![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lathanyThen came the double volume season.
Season Three - Villains
13 episodes
Villains dropped from an audience of 10 million to 8 million across the volume. On the plus side, there was none of the sluggishness of season two, that I relished the prospect of some villains that weren't Sylar, that it introduced Arthur Petrelli (who is mentioned often in season one) and there were some lovely new powers. On the bad side the main theme - swapping evil and good over by character - sucked, there were continuity errors galore, there were several plot reversals, that the villains all seemed rather pointless and several episodes were a waste of space.
In detail
Taking the good stuff point by point; Villains really did move. There was tonnes happening and quickly. Within the space of 13 episodes Arthur was established and shot down again. Not to mention the arrival of a huge cast of villains who were equally and quickly dealt with. It also solved the assassination plot from the end of season two in short order and had the whole eclipse business (much as that sucked in itself).
The villains were actually rather good. Arthur was finally someone with both a scary power and, y'know, not Sylar. Flint was an idiot, but Knox had a good power. Daphne's ambiguousness on the good-evil side made a nice change (and she had that rare thing - motivation consistency), Tracey had a good set-up and Elle was back.
The powers were also welcome - we hadn't had ice and Knox's fear power was brilliant. The vortex guy and Doyle the puppet master were both great. And then there was Daphne's superspeed - even if it didn't quite work in terms of consistency with other powers. Plus the sound guy.
However, onto the bad stuff. The idea of swapping the good characters for evil and vice versa really, really sucked. The writing team talk about it on one of my DVD extras so I know this was their aim - but it was such a bad idea. Too much of it felt forced - Peter developing "the hunger" is probably the single worst concept in Heroes - and it was particularly stupid in a volume where, for once, enough other stuff was going on.
Also, Villains was the single worse volume for continuity errors. From just the first four episodes we have: Nathan's assassin rang Angela in the last episode of season two and, err, no, FuturePeter really wouldn't have done. Also, the end of season two had Noah back working for the Company, but he's back in a cell at the start of three. The way that powers work and are detected (aka Mohinder's New Theory) simply doesn't fit with season one. Peter collecting Sylar's original power only with his permission seems at odds with the way he picked up everything else. Who on earth is Jessica (the sister I mean) if Niki is a triplet with Tracey and Baba (whoever Baba is)? Does Jessica have the same parents as Niki, ie. the actual parents - it looked like no-one cared despite her being so key in season one. And it went on as the volume went on (the whole Sylar-has-empathy horror was also in Villains). It begs the question - why are people writing this show without knowing the backstory?
Similar to continuity errors come plot reversals, or perhaps I should say I think these were plot reversals. I can not shake the feeling that Sylar was indeed supposed to be a Petrelli until they realised no one was buying it. Then there was jettisoning the good-evil character reversal (although, equally, Thank God). Then there was Elle's death just after a whole load of Sylar-Elle had been constructed. Oh, and Adam's return after the most fitting ending to a character (in Powerless) in Heroes. Perhaps I'm being unfair and all these were actually always supposed to turn out that way but... it's hard to believe after all the continuity errors listed above.
Yet another big whinge - so many lovely villains... who did nothing. I appreciate that an X-Men style mass battle would have cost a lot, but couldn't we have had something? To line them all up with Arthur or Angela and then to do nothing was so disappointing.
Finally, episode problems. The pair of "eclipse" episodes (or three if you count the one before it) were especially awful. There seemed to be no point. OK, Nathan changed sides but without any real motivation (or so it seemed). And they were still better than that godawful flashback episode which was all-round pointless and added no depth to Arthur's character whatsoever.
Summary and comparisons with season one
So, overall Villains regained the pace of season one and finally introduced some lovely characters among its new arrivals1, but the writers didn't seem to know what to do with it all and also seemed to have forgotten everything that came before it.
Tim Kring comments
Actually it was Greg Beeman who produced this on the subject of the episode Villains. And the really sad thing is that the original plan - to focus on the background of the villains - struck me as the better move.
