Print Story OK
Diary
By jayhawk88 (Tue May 22, 2007 at 08:37:32 AM EST) (all tags)
Anyone else sort of let down by the Heroes finale? Spoilers, lots of them.


  1. Peter v. Sylar was a total non-event. You know for someone who has TK, flight (more on this later), telepathy, regeneration, time and space manipulation, invisibility, super strength (at the end anyway), possibly intangibility, and God knows what else I'm forgetting, Peter was pretty damn useless throughout this whole series. Which I'm willing to forgive for the sake of the whole "finding himself/controlling his power" thing, but he seemingly got through all of that talking to the old black dude there at the end. But what does he do? Gets chocked by Sylar and is basically a distraction for Hiro to come in and do the stabbing? Sure he gets a few shots in when he gets Jessica's strength I guess, but I really was expecting more. This show has always been about the whole comic book experience, if they would have stayed true to that they could have given us half an episode of Sylar on Peter (OK that sounds wrong).
  2. Killing Nathan (we assume). WTF? Peter, you can fly! You need your brother to come in and do it for you? Isn't this a lot more meaningful if Peter figures this out for himself, overcomes his doubts in his powers or whatever and heads up into the clouds on his own? Why bring Nathan into this?
If you want to redeem/kill Nathan have him fly in during the Peter/Sylar battle and have Sylar kill him, which then inspires Hiro to do his stabby thing and Peter to take to the skies. If you want to redeem Nathan but keep him alive same thing, except he's just knocked away or whatever. If you want to keep Nathan halfway interesting as a character he doesn't show up at all and stays evil.

I just don't understand what the writers did to the character of Peter at all. Him gaining all these powers, learning how to control them, and going on this journey where he comes out from his brothers shadow and becomes a hero is one of the major overriding arcs of this show from the start. It was working pretty well too, right up and including his last run back to Nathan, and his conversation with the old black guy. And then at the end it's all stripped away from him by the writers. He does relatively little to stop Sylar and his brother bails his ass out yet again. Why? So you can milk the "Peter doubts himself and needs to learn to control his powers" storyline for another season? If you think you have to do that because otherwise he's too powerful for good storytelling, then kill him off. Or at least have him fly up there on his own and go off to meditate or something afterwards until you can figure out what to do with him.

3. Dammit, kill Sylar already. I know the show is blowing up and you think you have to keep all these major characters around to ensure the shows success, but that's not the case. We're adults, if you give us compelling stories we'll keep coming back for more. But don't let Sylar live just because you think you need to keep him as a villian.

On the plus side there were some good things about this episode:

  1. Molly's description of "the other bad guy", who's obviously going to show up as a villian next season. Some kind of super-telepath maybe? Maybe a Shadow King type storyline? I'm interested.
  2. Jessica. Most seem to hate this character and she was never one of my favorites, but I found myself actually enjoying her/DL's/Micah's stuff the past few episodes.
  3. The Silver Surfer trailer? Jenn asked me when that was coming out and my response was "Not soon enough". Damn that shot of the Surfer eating a missile with his board was hot. It's exciting and a good sign to me the makers of the movie apparently have the wisdom and insight into the material to make the Surfer's powers almost magical in nature.
< Notes and Queries | BBC White season: 'Rivers of Blood' >
OK | 7 comments (7 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback
I didn't like it either by MartiniPhilosopher (2.00 / 0) #1 Tue May 22, 2007 at 10:59:33 AM EST
At some point, I believe that NBC said that one of the "rules" for the story was that the heroes couldn't support/use more than one ability at a time. Which would explain why Peter wouldn't have just flown himself off.

In whatever the case, I think the writers found themselves backed into a corner by the story. They needed a conclusion but weren't prepared to actually give one up.

Whenever I hear one of those aforementioned douche bags pontificate about how dangerous [...] videogames are I get a little stabby. --Wil Wheaton.


If that's true by jayhawk88 (2.00 / 0) #3 Tue May 22, 2007 at 11:40:50 AM EST
...it would be a pretty good explanation. I'm trying to think if I've ever seen Peter use more than one power at a time, and I can't recall any off hand. Sylar has, but I'm sure one could consider him the exception to the rule.

