• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

is Lost the best example of arced storytelling on TV?

Temis the Vorta

Fleet Admiral
Admiral
Before Lost, I used to wonder what it would look like if someone on TV really tried to produce fully arced series - not arc/episodic mix like DS9 and B5 - that ran for several years and attempted to tell a single, coherent story that makes sense in the end.

Comparing Lost to all the arced shows I've seen that have lasted for years - BSG, Farscape, Deadwood, Oz etc - I'd say it was the best. It has its flaws of course, but in the end, the story made emotional, if not strictly logical, sense. Plus Lost had a disadvantage that many of the other shows of this type don't face - it's on broadcast TV, where it needs to appeal to a larger audience in order to survive.

The only other show on TV that might end up at Lost's level is Dexter. But the two shows are so different in topic, approach and scope - Lost is wide-focus and Dexter is very narrow - that they're hard to compare. One big difference is that I could envision many ways to end Lost, but Dexter's a total head-scratcher.

I have to admit, I have not yet seen: The Sopranos, The Wire and Six Feet Under. So if these are better examples of arc storytelling, I wouldn't know (yet). But since they're on cable, they do have the advantage of being able to survive on a niche audience.
 
From what I've seen... yes. I've never been so anxious to watch the next episode of show like when I'm finished with an episode of Lost.... it bookended nicely... too bad other shows like it don't last.
 
In spite of my disappointment with the final season and the final episode, LOST is still my number two all time favorite series ever (After B5) and I think it is the BEST example of arc storytelling. I think it's better written than B5, but B5 still wins the day.
 
I think it is a definite toss up between Lost and The Wire. I personally like Lost better, but for story arc based series, The Wire is really, really good.

Oh, and the "Who Killed Laura Palmer" arc of Twin Peaks is also right up there. It should have been done as a miniseries, rather then extended to try and tell more stories in the same town.
 
In spite of my disappointment with the final season and the final episode, LOST is still my number two all time favorite series ever (After B5) and I think it is the BEST example of arc storytelling. I think it's better written than B5, but B5 still wins the day.

I agree pretty much with you except I would switch the order. But with the quality we're talking about that's being picky.

Arc shows, other than the above two, have always turned me off. The best thing SG-1 ever did was have an overall arc with many standalone episodes mixed in.
 
I haven't watched a lot of arc shows, but I thought Rome did a lot better in terms of the arcs. Lost has an appearance of arcs, but a lot of its episodes are in a sense standalone. The ending of Lost pretty much solidified that.
 
I haven't seen much of Lost, but it would have to work pretty hard to overshadow the arc-based storytelling used on The Wire.
 
Lost is definitely the best show all time for character arcs. It's pretty impressive for a show to have so many characters and make you care about pretty much all of 'em . Even Ben Linus, who I loved to see get his ass kicked, got me choked up at the end.
 
I'd say yes, just because of the amount of characters they had arcs for, but I believe Deadwood could have been potentially better, had they ever FINISHED IT!

Anyway, I do think Dexter has the potential to be one of the best too, as does "Breaking Bad"
 
Yes Lost is the best example of arc storytelling I have yet to encounter. I've said it over and over in various threads on the board but what impressed me the most and what kept me coming back was just how impressive L/C were as writers at constructing this extremely complicated, 6 year-spanning arc. As far as pure narrative structure there is just no series that compares. It did things no other series had really attempted before--however I will give credit where credit is due ENT's Xindi arc did lightly toy with some of the same kind of creative choices LOST did a year later. Also the TCW was kinda the ongoing mystery mythology ENT wanted to do--lots of unanswered questions after each TCW episode, unclear motives, mysterious figures, characters at the mercy of a person orchestrating things, different factions etc

This wasn't a traditional serialized primetime drama with a modest ensemble and two or three parallel storylines told in linear form.

The writers didn't sit on their hands they get down to work and didn't waste a single second of screentime. Every episode felt possessed and driven--fast-paced covering numerous threads constantly, feverishly providing exposition, introducing characters, introducing mysteries, adding new clues and pieces of the puzzle to the mix, always advancing the plot, maddeningly weaving in and out of stories, setting up everything. There is an urgency to LOST that I have rarely encountered in terms of narrative purpose.

Yes I'll be the first to agree that the series drew things out but in hindsight you can see why it was necessary--the show is so interconnected that the writers had to methodically time when they revealed things otherwise it would have spoiled what was to come. The writers had to introduce something and stop short of going any further, set it aside and then proceed working on another part of the Big Picture then set it aside and work on yet another section and in that regard I would call them architects. And as the show nears the finishing line you can see how carefully everything was mapped out in the writers' minds--they knew what they wanted to cover in each season and when the revelations should be unveiled to the audience.

