Heroes - Season Three - Page 10

Re: Heroes - Season Three

Well stated - the show made it quite clear from the first episode that it's a comic book series writ large, into a television series.

(also, that was me who said that thing about Bucky and Uncle Ben ).

And with reagrds to LOST - finding new stations has become a re-used theme, most recently with the Orchid, which turned out to be pretty major!

Re: Heroes - Season Three

Proof only of popularity (or lack thereof), not quality (or lack thereof).

Re: Heroes - Season Three

i generally agree that ratings and quality do not always correlate; i've loved shows like Arrested Development and Sports Night that never got the ratings they deserved (or were basically 'too smart' for the masses).
but Heroes is not in this situation. it had monster ratings its first season, which have fallen drastically. i didn't think it could get worse than last season but it has.

Re: Heroes - Season Three

I try to be middle of the road about the time travelling/future thing. On the one hand, it can be a nifty story, but I don't need to see it every season in every volume.

In season 1, we had the main time travelling character come back from the future once, and then one main flash forward near the end of the season. (I'm only counting instances where the future timeline intersected with the present story, not whenever someone went from the present backwards.)

Then, in season 2, we had another jump to the future. (Which left a mid level character in limbo)

Now, in season 3, in only four episodes, we've seen the future character come to the present, and have seen glimpses of that future in two or three out of the first four episodes.

So, yeah, a little like overkill.

Re: Heroes - Season Three

It also seems like you can be punished for thinking too much.
Like my example of how Claire and Peter end up back in NY after the explosion.
I'm not sure anyone who "gets it" has explained that one to me.
Here are the possibilities:
1. The speedster picked them up and sped them to NY.
2. Peter grabbed both of them and teleported to NY.
3. Hiro teleported them out.

Now 2 is the only one that makes sense in the Hero world that I watched, yet I know that did not happen.
1 makes no sense yet I assume it is the one the writers want you to believe.
Unless they show the speedster lifting a truck over her head back in the present day I don't think she is carrying close to 300 pounds of human bodies, I don't care how fast she is going.
So which is it? Do I just turn off my thinking cap and enjoy or question obvious gaffes in the story they created?

Re: Heroes - Season Three

If there's a weak correlation between ratings and quality, ratings becomes a weak indication of quality. I find it just as likely that the decreased ratings is a reflection of complexity and other factors. I'm comfortable talking about the quality of the show without using ratings as some type of inherent proof (though of course we're all tempted to use them).

My gut instinct is there's too much time travel going on. I can't think of any other movie or show where multiple characters are popping all over the space time continuum. As much as I enjoy "deep" shows, I still relate to those who feel Heroes has passed a threshold for how much work it requires to enjoy the show. I'm also glad it hasn't happened for me (yet?).

Re: Heroes - Season Three

There is clearly another possible explanation. I think it is clear that Daphne, the speedster, ran on her own and as she said, was "not quite fast enough." This Claire is more used to surviving things than Peter is. It isn't hard to believe that she recovered first and arranged transportation of herself and Peter - presumably with the assistance of the Haitian. (The Haitian might have arranged it himself as soon as he heard about the explosion.) The scene we saw wasn't five minutes after the explosion. It was some indeterminate time later.

Re: Heroes - Season Three

Dough, when you ask how they end up back in NY, do you mean how they survived the nuclear bast or how did they literally travel back to NY? If it's about surviving, we all know that Claire and Peter can heal and regenerate fast. Peter himself survived a similar blast during the season 1 finale.

If you're asking about how they traveled back to NY, well, wouldn't that be nitpicking a bit? Do they need to show how a character travels from one place to another?

Re: Heroes - Season Three

That's my take on it as well. The show has dedicated screen time showcasing Claire and Peter surviving a extreme nuclear exposure, and further, that Claire seems more comfortable with healing that Peter does (if that's the proper term). As an aside, this is another Peter/Sylar duality, in that Peter "peacefully" takes powers, but can be rather clumsy with them at times, while Sylar forcefully takes powers, and soon perfects them.

Anyway, Neil is correct in the timeline, in my opinion - the scenes back in NY clearly don't occur mere seconds after the blast. They are edited so as to appear contemporary with the footage on television, which means the President (Nathan) has had time to call a press conference, and the news crews have begun to filter in to the crater, most likely after the area has been "cleared" by the military/scientists.

I would also like to point out that this episode made a special attempt to point out the old Mendez paintings from season 1. Perhaps it's no coincidence that a few of those paintings - such as the exploding man, the nuclear blast, and Nathan as as President - happened again (or rather, for the first time) in the new future. Perhaps this is a hint that changing the future drastically is virtually impossible (just as Hiro has come to realize about changing the past). That MIGHT be the show's "out" for ditching a lot of the time travelling...

Re: Heroes - Season Three

Well, I have to admit, the "brush yourself off and start heading out" is another possibility that makes sense.
I still think the intensity of the scene deserves an explanation.
Show a bald and burning Claire and Peter and see Claire's eye open up, something.
Another nit, it would be kind of hard to regenerate from a ground zero explosion. Her body is basically normal until it is damaged.
I doubt there would be anything left of her to regenerate from.
And another question, and I realize this may be a throw away seen in the episodes to come (meaning it never happens because the future changes) but then I assume Sylar survives also.
I'll have to watch the scene again in slow mo and see if I missed anything.

Re: Heroes - Season Three

Aren't most shows' ratings down this year anyway? I'm sure Heroes has taken a bigger plunge than the average but I believe ratings are down across the board (except high quality shows where people call in to vote on what F-list celebrity danced the best).

