no offense meant, temis, but i really hope you're wrong about this. that would suck.
i totally agree about your critique of the hooks and writing, tho'. well said. it's quinto who's holding that character together, not the writers.
So. Who's watching Heroes just for Quinto?
- Thread starter Temis the Vorta
- Start date
no offense meant, temis, but i really hope you're wrong about this. that would suck.
i totally agree about your critique of the hooks and writing, tho'. well said. it's quinto who's holding that character together, not the writers.
It's just my guess what they're planning to do; not saying that would be the best way to conclude his story.
I just want credit if that turns out to be what they're doing.I suspect that
they added Robert Knepper to be the ongoing chief antagonist which makes me suspect they're planning to get rid of/permanently change Sylar, who has been an ongoing problem with making a credible villain; fans hate the "victim" aspect of Sylar, because it renders him pathetic and uncool, but having him be a cool, unrepentant, one-dimensional bwahaha baddie wears out its welcome too quickly.
Wow, yet another inconsistent aspect of Sylar - you're right, in the S1 finale, he actually wanted to be a "hero." What the frak ever happened with that? I guess that was just a passing fancy.
I'm with you.I really don't give a s*%t about the plot. I just want to see Zach walk around in that wife beater and look all hot and stuff.
Why do I bother bitching about the writing? I'll watch these characters regardless of how ridiculous it all is.Which is why it's good that Peter and Nathan are also there to drool over. With writing this bad, they better hire Joe Flanigan and Ben Browder, too.
Last edited:
It's not inconsistent if it's been there since day 1. You just didn't pay attention. Remember the wall full of "forgive me" and "I have sinned"? He's NEVER been pure unrepentant evil. Being a villain is a mask; he got a raw deal with his power. He has been manipulated because he is susceptible to it due to his past story. He felt so bad about killing Brian Davis that scribbled that wall, tried to hang himself, had to be manipulated into killing again by meeting Trevor Zeitlan, and, even after losing the other abilities, was able to empathize enough with his first victim that he kept the telekinesis after the Shanti virus.
He desperately wants to be special for himself, but the only things that he thinks make him special are the powers of others. He has always been conflicted.
He's been back and forth since day 1, because that's kind of the point of the character and how he's always been written. He's not a villain because he wants to be, but because he can't control his power ("the hunger") and then starts hiding behind it even when he learns another way to gain powers because it has become his comforting identity (he doesn't know anything else that is his). Ironically, he's not even unique and "special" with the Sylar image; his father turned out to be exactly like him sans Claire's ability and knowing someone (Claire) whom he can never hurt. He thought Samson was "pathetic" and didn't want to become that. Being able to understand how things work is the closest thing to *his* ability and personal identity.
Meeting Samson is what will ultimately force Gabriel to look to his future and figure out who *he* is. Angela and Arthur's manipulations were steps along the way of that realization that desperately trying to meet the expectations of others doesn't work. That issue stems from him never being good enough for Virginia Gray.
That's actually excellent and very consistent writing of the character. One of the best parts about him, IMO.
And Robert Knepper is not likely to be taking over from Zachary Quinto. Honestly, that's hater talk for people who don't like Sylar gaining facets and becoming a main character with his own journey. I bet Robert Knepper's character will be about as important as Željko Ivanek's, if that.
And my theory is that they will eventually split Nathan and Sylar, somehow (perhaps doing a Linderman-esque healer ability on Nathan's body or the two of them getting split apart in some way), but both actors will be staying on the show.
The idea that they're going to kill off Sylar is insane talk from people without an imagination. In fact, I doubt they'll even keep Nathan dead.
They're clearly going with the redemption storyline and it's not hard to figure out all the little hints they've dropped along the way. Micah's comments were a sledgehammer. But in order for it to work, they have to make Sylar not being good because of manipulations, as in the Villains arc, but because of HIMSELF. It failed because it was a lie and his life has been nothing but manipulations. He actually wanted the lie to be true and he hated when Angela readily admitted that she was a monster just like him (Dual). He practically begged her to tell him that she wasn't a monster.