You can see how they carefully almost Tetris-like would drop in place a key piece of the puzzle that suddenly unified several seemingly disparate threads and smoothed the frayed edges by bring them in line settling a particular unfinished piece of the puzzle. To me that is truly impressive. One criticism I do have is the series covers so much in an hour jumping around from thread to thread that I sometimes regret that it doesn't stop and take the time to give some depth to the thread but I long ago accepted that everything is in service of the Bigger Story that is the series and any additional depth I want to inject will be up to me filling in the blanks.

And what I find so impressive as well is you can appreciate a single scene on its own within a vacuum--it can stand on its own--or you can zoom out and appreciate it within the context of the Big Picture. This show was also beautifully intricate. You can see so many threads that weave in and out of other threads and a lot of the time you as a viewer had to see them in order to appreciate them. What is also fascinating about the way the series was constructed was the way you can go through the series one time and just choose to watch the evolution of a character's story and filter out the rest or you can watch it another time and see the path of some of the plot elements. Its interconnected nature offered numerous ways to examine storylines and character histories. I loved the way the writers would drop these "partitions" between certain characters and plot elements and you see how things you couldn't imagine were connected are i.e. the Black Rock/Richard/the statue's destruction.

And it was the kind of heavily serialized drama I'd been clamoring for years--LOST showed you could do all mythology all the time and it work. I always hated when shows like DS9 would leave the Dominion war alone for nearly entire seasons but with LOST I get all mythology, all core material all the time. Every thread is about the arc. In fact, the one hazard with arc storytelling is inevitably having a weak thread(s) that are less interesting than others but LOST has managed to make the alternating threads interesting and because of this I would argue that LOST is the most consistent series with the weakest episode being merely average--always of course a Kate or Jack/Kate episode--otherwise the rest range from solid to great to excellent.

And what series had ever attempted to be this densely plotted with that many threads in a single episode.
It demonstrated how expertly the writers could juggle not just two or three separate threads but several within an hour. Their seasons were also self-contained with its own set of guest characters and specific elements to focus on yet marvelously threaded into the much larger Tapestry.

It has just been a series that has been a great reward to watch every week and a thrill ride to watch waiting to see what happened next, how characters would cross paths, what shocking plot revelations were up the writers' sleeves, what secret character connections there were, seeing the writers capturing all the character reactions and remembering all the details like who knew what when. It was a series I have probably invested more time in than I normally would have analyzing, picking apart, looking for subtleties weaved in by the writers but it was the worth it given the extra effort the writers put into it.

I also appreciated how it ushered in a whole new brand of storytelling where things weren't answered immediately, the narrative was non-linear which was something we had to become accustomed. The series saw an episode as merely a piece of a larger puzzle and its purpose was to contribute various individual pieces to the building Big Picture. The show provided some of the best in tv history cliffhangers and twists that I know I never saw coming.

I personally really enjoyed season 5 for example--a very tightly written season chocked full of lots of interesting revelations and very effectively pulled together a myriad of pieces established in the first 4 seasons and tied them together beautifully while setting up the final pieces as well as establishing a beautiful timeline/history for the island & its inhabitants . The brisk pacing and the tendency not to really dwell on any one thing for too long is just LOST's style--like I mentioned earlier it is all about servicing the bigger picture and forging ahead feverishly--no time to stop and smell the roses-- a show like this really expects the viewers to provide the depth and fill in the margins as it were. LOST doesn't do those big build-ups the way some traditional dramas would but then again those shows usually centered around one or two ongoing threads--LOST a lot of times doesn't make a big production out of something they just drop it in your lap and move on to the next. And as we were talking about the characters they too are all about servicing the story--deaths of characters are sometimes just a mere footnote--since they are about writing out a character who the writers-acting much like the island--feel have served their purpose and are no longer needed. The deaths aren't the big events they once were on tv shows.

I just loved the way they methodically would slowly tie various players and plotlines together then tie in that to other linked players and storylines. It was akin to having put together a portion of a puzzle off to the side then carefully sliding that piece into the Bigger Final Puzzle. I also loved the way new pieces would reshape what we had come to believe from pre-existing threads. They just kept stacking pieces on top of one another.

And as a result of this storytelling style all kinds of shows since then have attempted to intimate it--Heroes, V, Threshold, Surface, Invasion, BSG, Flash Forward etc and in my opinion the only one they got "it" was season one of Heroes. But Lost was the most ambitious and epic--look at how big of a globetrotting series it was with all the locales we saw, the international cast and extensive use of subtitles, the span of history the series visited--from the time of Mother to 1876, to 1965 to 1974 to 1977 to 2004 to 2007. It developed the style of sprinkling clues over the season then pulling it altogether in a big mythology reveal episode towards the end of the season--now you see shows like Desperate Housewives doing it. It played around with time and showing how things happened. And what series on a regular basis did multiple perspectives what I dub "Vantage Point" storytelling until LOST where you see the same event through different characters' eyes.
 
