Digital Spy's (Early) Review Of Volume 3

[Captain_BluTac]

Cult Spy: Is 'Heroes' Losing Its Powers?

Sunday, November 16 2008, 08:00 GMT
By Ben Rawson-Jones, Cult Editor


A surprising amount of criticism in the US media has been levelled towards the third season of Heroes. The show is no longer the formidable ratings-grabber it once was, and two prominent writers have recently be sacked. So is the power of Heroes starting to seriously wane? Cult Spy delivers its own verdict...

The short answer, delivered with a speed that would make Daphne blush, is no. Heroes has soared from strength to strength in recent weeks, a totally re-energised force that arose from the ashes of a sophomore year that failed to deliver. So why have the likes of influential American magazine Entertainment Weekly splashed the headline 'Heroes: Five Ways To Fix It' on its front cover? A quick look at the show's past offers a useful starting point to assess this unflattering and unjustified reception.

The first season of Heroes was certainly looked at through rose-tinted (and horn-rimmed) spectacles. It felt fresh and vibrant, bringing the comic book feel to the small screen on an impressive visual and mythological scale, tapping into the success of the X-Men movie trilogy.

The second year was unable to capitalise on the foundations it laboriously created in the opening episodes, with Hiro's sojourn to feudal Japan proving particularly painful. The writers' strike caused the season to be curtailed very early, although ratings remained impressive as the show enjoyed its honeymoon period and everyone appeared to have faith that the eventual narrative pay-off would be worth the groundwork.

Heroes creator Tim Kring took on board the barbs about the pacing, although he was quick to point out that the first season kicked off in similar scene-setting fashion before stringing together an outstanding sequence of brilliantly gripping episodes in the latter half, but had the advantage of being able to cash in with later episodes.

So, onto the current state of affairs. The third season premiere instantly set out its stall with a much darker and merciless tone, coupled with a breathtaking pace. Future instalments rattled along with plenty of superbly directed action sequences, such as Sylar's chilling pursuit of Claire, and a feast of crowdpleasing (in theory) twists, such as the revelation that the former watchmaker is actually a Petrelli.

Regular characters were also at risk, as shown by the demises of popular figures Bob Bishop and Adam Monroe. Away from the air of morbidity, a deliciously macabre sense of humour was at work, enabling Heroes to hit new heights of creative genius. For example, the dinner party staged by Doyle, in which he controls the actions of his petrified guests, is both bathed with menace and a quirky atmosphere.

Similarly, the sight of a future domesticated Sylar decked out in an apron, making waffles and playing with Mr. Muggles, is hilarious and scary at the same time. This stark imagery also excellently enforces the whole duality between the notions of heroism and villainy that provides the thematic structure for the season.

Crucially, the fluctuation of characters may provide a coherent explanation for the show's flagging fortunes among a portion of the fans and critics. Over many past episodes, viewers have built up an affinity or loathing for most of the key characters, knowing exactly who to trust and who not to trust.

The subversion thrown up in this season, with Claire being depicted as a villainess and Sylar as a hero at various stages, may prove unsettling for viewers who aren't a fan of such ambiguity. It's a shame, but Heroes should be praised for taking such bold creative decisions and not playing it safe with a bunch of 'fixed' characters.

There have been welcome returns for both Linderman and Thompson this season, while the resurrection of Arthur Petrelli has accomplished what many felt impossible - providing a Big Bad who could top Sylar and his past antics. Just witness how he lures his son Peter to hug him, only to use the moment to snatch his powers. The casting of veteran actor Robert Forster has definitely raised the bar.

The intricately structured trips to the past and future may prove frustrating for some of the attention-lacking masses, but they have added a great deal to the present day storylines rather than detracting from them. Knowing future events certainly adds spice to the proceedings.

The emotional burden placed on Matt Parkman is immense when he discovers he is destined to find love with a blonde babe called Daphne - only for her to turn up with a mission to kill him. Meanwhile, Hiro's relationship with Ando has taken an intriguing turn due to the time-jumper witnessing his best pal turn against him in the future. Fascinating stuff.

It could be argued that the season has been too reliant on gimmicks though. The scene in which Hiro seemingly slayed Ando with the sword was highly effective for its shock value, and cleverly explained via flashbacks in the next episode. Yet shortly afterwards, we witnessed Daphne and Matt being bumped off by Knox in their apartment, only to find out that it was only their mental projections that bit the proverbial bullet. This was more likely to induce groans rather than gasps as the trickery on the audience felt distinctly tired on that occasion.

As for the transformation of Mohinder this season, the objective was clearly to highlight the ambiguous line between the forces of good and evil. Yet all this subplot succeeded in doing was paying homage to Jeff Goldblum in The Fly and providing an excuse for Maya to be bound and gagged.

Minor criticisms aside, the real problem surrounding the third season has yet to be surmounted - mainly because it hasn't happened yet. For the momentum has been so dynamic and the sheer amount of thrills so extensive that one fears that the rollercoaster might be in danger of derailing. But as things stand, it's been one hell of a ride so far and the show deserves to scythe down the critical derision that's been unfairly directed at it.

I decided to post this because I thought it was fairly representative of my views, the last paragraph in particular, what do you lot think?

 

[absonic93]

I love this review! That's all i have to say. Everything I believe is in there.......well except for the Maya thing. Maya rocks.

 

[04nbod]

I agree with this review. I'm loving this season. The press just likes to build something up and then tear it down. I don't think the show can get over the first half of season 2 in the ratings but its been great this year so far

 

[Neptune]

I don't completely agree with this review. Although i think season 3 isn't as bad as some say it is. They just made some major mistakes. The biggest problems i have with season 3 are:
- The retconning of Sylar.
- Time travel being used as the main plot device again.
- Characters acting way out of character just for the sake of a plot twist.
- Killing off the wrong characters. Especially Adam

The reason so many people criticize this show now is because they know how good it can be.

 

[chaseter]

I agree with the recycling of the time travel plot Neptune but the others you have listed are personal opinions. You liked Adam and you wanted him to stay...not a reason to say this season is bad because they killed him off. Sylar's retconning isn't changing his character either. They are merely adding more depth to his character to flush him out even more. A retcon is changing a major character development in a latter mode. Sandman killing Uncle Ben is a horrible retcon. Season 1 set up for all of this and they are merely explaining stuff we saw that season like the forgive me room and Sylar even mentions the hunger there too. Lastly, what characters have acted out of character this season without you having seen this full season to know their intentions, aside from Mohinder of course...we all know about him?

 

[Neptune]

While the sylar thing may not be a complete retcon, i still feel that they've changed him into a less interesting character. I can understand that he needs a mother figure in his life but did they really have to make him a Petrelli? And the hunger makes Sylar more of an anti hero than a villain. I liked him better as a full blown villain. And eventhough he was more evil in season 1 and 2, he still had depth. We understood why he did what he did. He was relatable. Plus i liked the dynamic between him and Peter. Now it's gone.

About characters acting out of character. I think Mohinders whole arc this season is him acting out of character. I also find the whole god thing with Nathan out of character. With the other characters it's just one or 2 scenes in which i feel that they made them act different for a quick shock.

By killing Adam they threw away so much potential. He is a character that has lived for 400 years. He brought the original 12 together.

But you're right, these are my personal opinions.