What he's always been looking for is what makes HIM special; his own self, not just little pieces of others that he has picked up going back all the way to becoming a watchmaker because his adoptive father was one. "Who is Gabriel?" is his journey.
In fact, the whole message of the show can be summed up as "Who am I?"
He desperately wants to be special for himself, but the only things that he thinks make him special are the powers of others. He has always been conflicted.
He's been back and forth since day 1, because that's kind of the point of the character and how he's always been written. He's not a villain because he wants to be, but because he can't control his power ("the hunger") and then starts hiding behind it even when he learns another way to gain powers because it has become his comforting identity (he doesn't know anything else that is his). Ironically, he's not even unique and "special" with the Sylar image; his father turned out to be exactly like him sans Claire's ability and knowing someone (Claire) whom he can never hurt. He thought Samson was "pathetic" and didn't want to become that. Being able to understand how things work is the closest thing to *his* ability and personal identity.
Meeting Samson is what will ultimately force Gabriel to look to his future and figure out who *he* is. Angela and Arthur's manipulations were steps along the way of that realization that desperately trying to meet the expectations of others doesn't work. That issue stems from him never being good enough for Virginia Gray.
That's actually excellent and very consistent writing of the character.
One of the best parts about him, IMO.And Robert Knepper is not likely to be taking over from Zachary Quinto. Honestly, that's hater talk for people who don't like Sylar gaining facets and becoming a main character with his own journey. I bet Robert Knepper's character will be about as important as Željko Ivanek's, if that.
And my theory is that they will eventually split Nathan and Sylar, somehow (perhaps doing a Linderman-esque healer ability on Nathan's body or the two of them getting split apart in some way), but both actors will be staying on the show.
The idea that they're going to kill off Sylar is insane talk from people without an imagination. In fact, I doubt they'll even keep Nathan dead.
They're clearly going with the redemption storyline and it's not hard to figure out all the little hints they've dropped along the way. Micah's comments were a sledgehammer. But in order for it to work, they have to make Sylar not being good because of manipulations, as in the Villains arc, but because of HIMSELF. It failed because it was a lie and his life has been nothing but manipulations. He actually wanted the lie to be true and he hated when Angela readily admitted that she was a monster just like him (Dual). He practically begged her to tell him that she wasn't a monster.
What he's always been looking for is what makes HIM special; his own self, not just little pieces of others that he has picked up going back all the way to becoming a watchmaker because his adoptive father was one. "Who is Gabriel?" is his journey.
In fact, the whole message of the show can be summed up as "Who am I?"
Last edited:
I started watching Heroes online on NBC, cause I wanted to see ZQ in it. I liked the two episodes I saw so much that a day later I bought the complete season 1 and 2 on DVD and watched all of it within 2 weeks and started watching the 3rd season online right away.
Now I can't wait for the 3rd season to start airing on german TV next week and for the 4th season to start in the US next month. It will take another year since we get to see season 4 on TV around here, but I can watch it online in the meantime.
So, in the beginning it was all about Quinto, but after I very short time I had become hooked on the show itself and even though Sylar is still the priority reason for me to watch the show, I now follow it also because it's indeed very interesting and I want to know how it continues. It's a great series! I like its message.
And I think I'm gonna LOVE the 4th season!! Looks awesome!
Has anybody seen the teaser trailer that came out a couple weesk ago yet (sorry If it's already been posted)?
It looks so cool and I absolutely can't wait to see Sylar split from Nathan again (I mean, it was clear they're gonna kill off either of them from the beginning - Quinto's a huge draw to the show, many people watch it for Sylar and they would be stupid to let him die. For now. The trailer gives a little idea of how they could separate the two of them, too).
teaser: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXDRkk4RTUo
reel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKfrJe9O_w0
Anf btw, NileQT87, that was a very good post.
Now I can't wait for the 3rd season to start airing on german TV next week and for the 4th season to start in the US next month. It will take another year since we get to see season 4 on TV around here, but I can watch it online in the meantime.
