Perfection is hard to come by, as the very word would suggest. Yet, precisely because of how difficult it can be to achieve, we often look for the perfect when it comes to popular culture. The world of film these days is partially dominated by how successful a film can truly be based on its score on websites like Metacritic or the ever-present Rotten Tomatoes. This is not a new trend, either; as far back as when “Toy Story 3” arrived in theaters in the summer of 2010, people have paid an extreme amount of attention to whether or not certain beloved films can attain a 100% score on the aggregation site. The dark flip side is when people get angry at critics for daring to go against the grain, even if it seems impossible to believe that someone may not enjoy the latest exploits of a series of anthropomorphized toys. A more recent example was when the deadpan and affable Hugh Grant mocked a critic for, a couple years after the release of the absolutely delightful “Paddington 2,” submitting a negative review of the film simply to upend that movie’s 100% score.

By now, of course, Rotten Tomatoes tabulates reviews for TV shows and other pieces of culture that don’t reside on the big screen. Not that this kind of aggregation is an exact science to begin with, but it’s especially challenging with TV reviews — particularly those for non-current series. That’s true even for the big-name shows, ones that were unavoidably popular at the time and remain heavily debated decades later, and there’s no better example of this than the ABC science-fiction drama “Lost.” Before J.J. Abrams had revived both “Star Wars” and “Star Trek” on the big screen, and before Damon Lindelof had infuriated some folks online for his interpretation of the “Alien” saga, there was “Lost,” in which a motley band of survivors of a plane crash tried to escape a mysterious deserted island while also attempting to unearth many of its baffling secrets. The six-season series is almost as divisive now as it was when it aired from 2004 to 2010, and ushered in plenty of copycat shows blending science fiction, adventure, romance, and other sub-genres. And yes, it’s true: “Lost” does boast one season with a perfect Rotten Tomatoes score, and if you know the show well, it’s not the season you think. Season 1, which established the show’s dramatic arcs and templates and netted a Best Drama Series Emmy? No. Season 4, which helped re-establish and focus the show’s endgame? Not quite. No, according to Rotten Tomatoes, the “perfect” season of “Lost” is season 2.

For those who don’t know “Lost” well (or at all), a very brief refresher: By the end of the first season, two halves of the survivors had been established. On one side, there was Jack Shephard (Matthew Fox), a doctor with daddy issues who believed only what he could prove with science and facts. On the other, there was John Locke (Terry O’Quinn), who believed the island had an enigmatic purpose for its survivors, largely because when the plane crashed, he had been inexplicably healed of the paralysis that kept him in a wheelchair. Locke was desperate to dig up a strange hatch buried in the jungle, whereas Jack just wanted to get home and bring as many folks with him as possible. Season 1 ended with the two of them begrudgingly teaming up to detonate some explosives to open the hatch, and with them looking down into a lengthy tunnel. 

Season 2 technically began answering some questions the audience had posed, but in doing so, only created many, many, many more questions. Yes, the hatch was opened up … to reveal a single man inside (Desmond Hume, played by Henry Ian Cusick) who was entering a set of numbers into an old-fashioned computer every 108 minutes, because he believed it would save the world. The main set of survivors also learned that the plane’s tail section was not destroyed, but landed elsewhere on the massive island, and those who had made it through the crash had experienced vastly more trauma. Some new characters were introduced, such as LAPD officer Ana Lucia (Michelle Rodriguez), thought-to-be-dead dentist Bernard (Sam Anderson), the quiet but intense Mr. Eko (Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje), and the leader of a group known as the Others who initially appears to be named Henry Gale (Michael Emerson).

In short, a lot of stuff happens in the second season of “Lost.” And while some of that stuff is memorable for good reason — the slow-burn scenes with Locke and “Henry Gale” are among the most suspenseful and effective the show ever did — a lot of it is frustrating, maddening, and annoying. So to scale back to the point of this article: This is the one season of “Lost” with a perfect score? This one? Now, to be fair, this fan of the show would not pinpoint the single worst episode as airing in the second season of “Lost.” (No, that would be “Stranger in a Strange Land,” an episode so bad that it inspired the showrunners to basically make clear to ABC that if they didn’t get an established end date, the quality of the show would be this bad because they’d have to keep stringing the characters and audience along before revealing its mysteries.) Not every fan of “Lost” would say the second season is its low point, but the fact that this got a 100 percent is kind of stunning.

Of course, context matters when we look at numbers and reviews like these. First of all, there are just 17 reviews on the site for the second season of “Lost.” When you compare that to films released around the same time, it’s easy to note that the show had vastly fewer reviews to aggregate, making it technically easier for the show to net a perfect score. (And fun fact: The show’s second season has the fewest amount of reviews on the website, compared to the other five seasons.) Second, reviewing a TV series is vastly different than reviewing a film. When you review a film, it’s just a single story. For TV, though, a review can encompass a full season or a single episode. To wit, if you look at even the quotes of the 17 reviews, it seems safe to assume that more than a few of them are specifically reviewing the season’s (admittedly excellent) premiere, “Man of Science, Man of Faith.” Would those same critics have argued the season as a whole was as effective as that same episode? It’s hard to know for sure, but for this writer, while certain episodes and scenes are amazing, the season as a whole is among the weakest. 

It’s a testament to the power of “Lost” that people can still debate its meaning all these years later. (No, the survivors were not in Purgatory the whole time, and no, this is not an invitation to argue that they were.) It’s a testament to the show’s success that any of its seasons netted a 100% score on Rotten Tomatoes. If that kind of rating was easy to achieve, this wouldn’t seem like a big deal. (The other seasons’ ratings range from 69 to 96 percent, with the final season ranking lowest; that’s as unsurprising as this season’s perfect score is a shock.) “Lost” was a one-of-a-kind show, fusing familiar cultural tropes with memorable characters, jaw-dropping twists, and unforgettable imagery. It was an excellent show, and had many perfect episodes. But the fact that its only perfect score came with one of its most up-and-down seasons is only proof of how divisive the show truly was.