Last edited:
Uuuuummmmm.............no.

And "Desperate Housewives" has been doing it since 2004 - exactly the same amount of time as "Lost".
 
Uuuuummmmm.............no.

And "Desperate Housewives" has been doing it since 2004 - exactly the same amount of time as "Lost".
I also have been watching DH since it premiered in 2004 and while it attempts to copy the style at times of LOST it does so poorly whether its big mythology episode of a mysterious character from the season. Or the time they jumped 5 years and I still fail to see the point since nothing creative was done with as compared to say Season Four or Five of Lost. DH is nowhere near as effective in storytelling as LOST was.
 
It isn't trying to be.

Thus it doesn't fail. Unlike "Lost".

What it does do is follow the B5/Buffy format of setting up a mystery/big bad at the start of the season and solving it by the end. And it does it quite well, while also being funny, having moments of pathos and being dramatic at times.

Sure it's a bit long in the tooth now(just like "Lost")and I would not have grieved had it ended this year, but for what is essentially a prime time soap opera, as we now know "Lost" to be(DARLTON: "IT'S ABOUT TEH CHARACTERS AND HAS BEEN ALL ALONG OR DIDN'CHA KNOW?!?! pay no attention to the man behind the curtains sweeping all those proposed mysteries away!!!1"), DH is FAR more successful.

But yes, I DO agree the five year time jump was pointless and imitated something done on a few other shows at the time.
 
I haven't seen much of Lost, but it would have to work pretty hard to overshadow the arc-based storytelling used on The Wire.
Indeed, The Wire beats out Lost in most ways. The big difference between Lost and The Wire is that if you were to give me an episode title from Lost I could probably remember the events from that episode, because while the show was arced each episode still had its own story. With The Wire I couldn't do that because the episodes don't tell their own story, it's a cliché to say it but each episode felt like a chapter from a novel. With Lost I'm able to pick favourite episodes but with The Wire I find that impossible, all I can do is pick favourite scenes or favourite seasons.

The Wire also didn't fall back on gimmicky ways to keep people watching like Lost did. They didn't end episodes on cliffhangers, even powerful endings like...
the one where Stringer Bell was killed
...didn't feel like a cliffhanger, it was just the natural conclusion to that arc. More importantly, The Wire didn't rely upon mysteries, they just told the story and hoped the audience would enjoy watching it.
 
Nope.

The Wire is the best example of arc'd storytelling on TV.

LOST is up there I'd say Top 3 or Top 5, but the arc isn't really all that coherent, LOST is really buoyed by the strong character moments. As so many people are fond of pointing out, the arc doesnt matter its all about the characters. There are tons of contradictions and things that don't make sense and characters who don't act in logical ways, in terms of plots... but the emotional moments are really well drawn and developed on LOST, but you have to make a conscious choice to ignore things that don't make one whit of sense. You never ever have to make this kind of distinction in The Wire, both plot, character, and the way they draw on each other is pitch perfect. Every scene has a purpose, every plot and character thread I believe is addressed in some fashion and leads somewhere. There's a reason why every internet nerd like me and 3 posters above keep bringing it up, and it's not just to be 'trendy'. It really is the Novel for television.

It's a little silly though because The Wire has set such a high standard, I mean there are no other shows who get pretty much everything right, so it becomes a little disingenuous to keep bringing up, the fact that it's on an island makes it more of an "exception that proves the rule". It's almost NOT fair to the show you're comparing it to.

So putting The Wire aside for a moment... LOST is up there. Other contenders imo are Dexter, but it's still going on, so you have to see how it wraps up, a bad final season can drag down the entire arc. Babylon 5, while really strong from a "general story arc" perspective just has too many mediocre stand-alone-ish episodes, and mediocre acting, hammy dialogue, etc. Same with most sci-fi shows.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Uuuuummmmm.............no.

And "Desperate Housewives" has been doing it since 2004 - exactly the same amount of time as "Lost".

Considering that I can't stomach that soapy nonsense (I've given it a try every so often, but yeeech...), that doesn't do me much good.

I'm fine with Lost being all about the characters in the end. A story can be character-focused without being a soap. It really depends on how much they rely on the usual soap cliches, such as fussing over who sleeps with whom. I know a soap when I see it, and I avoid them.
 
Jack/Kate/Sawyer
Juliet/Sawyer
Jin/Sun
Desmond/Penny
Charlie/Claire
Hurley/Libby
Sayid/Shannon (yes, it should have been Nadia but no one in their right mind really, truly believes that Lost wrote good characters, they believe Lost wrote cool characters)
Rose/Bernard

The finale really did show what Lost was all about, and it was mostly about these pairings.

Lost was a soap, in the same way Dark Shadows was a soap.
 