So, in the beginning it was all about Quinto, but after I very short time I had become hooked on the show itself and even though Sylar is still the priority reason for me to watch the show, I now follow it also because it's indeed very interesting and I want to know how it continues. It's a great series! I like its message.
And I think I'm gonna LOVE the 4th season!! Looks awesome!
Has anybody seen the teaser trailer that came out a couple weesk ago yet (sorry If it's already been posted)?
It looks so cool and I absolutely can't wait to see Sylar split from Nathan again (I mean, it was clear they're gonna kill off either of them from the beginning - Quinto's a huge draw to the show, many people watch it for Sylar and they would be stupid to let him die. For now. The trailer gives a little idea of how they could separate the two of them, too).
teaser: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXDRkk4RTUo
reel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKfrJe9O_w0
Anf btw, NileQT87, that was a very good post.
It was quite thorough, but would have been better without a couple of things.Anf btw, NileQT87, that was a very good post.
This isn't all that bad, but you could have chosen your words to be a little less accusatory, or left that out altogether as unnecessary; it adds nothing useful.
These are another story:
First: over the last year and a half in this forum, I've acquired a genuine dislike for the term "hater" in connection with anything and would prefer not to see it used here, and especially not when aimed at another poster. Second: there is no way to read "insane talk from people without an imagination" as being complimentary in the slightest -- not generally, and absolutely not when directly responding to something another poster has just said; it goes beyond addressing the post to actively attacking the character of the poster, which can be warnable and is the sort of thing you'll want to make an effort to avoid.
Remember that this is a friendly discussion of a non-Trek show which happens to include a Star Trek actor in its cast, and has been allowed to run here because of the Quinto connection. If I get an idea that any Heroes factional stuff might be breaking out, the thread will very likely be moved or simply closed. If things are kept in perspective and remain about Quinto and his part in the show (and not about other fans/other posters) then we should be OK.
I'm sorry. It's a bit of anger spilling and bubbling over from VERY SIMILAR arguments on IMDb. I can be a bit acerbic when I feel like I've repeated statements, even if I haven't even had this discussion here. Granted, I respect people here quite a bit more in the sense that NOTHING here has been straight up trolling (IMDb is known for it). I defended Star Trek 2009 for months on IMDb and probably tried to explain parallel dimensions a million times before it just started to feel like I was banging my head against a wall. After a while you just started to ask people if they had read the last 100 posts about not believing it was a parallel dimension (and you wonder if the same people saying the same 'it sucks' for the millionth time are actually being serious--in a 'why are you so dedicated if you dislike it so much?' sense).
When things are accused of not having any literary sense, despite my belief and pointing out of the threads of that sense, and I feel like I've repeated myself with the same contrary evidence (and I have repeated myself in this thread with nothing specific to refute it), those old IMDb-esque feelings toward posters who are genuine 'haters' (and only there for that reason--half of IMDbers don't even pretend not to be) tend to come up.
Granted, Temis and others are perfectly fine to dislike the show (hey, no problem--it's not their flavor of entertainment), but I would like to see specific evidence supporting facts (I'm from the BuffyForums school of dissertation-length story analyses). Many times, in a discussion like this, I always make sure to back up my understanding of a character or plotline with specific evidence. I find people who make blanket statements that more or less seem like 'it sucks now' or 'the writing is bad' aren't really telling me WHY. Evidence, please. It's equally a put down on people who like the storylines if all you can say is about how everybody seemingly knows how it's inconsistent or it sucks (without evidence other than absurd behind-the-scenes drama that has nothing to do with the show's in-story that is aired--that is the stuff found on IMDb--people freaking out about Kring vs. Fuller is an example that has nothing to do with being critical of the story), even when evidence is presented to the contrary. I would love to refute specifics. Until then I just have to post random bits of analysis, which starts to get a little frustrating because of what I feel to be a one-sided argument with specifics.
And I definitely would move this thread to the sci-fi and fantasy section.
