![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lathanyThen for the final season.
Season Four - Redemption
18 episodes
Redemption dropped from an audience of 6 million to 4.5 million across the volume. On the plus side, the consistency remained good going on from Fugitives and there were a lot of nods to things that happened in season one. There were also some decent new characters among the newcomers, including a couple of memorable one-off performances, there were a number of mini-arcs that worked and a couple of good episodes. However, the plot pace was again dire, the grand plot lacked the grand, there was a lot of padding in terms of dull arcs and there was also a lot of repetitive interactions.
In detail
The consistency wasn't flawless, but was a vast improvement on the low hit by Villains. In particular, Peter managed some character development; he had finally lost his naivety of the first 2-3 seasons, gotten irritated with his family's killing record and also become more confident about his life choices. There's also some argument for claiming that Ando had developed a bit (although perhaps by time-travel Hiro gaining him an engagement) as he seemed the more solid half of his partnership with Hiro, plus Noah seemed to take some responsibility for his marriage failing (although, sadly for the wrong reasons - he seemed to blame it on not spending time with his family - huh? wrong! - rather than all the lies that were the real cause) and generally moving on from bag-and-tag.
Redemption also built on these developments by strengthening the show's history through re-referenced season one. It did this in terms of various partners (Charlie and Mira), the whole of Once Upon A Time In Texas, plus other little moments such as Claire's non-suicide, Peter talking about (and being on) roofs and Hiro and Ando discussing destiny.
Among the new characters were Lauren, Emma, Edgar and Lydia who I liked. The carnival lot were not too bad, although I wish there had been more about them doing stuff. Emma's power was good and I liked that Lauren was competent and able to deal with being shot without having to cry all over Noah (who had arguably bigger problems at the time). On the minor appearances, I liked the psychologist who empathised with Sylar/Gabriel and also the return of Milly.
The mini-arcs that worked included the resolution of the murdered room-mate and Samuel/Vanessa. The former was good because the solution matched the known elements (with just a slight question mark over why Samuel was so obsessed with Claire as he didn't personally have Noah issues - the season hinted they would answer this and then didn't). Samuel/Vanessa was good because it seemed very plausible, starting with the way in which they met when Vanessa was at college and also how she genuinely liked him but knew it was too much the fairytale archetype to be practical. Also, many of the single episode arcs worked well too; I know I'm somewhat alone in this, but I liked Kelly's death/Milly's revenge and I also liked Hiro getting Emma to accept her power both of which were contained within an episode.
The good episodes included Brother's Keeper which included a rare four heroes moment at Matt's bedside, The Fifth Stage for Peter nailing Sylar to a plank and The Art of Deception for Samuel actually doing something cunning (as opposed to being lucky).
However, the sluggish plot pace counteracted much of the good points in Redemption. It wasn't until we hit Vanessa's rejection of Samuel in the fifteenth episode of eighteen that there finally appeared to be movement on anything that wasn't the Sylar-Nathan mess from last season.
In other words, the grand plot wasn't. There were two plots in Redemption that got past the "mini" stage and neither Sylar's return or Samuel's Vanessa-fueled earthquake were detailed enough/sufficiently expansive to cover a whole season. Or, indeed more than a few episodes. In any other volume they would have been decent mini-plots.
Instead, there were a lot of dull mini-arcs in season four. These included the mental institution arc, the Claire-Gretchen love? arc, the Hiro's brain tumour arc. Frankly, the Matt's struggling career arc - and I say that as a huge Matt fan. And dull mini-arcs were a big problem in earlier seasons.
Finally, there were repetition of interactions that should have ceased seasons ago. I'll say again, Claire and Noah having trust issues was interesting... in season one. Now, it's more symbolic of the problems with season four - same old, same old (please guys, move on already!). I think the reason it stands out so much is because, as I said in my season two write-up, these two have interacted way more than any other pair. Another tired repetition was Matt and Janice and trust issues. Then there was Hiro still in season one character mode and back to screwing with time. All things that the characters should have developed on from.
Summary and comparisons with season one
In many ways Redemption was like Fugitives: it recaptured a lot of the background consistency and characterisation of season one, but didn't have the pace, the epic plotlines or the more exciting personal triumphs and the twists to match. I think it was better for new characters and better at having episode-specific stories than Fugitives, but ultimately what the series desperately needed by this point was a pacey, consistent grand plot and Redemption just didn't deliver.
Tim Kring comments
Here Kring comments just after the last episode airs and then here, presumably just after he heard it was cancelled. I have issues with both.