Re: Heroes - Season Three

Surprisingly some CBS shows such as NCIS are up this year, but with a few exceptions the ratings do look down for most returning shows.

Re: Heroes - Season Three

Completely off-topic, but I totally worked on the DVD of that NOVA episode...

Re: Heroes - Season Three

I'm trying not to sound like a broken record but they've shown this in previous seasons so I understand if they don't want to keep repeating themselves. I'm referring to an episode in season 1 when nuke man was about to explode and Claire went in the house to inject him with a tranquilizer. Nuke man came very close to exploding and after that scene, Claire came out with no hair and badly burnt but we saw her recovery onscreen (pretty cool special fx). And again, at the end of season 1 Peter completely blew up (which would be worse than being at ground zero, he WAS ground zero) and yet he recovered and ended up inside a crate at the beginning of season 2.

That's why seeing them all recovered right after the explosion at Costa Verde didn't seem weird to me. That's what their power is.

Re: Heroes - Season Three

But there are several differences. For one thing, there really isn't that much death in comics (for a variety of reasons). They don't pull a Superman Dies stunt that often, because they obviously can't -- they risk their credibility. On Heroes there are too many people running around with too many powers that aren't used in interesting ways, and a whole subclass of Red Shirt Heroes that are there only to be killed by Sylar. When there's a death in comics, they try to make it interesting, and it's an exception to the regular issues where they are hopefully telling interesting stories. Heroes makes this time-traveling power slurping the main story, and they're not doing a good job with it.

Re: Heroes - Season Three

I think they walked (naked) to a Greyhound station and took the bus.

Re: Heroes - Season Three

I am/was a big fan of the show, loved Season 1 and Season 2 but I do not like the way this story is going.

I HATE how Claire is turning bad/or just going for revenge completely not who she is at all. She can't pull it off IMO.

Peter, is he good or is he bad? Just don't believe the character as a bad, rogue, or vigilanti.

The future parts of the show are now are now making these characters completely unbelievable. Hopefully it improves or I will (gasp) have to stop watching.

Re: Heroes - Season Three

I care way more about who the characters are today than who they may possibly become in the future. Of course Hayden's a young girl and doesn't have the acting chops some of the other actors do. That said, I'm not sure it's supposed to be about anger so much as resolve. She's not saying, "I hate you!" She's saying, "I have to stop you even though I love you."

Time travel always bakes my brain a little, but the more it happens and the more that happens during that thread, the more I disengage out of self preservation. It doesn't mean I don't like the show anymore, but I do just say "whatever" to some things and move on to the next item.

As it turns out, I'm less accepting of future travel than past travel. It has to do with my perception of "true time line". True is defined by the one consistent with the one I'm in. When people travel to the past, I see it as a challenge not to adversely affect the "true present". When people from the future come back to our present, it makes me feel that our present isn't the true present... it's the future's past. Everything I'm doing has already been done, and the present people are coming back to get us to do it differently. I think I'd like it more if Angela Petrelli's dream state could simply let us know that this is how things might play out in the future if we don't make different decisions. I think I'd find that engaging as it's not saying we have a preordained destiny and all of our actions are pointless as it'll come to pass anyway.

I couldn't imagine abandoning the show 4 episodes in.

Re: Heroes - Season Three

There is a big difference walking out of a burning house (which they showed her do on the very first episode) and surviving a ground zero nuclear like blast.
So, I still don't know whether Claire can survive it because they made it so vague.
So is that smart or lazy writing?

Re: Heroes - Season Three

Remember this??????

Re: Heroes - Season Three

Peter didn't blow up. just like radioactive man didn't blow up in HRG house. it's more like he was the Human Torch and went Nova.

as for Claire surviving a nuclear blast, you got to figure it's like Adam surviving the dynamite blast in feudal Japan. eventually she will regrow i suppose, but it would have taken a while.

Re: Heroes - Season Three

Peter never blew up. His body generated a nuclear reaction.

The guy with the original nuclear power (the one who burnt claire's house down) survived that incident without a scratch IIRC. Since there is no evidence of regenerative power, it is fair to assume that he is immune to his own nuke blast.

I would think the same applies to and Sylar: they would probably survive their own blast even if they didn't have Claire's regenerative ability.

--
H

Re: Heroes - Season Three

Enjoying the current season -- I'm with Adam on this. (But I can't keep with this thread; I watch on a Tivo schedule )

I love future redeemed Sylar. It's a marvelous twist, and I hope the story is strong enough to support it. Redemption is a great theme; moreso put against the ironic downfall of Peter.

But this season feels more stressful than past seasons. Is it just me? It seems gorier, darker, more distressing. I feel like I'm watching an R movie at times. Maybe S1 is too distant a memory, as Sylar was a frightening villain, but S3 seems the more stressful of the lot.

Re: Heroes - Season Three

The show has always been gory, people have made similar comments about S1. Remember we got a clear view of Claire carved open on an autopsy table, not to mention all the literally brainless people Sylar left in his wake.

I am having a harder time following this season. The breakneck pace is constantly threatning to lose me, and the omnipresence of time travel doesn't help. But I much prefer this to the morass of S2.

--
H

Re: Heroes - Season Three

Well, at least the writers decided to go for a bit of comedy to break up the overbearing apocalyptical tone this show has been burdened with this season. The second half was better than the first half, and finally given the viewers some traction into the players in this drama.

Re: Heroes - Season Three

Yup.