Heroes #8: Villains/Nov2008

[Relique du Madde]

Felon let me ask you these questions:

Is it alright for the writers to kill ethnicities in mass number within the US? If not then why is it alright (and not racist) to kill them in mass numbers within their own home nation when its being done for entertainment value?

Beyond those minutemen (who were killed purely for political reasons) where are all the random Americans which Maya killed by using her power? If Maya only learned how to control her power after a two night stay in New York State, then shouldn't there have been more random deaths? After all, you can't take a 1 - 2 week drive from Southern Mexico to New York without stopping for gas, to use the restroom/shower, buy food/eat, etc. So logically there should be more deaths not just those which occurred in Honduras, Mexico and Guatemala.

Lasty, is it possible to tell a Samurai story about an immortal legendary warrior without there being any fatalities? Personally, considering that Adam was immortal, I find him defeating his opponents using his wits and not through death to be a more compelling story. Then him just killing other samurai and continually dying then resurrecting until all his enemies were dead.

 

[Mallus]

Felon let me ask you these questions...

Let me ask you one question: what do you make of the fact that the vast majority of evil people on Heroes are lily white? Say like Sylar and the upper management of both evil Companies?

I ask this as someone who is not particularly white himself.

 

[Relique du Madde]

Let me ask you one question: what do you make of the fact that the vast majority of evil people on Heroes are lily white? Say like Sylar and the upper management of both evil Companies?

I ask this as someone who is not particularly white himself.

As strange as it may sound, I think it is because less people would complain if the main evil mastermind or psycho-killer was white. It may sound stupid, but it seems that more people take offense when they see an ethnic character who is evil on an American tv series then they would if that series had an evil character who was white. Yet, if that series were written in another nation and someone of that nationality or an American was portrayed as being evil there would be no problem at all. I admit it's a weird double standard, but you can't deny it exists.

Btw, I also am not white.

 

[GSHamster]

I don't think it's intentionally racist. After all, Isaac was killed in the first seaon.

It's more that there is a core of characters who belong to the same family, and therefore have to be the same race. The Petrellis, Sylar, Claire, and Claire's adopted family account for the majority of characters.

All the other characters, including the non-white ones, rotate around that core. Thus when non-core characters die, it seems like they are disproportionately picking on the non-whites.

I think the "racism" is an artifact of the writers choosing not to kill off people because they are core, not because they are white. Excluding the core, I think they've been fairly even.

 

[Darth Shoju]

Mostly its because they were rewritten into idiots and don't learn a thing (READ Mohinder, Claire and Peter), are annoying (READ Mohinder, Claire, and Maya) or are too powerful (READ Peter, and Sylar). I still watch the show because I want it to return to its season one awesomeness without having the characters be stuck in an enless loop of contrived stupidity (READ Claire's continual emo trust/daddy issue rollarcoaster). Sadly, the writers have been assassinating the characters and replacing them with doppelgangers.

Ok, that I can agree with. I guess I just keep hoping they will write the characters out of the black hole of suck that they've put them into. Either that, or I just won't own any of the seasons on DVD but the first one. That way I can pretend they don't exist.

 

[Darth Shoju]

It is just that there are too many characters not that any are particularly bad. Its not really a personal thing, except for Mohinder who needs to die a painfull and pointless death. I just feal that if the cast was paired down to maybe a dozen or so then the stories could be more cohearant and developed. As a result I have been rooting for character deaths no matter who the are.

Okay, makes sense.

 

[Darth Shoju]

I certainly don't find it "confusing". In fact, I think it's pretty obvious why some people (not all) might feel that way.

Pretty much what Relique said, with a dash of Brown Jenkin. There are only a few (though increasing) actual bad/obnoxious/annoying characters - but there's just too many characters overall. I'd be happy with a tight, focused core of 5 or 6. I mainly like Noah Bennett, Hiro and Ando (when they're not written to be stupid), Parkman (when not stupid), Sylar (as a super-villain), Adam (yeah, really), and Linderman (Season 1 version super-villain only). Kaito Nakamura was a really good side-character. I'd even accept a couple more, maybe - a core group of "Heroes" and a core group of "Villains".

Well, I wasn't confused as to why someone would like them to trim the roster. I fully understand that and agree. It just seemed that people had such extensive "death lists" that they were only watching the show for one or two characters. In an ensemble show like this, that just seemed odd to me.

I think the problem was that I was conflating the opinions of multiple posters, and the death wishes were seeming more comprehensive than they were.

Carry on.

 

[Staffan]

Didn't they say in season 1 that Pa Petrelli actually died by suicide? Or was it that he had several suicide attempts but actually died by a heart attack?

I'm too lazy to go back and check, but I think they said he died by heart attack. However, at the start of season 2 when Angela is talking to Nathan's wife, she tells her something like "The men of the Petrelli family have a history of mental instability. You know how we said that Arthur died from a heart attack? It was really a suicide, but we hushed it up."

 

[satori01]

Or, to explain it without retconning anything beyond season one in; she knew he'd survive the explosion, and so it wasn't really a sacrifice at all.

I think a more interesting take would be Ma Patreli was willing to sacrifice her favourite son Peter, for the future that President Nathan would provide.

It is logical to think she would have arranged a meeting between Claire and Peter so he can regenerate.

That makes Linderman's actions and Ma more credible. If you have been working for years to produce a desired outcome, and suddenly your erstwhile leader decides to kill the very instrument of your plan.....

It seems like the show moved away from it....but the idea that the future hangs off which son lives Nathan/Peter would have been very exciting.

 

[fba827]

I think a more interesting take would be Ma Patreli was willing to sacrifice her favourite son Peter, for the future that President Nathan would provide.

It is logical to think she would have arranged a meeting between Claire and Peter so he can regenerate.

That makes Linderman's actions and Ma more credible. If you have been working for years to produce a desired outcome, and suddenly your erstwhile leader decides to kill the very instrument of your plan.....

It seems like the show moved away from it....but the idea that the future hangs off which son lives Nathan/Peter would have been very exciting.

Don't forget that in season 1, Peter had a dream in which he actually went back in time to witness a conversation between Ma Patrelli and CHarles Deverous (sp? - the hospice patient that he was taking care of when the series started whose daughter was going out with the painter) in which Ma and Charles talked about how the world was in trouble and the two were basically discussing which of Ma's two sons would be the savior: Peter with his strong heart or Nathan with his strong discipline -- or something like that. And Ma was always betting on Nathan as the better of the two.