Lost is Hurting Itself Badly with these Constant Breaks in Episodes

[Puddle Jumper 1]

i love lost but my network is really slow at airing things <_<

[ShadowMaat]

I've given up trying to figure out when it's on. I don't really watch anymore.

Also, while it's great that the network is willing to grant them extra time here and there, the fact that they have to do it a LOT smacks of poor pacing and development, to me. Most shows manage to work everything in to their allotted time and if they DO have any run-over eps, there's usually only ONE for the entire length of the show, not multiple eps per season.

It also reeks of self-indulgence and given that the development in general has been pretty slipshod this season (to me, anyway) and again, the whole roulette wheel of when a new ep is gonna air and frankly, the producers have given me no real reason to care enough to TRY keeping track of the show.

I'm still mildly curious about what it all means, but I think they've overplayed their hand because I'm only mildly curious as opposed to obsessed with needing to know. I don't really care if we never find out and to be honest, I'm pretty sure we never will. Not even when the show finally, mercifully concludes.

[Morbo]

every show on television has breaks between new episodes.
if you want to know when the next new episode airs, you can either:
a) check your tv guide in your nightly paper, or on sunday's for the week, and if you see a little (N) next to LOST, then OMG it's new!!
b) www.tv.com search lost. episode list has the airdates.

people are only feeling the breaks more than, say, during a sitcom's season because the show is much more involving and interesting.

the next new episode is on May 3rd, and from there it finishes out the season with 2 more eps after that then a 2 hour finale.

now you know.

[ShadowMaat]

every show on television has breaks between new episodes.

Golly gee willikers! Really??!! I never noticed! [/sarcasm]

Yes, a lot of shows DO have breaks between new eps. Anyone who has ever watched a television show has undoubtedly noticed this staggeringly obvious fact. Likewise, most folks are probably smart enough to look up the show listings to see when something is going to be on.

How about NOT treating people like a bunch of idiots?

For the record, I don't like it when OTHER shows have frequent breaks, either. It may be more noticeable with Lost because of it's serialized content, but that only means it's more annoying than usual.

HOWEVER, my bigger beef is with the actual content of the eps and based on that, I am less inclined to bother with even the most OBVIOUS trick of looking up the listings because I know that even if it IS a new ep, I'll probably find the show dissatisfying. I am no longer hooked enough on the show to care.

It also still seems as if there are more breaks than usual for a show of this nature, but I'm sure someone will be happy to come tripping along and give me a show-by-show breakdown of how many repeats get shown, blah blah blah, all in an attempt to prove I'm an idiot inform me of the "realities" of the TV industry.

[Morbo]

ok then i'll continue to enjoy the show.
you go have fun elsewhere.

[Primus Commander Woden]

I agree, these constant breaks do annoy the hell out of me, however tbh i live in the UK so shouldnt be seeing Lost yet anyway but i am, i do think season 2 is a lot better than season 1 tho, o well 19 episodes down and im loving it!!!

[Madeleine]

every show on television has breaks between new episodes.

Why? Seriously, WHY do all shows in the US have breaks? They don't in other countries. Is there a reason for this at all?

[Formerhost]

every show on television has breaks between new episodes.

And what exactly is the reason for that? It's completely stupid...

[Arative]

Why? Seriously, WHY do all shows in the US have breaks? They don't in other countries. Is there a reason for this at all?

Its because it is more cost effective for a network to have a show with 22 weeks worth of episode last 36 weeks than to have to produce 2 shows in that time span.

[Morbo]

Its half simple math, half monetary.

1) There's 52 weeks in a year, right? A television season runs from roughly September to May. I'm not counting, but I'd say thats about 35 weeks, give or take. A normal season of a television show is about 20-24 episodes.
24 < 35. Simple math.

2) They choose to run shows at the beginning of the season, then during the two sweeps periods, Novermber and May. The amount of viewership during these times determines the shows ad-worthiness for the following time. So the networks can make money from people advertising. That's actually what Neilsen ratings measure too. Sure they always say "it lets us know whos watching what." But what they are really keeping track of is what commercials you're watching during what shows. It's all about revenue.

What networks SHOULD do as far as I'm concerned, is run shows straight through seasonly, like 24 does not. Different shows for different parts of the seasons.
For the first 24 weeks, these certain shows will air in the timeslots. When their season is finished, the second set of shows air in those timeslots.
That way, the schedules wouldn't always been all screwed up all the time, and people would always know whats on. And it would also give new shows more of a chance to gain viewers instead of being aired once and then given the axe.

[MarshAngel]

What networks SHOULD do as far as I'm concerned, is run shows straight through seasonly, like 24 does not. Different shows for different parts of the seasons.
For the first 24 weeks, these certain shows will air in the timeslots. When their season is finished, the second set of shows air in those timeslots.
That way, the schedules wouldn't always been all screwed up all the time, and people would always know whats on. And it would also give new shows more of a chance to gain viewers instead of being aired once and then given the axe.

As great as that would be for viewers I don't think there's much benefit in it for the networks which is why they probably won't do it. It's not flexible enough for them and they'd probably need much more original (expensive) content to stagger throughout the year.

[Morbo]

As great as that would be for viewers I don't think there's much benefit in it for the networks which is why they probably won't do it. It's not flexible enough for them and they'd probably need much more original (expensive) content to stagger throughout the year.

what television desperately needs is more ORIGINAL, GOOD content!!!

You know what I have to say to networks that complain about things like that?

[Arative]

what television desperately needs is more ORIGINAL, GOOD content!!!

That will never happen, the network exec's will continue to feed us cheap reality programing that cost the networks virtually nothing but bring in the ad revenue.

If the networks would go from a 9 month schedule to a 4 month schedule, for instance Sept to Dec and then Jan to May, most likely they would shorten the requested episodes from 22 to 13 in order to cut costs and have a decent production schedule.

[rarocks24]

That will never happen, the network exec's will continue to feed us cheap reality programing that cost the networks virtually nothing but bring in the ad revenue.

If the networks would go from a 9 month schedule to a 4 month schedule, for instance Sept to Dec and then Jan to May, most likely they would shorten the requested episodes from 22 to 13 in order to cut costs and have a decent production schedule.

Thank god someone else hates reality tv. I mean how many times must they do Survivor. The first time was okay, the second time was, okay, they aren't going to do another season...here it is eight years later. It's just incredibly redundant and stupid.

[Morbo]

reality tv and its fans should be launched into the sun.