Heroes Season [Volume] 2 (#34)---12/03/07-'POWERLESS' Mid-Season Finale (or the End)

[Grog]

Actually, I will "pray" that the lazy writers get off their sorry high horses and get back to work. They are not bosses, they work for someone else. When you work for someone else, they set the rules. If you don't like the rules, you are free to leave and find a different someone else to work for.
They have no right to demand anything.

Actually, they do. Collective bargaining rights are protected under U.S. law. They can demand whatever they want to. Nothing says the studios have to agree, of course, but nothing says the writers have to come back to work until they receive what they feel is a fair deal, either.

And you obviously aren't too familiar with the Hollywood power structure. There is no "different someone else" to work for.

 

[Felon]

Actually, I will "pray" that the lazy writers get off their sorry high horses and get back to work. They are not bosses, they work for someone else. When you work for someone else, they set the rules. If you don't like the rules, you are free to leave and find a different someone else to work for.
They have no right to demand anything.

So an employee is just a field hand, whose options are to graciously accept whatever they're offered or exercise their sole "right": to go without the means to acquire food, clothing, and shelter? That's the reasoning of a bully, a robber, or a tyrant. if I can withhold something vital to your survival in order to secure your compliance, that's not coersion, because you do have a choice after all: you can assert your displeasure with my way of doing things, and then go lie down in the gutter to die.

The way I see it, if I work for you, and I'm the talent that makes you wealthy, you'll pardon me if I don't just accept whatever crumbs you toss my way, but rather request an appropriately sized slice of the pie. There's no "right" being exercised by the crumb-throwing employer in such a scenario, except for "might makes right"--i.e. it's something most employers can get away with. By that same virtue, if I can get away with getting my colleagues to unite so that we can negotiate some fair terms, then that's my "right" as well.

That's what strikes like this all boild down to: what either side can get away with.

 

[Kheti sa-Menik]

So an employee is just a field hand, whose options are to graciously accept whatever they're offered or exercise their sole "right": to go without the means to acquire food, clothing, and shelter? That's the reasoning of a bully, a robber, or a tyrant. if I can withhold something vital to your survival in order to secure your compliance, that's not coersion, because you do have a choice after all: you can assert your displeasure with my way of doing things, and then go lie down in the gutter to die.

The way I see it, if I work for you, and I'm the talent that makes you wealthy, you'll pardon me if I don't just accept whatever crumbs you toss my way, but rather request an appropriately sized slice of the pie. There's no "right" being exercised by the crumb-throwing employer in such a scenario, except for "might makes right"--i.e. it's something most employers can get away with. By that same virtue, if I can get away with getting my colleagues to unite so that we can negotiate some fair terms, then that's my "right" as well.

That's what strikes like this all boild down to: what either side can get away with.

That's actually crap. I work for employer A, I do a lot of work for them, nights, weekends, etc. I want to do my best for them. They make a rule/policy toward their employees that is not illegal but I don't like, rule 33b. It treats employees unfairly. I communicate my feelings to my immediate boss and with his blessing to his boss, to no avail. I have two choices: live with 33b or look for work at another employer.
It's a choice, no one is forcing me to do anything. Employer A isn't a bully, tyrant, or robber or any such nonsense. They are exercising their right to make policies they believe will benefit their business just as I have the right to walk out the door and go to work for employer B or C.
I don't have the right to demand that employer A change their rule to suit me. I do have the right to take my expertise to another employer. Employer A is not making me starve because I can find another job/employer.

Your statements above assume that the choice is either Employer A or die in the gutter when there are other employers whose rules may suit me more.

 

[Richards]

One of my favorite lines from this episode was right after Nathan and Matt traveled from New York to Texas by hugging each other tight while Nathan used his powers of flight. After they landed, one of them (now I've forgotten which) says, "Let's never speak of this again."

It was also a nice touch that when Sylar gained his powers back at the end (or technically, at the beginning of Volume 3), he demonstrated it by telekinesing a spinach can to him. Somebody must have decided to make a subtle nod towards Popeye, as spinach is the source of his power.