In the first (very long) interview, Kring comments about the pressures of the industry and how they need to do stories fast and deal with dropouts. I see his points and wonder whether he had any particular people in mind; it looks like George Takai was supposed to be in more and I wonder whether there was a particular romance that didn't/didn't seem to work (Claire/West and/or Hiro/Princess?). However, his comments about seasons running together writing-wise seem slightly at odds with the stuff he said during season one (that they had a grand plot for one and two was going to be separate) - maybe he means that they wrote two as a continuation of one, rather than they didn't have a discrete plan for one. I also think, that whilst he was big on the origins of the heroes, that you can only ask those sorts of questions once and then it gets less interesting. In particular, for a show that started season four with its returning main characters all being from season one (mainly because they failed to get any newcomers after one off the ground!) - I feel it's a bit much to imply they would have done better to refresh the cast (compare with Buffy which had Oz, Spike and Anya in the main cast of season four - from seasons two, two and three respectively). I'm sure he's right about being able to write more effectively before the network and the fans have ideas which they try to impose. Plus I reckon season four would have been tonnes better if done as a 13 episoder as he seems to imply he wanted to do.
The second article is much shorter and Kring says that the network are responsible for three things that were problematic - the long season length, the old characters being kept alive and consequently that new characters can't be brought in. He's almost certainly right about season length - although having not seen them do a short season where they knew it would be short from the start, it's difficult to say for definite. Equally, I sympathise with not being able to kill off long-standing characters (although I might sympathise a lot less if it wasn't primarily Sylar he had in mind - I like Zachary Quinto, but Sylar should have died at the end of one). However, as I said above, Heroes didn't show much aptitude for introducing successful new characters, also I don't think people would have liked repeating the "origins" thing over (in much the same way as character generation for a computer/roleplaying game is interesting at first, but you then want to play/run the character!) and, as![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
bateleur has commented, it was rather naive of Kring to think that he could throw away the established lot from season one and begin afresh as the industry doesn't work that way.
1 The newcomers were Samuel, Joseph, Edgar, Lydia, Eli, Damien, Arnold, Becky, Gretchen, Emma and Lauren.
That's really my lot on the four seasons of Heroes. If there's a movie I'll comment on that and if there isn't, I'll probably post that it didn't happen here. But otherwise my regular Heroes posts are done.
Season Four - Redemption
18 episodes
Redemption dropped from an audience of 6 million to 4.5 million across the volume. On the plus side, the consistency remained good going on from Fugitives and there were a lot of nods to things that happened in season one. There were also some decent new characters among the newcomers, including a couple of memorable one-off performances, there were a number of mini-arcs that worked and a couple of good episodes. However, the plot pace was again dire, the grand plot lacked the grand, there was a lot of padding in terms of dull arcs and there was also a lot of repetitive interactions.
In detail
The consistency wasn't flawless, but was a vast improvement on the low hit by Villains. In particular, Peter managed some character development; he had finally lost his naivety of the first 2-3 seasons, gotten irritated with his family's killing record and also become more confident about his life choices. There's also some argument for claiming that Ando had developed a bit (although perhaps by time-travel Hiro gaining him an engagement) as he seemed the more solid half of his partnership with Hiro, plus Noah seemed to take some responsibility for his marriage failing (although, sadly for the wrong reasons - he seemed to blame it on not spending time with his family - huh? wrong! - rather than all the lies that were the real cause) and generally moving on from bag-and-tag.
Redemption also built on these developments by strengthening the show's history through re-referenced season one. It did this in terms of various partners (Charlie and Mira), the whole of Once Upon A Time In Texas, plus other little moments such as Claire's non-suicide, Peter talking about (and being on) roofs and Hiro and Ando discussing destiny.
Among the new characters were Lauren, Emma, Edgar and Lydia who I liked. The carnival lot were not too bad, although I wish there had been more about them doing stuff. Emma's power was good and I liked that Lauren was competent and able to deal with being shot without having to cry all over Noah (who had arguably bigger problems at the time). On the minor appearances, I liked the psychologist who empathised with Sylar/Gabriel and also the return of Milly.
The mini-arcs that worked included the resolution of the murdered room-mate and Samuel/Vanessa. The former was good because the solution matched the known elements (with just a slight question mark over why Samuel was so obsessed with Claire as he didn't personally have Noah issues - the season hinted they would answer this and then didn't). Samuel/Vanessa was good because it seemed very plausible, starting with the way in which they met when Vanessa was at college and also how she genuinely liked him but knew it was too much the fairytale archetype to be practical. Also, many of the single episode arcs worked well too; I know I'm somewhat alone in this, but I liked Kelly's death/Milly's revenge and I also liked Hiro getting Emma to accept her power both of which were contained within an episode.
