It seems when a show brings in a new lead character (or characters) to replace a departing long time favorite it is the kiss of death, no matter how good the new character is. Has any TV show been able to continue for more than a rocky season or two when this happens?

This made me remember that actor Ted McGinley is the "patron saint" on jumptheshark.com. Read it for yourself. You'll see.

Right. X-Files should have ended with season 7 and it seemed the writers had already begun to conclude the various plot threads. With David Duchovny leaving the show it seemed like a good time to end. But there was the push to keep the show going and bring in new characters and create new plot lines but it seemed to dilute the show. When The X-Files ended two years later, the energy was already gone and the ending disppointing. Babylon 5 did have a five year story arc in place and a talented writer/producer to make sure it stayed true but that show had a different problem. The network was screwing around with the show to the point that it might only run four seasons, ideas from the planned fifth season had to be pushed forward so the series could end instead of just stop. When there was a fifth season, the writers had to come up with ideas and new characters to fill out that season. They did a pretty good job but it was noticable. It seems when a show brings in a new lead character (or characters) to replace a departing long time favorite it is the kiss of death, no matter how good the new character is. Has any TV show been able to continue for more than a rocky season or two when this happens?

How about MISSION:IMPOSSIBLE after Barbara Bain and Martin Landau left and Leonard Nimoy joined the cast?

OK, so who will have a flashback featured this week? Will we see action back at the original camp or confined to the new island?

Cannot wait!

The Others are due to get they're asses kicked bigtime. I hope to see more from the original island. I like Jin and Sayid and would like to see them on screen a little more. What was with the Clockwork Orange mind experiment they were pulling on the kid? Did Michael get a taste of that season 2 to get him in line or was he just plain selfish?

Is "Lost" a Soap Opera? Sort of a "Dallas" for the new millenium.

I see that the episode from last week is being shown at 9:00, followed by a new episode at 10:00, Eastern time, that is.

Is LOST a soap opera? I guess, but I hate soap operas so I don't want to call it that. Is LOST "Dallas" for the millenium? I couldn't say, since I never got into "Dallas" back in the day.

All I know is that I love the creativity and the characters and the complete wonkiness of the show. I want to know more about the Island's "monster."

And I also hope the setting this week is back on the original island with all our old friends.

I couldn't say, since I never got into "Dallas" back in the day.

How bout' Melrose Place?

Do Doo Doo Doo Doo Do Doo

If it is a soap it's a good one. Any story driven drama could be labled as a soap. Lost, Rome, Deadwood.....

How bout' Melrose Place?

Do Doo Doo Doo Doo Do Doo

If it is a soap it's a good one. Any story driven drama could be labled as a soap. Lost, Rome, Deadwood.....

I never watched Melrose Place or 91210 or whatever that zip was. Geez, I'm sounding lame. I never even watched much of ER, just an episode or two over the years.

I've always thought soaps are generally silly and suffered from nutsy plots, odd acting, and close ups held for minutes on end.

But if you define soap opera as a shown that continues week to week, with the same characters to whom things happen to which they react, then I guess LOST is a soap opera. I'd rather call it superior drama, like ROME, because each episode is like a little movie, so well done on some many levels.

Lost isn't a soap opera. It is episodic television.

Soap operas, by definition, are episodic television shows that appeal mostly to women (though there are exceptions to the "mostly women" part). When soap operas began, they were on during the daytime during an early television (and/or radio) age when most women stayed at home, cleaning men's socks, cooking dinner, and managing families of rug rats, yard apes, and listening to the pitter-patter of tiny feet), so the sponsors of those programs were soap companies who wanted women to see the commericials and tell their husbands (who had all the money) that they NEEDED these products to run the household effectively.

Hence, those programs came to be known as "soap operas."

Of course, you all knew that. I'm just restating the obvious.

Dallas, Melrose Place and other shows like them were basically upgraded versions of daytime soap operas shown during primetime television with better production values, better writing, and women that men could get excited about. Most men who watched these primetime soap operas only did so because their wives or girlfriends wanted to watch them and the men had no choice but to watch them with their significant others (OR ELSE!). No one wants to irritate their wives or girlfriends, do they?

We didn't have TIVO or DVR back in those days.

Now we do.

Just because a show continues from one week to another doesn't make it a soap opera, by any means.

I'm lost with this episode of LOST.

I figure that Pam is probably dreaming while Bobby is in the shower.

..

I'm lost with this episode of LOST.

I'm with you there. Either advance the storyline or go back on hiatus. I'm not a big Desmond fan. Why on earth would they introduce this time travel subplot? Just to foreshadow Charlies death?

Next week appears to be a pivotal episode.

.... Either advance the storyline or go back on hiatus. I'm not a big Desmond fan. Why on earth would they introduce this time travel subplot? Just to foreshadow Charlies death?

Next week appears to be a pivotal episode.

I was not thrilled with this episode. Their explanation of Desmond's hatch experience was less than satisfying. I don't like the length of time they are devoting to flashbacks. I like the flashbacks to be just that...flashes.

Less hope they move on and quickly.