So where exactly is Adam? Is that Mr. Nakamura's coffin he's in? I didn't see anybody in there with him. I'm not quite sure how Hiro managed to teleport himself and Adam into a closed coffin that already contained a body; that seems like too much of a tight fit for it to work. So did he just teleport to the graveyard with Adam, stop time, throw him into an empty coffin, and bury him himself? He couldn't have started time back up without the coffin already buried, or Adam's shouts would have been heard. I'm a little fuzzy on the specifics of how he got that to work.

Johnathan

 

[LightPhoenix]

I just watched it tonight (boo grad school!).

The first thing my friend said to me was that it was HRG who shot Nathan. I like that idea so very much.

I liked Elle in this episode more than I've liked her all season. HRG was great as well. Micah still rules all though.

Props to the person who said Claire went through the exact same arc this season.

I liked that Monica, as St. Joan on the comic cover, had the knife from the vault at Primatech.

I'm guessing Ma Petrelli's box is Peter going berserk and making it his mission to take out the Company. He is nigh unstoppable, and I suspect Peter will become a sheer destructive force, if not a proper villain.

On a related tangent, HRG could never be the guiding light for the heroes, only the protector. I really think it will be Mohinder who will end up being the moral compass. In a brief period he already turned Maya and Elle onto a different, probably better path. He's naive and unwise, and I don't like it but I guess I have come to terms with it as being a character trait.

It was about darn time to see Hiro kick some butt with his power. I think the fight between him and Peter was one of the best parts, for the awesomeness of Hiro teleporting around. I also like that Hiro wasn't merciful with Adam, but kept trying to talk Peter down.

I hate that Peter was immune to Matt's control, but it makes sense since he's immune to Hiro's time stop as well.

By far the best part of the episode was Matt and Nathan landing, and Hiro coming out seconds later and screaming "flying man!"

So, I wonder if Nathan was always going to be assassinated in this episode, or that was the added bit.

So where exactly is Adam? Is that Mr. Nakamura's coffin he's in? I didn't see anybody in there with him. I'm not quite sure how Hiro managed to teleport himself and Adam into a closed coffin that already contained a body; that seems like too much of a tight fit for it to work. So did he just teleport to the graveyard with Adam, stop time, throw him into an empty coffin, and bury him himself? He couldn't have started time back up without the coffin already buried, or Adam's shouts would have been heard. I'm a little fuzzy on the specifics of how he got that to work.

I imagine that's exactly how it worked - Hiro busted out a shovel and buried Adam with time stopped.

I don't believe that is true. I read that Heroes had shot up until the start of Episode 14 before the strike.

<snip>

They are not going to show us anything concerning the few episodes more they have in the Can. Those will be held until Heroes - whenever that may be - restarts after the strike is resolved.

I would not be surprised for Heroes to do a remarkable about face and go off in a new direction in "Chapter 3". And by this - different than what they have hinted they would do. Tim Kring's comments indicate that he has rethought his direction of the show in the face of fans and ratings.

I thought that they had drafts up to 14, but they weren't really fit for shooting and needed rewrites.

Honestly, I would be surprised at this point if NBC would sit on episodes, seeing as the strike looks to go on for a long while. All signs point to this being the end of the season, and that's three episodes sitting there not making money. Unfortunately, those episodes, if they were shot, were long ago turned over to NBC.

I completely agree on Chapter 3.

 

[Grog]

Your statements above assume that the choice is either Employer A or die in the gutter when there are other employers whose rules may suit me more.

Again, the fact that you are missing is that there are no other employers in the industry. Basically all of Hollywood entertainment is controlled by six huge corporations - NBC Universal, Disney, Time Warner, Paramount, Sony and News Corp (FOX). Further, those six corporations negotiate as a single entity - the AMPTP. This means that, unless you're one of the few dozen or so writers in the industry who can name his own price, if you try to sell a script in Hollywood, you will get exactly the same deal from each studio.

So, no, the writers can't just "find someone else to work for." There is no one else for them to work for.

 

[Ed_Laprade]

The first scene of Volume 3:

Parkman: "Peter, you can avenge your brother's death by showing them what you can do!"

Peter: "Yes, of course!" Stands up. "Everyone, my brother was killed to keep him from telling you something. This is what he wanted to tell you..." Flies around room, through walls, and zaps a few unimportat things.