It really doesn't belong here, despite the ZQ connection.
Here's a cookie to the people who find the writing inconsistent: Caitlin is an example of a character genuinely lost in the shuffle (a true victim of the writers strike that didn't make it into the Villains arc from the lost Exodus arc), though could be seen as a cautionary tale on messing with time travel.
When things are accused of not having any literary sense, despite my belief and pointing out of the threads of that sense, and I feel like I've repeated myself with the same contrary evidence (and I have repeated myself in this thread with nothing specific to refute it), those old IMDb-esque feelings toward posters who are genuine 'haters' (and only there for that reason--half of IMDbers don't even pretend not to be) tend to come up.
Granted, Temis and others are perfectly fine to dislike the show (hey, no problem--it's not their flavor of entertainment), but I would like to see specific evidence supporting facts (I'm from the BuffyForums school of dissertation-length story analyses). Many times, in a discussion like this, I always make sure to back up my understanding of a character or plotline with specific evidence. I find people who make blanket statements that more or less seem like 'it sucks now' or 'the writing is bad' aren't really telling me WHY. Evidence, please. It's equally a put down on people who like the storylines if all you can say is about how everybody seemingly knows how it's inconsistent or it sucks (without evidence other than absurd behind-the-scenes drama that has nothing to do with the show's in-story that is aired--that is the stuff found on IMDb--people freaking out about Kring vs. Fuller is an example that has nothing to do with being critical of the story), even when evidence is presented to the contrary. I would love to refute specifics. Until then I just have to post random bits of analysis, which starts to get a little frustrating because of what I feel to be a one-sided argument with specifics.
And I definitely would move this thread to the sci-fi and fantasy section.
It really doesn't belong here, despite the ZQ connection.Here's a cookie to the people who find the writing inconsistent: Caitlin is an example of a character genuinely lost in the shuffle (a true victim of the writers strike that didn't make it into the Villains arc from the lost Exodus arc), though could be seen as a cautionary tale on messing with time travel.
Last edited:
What, just because it exists, it's automatically "consistent"?
I have paid far far more attention to this dumb show than is healthy for me.
Ah don't worry, when you actually know the difference between good writing and random crap, people who don't have a clue call you a "hater."
I have also been called hater of: ENT, VOY, BSG on occasion, Dollhouse, Fringe, Defying Gravity (well everyone hates that), Stargate and amazingly DS9, just because I didn't think it was 100% perfect. To me, it's a mark of distinction and a testament to my discriminating good taste.Just jump into any Heroes thread this coming season, I'm sure that you'll get a bellyful of supporting facts unless the show undergoes an amazing improvement. Our threads over the past three years have been long rants of facts, and lately they've been followed by, "that's it, I'm bailing on this garbage." How have you managed to miss these discussions? Check SF&F when the series premieres. If you want to uncritically defend this show, you will attract a whole lot of folks willing to give you a good fight. Lately the threads have been nothing but, "this is crap, goodbye, I hope it's cancelled," so having someone willing to mount a defense would at least be different.
As for what's wrong with the show, where do I start? Here's some stuff just off the top of my head:
-Hiro is pointless; he's an overgrown child playacting at being a hero, which is revolting to see in a grown man, especially when his nonsensical hero fantasies endanger peoples' lives or even the entire friggen planet.
-Claire is pointless; she pingpongs between loving her Daddy and feeling betrayed by him. She needs a character arc of some kind, any kind.
-Niki or whoever she is called now is pointless; she's just there as eye candy but the actress is a bore and they've never found a reasonable role for her to play that justifies her existence in this show.
