The producers of the television programme "Lost" are working with their backers (ABC, a unit of Disney) to set an end date for the show.
That's a very big step, and not just for fans of the show. It marks a shift in the economics of television in the U.S. For decades, first-run American television shows have broken even or lost money. Profits begin to accrue only when they go into syndicated reruns. Local stations buy copies of shows to play forever for local advertising, making shows like "The Brady Brunch" and "Gilligan's Island" very lucrative: the more episodes to play, the better. And if they can be shown out of order, they make themselves even more attractive for repeated airings.
But with the advent of the DVD box set and competition from non-advertising-supported shows on HBO like "The Sopranos", we're seeing proper story arcs. We're seeing shows that actually have a beginning, middle, and end for their characters. Or we find that each season/series of the show ends neatly (e.g., "24").
This will probably improve the quality of what's on U.S. television. JJ Abrams, the creator of "Lost", quite possibly learned his lesson with his show "Alias", which teetered from one preposterous scenario to another before fading into blandness. Viewers were left wondering if the main character was a super-soldier bred by the government, the prophesised child of the apocalypse, or just a really smart woman born to American and Soviet spies. Without a proper ending in mind, the show wandered and many viewers (myself included) stopped caring.
Countless American television programmes have died this way, extended past their prime in the attempt to create just one more episode for syndication: "M*A*S*H", "Seinfeld", "Hill Street Blues", "NYPD Blue," and even, to some extent, "The Simpsons".
But with box set sales now accounting for a major chunk of revenue, and competition from shows with quality storytelling, shows like "Lost" find themselves under fire for not pushing the story forward. People on message boards are demanding a coherent explanation for the mysteries of the island. People are expecting more than the mess that ended "Alias".
It reminds me of some of the excitement in 1986 when Frank Miller wrote the last chapter of the Batman story: "The Dark Knight Returns". For decades, comic books (or graphic novels, if you're a fanboy) lived in a similar business model as the television shows of old. Superman and his brethren had to live on forever so that new generation of children can buy more cheap comic books.
"The Dark Knight Returns" changed the industry by taking the Batman story seriously. Firstly, buying this four-issue story cost you well over $10 USD. The reprinted omnibus edition, available in hardcover and softcover, cost even more. Money was to be made here, and it was more like book publishing and less like magazine publishing. Secondly, by writing an end to the Batman story, it forced everyone to re-evaluate the story as a myth. It led to movies and, ironically, a second life for the franchise. Since then, there have been numerous graphic novels that fill in the end of a superhero's life.
I remember reading somewhere in Miller's introduction that proper stories need an ending, like Norse religions have a twilight of the Gods (Ragnarok), or Christianity has its Apocalypse. Arthur throws Excalibur back to the Lady of the Lake. Odysseus makes his way back to Ithaca. Sherlock Holmes falls off a cliff in a death grip with Moriarty (or in the re-written version, gardens happily ever after). Miller's intent was to give in to the reader's impulsive need for an ending to the adventure.
Obviously, a lot of advertising uses narrative to infuse brands with a backstory. So what becomes of the Pillsbury Doughboy, or Tony the Tiger, or The Marlboro Man? What lies at the end to the adventures of Ronald McDonald? Or are we too afraid to even ask these questions? Should every mascot have its own apocalypse?