The good episodes included Brother's Keeper which included a rare four heroes moment at Matt's bedside, The Fifth Stage for Peter nailing Sylar to a plank and The Art of Deception for Samuel actually doing something cunning (as opposed to being lucky).
However, the sluggish plot pace counteracted much of the good points in Redemption. It wasn't until we hit Vanessa's rejection of Samuel in the fifteenth episode of eighteen that there finally appeared to be movement on anything that wasn't the Sylar-Nathan mess from last season.
In other words, the grand plot wasn't. There were two plots in Redemption that got past the "mini" stage and neither Sylar's return or Samuel's Vanessa-fueled earthquake were detailed enough/sufficiently expansive to cover a whole season. Or, indeed more than a few episodes. In any other volume they would have been decent mini-plots.
Instead, there were a lot of dull mini-arcs in season four. These included the mental institution arc, the Claire-Gretchen love? arc, the Hiro's brain tumour arc. Frankly, the Matt's struggling career arc - and I say that as a huge Matt fan. And dull mini-arcs were a big problem in earlier seasons.
Finally, there were repetition of interactions that should have ceased seasons ago. I'll say again, Claire and Noah having trust issues was interesting... in season one. Now, it's more symbolic of the problems with season four - same old, same old (please guys, move on already!). I think the reason it stands out so much is because, as I said in my season two write-up, these two have interacted way more than any other pair. Another tired repetition was Matt and Janice and trust issues. Then there was Hiro still in season one character mode and back to screwing with time. All things that the characters should have developed on from.
Summary and comparisons with season one
In many ways Redemption was like Fugitives: it recaptured a lot of the background consistency and characterisation of season one, but didn't have the pace, the epic plotlines or the more exciting personal triumphs and the twists to match. I think it was better for new characters and better at having episode-specific stories than Fugitives, but ultimately what the series desperately needed by this point was a pacey, consistent grand plot and Redemption just didn't deliver.
Tim Kring comments
Here Kring comments just after the last episode airs and then here, presumably just after he heard it was cancelled. I have issues with both.
In the first (very long) interview, Kring comments about the pressures of the industry and how they need to do stories fast and deal with dropouts. I see his points and wonder whether he had any particular people in mind; it looks like George Takai was supposed to be in more and I wonder whether there was a particular romance that didn't/didn't seem to work (Claire/West and/or Hiro/Princess?). However, his comments about seasons running together writing-wise seem slightly at odds with the stuff he said during season one (that they had a grand plot for one and two was going to be separate) - maybe he means that they wrote two as a continuation of one, rather than they didn't have a discrete plan for one. I also think, that whilst he was big on the origins of the heroes, that you can only ask those sorts of questions once and then it gets less interesting. In particular, for a show that started season four with its returning main characters all being from season one (mainly because they failed to get any newcomers after one off the ground!) - I feel it's a bit much to imply they would have done better to refresh the cast (compare with Buffy which had Oz, Spike and Anya in the main cast of season four - from seasons two, two and three respectively). I'm sure he's right about being able to write more effectively before the network and the fans have ideas which they try to impose. Plus I reckon season four would have been tonnes better if done as a 13 episoder as he seems to imply he wanted to do.
The second article is much shorter and Kring says that the network are responsible for three things that were problematic - the long season length, the old characters being kept alive and consequently that new characters can't be brought in. He's almost certainly right about season length - although having not seen them do a short season where they knew it would be short from the start, it's difficult to say for definite. Equally, I sympathise with not being able to kill off long-standing characters (although I might sympathise a lot less if it wasn't primarily Sylar he had in mind - I like Zachary Quinto, but Sylar should have died at the end of one). However, as I said above, Heroes didn't show much aptitude for introducing successful new characters, also I don't think people would have liked repeating the "origins" thing over (in much the same way as character generation for a computer/roleplaying game is interesting at first, but you then want to play/run the character!) and, as
bateleur has commented, it was rather naive of Kring to think that he could throw away the established lot from season one and begin afresh as the industry doesn't work that way.1 The newcomers were Samuel, Joseph, Edgar, Lydia, Eli, Damien, Arnold, Becky, Gretchen, Emma and Lauren.
That's really my lot on the four seasons of Heroes. If there's a movie I'll comment on that and if there isn't, I'll probably post that it didn't happen here. But otherwise my regular Heroes posts are done.