-Far too many plotlines are introduced and unceremoniously dropped. Good writers don't introduce plotlines unless there's a plan for them. Nathan's religious conversion. Peter glomming Sylar's seeing power. Hiro endangering the world simply because he's bored. Claire's magic blood, which has been forgotten when critically injured characters like Nathan could have used it (Sylar's blood should also be magic now, too). All that stuff in Ukraine, was there a point? Hiro and Ando went to India to what, stop a wedding so a lesbian couple could be happy? What does that have to do with anything? The whole New Orleans saga went nowhere. The comic book store plotline was obvious filler. And remember Peter's Irish girlfriend? Apparently he just left her, lost, in some alternate future, and didn't even have the common courtesy to mention that he feels bad about it. Or something, anything. The writers cannot just dump a character like that and not expect us to notice!
-Far too many plotlines have no payoff or insufficient payoff. Hiro's Japanese journey was a bore; Peter's soujourn in Ireland was pointless. Matt's African journey - so what? Arthur Petrelli - bust. Sylar's dad - another wasted opportunity. Sylar being a Petrelli had no purpose, so why even bring the subject up? This show has become a collection of random go-nowhere plotlines.
-Too many characters are written inconsistently. Mohinder for example. How can this moral guy be so easily manipulated into experimenting on people? How can this supposedly smart guy be so dimwitted as to experiment on himself? Now he wants powers desperately? Not so long ago, he was counselling Nikki to be very leery of powers, since they were so corrupting.
-This series isn't about anything. What it could be about is obvious - the timeless problem of people having power that they lack the wisdom to wield properly. But the writers would actually need to construct a story arc and character arcs that support that theme. Right now, there is no theme, just a bunch of stuff that happens, followed by other stuff. That's not a story, that's a mess.
Basically, this show is a catastrophe. What's amazing to me is that I'm still willing to watch it. That's because I really do like some of the actors, and sometimes a train wreck really is entertaining.
Last edited:
"Seeing"? Peter got Sylar's intuitive aptitude along with the hunger, and just about killed Angela in the process, but Peter lost that and the rest of his abilities when Arthur hugged him. An example of Peter not always intelligently picking up selective abilities and actually getting a lot of dangerous ones that he can't fully handle. He literally was starting to become Sylar for a bit there--which at least proved that Sylar's intuitive aptitude is a good chunk of the reason he is what he is (which I think was the point of Peter getting the ability along with seeing Sylar getting his ability taken away by the eclipse). And of course, Peter now has a reduced version of his old ability where all abilities are temporary until he selectively touches the next person for an ability he wants to borrow.
Honestly, that arc had a lot more to do with explaining what Sylar's ability even was (and showing just how much control Gabriel struggles to have over it in comparison) than having anything to do with Peter, other than him being as much of a danger as any villain when he gains the wrong powers. Sylar's ability can even turn the purest hero into a monster. As Sylar described it, it's a constant feeling like his head is stuffed full of cotton and ice with the need to have power (he described it as "numbing").
Speaking of the eclipse, my theory is that perhaps there is maybe a cycle of eclipses where perhaps every either one is a catalyst for people to gain powers and another kind takes powers away. It could be a cycle. It'll be interesting if we see a 3rd. Perhaps in season 5 (they seem to use it every other season--most holiday episodes on shows are done that way).
Though Samuel in the season 4 trailer seems to be talking a lot about going home or some such. I'm intrigued by what that means.
They are slowly but surely explaining what the powers mean and where they might come from. You can't expect it all at once. Most shows have a mythology that it might take many, many years for them to fully explain. It's part of the mystery. I think a lot of watchers get frustrated that not everything is just constantly info-dumped on them immediately, which is where I see most of the frustration the show gets.
It probably helped that I saw these 3 seasons consecutively within a week rather than spread over 3 years.
I'm sure a lot of BtVS/AtS viewers who watched over 8 years (hello) got ticked off between seasons over unanswered questions. I know for a fact that people would b*tch incessantly about the character deaths (heard about the nastiness from the Cordelia and Tara fans?--it got to the point of fans threatening to stop watching--Doyle had fans like that who still think Joss fired Glenn Quinn over his drug habits--and it's irrelevant even if it's the whole truth--and tear Joss a new one for Charisma being fired for not telling anyone until too late about her pregnancy, for that matter--it gets to the point that you can't even discuss Jasmine in-story without people saying that's not what happened because it wasn't the pre-planned storyline--the conversations just go nowhere) and some of the old fan factions that formed while on air are COMPLETELY different from the ones that formed after the shows were long-canceled. Fans can get nasty when they think they know how the show should go more than the writers, but the fans don't always understand what the writers have in mind until much later. After the show is long over, the new fans don't get such superiority complexes like that and can view the show as a whole product that they can't influence.
