway through the season, ABC announced a planned end date for Lost. No longer facing the need to extend storylines indefinitely without an end in sight, Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse were now able to plow forward towards a conclusion; one, which they claim, has always been a part of the blueprint of the show. This more confident momentum has brought Lost back to favor. Season four, though, hit like all shows with the writers' strike, had glowing fan response and returned to Emmy territory. For that matter, season five has been hitting it out of the park as well. Problem is, despite its repaired reputation, the ratings are still struggling. And, despite positive current response, many fans still hold season one up as some model for perfect television, which no later season can possibly hope to meet.

Well, I've been rewatching early Lost. The thing is, season one is great, no doubt about it. It's just not better than what we're getting now. Nor is it really better than the maligned second season. Lost is like a novel. It's one story, broken into six chapters. The first chapter is exposition. Exposition, by its nature, is a bit dull. It sets up future developments, and introduces the world in which our characters will live. Not to mention the fact that it introduces the characters.

And I think that's both the strength and weakness of season one. The island isn't the show's biggest mystery at that point, the characters are. We meet them at the same time they meet each other, and the flashback structure allows for us to discover their layers in time. A character like Sawyer, who at first seems a racist asswipe, evolves into a loveable rogue, for example. This works wonders for some characters, while not really helping with others. I don't know if it's a flaw in the writing, or if it's that the actors couldn't pull off character complexity the way Josh Holloway can, but, upon rewatching, I found I was glad many of our now-dead characters are gone. Liberal Boone is just dull and uncompelling, while his Paris Hilton-esque sister Shannon never evolves beyond shrill. Michael is intolerant and angry, no surprise he turns traitor. Charlie, at first a fan favorite, is pretty petulant and obnoxious from the start. Even Claire exists only to be the pregnant one. Really, beyond just her expectant status, what is she really like? She has no personality, no point of view. She's just a plot point, a motivation for Charlie, and a mother for Aaron.

For that matter, some of the show's most compelling characters have yet to make an appearance. Okay, I'm not gonna say Ana Lucia, Nikki and Paulo are all that great, but what is Lost without Ben? Without Desmond? Juliet? Daniel? Even Miles and (RIP) Mr. Eko? I'll tell you what, far less interesting. Far more season one.

Then there's the island mystery. It's pretty light in the first season. The Others are a rumor, only embodied by Ethan whom Charlie kills before too long. We see hints of the monster's smoky nature, but Hurley's still thinking it's a dinosaur. The Dharma Initiative exists only in the mystery of the hatch upon which Locke spends half the season, and in some wire Sayid finds buried in the sand. Let's see, what else? Oh yeah, there is the Adam and Eve bit, but I have a feeling that's an explanation we won't see until the end of the show. And polar bears.

Then, despite complaints of wheel spinning, season two introduces the Dharma Initiative, we discover the tail section, we learn about the Nigerian drug plane, we meet Ben, Mr. Eko and Desmond, not to mention more Others, we learn about the Dharma system of stations, Jacob gets his first shout out, we discover magnetic anomalies and island-caused healing, annoying characters die - another leaves the island, and there's a pretty damned awesome statue of a foot.

This isn't to say the second season is flawless. The "build an army" thread fizzles out, Ana Lucia alienates other characters and viewers alike, and Libby dies without a proper reveal as to the significance of her presence in Santa Rosa. Lindelof and Cuse claim we know all we need to know about why she's there, I'm crying shenanigans on that one.

Nevertheless, despite reputations to the contrary, there's a lot more going on in season two than in one. One sets up the mystery, two develops it. One introduces characters, two trims the fat. One shows us the island, two gives us our first peek under the surface. As good as season one is, it's really just a primer for the incredibly layered temporal mosaic to come.

It's not that this is such a bad thing. The first season provides the story a solid foundation. The later developments would be far less successful were the establishment not so strong. It's great work. It's just that what follows is beyond what we've come to expect from network television. The complex puzzle Lost has now become is mostly thanks to the brilliant seeds Lindelof and Cuse plant in the first chapter. Thing is, what those seeds have grown into is really stunning. Kinda like that moth metaphor Locke uses in the first season.