I agree. However, I should like to add that I think that a satisfactory resolution is the standard (or ought to be), even if that leaves nearly all such genre television wanting. And I'd like to add that I don't necessarily demand completely preplanned answers — I understand it when writers leave these things a bit…

Here's the thing about labeling "the pneumatic tube thing" nit-picky. Some artists are very careful with what they put into a scene, or etc.; they are highly intentional. They select items with an eye towards meaning, and expect readers or viewers to try to derive that meaning from those items. I think Lost…

I loved Lost generally speaking, and the acting, directing, and writing of several of the episodes continue to stand out to me as being some of the best television I've seen. That said, I cannot dismiss the flaws that were there by invoking the idea that the "journey" was somehow the only important bit, rendering…

Perhaps it is the job of the intelligent viewer to not assume that an "odds-on favorite" will necessarily win in the end.

Your opinions are increasingly asinine, as you try to support your unsupportable essay. Now you think that Tom Colicchio was responsible to "talk about why they chose to break the tie that way rather than the many other ways they could have done it"? You're expecting a dissertation from the guy on the methods of…

Wait, what? Are you now just inventing "problems" as you go? You're saying that all of the myriad of competition shows that rely on some expert judge's opinion(s) are "unsustainable," because, what, they haven't submitted a rubric to you beforehand?

Why do you feel that you need every thing fed to you (no pun intended) in this manner? If you were to ask me, prior to some judge's decision being revealed, who had won, I might answer with something like this:

The viewers always had the option of coming to their own conclusions, editing notwithstanding. That's what we did in my home, at least. It's kind of our standing policy.

"That's the perception"? *Whose* perception? Yours? Why are you acting as though your "subjective take" reflects "the audience's perception," as though there is only one?

Hard to follow for whom? I watched the season, but did not feel confused by it. When we reached the point where there were fewer and fewer contestants — "finalists," even — Nick being one of them, I suppose I accepted the possibility that… he might win? Did I do it wrong?

Of course you're "allowed to have an opinion." So am I. And my opinion is that you did not eat the food, and you furthermore lack the training and experience of the judges, so your opinion on that food is not worth very much in comparison to theirs, and your speculations as to their motives is no better than…

Ah, so, in your considered opinion, that one meal you never tasted was better than that other meal you also never tasted? Therefore the judges — the folks who actually ate that food, and who are trained and successful in that very field — must be wrong in their final decision, or have ulterior motives? Makes perfect…

I'd guess they're donating more than you…?

Oh, but you originally said that it wasn't "funny or insightful." That's not the same thing as "explained in a ham-fisted way," which I don't even understand as a criticism of South Park, given that these speeches have always been a take on the "on the nose" messages that cartoons are sometimes known for.