Though it was an odd concept to throw out there, the "reveal" of the Flash Sideways is well explained, in a simple single sentence. For unknown reasons, many missed it, misinterpreted it, or just ignored it.
What didn't help was ABC's addition of a rolling shot of Flight 815's wreckage (not seen in quite a few years) ramping up the confusion.
I have only seen season 6 once. Whilst watching it I struggled to see a good portion of it's worth, but following the finale I wonder if the character work being done was misinterpreted by me. If it works well on secondary viewings, then great. But, given how much confusion it appeared to generate (and not in the fun "is that a hatch in the ground" kind of way), and how much so many people appeared to significantly dislike S6 during its initial run, one must consider it a failure. But a noble one.
Those that enjoyed it, will rewatch it and will perhaps gain from "knowing the end" going in again. Those that didn't, will not rewatch it, will not wish to rewatch it, and from what I can tell from the internets, will look back on Lost as the show that tripped up 5 meters before the line after a 10,000m steeple chase.
I think, overall, the season put a lot of the story points into focus and the finale was just lovely. But at the time I could not see why they were playing the Flash-Sideways card and the character work didn't ring true for me. And so, it begs the question, should a show be designed to satisfy and satiate an audience there and then. Or should you build something that challenges them, and forces them to reflect and revisit? David Chase met a similar response with the finale to The Sopranos, which at the time met a very mixed reception, and from the negative camp, was reviled. His intention (in his mind) was clear, but interpretation by the audience was not. Some revisited and reviewed, most did not, and so it sits there still argued over. Just like Lost and its final season.
Lindelof continues to write TV that forces the viewer to challenge the way he/she receives and interprets a story and he continues to confound and confuse. With The Leftovers I feel he has the balance better than on Lost, but I don't think either he or Carlton Cuse deserved the revulsion that drained their way from so much of their audience. Perhaps they were too oblique, perhaps they tried to be too clever. Frankly, failure or no, I'll take "oblique" and "trying" over a great deal of what purports to be entertainment on TV these days. I don't look for perfect, just the pursuit of it. Hence my Signature.
Hugo - watch it, make up your own mind, damn or praise it accordingly