It's just sort of disappointing to me to see an ending which, at least in my eyes, was sort of a cop out to the popularity that Heroes has gained. They want to keep both Peter and Sylar around for next season, they want to redeem Nathan for some reason, DL, Parkman, and Candace are all probably not dead. Hell Linderman has healing powers, they'll probably end up bringing him back.

What sold me on Heroes was two fold: the comic nature of it all, and the fact that it seemed for the most part that it was going to wrap it's story up cleanly, and not give in to a lot of the season end cliches and dangling plotlines. I found the writing solid and the way the intertwined everyones storylines interesting. Just sort of sad they seemingly broke some of their own rules at the end.

[ Parent ]

I watched it with my wife and friend last night by lm (2.00 / 0) #2 Tue May 22, 2007 at 11:16:09 AM EST
My friends said that she was kind of sad that Sylar died because she liked him as a villain. She didn't pick up on the bloody trail leading to the sewer. But to be fair, she was also half engaged in conversation with Mrs. Upstairs while the ending was going on so she didn't have her full attention focused.

I certainly would have liked to see more people die at the end. It usually (not always) makes for a better story.

BTW, I don't think Nathan is dead. I bet he flew Peter up and out far enough to save the city and then flew away.

Lastly, a realistic Peter v. Sylar match would leave Peter splayed out all over the wall. Part of Sylar's power is not just absorbing powers but `fixing' them so that they're perfected while Peter only has rudimentary control over most of his powers. This is why I'm not a huge Sylar fan. They've essentially made him indefeatable. I wish script writers would understand that in restraint comes genius. Building characters up into quasi-omnipotence leads to boring stories.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic


Nathan flying away by jayhawk88 (2.00 / 0) #4 Tue May 22, 2007 at 11:45:58 AM EST
That's kind of what I'm assuming happens as well.

Regarding Sylar, I'm actually kind of the opposite, I like the idea of the "unbeatable" foe, which I guess is again going back to the whole comic nature of the story. The intro of the uber-powerful villain and the story of how the heroes have to overcome all the odds to defeat him/her is classic comic material. Perhaps my biggest issue is that early on I sort of got sucked into the idea that Peter was the one destined to take Sylar out, which made it disappointing when it didn't play out exactly like that.

[ Parent ]

I'm kind of old school about my villains by lm (2.00 / 0) #5 Tue May 22, 2007 at 01:06:11 PM EST
I like the ones that might be unbeatable with regards to the hero of the tale, but are still mortal. Once you get up into Galactus, Beyonder, etc., I start to lose interest. Give me a Doc Oct or Craven the Hunter any day. I'd rather see a villain use his or her wits than simply be able to overpower everything that comes after him or her. Batman's nemesis The Joker isn't such a great villain because he's omnipotent but because he thinks ahead so far that it appears that he is.

One of my favorite myths is the one that pitted Thor and some traveling companions against a giant whose name escapes me right now. The giant knew that Thor would win an outright match so the giant fooled Thor into taking on all sorts of senseless tasks such as trying to drain a drinking horn connected to the sea and lifting up the world serpent thinking it was the giant's grandmother.

And to be honest, I like my heroes that way to. The real stories aren't found in how amazing their powers are but in how they overcome adversity when their powers aren't enough.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

I can see that by jayhawk88 (2.00 / 0) #6 Tue May 22, 2007 at 01:16:39 PM EST
And I suppose it's all a matter of personal taste. But when you think about some of the stories that come from the "invincible villain" thing...Coming of Galactus, Crisis on Infinite Earths, Infinity Wars, Secret Wars, Onslaught (OK I'm reaching now)...anyway the point is that there's some good stuff to be had there.

[ Parent ]

Yes, it is a matter of taste by lm (2.00 / 0) #7 Wed May 23, 2007 at 12:05:51 PM EST
Most of the story lines you've mentioned have bored me.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

OK | 7 comments (7 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback