Heroes - Season Three

Re: Heroes - Season Three

I enjoyed this episode and have been enjoying this new season on the whole so far. As I said before, S2 was such a disaster that it almost turned me off the show for good, but this has been a fun start to S3. I just try not to put too much thought into all the crazy events transpiring on the show and enjoy the ride.

Re: Heroes - Season Three

This season so far has been awesome. It seems that I have to pay closer attention though. ha!

Re: Heroes - Season Three

i'm surprised people liked this episode so much... for me, the time travelling stuff is just getting out of hand. so Peter starts a butterfly effect and does something as drastic (and unexplainably stupid) as shooting his brother, yet the future is still hasn't changed... Claire is still Claire and he still jumped back in the first place. and doesn't Mrs. Peterelli know he hasn't changed the future when she chastises him for changing the future?

in a way it's like the villain in a bad movie telling you his masterplan. we know ultimately it's not going to happen. we know that Heroes isn't going to turn out this way. so where's the tension? everything that happens in the future has the emotional equivalent of being a dream (an unentertaining dream), with Peter waking up when he eventually comes back to the present.

i hope they develop someway for taking the time travelling power away. like a neo-Haitian who can permanently take away powers. or maybe a person/formula that can change someone's powers, turning a shapeshifter into a speedster...

and with regards to Peter dying: he will still be dead if the Haitian leaves the room, since he must consciously focus on using any of his powers, which he can't do if he's out cold. he can only live if the Haitian leaves AND Claire is around (like in season 1 after getting the glass stuck in his head).

i'm guessing Future Peter killed HRG since Claire is now equally annoying as a 2 dimensional revenge psychopath.

Re: Heroes - Season Three

I am almost afraid to ask a question for fear of being scolded for not paying attention

But doesn't Peter gain powers simply by being around someone with powers? If so, why was he not able to get Sylars power without him allowing it?

Also, Peter has Hiro's ability, so why did he not just stop time when Clair's group had the boy hostage?

For all his power, he seems to be turning into a Mohinder. (making stupid decisions)

I just noticed that the rating are really tanking.

Zap 2 it - ratings for monday

I see I am not the only one who thinks this show is getting way too complicated for it's own good. It is impossible to keep track of what/when/who anymore. I guess people are getting fed up. Me too. Good thing for them there isn't a recording conflict for me at that particular timeslot (like there is the hour before). I am ready to abandon ship with the rest of the rats.

Re: Heroes - Season Three

He had the power but didn't know how to use it. We've seen him have that problem before.

Re: Heroes - Season Three

Do you see what has happened in this thread, guys?

Re: Heroes - Season Three

He also might not have known what Sylar's power actually was. As we have seen so far, Peter is not yet a finely tuned fighter who can manage all of his powers effectively. Except he did change the future - as seen by the Parkman painting change. Now, he didn't change it into what he wanted at the time, though. Mrs. Petrelli might have seen a variety of futures - each getting progressively worse. The future scenes set the stakes. We think we know that this future won't take place, but we don't know how they get to that point. We don't know who lives, who dies, and if Mohinder really mutates beyond recognition. All that said, I hope that Peter and Hiro are done with visiting that particular future.

Neil

Re: Heroes - Season Three

Maureen Ryan of the Chicago Tribune says... Dear 'Heroes': We're through

I'm OK with the show, but I figure those of you frustrated might enjoy the article.

Re: Heroes - Season Three

One thing I noticed on the second viewing, when Tracy visits the doctor who 'created' her, the picture of the triplet girls has "The German" in it; the bad guy with the glasses who broke out with Knox and Peter and blue flamethrower guy; the guy that Knox killed in the bank.

What does it mean? I don't know? I also noticed that the Dr. spoke with the same accent as The German.

Re: Heroes - Season Three

In the graphic novels, The German quickly becomes anti-Company, and is fed internal documents from a Company mole. Perhaps the photo is a nod to the fact that he may have had previous run-ins with the Company in its formative era, as Dr. Zimmerman referenced how he freelanced/worked for the Company (the origin of the formula?) and had his memory wiped.

Re: Heroes - Season Three

Mikah,

Thanks for the link. The writer expresses my sentiments exactly. I went from loving this show to just about removing it from my record/playlist. I don't mind a little bit of plot twisting but this has become comical (and not in the good sense.) My patience is wearing out in a season where there are so many other more attractive viewing options for me in a limited time frame.

Re: Heroes - Season Three

Mikah,

You beat me to the punch; I was going to mention that Maureen Ryan Chicago Tribune article. It does sum up my feelings pretty well. I'm not dropping the show completely, but only to watch it if I happen to be watching TV at 7 PM. It just hasn't felt the same since season 1. I feel the characters have gotten too powerful to keep the plot focused.

Re: Heroes - Season Three

I know is seems cliched to mention but it really has come down to the Lost syndrome.
The producer's didn't expect the show to last this long (or didn't plan any further out then season 1) and now they are trying to throw everything at the wall and hope it sticks.

