3113
Hello Summer!
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2005
- Posts
- 13,823
Being that my husband and I are into comic books we kept getting asked about the tv series: Heroes. Finally, we got the Season 1 boxed set and had a marathon session so we could honestly give our opinion. Understand, we've read a lot of comic books, and because Heroes lifts from issues of past comics, famous and excellent ones, there were many times when we not only knew what was going to happen, but we ended up saying, "That's X-Men issue #--!". In fact, I'm not at all sure what the Watchman movie is going to do when it comes out and gets compared to Heroes which plagiarized its plot! On the whole, here is what I thought: I thought the initial episodes (disks 1-4) were very watchable, with some likeable characters and a few good spikes/twists in the story. I thought the rest (disks 4-7) were sluggish as they tried to draw out a huge conspiracy/serial killer plot (two plots I don't like anyway) into 22 episodes; I though stories grew increasingly muddled, derivative and annoyingly predictable. And the dialogue became more and more dreadful.
No need to defend the show, however, if you liked it. I do understand the enjoyablity of the "Lost" concept of strangers meeting under unique and harrowing circumstances, I understand as well that the central "Hero"--the Japanese guy named Hiro--is charming and fun, that there's some sexy ladies and cute guys, as well as the cliff-hangers and mysteries. I *get* why people may have liked this show. As a storyteller, however, I have to say that had the writers been true professionals, they would not have gotten sloppy toward the end.
Here' what I mean: In a superhero story, things usually start off good, even great, with the origin. You've got a cool tale of a person discovering that they have a power, how they deal with it, how their friends/family deal. The writing can have lots of twists and turns and surprises and creativity; best of all, you can pit them against the wimpest villains and they can still mess up, fail, botch the job. Next step: you move onto them learning how to handle the power, learning about it. All good. They can deal with mid-level villains here--learn how to escape them, fight them, survive. Cool. But once they've dealt with the origin problems and learned how to handle the superpower, what then? This is where we separate the pros from the wannabes. Typically, the wannabe cops out and uses one of the following cheats:
1) They create a super-villain who is ten times more powerful or clever or just several steps ahead of the hero. You've seen this. The hero creeps in to kill the villain...and there's a gun pointed at his head. The villain was there before him, waiting! The villain seems to know what the hero is going to do before the hero decides to do it! The problem with this is that instead of making the hero back into an underdog (he went through that phase in the origin!), he begins to look like a wimp!
2) Make the hero stupid. Oh, this is a great idea
That's where the viewer/reader ends up shouting at book/television/movie screen: "Why doesn't he just __________?" This is where the hero does something like: lets the villain talk him out of killing him, or hesitates, or doesn't use a power he has and gets knocked out.
3) Remove the hero's power. This is where the writer makes the hero temporarily weak--either via a reason (kryptonite) or a psychological problem (loses faith in himself). Thus, the hero's powers are conveniently taken out of play. This an be a valid measure, but it has to be done well. Do it sloppy and the viewer/reader can see exactly what you're up to...and why!
4) Threat to a loved one. One of the few valid methods--but that doesn't make it any less tiring. Villain holds a little girl hostage and hero can't use his powers or, worse, must surrender.
Heroes used ALL of these over and over again. To me, that doesn't speak well for the writers' ability to sustain their plots or characters. I understand--I really, really do!--that it's hard to work out clever plot devices to drag out a story over 22 episodes. Especially one involving people with superpowers. But I think that if a writer is going to commit to such a thing, to 22 episodes of one very looooooong story...then a writer should find away to avoid using such cliches and cheats. The ending to such stories should, somehow or other, try to be as clever and fresh as the beginnings.
Thanks or letting me rant!
No need to defend the show, however, if you liked it. I do understand the enjoyablity of the "Lost" concept of strangers meeting under unique and harrowing circumstances, I understand as well that the central "Hero"--the Japanese guy named Hiro--is charming and fun, that there's some sexy ladies and cute guys, as well as the cliff-hangers and mysteries. I *get* why people may have liked this show. As a storyteller, however, I have to say that had the writers been true professionals, they would not have gotten sloppy toward the end.
Here' what I mean: In a superhero story, things usually start off good, even great, with the origin. You've got a cool tale of a person discovering that they have a power, how they deal with it, how their friends/family deal. The writing can have lots of twists and turns and surprises and creativity; best of all, you can pit them against the wimpest villains and they can still mess up, fail, botch the job. Next step: you move onto them learning how to handle the power, learning about it. All good. They can deal with mid-level villains here--learn how to escape them, fight them, survive. Cool. But once they've dealt with the origin problems and learned how to handle the superpower, what then? This is where we separate the pros from the wannabes. Typically, the wannabe cops out and uses one of the following cheats:
1) They create a super-villain who is ten times more powerful or clever or just several steps ahead of the hero. You've seen this. The hero creeps in to kill the villain...and there's a gun pointed at his head. The villain was there before him, waiting! The villain seems to know what the hero is going to do before the hero decides to do it! The problem with this is that instead of making the hero back into an underdog (he went through that phase in the origin!), he begins to look like a wimp!
2) Make the hero stupid. Oh, this is a great idea
That's where the viewer/reader ends up shouting at book/television/movie screen: "Why doesn't he just __________?" This is where the hero does something like: lets the villain talk him out of killing him, or hesitates, or doesn't use a power he has and gets knocked out. 3) Remove the hero's power. This is where the writer makes the hero temporarily weak--either via a reason (kryptonite) or a psychological problem (loses faith in himself). Thus, the hero's powers are conveniently taken out of play. This an be a valid measure, but it has to be done well. Do it sloppy and the viewer/reader can see exactly what you're up to...and why!
4) Threat to a loved one. One of the few valid methods--but that doesn't make it any less tiring. Villain holds a little girl hostage and hero can't use his powers or, worse, must surrender.
Heroes used ALL of these over and over again. To me, that doesn't speak well for the writers' ability to sustain their plots or characters. I understand--I really, really do!--that it's hard to work out clever plot devices to drag out a story over 22 episodes. Especially one involving people with superpowers. But I think that if a writer is going to commit to such a thing, to 22 episodes of one very looooooong story...then a writer should find away to avoid using such cliches and cheats. The ending to such stories should, somehow or other, try to be as clever and fresh as the beginnings.
Thanks or letting me rant!