Fans really need to stop letting behind-the-scenes politics skew what they think happens on screen. When fans start saying that things don't count because they were done for some behind-the-scenes reason, you can't even discuss the show anymore with them. Writers often come up with many ways to deal with an actor leaving, an actor dying, changing writers, the studios messing with a plot element, surprise pregnancies, surprise cancellation that changes the finale, etc... and you have to just accept that what finally ends up on screen IS THE STORY.
Watching something on DVD in a marathon, where the answers come without wait, is a much different experience than live television over many years. Most shows actually seem to get much rosier reputations when fans aren't getting upset with unanswered questions because the shows are over and most of the people are now viewing the show consecutively on DVD.
Honestly, that arc had a lot more to do with explaining what Sylar's ability even was (and showing just how much control Gabriel struggles to have over it in comparison) than having anything to do with Peter, other than him being as much of a danger as any villain when he gains the wrong powers. Sylar's ability can even turn the purest hero into a monster. As Sylar described it, it's a constant feeling like his head is stuffed full of cotton and ice with the need to have power (he described it as "numbing").
Speaking of the eclipse, my theory is that perhaps there is maybe a cycle of eclipses where perhaps every either one is a catalyst for people to gain powers and another kind takes powers away. It could be a cycle. It'll be interesting if we see a 3rd. Perhaps in season 5 (they seem to use it every other season--most holiday episodes on shows are done that way).
Though Samuel in the season 4 trailer seems to be talking a lot about going home or some such. I'm intrigued by what that means.
They are slowly but surely explaining what the powers mean and where they might come from. You can't expect it all at once. Most shows have a mythology that it might take many, many years for them to fully explain. It's part of the mystery. I think a lot of watchers get frustrated that not everything is just constantly info-dumped on them immediately, which is where I see most of the frustration the show gets.
It probably helped that I saw these 3 seasons consecutively within a week rather than spread over 3 years.
I'm sure a lot of BtVS/AtS viewers who watched over 8 years (hello) got ticked off between seasons over unanswered questions. I know for a fact that people would b*tch incessantly about the character deaths (heard about the nastiness from the Cordelia and Tara fans?--it got to the point of fans threatening to stop watching--Doyle had fans like that who still think Joss fired Glenn Quinn over his drug habits--and it's irrelevant even if it's the whole truth--and tear Joss a new one for Charisma being fired for not telling anyone until too late about her pregnancy, for that matter--it gets to the point that you can't even discuss Jasmine in-story without people saying that's not what happened because it wasn't the pre-planned storyline--the conversations just go nowhere) and some of the old fan factions that formed while on air are COMPLETELY different from the ones that formed after the shows were long-canceled. Fans can get nasty when they think they know how the show should go more than the writers, but the fans don't always understand what the writers have in mind until much later. After the show is long over, the new fans don't get such superiority complexes like that and can view the show as a whole product that they can't influence.
Fans really need to stop letting behind-the-scenes politics skew what they think happens on screen. When fans start saying that things don't count because they were done for some behind-the-scenes reason, you can't even discuss the show anymore with them. Writers often come up with many ways to deal with an actor leaving, an actor dying, changing writers, the studios messing with a plot element, surprise pregnancies, surprise cancellation that changes the finale, etc... and you have to just accept that what finally ends up on screen IS THE STORY.
Watching something on DVD in a marathon, where the answers come without wait, is a much different experience than live television over many years. Most shows actually seem to get much rosier reputations when fans aren't getting upset with unanswered questions because the shows are over and most of the people are now viewing the show consecutively on DVD.