I really didn't watch LOST for the characters but for the plot/mythology. When there are that many characters, that many plotlines in an episode, a dizzying pace and when a lot of the the time the characters were there to serve the plot I could never connect with most of them. In season four a lot of it was pure plot, setting up the rescue, introducing the freighter folk, teasing us with who the six were, breaking into two camps, lots of action/adventure. Season five was a lot of mythology stuff-history of the island. insight into DHARMA, time traveling being used to stroll down memory lane or fill in backstory of Rousseau--that season a lot of advancing the plot at a breakneck speed and pulling threads together.

I mean I always felt LOST just wasn't a series set-up for that kind of deep character relationships--if we got them in the later years it was just as a brief acknowledgment by the writers before hot footing it to the next part of the frenzied storytelling. There were a few characters I genuinely enjoyed-Sun, Sayid, Jack sometimes and my favorite character due in no small part because of Elizabeth Mitchell--Juliet.

But really as the years went on Claire was a plot device or offscreen and her return this year was a mess, Shannon was useless and the writers were wise to kill her off, Charlotte was a plot device that expired on cue, I don't know anyone who liked Kate or Kate/Jack or Kate/Sawyer--Kate was at her best when the focus wasn't on her story just her in the thick of the big goings on, Hurley was fine in small doses but when he was the focus in shows like "Dave" or "Everybody Hates Hugo" or "Everybody Loves Hugo" he was flat out annoying, Jacob sucked, MIB started out as an intriguing figure but the writers ruined him as season six went on, Boone meh--Ian Somerhalder's talents are being put to better use on Vampire Diaries, Jin was lukewarm until season 5 then this season he was carted around by the needs of the plot whether to Claire's camp or to Widmore's hydra lair. Widmore didn't really become interesting until season 5 when it was revealed he was an Other but unfortunately this year he was a plot device and one of my disappointments was not learning more about him or using him in a more interesting manner.

Eloise Hawking was another character I enjoyed immensely but was given short shrift--she was kinda like Angela on Heroes--a fun ruthless character played by a great actress that was simply wasted. I liked Daniel and the way Jeremy Davies' played him but he was mainly there to explain things and like Charlotte died on cue when the story was through with him. I couldn't stand Libby, couldn't stand Ana Lucia--wise for the writers to slaughter them--I know fans were clamoring for a Libby backstory for years but that was one thing I wasn't the least bit disappointd that we didn't get. Frank nice enough but simply a glorified extra--Jeff Fahey was wasted. Mr Friendly, Chang, Horace--nice but really plot devices. Michael was alright in season one but he was never a character I enjoyed and after season two meh, I liked Charlie's redemptive arc in Season 3 but his return this season wasn't something I enjoyed nor was his temper tantrum phase in season 2, Richard once again was a plot device serving as a mysterious figure that never aged and who he was which was dragged out for 3 years although he did get a nice origin story with "Ab Aeterno".

And for all the touting of season six about well written character drama I simply don't see it. Most of the season people were shuffled and reshuffled from the beach to the statue to Smokey's camp to the Temple to hydra cages to Des' boat to the plane 316 to the sub with a whole lot of acts and counteracts. The sideflashes were rather dull even when they were just that and even moreso now when you realize that they are basicaly contrived situations with no real significance to the people the core characters interacted with other than shuffling them with characters/actors they never had any contact with before on the show. Charlie/Claire was sweet in S1/3 but it had been so many years that reconnecting that didn't do much for me. And stj is right that a lot of the arcs was about romantic couplings in the church. The notion was pitch perfect--about a family of characters who spent years together and had become such an integral part of each others' lives that they seek each other out in death however this would have resonated for me anyway if I felt that they were genuinely a family both onscreen and off. Here the writers just say but I don't feel it. I can't imagine a lot of them interacted or if they did it was for simply a brief amount of time. A lot of the time the story kept them separated and apart for years etcThe ones who had the most screentime and developed relationships were Jack/Kate/Sawyer, Locke/Ben, Jack/Ben.

By the way--given the recommendation of The Wire as a standout serialized drama from posters whose opinions I respect I think I'll have to give it a try sometime this summer.
 
Last edited:
i don't think it was the best, per se, though very good. We have lots of evidence of how things were made up as they went along. Some of that worked out real well, such as Henry Gale/Ben Linus, but many other things dropped because they clearly didn't have a plan.


The best example, if you don't limit it to Holywood, are Korean Historical Dramas...because they ar ebased on real history, they can't reallay extend a show unnecessarily. They actually have to come to a real conclusion. And since it's real life, characters die along the way, or make huge political/personal mistakes.

These dramas have great characters/actors like Lost, and the produciton values are high.

So while Lost isn't the best...i think they did a pretty good job, and certainly kept me interested till the end.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top