Re: Heroes - Season Three

Off topic, but I hate when people say stuff like this, because to me it seems perfectly clear with the setups and payoffs we've had that Lost was planned out much further than season 1.

Re: Heroes - Season Three

I read that entire article twice, and it the here's my summary of it:

"I'm not that bright, and therefore unable to follow the storyline. This inability is the sole fault of the producers and writers, and they should be crafting a show to the lowest common denomenator. I'll finish this article later, 'Two and a Half Men' is on,' and I want my Nielson box to register my viewership."

I'll borrow a phrase from Maureen Ryan:

Here's a radical idea: What if producers/writers crafted a show where you have to pay close attention for 42 minutes, and required some margin of thinking beyond the closing credits? What if viewers were required to consider a larger plot, rather than a 12 episode story arc?

Of course, if they did all that, people would probably say they were just making it up as they go along...

Re: Heroes - Season Three

Agreed. As I stated a few posts above, statements claiming "they are just making it up as they go along" are clearly just code for "I didn't understand ANYTHING, and therefore there is absolutely no way it wasn't all just made up on the fly."

The plot in Heroes makes perfect sense to me (sense in that I can follow it, and udnerstand what is going on), and I havn't done anything special save fixing my gaze in the general direction of my television for one hour every monday night.

Re: Heroes - Season Three

It's interesting that you mention this because I was thinking the same thing. Lost was obviously outlined with a grand plan - even though the nebulous way that it was scheduled after season one took it slightly off course for a bit due to the uncertainty. Now that it has a finite number of episodes left the writers can concentrate on pointing to its intended conclusion.

Was there such a plan in place for Heroes? (I don't know because I was a late comer to the show and never was following such things.)

J.J. Abrams, in commenting on Fringe said it best when he noted that there was a plan in place for an overall story arc. They outlined it so that it could be completed in "13 episodes or 13 years" depending on the success of the show.

A man. A plan. A Canal. Panama.

Re: Heroes - Season Three

I am not sure how involved their overall plan is, but people who bought the 2nd season DVD know in detail that some of their plans changed with the writers' strike. As seen at Season Two - Heroes Wiki season 2 was going to be On the DVD we saw some scenes from Exodus and some alternate scenes from Villains.

I think they are still following their overall plan, but many details have changed.

Over at the blog of Mark Verheiden (moving on from the BSG writing staff) - Famous Mark Verheidens Of Filmland - wrote that So I think we still have a lot to look forward to and I'm quite happy to be along for the ride.

Re: Heroes - Season Three

As mentioned already above it seems there was definitely some sort of plan mapped out, and the strike did ruin last season a little bit. Who knows what would've ended up happening in the second half of the season had they gone on with volume 3 being what it was originally planned to be.

As for an overall story arc though, I think by design Heroes is slightly different from Lost in this respect, the reason being that Heroes has clearly been based on comic books with each volume mostly self-contained. I think its the nature of the format really that it might possibly seem a little 'all over the place' just because of this.

Re: Heroes - Season Three

I'm liking season 3 so far.

That said, I wonder if the reason some aren't liking it (and not liking season 2, as well) is because of the fact that basically everyone's back - that there's no real consequences.

The first season was fresh - in many ways. One didn't know where the story was going and more importantly - there were consequences. The painter died.

Now, what do we have? Micah's dad died, sure. And Nikki, but she's back as Tracy. Even Linderman's back - perhaps. I think the problem a lot of people are having is that they know that ultimately, nothing of substance is going to happen.

What the producers should do, is either, let some characters 'disappear' for a time, and introduce new ones, or actually kill a few off.

* - Yes, I know, Hiro's dad died. And Bob died. But, I'd content they were secondary characters.

And tied to that, I think people resent the time-traveling stuff because we do see substantial things - Peter's death, Hiro's death, Mohinder's conversion, Nathan's death, but know that *poof* Reset! once they jump back. Again, no consequences.

Re: Heroes - Season Three

Watching a show shouldn't be work. I want to be entertained for an hour. I shouldn't have to take notes. This isn't a classroom. It is possible to write stories that make sense and still be deep. It is poor writing if they have to make a plot so complicated you have have a PHD to understand.

I am not a stupid person. I had a 4.0 in college. I resent that because I refuse to dedicate my life to the study of this show, people are considering me "not that bright".

It is the writers duty to make the show make sense to the viewers. I think they are just getting either lazy or arrogant They can't be bothered to take the time to set things up in ways that make sense and people can follow.

Re: Heroes - Season Three

this season is really annoying me. don't know if i'll continue to watch

Re: Heroes - Season Three

I think I'm the only one here who agrees with Josh. I pay attention to the show when I watch it, and I don't have any problem following along. There are things you don't understand, or don't make sense, but 99% of the time, they are that way by design, and will be explained later.

I'm loving this season so far. This weeks episode was incredible.

