Kevin Drum points out a small section of the Guardian's interview with JJ Abrams yesterday:
Do woebegone Losties give Abrams an earful about the finale?Drum's response is pretty good:
"Oh my God, yes," he groans. "For years, I had people praising Lost to death, and now they say: 'I'm so pissed at you for the end of Lost.' I think a lot of people who were upset with the ending, were just upset that it ended. And I've not yet heard the pitch of what the ending should have been. I've just heard: 'That sucked.'"
We weren't demanding that the whole series be wrapped up in a nice, neat bow, but we were hoping for at least most of the major plotlines to be resolved. We were hoping for at least most of the major mysteries to be explained. We were hoping that at least the whole thing didn't turn out to be a St. Elsewhere style fantasy world. And we were sure as hell annoyed when they pretended they had run out of time to tie this stuff up after wasting the entire first half of the final season with a brand new plotline that came out of nowhere, went nowhere, never got resolved, and had no purpose at all.For the record, I thought the last season was poor rather than disastrous, and that there was a lot in the finale that was quite nice, or at least not actively terrible.
Still, though, there's no question in my mind that the show dropped the ball in the final year, for all the reasons Drum cites, and also because after five years of telling us thinking the show was set in Purgatory was "silly", the show finishes with fully fifty percent of its final season being set in fucking Purgatory.
I despise practical jokes, as a rule, because the people who play them have no interest on their victim enjoying the joke. And that's what the sixth year of Lost reads as to me: a joke played on a massive and faithful audience by writers who had painted themselves into a corner.
And if there's anything worse than someone who's idea of humour is to make someone else become uncomfortable, angry, upset or massively disappointed, it's that guy who then turns around and says "I don't know what your problem is, it was only a joke".
That, right there, is JJ Abrams. I don't actually know how much input he had in the storyline of the final season, in fairness, but even if he didn't do a damn thing on it, he's still telling people that the colossal contempt his friends showed for the people who had invested enormous time (and frequently non-trivial amounts of money, given how much the DVD sets went for when they first came out) is somehow their fault.
Oh, and bonus twat points for implying that it's somehow the job of the viewer to explain to the writers how they should have done their own job better. Does Abrams think this should be applied to other occupations? If my defense lawyer fails to get me off charges of which I am innocent, do I have to point to the specific legal tactic they should have used to exonerate me, or can I just flat out tell him (I can say "him", because it would be my Dad) that he's a bad lawyer. Do I get to send an undercooked steak back in a restaurant if I can't operate my own grill at home?
This isn't a way of addressing criticism, is my point. It's a way of dismissing it . The fact that Abram's argument that no-one has suggested how the final season could have been improved is transparently, laughably false, makes it all the worse.
(Oh, also: "Just upset that it ended"? There is no limit how much Abrams needs to pull his own head out of his arse, and not just so he can count his massive piles of money and cackle evilly.)
 If Abrams point was that no-one is able to pin down what it was they disliked, that would be different. "It sucks and shut up!" isn't too helpful as a critical appraisal. Again, though, I've read or skimmed dozens of online articles that pin down what people saw as the precise problems. Abrams doesn't experience thoughtful criticism of his show entirely because he doesn't care to listen to it.