mattblak

Back in the early to mid 90's the coolest programme on TV was Northern Exposure. I recently bought the first series, with some trepidation I might add. The danger is this, things remembered fondly rarely measure up to your memories, and have just been inflated out of all proportion by a sense of wistful nostalgia.

The sublime Northern Exposure

I needn't have feared. It's still wonderful. As such I've now got the joy of working through all of the series 1 to 6. This should tide me over for s good few weeks when I should be doing proper work, specifically repeating a work related assignment which I've managed to put off for far too long.

Anyway here's a question, I watch and very much enjoy Lost, as do most people. BUT a question I've very often contemplated is......

Is Lost an excellent and unique slice of televisual entertainment, or is its popularity a wider incitement of the dearth of shit programs that populate the many TV channels that we now have? Basically is Lost only good owing to the shortcomings of its contemporaries?

I'm immediately reminded of a line from an ol' Pink Floyd song, "I've got 13 channels of shit on the TV to choose from". Of course the hilarious thing is, the notion of having 13 channels to choose between is now incredibly dated, the average viewer can multiply this figure several times over. My assertion is, as far as the state of televisual entertainment in the 2006 is concerned, more is definitely less and personally I long for a time when less was actually more.

What are your thoughts?