Anyone watching "FlashForward"?

This one was my most anticipated new series for fall. The press billed it as a future companion to "Lost" when it returns in January, and since "Lost" will end in May 2010, ABC is obviously hoping to keep "Lost"'s audience with this one. It's quite a good show, although not nearly as heart-stopping and mind-twisting as "Lost".

I watch both, and I think Lost certainly has a lot more mystery inherent in the show, despite the number of people that are affected by the island compared to the blackout. I am watching it because it's supposed to be the big successor to Lost, but you simply can't compare Brannon Braga to J.J. Abrams - Abrams has beaten Braga at both Abrams' game (Lost v. FlashForward from what I can tell) and Braga's game (Star Trek v. Star Trek: Voyager & TNG). I certainly hope that FlashForward will get better and it has that potential, but even this early in the series Lost was a very compelling show. Perhaps this will take the course that Fringe did - not overly impressive to start, but better and better as it goes on.

I must say, I was a little disappointed in FF. Maybe the hype was too heavy. I will give it another shot, if it doesn't get in the way of my faves!

Darn it! ABC officially announced today that "FlashForward" won't be back next year! Sigh. I really enjoyed the show --- but had my share of beefs with it, as things progressed, as well. Namely the tiny issue that the program seemed to introduce two (occasionally three?) new key characters every episode. Without even halfway wrapping up/clarifying the two (maybe three) they brought into the fray several weeks back. It was a very interesting premise, the source and motives behind the blackout (or so I thought), but I'm pretty sure the series aggressively over-complicated itself. I'm well aware that the average TV viewer, at 8PM on Thursdays especially, have pretty short attention spans ... and I watched avidly and paid sturdy attention and still ran the risk of getting a bit flummoxed with all the plots, subplots, and sub subplots occasionally. I suspect, now, that NONE of those *issues* in place in the show will ever get wrapped up . Interesting, though, to consider. The premiere episode got (est.) 12+ million viewers. Last week's original episode got a measly 4 mil. So, I reckon, it's truly hard to justify keeping it. And, damn, I can't even blame Jay Leno for this one .

I'm wondering, though. Why (why, why, why) did ABC opt to keep that creepy weekly hour "V"? It gets renewed?! Had "FlashForward" aired after the mega-popular "Lost", would it have made it long enough to sort itself out, I wonder? But, no-o-o-o. IT got to air opposite that tried and true (not to mention mighty tired) "Survivor". Harumph.

Yeah, you're right, darthrevan . "V" has a lot more fans, evidently, than "FlashForward". I think my problem with it is that I, too, was a fan of the oiginal series ~ and it seemed campy while it was being diabolical. It was somehow 'fun'. This new version seems so dead serious that it puts me off, for some reason. And that (lovely) alien woman who's 'in charge' ? She scares me to death, every time I see her stoic, slippery, frog-underneath-it face on screen !

Poor "FlashForward". Even this "FlashForward" thread has turned into a "V" thread!

I'm sad to see it go. Last fall, it seemed to have such promise. What a great premise! I was hoping it would be my new "Lost". But it never managed to supply that edge-of-your-seat suspense. Striving to be the next "Lost" may have been its downfall. "Lost" was by far the most intricately plotted show ever on television. But while "Lost" was able to take a thousand (compelling) strings and tie them into a fascinating, complex and beautiful knot, "FlashForward" was more like trying to eat spaghetti with a spoon -- lots of not-well-connected strings that keep falling off the spoon before you can get them to your mouth.

The Afghanistan subplot, for example, didn't seem to have anything to do with anything, with the possible exception of getting Mark's AA sponsor out of the way just when Mark is supposed to fall off the wagon.

Character development was also sorely lacking. Characters were just thrown in with little or no introduction. I don't feel as if I know anything about these folks -- while "Lost" spent the entire first season focusing on a single character for a whole episode.

The thing that has always bugged me about "FlashForward" is the way they quickly glossed over the global impact of the blackout. Immediately after the blackout, we saw the devastation and were told that millions had died in this incident. Yet, by the next episode, the character's day-to-day lives went on as before. Olivia's hospital was not overwhelmed with injured patients, there were no food or gas shortages, and the characters failed to mention any disruption in any aspect of their lives. Not only was it very unrealistic, viewers like to see characters struggle against adversity. The show would have been better off to spend the first few episodes focusing on the immediate aftermath of the blackout, giving the viewers time to grow to care about the characters before focusing all its energies on Mosaic.

Their other mistake? Billing "FlashForward" as ABC's companion to "Lost". It was obvious that ABC hoped to capture the bereft "Lost" audience with "FlashForward". The comparison raised expectations too much. One should never compare oneself to "Lost". I doubt there will ever be a more wonderfully complex and multi-layered show on television.

Still, I would like to have seen the continuation of "FlashForward" just to see what would have happened. I guess I'll have to read the book.