Last edited:
One sure sign of poor writing is when writers make their characters dumb simply because they can't figure out a way to get from Point A to Point B by having their characters be smart. Manipulating your characters into a corner via their own stupidity is the easy, lazy way out for untalented writers. Heroes does that a lot.
I'd argue that it's part of the show's mythology of superpowers not necessarily being a wholly positive thing. The concept of "power corrupts" comes to mind. The writers clearly always intended to have a show where superpowers don't mean that people all become heroes. It's more humanist than that.
Not everybody wants to stand out from a crowd (Claire), some people become corrupted when they feel invulnerable or all-powerful, some people grow disillusioned and try to fix humanity like Adam and the rest of the Company founders, some people were bad seeds even before getting the powers (Knox, the German, Flint, Eric Doyle, the Haitian's brother, etc...), some have good intentions and every intention of being Superman and saving the girl on the tracks, except it doesn't always work out the way they want it to (Peter, Hiro, Micah, etc... are the pearly white heroic optimists) and some people get a bum deal in life with powers that absolutely suck and ruin their lives and everyone they care about (Ted, Gabriel, Canfield, Maya, etc...).
The title "Heroes" is misleading for some people, IMO. But I think I see that they always intended this approach from the start.
Peter just made another mistake taking Sylar's ability similar to his problems where he fainted from the powers after Homecoming and ended up being a bomb with Ted's ability. But he finally got a better power after Arthur's depowering that allows him more control over what he gets. He really lucked out. And noticeably, probably his most brilliant moment since trying to save Claire was tricking Sylar as President Worf. His initial ability was just as corrupting and villainous as Sylar's, Samson's and Arthur's very similar abilities, ultimately. Practically anyone who absorbs abilities like those characters ends up becoming a villain because they don't have a choice; they will always become a danger. It showed that someone even as well-intentioned as Peter could be destroyed by a bad power. The most powerful ability of them all (which is that absorption sub-class) is ultimately the worst. Ironically, it's probably the one most people would want to have, because it sounds like it's the best.
One thing about Noah is that, while characters like Sylar and Angela readily admit that they are monsters, Noah clings to the gray area and avoids the question if he is a monster. It's one of the interesting bits about Dual. Sylar tries to test if Noah will shoot himself or Meredith, but he sidesteps the question by finding a way to break the window. He's the only one that basically doesn't answer. It's like how Angela made a point of calling both Sylar and Noah murderers (Noah killing Ivan and feeding Trevor to Sylar being strong examples). Noah always sidesteps the comparison. That's actually one of the interesting bits of his morally gray persona.
Not everybody wants to stand out from a crowd (Claire), some people become corrupted when they feel invulnerable or all-powerful, some people grow disillusioned and try to fix humanity like Adam and the rest of the Company founders, some people were bad seeds even before getting the powers (Knox, the German, Flint, Eric Doyle, the Haitian's brother, etc...), some have good intentions and every intention of being Superman and saving the girl on the tracks, except it doesn't always work out the way they want it to (Peter, Hiro, Micah, etc... are the pearly white heroic optimists) and some people get a bum deal in life with powers that absolutely suck and ruin their lives and everyone they care about (Ted, Gabriel, Canfield, Maya, etc...).
The title "Heroes" is misleading for some people, IMO. But I think I see that they always intended this approach from the start.
Peter just made another mistake taking Sylar's ability similar to his problems where he fainted from the powers after Homecoming and ended up being a bomb with Ted's ability. But he finally got a better power after Arthur's depowering that allows him more control over what he gets. He really lucked out. And noticeably, probably his most brilliant moment since trying to save Claire was tricking Sylar as President Worf. His initial ability was just as corrupting and villainous as Sylar's, Samson's and Arthur's very similar abilities, ultimately. Practically anyone who absorbs abilities like those characters ends up becoming a villain because they don't have a choice; they will always become a danger. It showed that someone even as well-intentioned as Peter could be destroyed by a bad power. The most powerful ability of them all (which is that absorption sub-class) is ultimately the worst. Ironically, it's probably the one most people would want to have, because it sounds like it's the best.