1 Tracey, Arthur, Daphne, Flint, Knox, Stephen Canfield (vortex guy), Doyle, Usutu (New Isaac).
Season Three - Fugitives
12 episodes
Fugitives dropped from an audience of 8.5 million to 6.5 million across the volume. On the plus side, they jettisoned most, although not all, of the continuity awfulness from Villains, the characters got over their good-evil reversal and had consistency, motivations were reasonable and it had half a good season end. On the bad side, it had half an appalling season end, the plot pace dropped again, whilst we got rid of "save the world" no-one had a plan, and yet again several episodes and plotlines were pointless.
In detail
As per usual, starting with the good points, the continuity improved. Instead of several issues an episode, there were only a few thing across the volume (Papa Suresh knowing heroes before dream boy and the daddy of Janice's baby stick out). After the awfulness of Villains this was necessary. The characters went back to the original personalities as well. Not to mention that there was really only one new character this season - Danko.
Also, the characters had consistency. There was a lovely piece in the taxi between Peter and Mohinder in the first episode that felt just right and as though both had moved on from season one. Additionally, Noah was exactly where it seemed right for him to be (as a mole in Nathan's company).
Character motivations in Fugitives were reasonable (once you accepted that Plan Stupid was going to happen). Having started off Plan Stupid, it made sense that Nathan stuck to it for as long as possible. Similarly, the motivations of various characters to have a normal life seemed plausible too. As did the joint efforts of Matt, Mohinder and Peter to interrogate Noah as the best way forward. And finally, the reveal of Micah as Rebel was awesome, consistent and fitted right in with Micah's outlooks and abilities.
Half of the Fugitives ending was brilliant - by which I mean the scene in which Sylar tries to copy the President and discovers that Peter has swapped with him. I think that moment was the best volume ending that Heroes has had to date.
However... making Sylar into Nathan? Worst possible idea. You could see exactly how that was going to go wrong and it seemed implausible that Noah and Angela would think otherwise.
Sadly, plot pace was a casualty in Fugitives. Having picked up for Villains it dropped back to the sluggish movement from season two within a couple of episodes. The volume from that plane escape onwards was one long, tiresome recapture.
In part, this pace was down to no-one having a plan. Nathan's idea to take the Heroes and then have their abilities removed got as far as "take the Heroes". We didn't once see any effort to have them analysed or neutralised (apart from the mass coma thing). When his plane, taking them to a secure facility, was shot down it turned out that the facilities (and their staff?) were forgotten about and abandoned. However, Nathan still had more of a plan than Angela or Noah (the man without a plan). Angela's appeared to amount to have Noah as a mole, but it was never clear what the next stage might be. Certainly Noah didn't manage anything - beyond worrying about Claire from time to time - other than immediate reactions and countermeasures to specific captures or would-be captures.
Finally, there were entire sequences that didn't fit or were rather pointless. The whole Ando and Hiro in India thing. To some extent, the Hiro and Ando babysit plotline. Not to mention the Sylar having daddy issues plotline. Plus both flashback episodes told us little that we didn't know. Noah's would have been interesting had we not had three seasons and Company Man by then. And as for 1961 - it didn't make sense. Angela went on and on about how they had done something terrible, which turned out to be leaving her baby sister in what they thought was the relative safety of the camp (by lying to her) to go and call for help from the nearby cafe. That's really not a big deal. Had she arranged to have her baby sister imprisoned and experimented on instead of herself, then that might have warranted the reaction she had - but she didn't.
Summary and comparisons with season one
In short, Fugitives recaptured a lot of the background consistency and characterisation of season one, but didn't have the pace, the epic plotlines or more exciting personal triumphs and the twists to match. Had the wedding, babysitting, Sylar daddy issues and two flashback episodes been replaced with grand plot sequences then this might have recaptured the season one glory.
Tim Kring comments
This comes from the BBC and also contains a few comment on the start of season 4, but was as close as I could come to a comment about Fugitives (admittedly I haven't looked for that long). In terms of Fugitives he mostly comments that killing off the various main-ish characters towards the end of the volume was not in response to audience feedback, but instead was because the show was its own fanbase (which I'm taking to mean that he already decided it would be a good idea). (I guess the characters in question are Daphne and the various people who died near the end of Villains.)
