I would be interested in speculation–better yet, data if known–about what percentage of audience watches particular programs in recorded or DVD format, how that contributes to the effectiveness of specific strategies, and the degree to which producers take that into account.

As someone who watched most of this season’s BSG online because I had to catch up on the previous season before moving on, I think my experience of the strategies you describe probably differed from those who may have needed their memory jogged. (I had certainly not forgotten Cally’s murder and was waiting patiently for Tyrol to figure it out). I often wondered when watching BSG online (or previous seasons on DVD)whether the producers expect most viewers to watch shows as broadcast, or whether they now assume that many people watch in a more irregular (usually, more concentrated) manner.

I found the BSG recaps were so well-organized thematically that for me they often functioned as spoilers–the events they chose to remind you about, often going back many episodes, were strong clues to plot direction. Visual cues, like the recurring image of Adama’s model ship, were much more subtly effective for that reason.

By contrast, recaps for ‘24′ generally stick pretty close to the previous episode or two, and seem designed to maintain the immersive in-the-moment flow of the narrative, rather than encouraging the viewer to separate out specific thematic strands. They are less interesting for that reason, but they also don’t interfere with the development of suspense.

Myles, you’re probably right there. But the murder was such an act of villainy that it pretty much dominated my understanding of Tory from there on out.

I had the same experience, Sage – of the many embarassingly emotional moments I had watching the finale, my jaw dropping finger pointing response to the logic of the “shared memory” notion was amongst the most potent. I’d argue, though, that Jason is right in acknowledging that the binary you’re describing had been flying under the radar or non-existent in previous episodes (I think you’re giving the show way too much credit for its establishment of clear psychological directions), although I wouldn’t go so far as to say this was a purposeful technique from start to finish.

The show’s decision not to elevate Tory to series regular, combined with the rather erratic characterization of Tyrol that plagued much of 4.5, resulted in a less than adequate investigation of a lot of the show’s characters including those two. Like much of the finale, that moment was largely the payoff to something that could have sustained more dramatic analysis, but ended up being kept instead for the shock and surprise of this particular moment once RDM and Co. realized that they hadn’t addressed it properly and needed to “pay it off” for the audience.

For what it’s worth, in BSG I was aware of the inevitable Tory-Galen confrontation as soon as the memory-sharing plan was hatched. The intervening episodes were progressively showing Tory and Galen as moving in two different psychological directions in coming to terms with their places on Galactica; Tory, but then, was the most villainous character on the show, and everything she did before then was a subtle reminder of what she had been trying to hide.

Off the main topic, but still dealing with the intersection of memory and surprise, the most surprising/shocking moment in the series I can think of is Dee’s last episode, which is about re-activating old memories.

(At the risk of sounding precious rather than helpful…. Typo: “the use stylistic cues.”)

One observation I made on the trend of “Previously On” is the level to which the most mundane of things are being included. The current abode of Nancy Botwin on Weeds has a doorbell that’s a dog barking, a note first established in the fourth season premiere but largely ignored since that point. However, since a recent episode involved the doorbell ringing, the note about the dogbell was included in the Previously On segment, attempting to avoid the confusion of why, precisely, Nancy would know to answer the door when a non-existent dog was barking. It’s come to the point where I’d call producers/networks almost paranoid at the thought of someone googling something on their show out of confusion.

While I can understand it on Lost to a degree, I’d tend to argue that there’s a difference between shows like Lost that invite viewer reaction (either as confusion leading to searching out an answer or as surprise leading to excited theorizing) and shows like Weeds that, well, don’t. There’s an online community for just about any show, whether it’s critics writing reviews or blogs writing recaps, so it’s not as if something as small as a barking doorbell is going to stay a mystery, even if it staying a mystery may in fact be funnier than if it was just a callback to a previous episode.