the fates of Chuck and Heroes

[startrekrcks]

I'm sure the writers try their upmost best is it Sylar or the rest of the characters that need to use more of their superpowers. If the show is called Heroes then why can't the good guys use their powers to do good? It's like a battle with evil all the time.

 

[C_Miller]

Heroes is probably the best example of a show with so much working for it, yet the writers can't make it work. The general, the characters are great. There isn't a single character I didn't like in the first season, when the writing was on par with the potential. However, the characters haven't moved past the first season. Take Hiro for example. He was relatively plausible at the start, but five years later, he's still the mentally stunted child he started as. How does that make sense?

Sylar was a brilliant character, who was truly creepy and frightening and as time went on, he showed more depth than just being the boogeyman. That's one of the things I love about Heroes. The shades of grey. It's never been a Heroes v. Villians type show and I love it for that. But, the elements never change. Noah is still a grey character, even though there's no reason for him to be anymore. We're past that. I don't know, the show is very frustraiting.

 

[RoJoHen]

Take Hiro for example. He was relatively plausible at the start, but five years later, he's still the mentally stunted child he started as. How does that make sense?

It makes no sense, especially because five years later, he's supposed to be the badass ninja time traveler that Peter met on the subway in Season 1.

 

[D Man]

Why can't they not get a new creative team in?

The sort of wholesale change I'm talking about would be completely unprecedented.

When Brian Fuller came back for a few episodes at the tail end of season 3, it sort of almost improved. Then he immediately left again . Of course they can't fire everyone and start over, but if they could even get ONE person who is actually competent to steer the others towards something that's even slightly better than the last 3 years of drivel, it'd be an improvement. Tim Kring had a workable initial idea and rode it out for 23 episodes, but he's more than proven he doesn't know how to run a show.

 

[Mr Light]

With Sylar its damned if you do, damned if you don't. It's the same problem with Spike in Buffy/Angel. You introduce a funny psycho killer who becomes insanely popular with the fans. Logic dictates that the psycho killer be eventually killed, but fandom demands he stay around forever. Since he can't just be killing people over and over, the writers are forced to nerf the character and turn him into a hero, then a villain, then a hero, etc, etc, just to keep things 'interesting'.

 

[3D Master]

With Sylar its damned if you do, damned if you don't. It's the same problem with Spike in Buffy/Angel. You introduce a funny psycho killer who becomes insanely popular with the fans. Logic dictates that the psycho killer be eventually killed, but fandom demands he stay around forever. Since he can't just be killing people over and over, the writers are forced to nerf the character and turn him into a hero, then a villain, then a hero, etc, etc, just to keep things 'interesting'.

No, you're only damned if you keep him around. Because if you keep him around the one thing that made him popular will have to go away, or you get a seriously sick twisted character. A guy who is supposed to be good, but instead is a dick. Result, a popular character gets hated. And if you remove what made him popular, people will just shrug. End result: you lose viewers.

You want to keep your viewers, you got to do the very thing you think you shouldn't be doing: got a popular villain; kill him off.

Only by killing him, will you keep what made him amazing intact, will your viewers not only not hate the show for screwing the villain up, but appreciate you for keeping the villain's integrity intact, and will happily follow you on the rest of your journey.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Or you could get a book and read, play a video game, rent a movie... have sex.

Already got those in my schedule. 'Cept video games, not really into those.

Syler was a fascinating character, but he just got ridiculous around Season 3.

Sylar never really was well-written. Quinto managed to distract us from the bad writing for as long as he was able, but the writers never figured out who he was at core: a nice guy driven mad by his superpowers (and if so, was it the "seeing" power that did it, or collecting too many powers?) or was he a psychopath who was made more dangerous but not more insane by getting superpowers?

Those are three different character directions, each with its pro's and con's. The writers needed to pick a direction and work on overcoming the downside inherent in that direction instead of fumbling around and never making up their minds.

Only by killing him, will you keep what made him amazing intact, will your viewers not only not hate the show for screwing the villain up, but appreciate you for keeping the villain's integrity intact, and will happily follow you on the rest of your journey.

No, the viewers will hate the writers for killing off the only good villain the show has ever had and replacing him with villains who aren't nearly as good (because killing Sylar means you lose Quinto, who was the only reason we liked Sylar in the first place). Robert Knepper being such a dud as Samuel proves that even if you hire an excellent actor to play the next villain, that doesn't guarantee that shitty writing won't sabotage him beyond the ability of any actor to repair.

If the writers had done the "right" thing and killed Sylar before anyone started to hate him, it would be the "stupidest thing they ever did" and "the reason the show sucks now."

The solution is not to fire perfectly decent actors. It's to hire the writers who can't figure out how to make Sylar work as a character long-term. Sure, it's a tough assignment, but wouldn't you expect the writers of a high profile network show to be the best in the business? If they want to prove what hotshots they are, here's their chance.

 

[Hyperspace05]

Wasn't there already a lovely sf show called The Cape that ran a few years and never really got its full treatment?