Season Three - Villains
13 episodes
Villains dropped from an audience of 10 million to 8 million across the volume. On the plus side, there was none of the sluggishness of season two, that I relished the prospect of some villains that weren't Sylar, that it introduced Arthur Petrelli (who is mentioned often in season one) and there were some lovely new powers. On the bad side the main theme - swapping evil and good over by character - sucked, there were continuity errors galore, there were several plot reversals, that the villains all seemed rather pointless and several episodes were a waste of space.
In detail
Taking the good stuff point by point; Villains really did move. There was tonnes happening and quickly. Within the space of 13 episodes Arthur was established and shot down again. Not to mention the arrival of a huge cast of villains who were equally and quickly dealt with. It also solved the assassination plot from the end of season two in short order and had the whole eclipse business (much as that sucked in itself).
The villains were actually rather good. Arthur was finally someone with both a scary power and, y'know, not Sylar. Flint was an idiot, but Knox had a good power. Daphne's ambiguousness on the good-evil side made a nice change (and she had that rare thing - motivation consistency), Tracey had a good set-up and Elle was back.
The powers were also welcome - we hadn't had ice and Knox's fear power was brilliant. The vortex guy and Doyle the puppet master were both great. And then there was Daphne's superspeed - even if it didn't quite work in terms of consistency with other powers. Plus the sound guy.
However, onto the bad stuff. The idea of swapping the good characters for evil and vice versa really, really sucked. The writing team talk about it on one of my DVD extras so I know this was their aim - but it was such a bad idea. Too much of it felt forced - Peter developing "the hunger" is probably the single worst concept in Heroes - and it was particularly stupid in a volume where, for once, enough other stuff was going on.
Also, Villains was the single worse volume for continuity errors. From just the first four episodes we have: Nathan's assassin rang Angela in the last episode of season two and, err, no, FuturePeter really wouldn't have done. Also, the end of season two had Noah back working for the Company, but he's back in a cell at the start of three. The way that powers work and are detected (aka Mohinder's New Theory) simply doesn't fit with season one. Peter collecting Sylar's original power only with his permission seems at odds with the way he picked up everything else. Who on earth is Jessica (the sister I mean) if Niki is a triplet with Tracey and Baba (whoever Baba is)? Does Jessica have the same parents as Niki, ie. the actual parents - it looked like no-one cared despite her being so key in season one. And it went on as the volume went on (the whole Sylar-has-empathy horror was also in Villains). It begs the question - why are people writing this show without knowing the backstory?
Similar to continuity errors come plot reversals, or perhaps I should say I think these were plot reversals. I can not shake the feeling that Sylar was indeed supposed to be a Petrelli until they realised no one was buying it. Then there was jettisoning the good-evil character reversal (although, equally, Thank God). Then there was Elle's death just after a whole load of Sylar-Elle had been constructed. Oh, and Adam's return after the most fitting ending to a character (in Powerless) in Heroes. Perhaps I'm being unfair and all these were actually always supposed to turn out that way but... it's hard to believe after all the continuity errors listed above.
Yet another big whinge - so many lovely villains... who did nothing. I appreciate that an X-Men style mass battle would have cost a lot, but couldn't we have had something? To line them all up with Arthur or Angela and then to do nothing was so disappointing.
Finally, episode problems. The pair of "eclipse" episodes (or three if you count the one before it) were especially awful. There seemed to be no point. OK, Nathan changed sides but without any real motivation (or so it seemed). And they were still better than that godawful flashback episode which was all-round pointless and added no depth to Arthur's character whatsoever.
Summary and comparisons with season one
So, overall Villains regained the pace of season one and finally introduced some lovely characters among its new arrivals1, but the writers didn't seem to know what to do with it all and also seemed to have forgotten everything that came before it.
Tim Kring comments
Actually it was Greg Beeman who produced this on the subject of the episode Villains. And the really sad thing is that the original plan - to focus on the background of the villains - struck me as the better move.