One thing about Noah is that, while characters like Sylar and Angela readily admit that they are monsters, Noah clings to the gray area and avoids the question if he is a monster. It's one of the interesting bits about Dual. Sylar tries to test if Noah will shoot himself or Meredith, but he sidesteps the question by finding a way to break the window. He's the only one that basically doesn't answer. It's like how Angela made a point of calling both Sylar and Noah murderers (Noah killing Ivan and feeding Trevor to Sylar being strong examples). Noah always sidesteps the comparison. That's actually one of the interesting bits of his morally gray persona.
Last edited:
just to weigh in, (i love a lively debate) i agree with both of you. it looks to me like the writers are doing some muddling, just throwing out things that seem interesting without much thought as to where they're going, or how to tie it all together. which is the same reason i stopped reading the 'hitchhiker's' "trilogy" but have been told that adams ended up pulling most of it together eventually.... i never will believe he knew exactly where he was going with some of that stuff all along. but in the end making sense out of a seemingly random jumble is possible, and who knows? 'heroes' still might end up that way.
which isn't to say that it's complete gibberish, some of it does seem to hang together. also the human mind is excellent at finding patterns in things, and tends to take what it sees at face value (esp. on TV) so i have no problem viewing the writing as goofy and still having a decently good time watching it. as nile has said, the story we see is the story. it's cheesy and kinda all over the place, but that's how the show is and if it weren't fun i sure as hell would not be here writing this post about it.
but that's all it is, just fun. this is mildly disappointing; there are a lot of different ways social or political statements could be made. but if it's destined to be mainly a soap opera about superheroes, i guess i can live with that.
which isn't to say that it's complete gibberish, some of it does seem to hang together. also the human mind is excellent at finding patterns in things, and tends to take what it sees at face value (esp. on TV) so i have no problem viewing the writing as goofy and still having a decently good time watching it. as nile has said, the story we see is the story. it's cheesy and kinda all over the place, but that's how the show is and if it weren't fun i sure as hell would not be here writing this post about it.
but that's all it is, just fun. this is mildly disappointing; there are a lot of different ways social or political statements could be made. but if it's destined to be mainly a soap opera about superheroes, i guess i can live with that.
I watch it for Quinto. I'm tempted to go back and watch S2 again just for the Sylar porn.
Watch Heroes for Quinto? No, I watch it for the complex, gripping and unique storylines and deep character development that are clearly thought out far in advance and carefully plotted throughout the season.
So between you and Temis, I'm deciding (yet again) that I did the right thing when I turned it off in mid-season 2.
I do like some of the actors...and season 1 was great. But I'm not missing it now, that's for sure.
i only hope that someone in charge comes to seriously consider two things: 1) that the slipshod writing has cost them quite a few viewers, and 2) that many of the people who are still interested are looking forward to seeing as much quinto as possible.
if somehow these points could be brought together like, i dunno, give sylar some fun, thought-out plotlines, that would really be nifty.
if somehow these points could be brought together like, i dunno, give sylar some fun, thought-out plotlines, that would really be nifty.
The actors are likable, but there's not a whole lot for them to do acting-wise since the characters are so poorly written and all over the map.
To be honest, season one of Heroes was completely predictable, but it was a fun journey even if the ending was anticlimactic. There was actually a direction it was going in.
I loved Sylar and Hiro/Ando, but by the end of season 2, I could not take it anymore.
I have a couple of friends that are still die hard, but I cannot get myself psyched.
I keep reading the threads here on the BBS and think - "meh."
I have a couple of friends that are still die hard, but I cannot get myself psyched.
I keep reading the threads here on the BBS and think - "meh."
I'll admit no such thing.
It took great effort to keep watching season 3 until the end. The writers completely dropped the ball and the characters were all over the place.
I still don't really know if I'll tune in for season 4.
Sylar and Clairebear's lesbian kisses are good and all but might not be enough...