Re: Heroes - Season Three

I understand it just fine. The only place I missed something so far was when Pac-Man ate the goo, because it was the one time in my recent TV watching where I was destracted by eating something. I usually have a cup of water but don't do anything but watch the show (and fast forward). I earlier mentioned my problem with dystopian futures, but it has nothing to do with not understanding what's going on with it.

That said, I don't think people should be made to feel bad if they are not able to devote their full attention to the show. If someone misses a line because their little girl was trying to climb up the dresser drawers and they had to stop her from getting hurt, or whatever else is going on in their lives, then just say, "You may have missed a line, because that was explained thusly. . . ."

On the other hand, I can't tell people how they want to post.

Re: Heroes - Season Three

I understand the show fine. It is the writers that are at fault, not the viewers.

Re: Heroes - Season Three

Agreed. They should however be made to feel bad about not devoting their full attention to the show (for a mere 44 minutes a week) if they insist on bitching about it to the world afterwards.

Re: Heroes - Season Three

A lot of bitching, typically on the internet, is of the "This can't possibly happen" variety, when in fact such a thing has occurred, and often more than once. Those people are just ignorant.

You also really can't fault people for occasionally missing a line, for a variety of reasons -- their attention is momentarily distracted, the sound is mixed poorly, etc.

But this show's problem is that what we get on the screen is not as smart as it thinks it is. Maybe they have a grand plan, but it's not showing up. All the time travel and cast reuse/intermingling makes it seem like nothing matters, or rather doesn't matter enough. You have some cannon fodder you can kill off to keep the show "edgy" but that's not the people you want to see stay dead.

Maybe if there really were "Heroes" that could time travel, it would play out pretty much like this. But couldn't they find a better way to cut the story together to make a more consistently entertaining TV show?

Re: Heroes - Season Three

Missing a line is, indeed, fine. However, for some individuals, such as Maureen Ryan (the author of an article linked above), "missing lines" seem to be indicative of a larger problem, that of not understanding what is going on. Further, some people, again such as Maureen Ryan, state matter-of-factly that the problem with Heroes is that it is poorly-written, and have cite their inability to understand the plot as PROOF. To me, that is just silly.

One member here, Scott, states that he watches television to be entertained, and doesn't want to "work" to do so. That is a perfectly valid, and widespread view, and I don't think anyone is attacking anyone here for sharing it.

However, I think that different forms of entertainment (for example, television or books), and indeed different incidents within those forms (continuing the examples, series/episodes or novels) may request varrying levels of committment from those who seek to enjoy them. Failure to delivery those levels of committment are not faults of the entertainment, but rather those who seek them out, and then cry havoc.

Perhaps I should be more clear. Take literature, for example, there are some novels that can be picked up, read, and placed down, and a reader may count themselves entertained. No further thought required, no flipping back and forth to look up characters -- just a few hours (or whatever) devoted to reading and *boom* entertained. This type of book, be it a Cornwell mystery yarn or whathaveyou, is valid, fine, and popular.

There are also books that have a massive cast of characters, with convoluted and confusing storylines, and vivid description of virtually everything. Anyone who has read the 4 books in George RR Martin's "A Song of Ice and Fire," has seen this firsthand. These books, quite simply, ask of their readers more than a Cornwell novel would. Literally 1000s of characters, any of whom may become important, or fall out of focus, with a plot that requires thought and consideration after the covers have closed. This type of novel is perfectly valid, fine, and popular.

Why can't television be the same?

Heroes asks of its audience close attention, and a little thought afterwards. I think it's silly to give less, and then demand more.

Heroes relies on time travel and dystopian futures. Get used to this, or drop the show, it's pretty much that simple. So many key characters interact with the future that it will most likely always be a theme/device. It's been there from the start, and was a driving force of the season everyone seems to love to a fault.

This show simply can't win with some people. Here, in this very thread, people have issue with Peter not stopping time during a fight. Well you know what? I would be real money that some of those same people would bitch about Hiro or Peter NOT using their powers to change the future. I can just see it now, "why doesn't Hiro go into the future and see what happens, and then come back and change it?"

Television, like all forms of entertainment, runs the gamut from complex to simple. Heroes is the former. I understand it's a dangerous form to take, what with ratings and all - just ask Aaron Sorkin how he feels about the subject...

Re: Heroes - Season Three

according to the ratings, many have dropped the show, and it looks like many more will.

themes can be returning, but plot devices don't have to be. imagine on Lost if every season, the main story line was another hatch being found (and each hatch turned out to be empty ).

Re: Heroes - Season Three

The problem is that this is a comic book show. That sort of thing happens constantly in comics. I forget where I read it (might've been in this thread at some point) but its like a saying, nobody in comics stays dead except Uncle Ben. Perfect example is the whole death of Superman thing that was a big deal ten or so years ago, and then eventually he came back. (Not exactly sure how, I don't follow comics too closely, but that's not the point.)

At least the show is being sorta clever about it. The new Niki isn't really Niki, Linderman is only alive in Nathan's head, etc. Anyone else who has come back from the dead has been previously shown to have healing abilities.