And to think, NBC dumped Journeyman after 13 eps when it had so much more to do! MY husband used to love Heroes, now pfft!

Arrggh!!! Why did they have to cancel Journeyman??? That was the most brilliant show in the last couple of years... A show, that with proper backing, could have become huge with both SF and regular viewers.

Instead they cancel it, and keep this.... shit (what Heroes is now) on the air.

Talk about lousy timing... Lucky for Chuck/Heroes I guess. NBC is in such dire straits that they won't dare to cancel *anything*. Bastards.

 

[PlainSimpleJoel]

Pfft to Heroes now. Season 4 started to lose interest early on. Might catch by DVD when it happens here.

Chuck is one of those shows that doesn't air on any of the commerical networks. So have been watching that by DVD. It is better than a lot of other shows showing on the commerical networks.

 

[3D Master]

Only by killing him, will you keep what made him amazing intact, will your viewers not only not hate the show for screwing the villain up, but appreciate you for keeping the villain's integrity intact, and will happily follow you on the rest of your journey.

No, the viewers will hate the writers for killing off the only good villain the show has ever had and replacing him with villains who aren't nearly as good (because killing Sylar means you lose Quinto, who was the only reason we liked Sylar in the first place). Robert Knepper being such a dud as Samuel proves that even if you hire an excellent actor to play the next villain, that doesn't guarantee that shitty writing won't sabotage him beyond the ability of any actor to repair.

Bullshit. We liked Sylar before Quinto even played him. And you're contradicting yourself. If the writing is so important, than Quinto is unimportant. Any actor in a well-written role would have produced the same effect, and here's the rub. The reason why everything went to shit has got nothing to do with any actors or characters, it's the writing. Good writing will have a great show with people coming back to watch it. Keeping a villain around and trying to make him work as not a villain, but not quite, a villain after all, is BAD WRITING. Result, a bad show, and you lose viewers, fast. There are a lot more viewers that left, then there are those that stayed because they liked Quinto, and are willing to watch despite the bad writing.

Thus, if the show had continued to be well written, instead of trying to pander to what they thought was popular, Sylar would have died in the S1 finale at the hands of Hiro, Peter would have blown up and be vaporized and dead, and the remaining heroes would have formed the Avengers.

S2 would be them staying in touch as the right wrongs, until they come across something they have to face together, they get together again and face the threat together. That would have been a show worth watching, that would have been good writing.

If the writers had done the "right" thing and killed Sylar before anyone started to hate him, it would be the "stupidest thing they ever did" and "the reason the show sucks now."

Nope, not at all. Maybe a tiny minority Quinto fans would say that, but the large majority would be enjoying the good stories. Pandering to what and who you think is popular, as opposed to writing good stories, will lose you viewers. Continuing to write good stories, which would have meant Sylar dies, that would have kept your viewers, and they'd still be praising your good writing today.

The solution is not to fire perfectly decent actors. It's to hire the writers who can't figure out how to make Sylar work as a character long-term. Sure, it's a tough assignment, but wouldn't you expect the writers of a high profile network show to be the best in the business? If they want to prove what hotshots they are, here's their chance.

Sylar cannot work long-term. Making a psychopath work long-term, can't be done, because the only way to do that, is to remove the psychopathic part of them, the very thing that made him popular! You can assemble the greatest writers in history, and they can't do it, because it can't be done by definition. You immediately destroy what's popular about him, and thus the character fails, and CAN NOT work. For a villain to have a shot at remaining a good character, he can only stay a villain. At that point, you have three possibilities: either lose his menace and thus not remain a good character, be Lex Luthor; some CEO beyond the touch of your heroes, protected by law, or get killed off. A individual psychopath like Sylar can't be / become Lex Luthor because it destroys the character, that leaves only get diluted, or get killed off.

Good writing means, he gets killed off.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Nope, I'm afraid you're the one who's full of bullshit.

We liked Sylar before Quinto even played him.

"We" did? Maybe you did. I didn't care one way or the other and don't recall many people saying how much they adored Sylar when he was just a shadowy lurking figure. He had intriguing potential, but any shadowy lurking figure will have that. That doesn't take any talent to pull off. It's a common and unimpressive gimmick.

And you're contradicting yourself. If the writing is so important, than Quinto is unimportant.

Acting and writing are both important. Good enough acting can compensate for bad writing - to an extent. That's what Quinto has done.

Any actor in a well-written role would have produced the same effect,

Only a very talented actor could have done it. There are legions of actors in Hollywood far less talented than Quinto.

Keeping a villain around and trying to make him work as not a villain, but not quite, a villain after all, is BAD WRITING.

Not thinking through a character, so that he becomes impossible to craft into anything worthwhile, is BAD WRITING. Or rather, bad planning. A very talented writer might have been able to salvage Sylar, despite the poor foundation that was laid, but since this show has no very talented writers on its staff, we'll never know.

