Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Did Heroes Jump the Shark?

I've been a big Heroes fan since it started. I know a lot of people last season were loosing faith in the show but I hung around and enjoyed it. Granted, it wasn't as good as the first season, but I expected that. Think of all those great trilogy movies out there. The first and third movies are usually the better ones.

Anyway, I've grown disappointed in Heroes this season. I'm expecting a greater show, better plots, better acting and all I get is crap. Of last night's episode, the only part I truly enjoyed was Hiro, Ando, and the African painter. Seriously. That's it. Maybe a little of Daphne and Parkman. But just a little.

Nikki's twin sister? As boring as Nikki.
Nathan? I liked him better when he was dead.
Peter? Lost his power? Now I don't care about him.
Sylar? Growing a conscience? BORING!
Mama Petrelli? You mean she's not dead yet? Damn.
Mohinder? Give me a can of Raid and I'll take care of him.

Seriously, please, just get back to the writing of the first season. Put down all those X-Men comics you've been using for your research. You can do a better plot line, trust me.

3 comments:

1979semifinalist said...

I gotta both agree and disagree.

First, if Heroes jumped the shark they jumped it last year (Season 2) and not this year. I think this year has all been an effort to un-jump the shark...so to speak. They are, not surprisingly, failing.

Second, I agree. The stuff sucks. I haven't even managed to watch this weeks episode yet, it just sits in my tivo, unwatched. That said, I have found watching Hiro and Ando almost unbearable and while I like the African Painter guy, it seems a little too convenient to just duplicate his power because "oops!" we killed the guy who could do that and we need it for plot development. Annoying. Nikki? Always bad, no matter what her name is. Nathan, I always like him, but man do they give him the most drawn out boring storylines. Mohinder? Bears no resemblence to the interesting character he used to be, which would be okay if they had taken the time to develop that, but they didn't, they just woke up one day and said, "now he's this guy". Super annoying. Sylar as 50's style mom? Trite and unbelievable, though I continue to love Sylar anyway.

Third, I think you are wrong to blame "X-Men Comics" for the reason this show has gone awry. To be sure there are MANY MANY horrible comics out there - and plenty of horrible X-Men or X-Universe comics out there - but that's not the problem with this show. If anything they've got too few film/tv people that understand comics trying to interpret comics for a new medium. Comics do not translate well directly to film/tv, but they can translate beautifully if the people in power understand what they're doing (see X-Men 1 and 2; Iron Man; The Dark Knight etc.). Alternatively part of the problem could be people who understand comics very well but are not great at doing TV/Film...either way you go on this it's easy to screw it up. It takes talented people that understand both mediums well to mix them effectively. I think we don't have those people involved. It's too bad.

Lastly, there are LOTS of great part II's in famous trilogies. Empire is arguably the best of the three in the Star Wars trilogy (the real one of course); Godfather II is arguably the most brilliant of the Godfather triology - in fact of those two examples it is actually the third and last installment that is by far the worst of the trilogy. While all three parts of Lord Of The Rings were strong - I didn't think part two was any less than parts one or three.

I'm sure there are a thousand more examples to both prove and disprove my point, I'm just saying...not sure I agree with the blanket statement "the first and third movies are usually the better ones"

:)

TK42ONE said...

Your reply is longer than my post. In an effort to redeem myself and continue the lively discussion, I'll clarify some of my blanket statements.

On blaming X-Men, I was right and wrong to do so. Sure, there are some bad X-Men comics out there, but there are also some good ones. I was wrong to lump them all together. What I was trying to allude to was how the "cookie-cutter" concept was being applied to Heroes. By cookie cutter, I mean it's the same old ideas, just rehashed. Think about your serial comics or books. Same characters, similar plots, just a little different here and there. That's what bothers me the most. It's become too predictable. I want it to be more like CSI or Lost where there's a twist in there somewhere. And a twist that I can't predict.

On the trilogy theory, it's mainly my own. Back to the Future 1 and 3 were great while 2 wasn't. Indiana Jones 1 and 3 were great while 2 wasn't. Star Trek 1 and 3 were great while 2 wasn't. Star Wars 1 and 3 (original) were great while 2 wasn't. But these are all my opinion. I love Star Wars. I like Empire. But I prefer New Hope and Jedi over Empire. Even with the Ewoks.

So there are my blankets.

1979 semi-finalist said...

I know...I totally went nuts. Sorry! Maybe I was trying to win your year end award for "longest comment"...you do give those out right? right? Aw, crap.

I don't disagree with your basic premise on the whole "comics" thing, I still think the problem I outlined is the biggest, but you're right that the cliches and twists that are too predictable are a huge part of the problem, making Heroes almost unwatchable. I did finally catch up on last weeks episode and I may be done. We'll see what happens tonight - i.e. if I manage to watch or not. I can't believe how much I hate Claire. She was a character I was always pulling for and though she had annoying arcs (as a teen will) she always remained interesting. She's now an ignorant whiney brat about 100% of the time. I'm so over it.

I'm totally not with you on the II's though...Empire is DEFINITELY the best of the trilogy ;) THE ICE PLANET HOTH! C'mon! Hot Han and Leia action? Cloud City? Luke's hand gets cut off and Han gets trapped in carbonite?! I say again - C'MON! With the exception of the awesome opening to Jedi, it generally blows in comparison to either of the other installments. I mean, listen, I'm a super fan, I love all of them, but the adult me knows that they went WAY off path in III, and yes, it's mostly the ewoks fault (and by Ewoks I mean the evil and ridiculous George Lucas).

Moving on to Doc Brown. BTTF III is a train wreak of epic proportions! And II, while somewhat train wreaky in its own ways is at least interesting and fun, I'm still waiting for my hoverboard...it's 2008 - where is it!? Indiana Jones almost nobody agrees with me on, so I'm not going to argue it. I cannot stand Karen Allen - the character of Marion Ravenwood is awesome, and so is most of that movie, but Karen Allen as a love interest? Blech. Harrison Ford/Indy wouldn't come anywhere near her. I find the plot annoying and farfetched in II and the effects at the end terrible, but at least Kate Capshaw, though annoying, was a piece of ass. Besides, opposites attract and all that - I can buy that he'd be into her. Plus you've got short round as comic relief? All that to say I love Temple of Doom regardless of the fact that I can't argue it as better than I or III. Haven't seen the Star Trek stuff so can't debate you there...