1 Tracey, Arthur, Daphne, Flint, Knox, Stephen Canfield (vortex guy), Doyle, Usutu (New Isaac).
Season Three - Fugitives
12 episodes
Fugitives dropped from an audience of 8.5 million to 6.5 million across the volume. On the plus side, they jettisoned most, although not all, of the continuity awfulness from Villains, the characters got over their good-evil reversal and had consistency, motivations were reasonable and it had half a good season end. On the bad side, it had half an appalling season end, the plot pace dropped again, whilst we got rid of "save the world" no-one had a plan, and yet again several episodes and plotlines were pointless.
In detail
As per usual, starting with the good points, the continuity improved. Instead of several issues an episode, there were only a few thing across the volume (Papa Suresh knowing heroes before dream boy and the daddy of Janice's baby stick out). After the awfulness of Villains this was necessary. The characters went back to the original personalities as well. Not to mention that there was really only one new character this season - Danko.
Also, the characters had consistency. There was a lovely piece in the taxi between Peter and Mohinder in the first episode that felt just right and as though both had moved on from season one. Additionally, Noah was exactly where it seemed right for him to be (as a mole in Nathan's company).
Character motivations in Fugitives were reasonable (once you accepted that Plan Stupid was going to happen). Having started off Plan Stupid, it made sense that Nathan stuck to it for as long as possible. Similarly, the motivations of various characters to have a normal life seemed plausible too. As did the joint efforts of Matt, Mohinder and Peter to interrogate Noah as the best way forward. And finally, the reveal of Micah as Rebel was awesome, consistent and fitted right in with Micah's outlooks and abilities.
Half of the Fugitives ending was brilliant - by which I mean the scene in which Sylar tries to copy the President and discovers that Peter has swapped with him. I think that moment was the best volume ending that Heroes has had to date.
However... making Sylar into Nathan? Worst possible idea. You could see exactly how that was going to go wrong and it seemed implausible that Noah and Angela would think otherwise.
Sadly, plot pace was a casualty in Fugitives. Having picked up for Villains it dropped back to the sluggish movement from season two within a couple of episodes. The volume from that plane escape onwards was one long, tiresome recapture.
In part, this pace was down to no-one having a plan. Nathan's idea to take the Heroes and then have their abilities removed got as far as "take the Heroes". We didn't once see any effort to have them analysed or neutralised (apart from the mass coma thing). When his plane, taking them to a secure facility, was shot down it turned out that the facilities (and their staff?) were forgotten about and abandoned. However, Nathan still had more of a plan than Angela or Noah (the man without a plan). Angela's appeared to amount to have Noah as a mole, but it was never clear what the next stage might be. Certainly Noah didn't manage anything - beyond worrying about Claire from time to time - other than immediate reactions and countermeasures to specific captures or would-be captures.
Finally, there were entire sequences that didn't fit or were rather pointless. The whole Ando and Hiro in India thing. To some extent, the Hiro and Ando babysit plotline. Not to mention the Sylar having daddy issues plotline. Plus both flashback episodes told us little that we didn't know. Noah's would have been interesting had we not had three seasons and Company Man by then. And as for 1961 - it didn't make sense. Angela went on and on about how they had done something terrible, which turned out to be leaving her baby sister in what they thought was the relative safety of the camp (by lying to her) to go and call for help from the nearby cafe. That's really not a big deal. Had she arranged to have her baby sister imprisoned and experimented on instead of herself, then that might have warranted the reaction she had - but she didn't.
Summary and comparisons with season one
In short, Fugitives recaptured a lot of the background consistency and characterisation of season one, but didn't have the pace, the epic plotlines or more exciting personal triumphs and the twists to match. Had the wedding, babysitting, Sylar daddy issues and two flashback episodes been replaced with grand plot sequences then this might have recaptured the season one glory.
Tim Kring comments
This comes from the BBC and also contains a few comment on the start of season 4, but was as close as I could come to a comment about Fugitives (admittedly I haven't looked for that long). In terms of Fugitives he mostly comments that killing off the various main-ish characters towards the end of the volume was not in response to audience feedback, but instead was because the show was its own fanbase (which I'm taking to mean that he already decided it would be a good idea). (I guess the characters in question are Daphne and the various people who died near the end of Villains.)