Thus, if the show had continued to be well written, instead of trying to pander to what they thought was popular, Sylar would have died in the S1 finale at the hands of Hiro, Peter would have blown up and be vaporized and dead, and the remaining heroes would have formed the Avengers.

The Avengers? That's the best you can do? That would have gotten tired very fast.

Maybe a tiny minority Quinto fans would say that, but the large majority would be enjoying the good stories.

But you're forgetting that the writers on this show suck. So there wouldn't have been any good stories. There would have been bad stories minus Sylar, which is no improvement over bad stories with Sylar.

Sylar cannot work long-term.

Just because you lack the imagination and writing talent to figure out how to salvage Sylar doesn't mean a truly talented and creative writer couldn't have done it.

Making a psychopath work long-term, can't be done,

Bullshit. Dexter's been doing it for four seasons. They could easily pull off a couple seasons more. But Dexter Morgan is a character who was thought through very well before the first episode aired. Put the same thought into Sylar, and he could be the psychopathic star of his own show for six solid seasons.

 

[3D Master]

Nope, I'm afraid you're the one who's full of bullshit.

We liked Sylar before Quinto even played him.

"We" did? Maybe you did. I didn't care one way or the other and don't recall many people saying how much they adored Sylar when he was just a shadowy lurking figure. He had intriguing potential, but any shadowy lurking figure will have that. That doesn't take any talent to pull off. It's a common and unimpressive gimmick.

That intrigue was something greater than mere intrigue. The character was mysterious and a killing machine. Only horrifyingly bad writing would have turned that potential into something bad. And only an exceptionally bad actor would have turned the good writing bad, but then, an exceptionally bad actor wouldn't have been casted to begin with.

And you're contradicting yourself. If the writing is so important, than Quinto is unimportant.

Acting and writing are both important. Good enough acting can compensate for bad writing - to an extent. That's what Quinto has done.

Nope, he didn't. Nowhere even close. Sylar was great in S1 because he was written well there, he was shit afterwards. Because the writing, and there's nothing that Quinto did that did anything to change that.

Only a very talented actor could have done it. There are legions of actors in Hollywood far less talented than Quinto.

With the phenomenal writing of S1, even bad actors could have done it. Hell, I don't consider Quinto that good.

Not thinking through a character, so that he becomes impossible to craft into anything worthwhile, is BAD WRITING. Or rather, bad planning. A very talented writer might have been able to salvage Sylar, despite the poor foundation that was laid, but since this show has no very talented writers on 2its staff, we'll never know.

Nope, wouldn't have worked. He's a villain. A villain with the exception of the Lex Luthor trope, and even that can become stale, has a limited life span, before he either loses all menace, or loses what made him great.

The Avengers? That's the best you can do? That would have gotten tired very fast.

No, it's one of the few things that would not get tired.

But you're forgetting that the writers on this show suck. So there wouldn't have been any good stories. There would have been bad stories minus Sylar, which is no improvement over bad stories with Sylar.

Nope, the writers don't suck. Jeph Loeb and the other people running the show sucked for pandering to polls, and bankers ideas of what make the show work and just keep repeating that, but the first season showed this show has some fantastic writers employed.

It's once they abandoned good writing and started following popularity polls that everything went to shit.

Sylar cannot work long-term.

Just because you lack the imagination and writing talent to figure out how to salvage Sylar doesn't mean a truly talented and creative writer couldn't have done it.

I do not lack any imagination, quite the contrary. The fact that a psychopathic villain like Sylar can't work long-term is not a lack of imagination, it's fact that keeps coming throughout history of story telling.

Making a psychopath work long-term, can't be done,

Bullshit. Dexter's been doing it for four seasons. They could easily pull off a couple seasons more. But Dexter Morgan is a character who was thought through very well before the first episode aired. Put the same thought into Sylar, and he could be the psychopathic star of his own show for six solid seasons.

1. Dexter isn't a villain.

2. I don't watch Dexter, so I'm not even sure.

 

[BenRoethig]

Why can't Heroes just die? To me, its damages are beyond repair and watching it these days is like watching a trainwreck that never ends.

Its a matter of "we've gone this far" why not finish it. Then again this is the same company who went several seasons of the far superior Dead Zone and the 4400 and cancelled them without a proper ending.

 

[C_Miller]

Take Hiro for example. He was relatively plausible at the start, but five years later, he's still the mentally stunted child he started as. How does that make sense?

It makes no sense, especially because five years later, he's supposed to be the badass ninja time traveler that Peter met on the subway in Season 1.

To be fair, that was more or less because Ando died in the explosion. However, there should have been a happy medium between comic relief and character growth. Let's take Spider-Man, Wash from Firefly, Data, The Doctor, Quark for example. They're all the comic relief characters of their show, yet they all can be serious and do their job when need be. Hiro has been through so much since season 1, that you'd think he would have gotten more serious. The writers don't realize that you can be funny, yet still grow. Argh. So frustrating.