Oh wait, the writers have loaded them both to the gills with Stupid Pills (tm), so that won't happen. Bah! (And I'm betting, too, that it was Mr. Bennet.)

Yeah, so why didn't Peter just phase through the safe door? How did Hiro get Adam into that coffin? And a bunch of other stuff. First Micah gets his cousin almost killed, and now his mom gets blowed up real good. The kid's gotta freak out now. Sylar? I wanted him dead last season. Now I want him dead even more.

Considering that the next 'volume' is called "Villians", I doubt that I'll be watching. (I'm another who gave up comics because having the same villians keep coming back, no matter what (and dead heroes too), just became too rediculous to put up with anymore.)

 

[Felon]

That's actually crap.

Such a derisive tone. You must listen to a lot of AM radio...it makes one think that snide dismissiveness is a virtue.

I have two choices: live with 33b or look for work at another employer.
It's a choice, no one is forcing me to do anything. Employer A isn't a bully, tyrant, or robber or any such nonsense. They are exercising their right to make policies they believe will benefit their business just as I have the right to walk out the door and go to work for employer B or C. I don't have the right to demand that employer A change their rule to suit me.

And by what virtue do you feel that you are the duly appointed arbiter of what rights exist in the employer/employee relationship?

It certainly isn't the virtue even-handed reasoning. If employers can fly under the banner of "just doing whatever benefits their business" when they exploit their employees, the employees can likewise be vindicated for doing whatever profits them. But you would grant one party the benefit of the Machiavelli defense, while the other side is expected to accept their lack of rights in a sheep-like manner--it's wrong for employees to try to acquire leverage. Ethics demands they keep themselves at a disadvantage while their employers act in a supremely self-interested manner. This sounds like crappy reasoning in my book.

I do have the right to take my expertise to another employer. Employer A is not making me starve because I can find another job/employer. Your statements above assume that the choice is either Employer A or die in the gutter when there are other employers whose rules may suit me more.

My statements assume what has become an increasingly stark reality over the years: while the free market system assumes competition is the norm, businesses are learning that from an economical point of view they're better off standardizing and collaberating. Ever seen A Beautiful Mind? There's this scene where Nash has his big breakthrough in a bar where all the guys want to hit on a blonde. He realizes they are all better off cooperating to make sure one of them bags the girl. This theme of cooperation sounds kind of utopian until one realizes that in this metaphor, the blonde is the little guy--the employee or consumer.

That's the main reason why we have "trade associations" like the MPAA and RIAA, to figure out ways to standardize their business practices for mutual benefit--such as ways to marginalize the costs of maintaining a work force. The upshot of this is that in many industries, working for one company is as about beneficial as working at another. That irksome Black Friday policy you hate at company A is likely in effect at company B.

My position also assumes one more vital fact: the vast majority of people simply don't have the luxury of not working. Work equals food and shelter and quality of life. This makes the "right to quit" arguement ring a little hollow, since it tries to present the prospect of unemployment as a trifling inconvenience. The truth is, Joe Blow is very susceptable to employer exploitation. Without a job, he's only a few months from destitution. When it comes to staying alive, it is nonsensical to expect one to accept exploitation as a matter of principle.

 

[Steel_Wind]

After having watched the man walking away from the Odessa Sheriff's Office, while there is something to be said for the man moving like Adam - the man is wearing glasses.

I agree with the theory that the shooter was HRG.

Should Claire find out that dear-old-Dad did in not-so-dear-old-Dad, I don't see how "I love you Claire-bear - they made me do it" is going to get him out of that one.

And it certainly won't cut it with Peter Petrelli.

The crappy thing is that we may wait as much as a YEAR before we will know.

Eleven episodes of yet-to-be aired Season 4 Battlestar Galactica and I am *out of TV*

 

[Glyfair]

The first thing my friend said to me was that it was HRG who shot Nathan. I like that idea so very much.

I told my brother that just after it happened (I also predicted that Nathan would be shot as they headed for the press conference, pretty obvious). The guy walking away moved like HRG.

Of course, that doesn't mean they won't change it later if they choose, even if they shot it with him.