Part of “Old Info And News”
Question: Why do you downplay Heroes as uneven but celebrate the very uneven Lost? While overall I like Heroes, I agree that some story lines are working better than others, and some actors haven’t hit their stride. There are touching moments of brilliance and moments that are contrived. But I don’t mind watching the whole episode without turning the channel, because overall it’s a fun show. As for Lost, I was a huge fan the first season, but I can’t watch it at this point. It’s become even more improbable than I would ever have imagined a show about plane-crash survivors to be — sometimes I think Gilligan’s Island was more realistic. I like the characters and the actors, but the plotting is cumbersome and the dialogue can be brilliant and terrible in the same 20 minutes. If I had to pick a show to watch straight through, it would be Heroes, because the overall impact of a show is a better measure of quality than a handful of good or bad moments.— Olivia
Matt Roush: You ask me why I prefer Lost over Heroes? It’s just a fact that I do. Sorry. I love Lost, even though I took a bunch of abuse from fans for admitting that even I got tired of watching Sawyer get slapped around for six weeks this fall. (But I am fascinated by Juliet and can’t wait to find out more about her and the Others.) I do not yet love Heroes, although there are elements and scattered characters in it that I do admire and enjoy. It is no surprise to me that some early Lost fans have gotten fed up, but I’m not there yet. I find the characters, the writing, the storytelling framework and the production values to still be terrifically effective and entertaining. Is it perfect? No. What show is? But Gilligan’s Island? Get real. Even at its best, Heroes is much more of a mixed bag to me, but one that I’m glad (and as with Lost, very surprised) to see be so instantly popular. But I never regard it with the same passion I bring to Lost, even when that show frustrates and mystifies me.