PeterDavid.net

I'm definitely in for Heroes - the end of episode two with Hiro revealed to be witnessing the future destruction in New York was a kicker - I'm very curious to see where this thing is going. Nice end to this current ep as well - although I'm surprised to see a trick like that so soon...

It's funny how shows sometimes develop. I loved the first episode of Studio 60, and have liked each subsequent episode less and less.

Heroes barely held my interest in it's first episode, but by the end of last nights episode, I was completely hooked.

Mad props for the Hiro and Ando's RAIN MAN tip-o'-the-hat. I did a double take and chortled loudly.

I love this show. How can anyone not love a show that references the Merry Marvel Marching Society?

Heroes. Liked the ending (literally said outloud "Oooh COOL!)- loving the show!

Studio 60. Hunh. See coming in from the other side. I was on the fence with this show- till last week's episode. True, it did feel a bit too much like Sorkin reliving his glory days on WW, what with the rapid walking and witty rejoinders, but I still laughed several times.

This week's may not have been as engaging as last's for me, but I liked it. Could be because I'm on the opposite side of you all politcally and ::gasp:: religiously.

I liked what Lahti's character said about making two sides that hate each other work for 90 minutes every week. Because, that is what Sorkin's work does for me.

He has a way of bringing two opposing things together tactfully. He gives dignity to the opposite view without giving up on what he believes. Again, my politics are decidedly on the opposite side of the fence as him, but I. Love. His. Shows. I love them because of his sensitivity on touchy subject matters (he points out rights and wrongs on BOTH sides), intelligent written dialogue, and Sorkin's obvious talent- for those reason I keep tuning in.

If he leaves, the show goes down the tubes. Hopefully he can stay out trouble this time and stick with it!

Definitely way more into Heroes than Studio 60 right now. BadassHiro is awesome.

Didn't like Harriet's Nancy Grace impression. Amy Pohler's version was WAAAYY funnier. Say what you will about the real SNL and it's lack of brilliance these days but it still has some moments that are funnier than what I've been seeing on Studio 60.

Sadly, I completely agree with you about "Studio 60," Peter. I so wanted to love this show, because it's Aaron Sorkin, and "The West Wing" and "Sports Night" were, nine times out of 10, really, really great. But "Studio 60"...like you said, it's supposed to be "Show, Don't Tell," and we've been told for however many episodes that Matt is this super funny, fantastic writer, and yet the sketches on the show...so not funny. I got a mild chuckle out of one of the news headlines Harriet read during the rehearsal scene last night and that was about it. I'm gonna stick with it (at least until NBC replaces it with "Battlestar Galactica" in January) and hope it gets better, but my hope is dwindling rapidly.

"Heroes," on the other hand, just gets better and better, I think. It's just so much fun to watch, and maybe I say that because I've read comics for over half my life, but I love nearly everything about it, from Tim Sale's illustrations to the cliffhangers to the characters' powers.

What's his name, Peter? He's got a mimic power. He can't fly, he just borrows the power from whoever he's near. How cool is that? And Hiro is such a fun character. The sheer joy he takes in his powers and what he thinks is his superhero destiny, it's great to watch. Other than BSG, this is the show I've found myself looking forward to the most each week.

"This week's may not have been as engaging as last's for me, but I liked it. Could be because I'm on the opposite side of you all politcally and ::gasp:: religiously"

You may not believe me, but that's not remotely it. I loved Ainsley Hayes, for instance, because her views were reflected in spirited discussion and her actions. As for Harriet, if we'd learned about her background via a trip home or even seeing her go to church, or seeing her in conflict with a priest over the question of pre-marital sex, I'd have no problem. My problem is that we've had episode after episode of her saying, "I'm devout, I'm devout," and that's all she does: Say it. I'm not offput by her religious leanings. I'm offput by the manner in which it's presented, namely told rather than shown.

PAD

Point taken PAD. I agree, what you desribed would have been a better way of handling it.

Studio 60: The hardcore political junkie in me chuckled at the gall of putting an Alger Hiss joke in the show... not a funny joke, but that someone would 50 years after the fact pass off an Alger Hiss joke as comedy.

No, that's not good. This isn't exactly cutting edge political humor here. Despite a good cast and some good dialogue, I'm finding this show to be a trainwreck. No chemistry between characters that should have chemistry, and the show-within-the-show is lame by even bad sketch comedy standards... yet time and time again we're told just how great this show is.

And watching people watch Sting perform... not exactly riviting television.

Studio 60 is bloated on itself. It's arrogant since its coming off of The West Wing but whatever made the West Wing work (I never watched it) is either gone or missing from 60. While I'm no expert at the workings of a sketch comedy show, it looks like Sorkin is trying to make such an ideal paradise of television production that it comes off as unreal. When whatever-his-name-is-from-Friends (yes, I don't care) told the writers to stop dressing like they're in junior high I immediately felt the show slip out of reality and into some sort of weird non-fantasy fantasy world that isn't much fun.

Heroes, on the other hand, seems to be doing just fine plot wise but I'm worried about the pacing. Yes, it's a TV show and not a comic, but things feel like they're going too slowly on the whole but some of the other plot lines (Psychic Cop) are beginning to lose me although I'm still intrigued.

I think it needs a better focus on fewer characters. I know that some of them are going to be killed off and I'm actually looking forward to this since there are a few story threads and characters that seem to be dragging along.

Also, there are some minor quibbles I have with dialogue and acting. In the twist end for last night that character-who-shows-up-all-of-the-sudden-in-a-whole-new-persona came up as a dud compared to how he/she is usually played. And they need to stop having Suresh info dump. I don't like his character just because he says the same things over again.

I'm pretty much done with Studio 60. It's a show I wanted to like and did after the first episode. But I find myself simply not caring about the premise or the characters. 30 Rock however, made me laugh out loud several times and I thought Baldwin, Fey and Morgan were great and I can't wait until the next episode. Same for Veronica Mars.

Heroes I thought was lame first episode and could barely stay awake. It felt like every bad comic book or superhero show I've seen before and despite people telling me how great it is, I can't be bothered to devote an hour a week to it.

Anyone else think that Sylar might be Nikki's Mr. Hyde?

(Ed Asner guest starred as the network head and, tragically, didn't tell her she had spunk)

Just for the record, Steven Weber and Amanda Peet did a little riff on the "You got spunk!" thing from the Mary Tyler Moore show in an earlier episode. Not the pilot, where Ed Asner also appeared, 'cuz that'd surely have been too meta, but some earlier episode.

Anyway, tho' I appreciate all the ways Studio 60 isn't perfect--even isn't all that great--I do find it pleasant to watch. It ain't must-see TV, but I don't mind it at all, either. Go figure...

30 Rock isn't bad, and it's got some potential. They set an achieveable mission statement (unlike Studio 60), where they can watch Tiny Fey go crazy as the suits shove absolute crap on the air because of demographics... they just have to make the sequence funny at some level. It can always maintain the notion that the show is better than what they're showing... whereas Studio 60 shoots itself in the foot by attempting to show the *good* skits and the quality just isn't there.

S60: The biggest problem I have with Studio 60 is that the comedy routines that we see are (as Mr. David wrote) just horribly unfunny. There are funny bits in Studio 60, but they've always been character bits that happen outside of the actual skits. Sting on the other hand...well, he's Sting. I might have thought that he was overused in the final part of the episode, but they had him sing Fields of Gold. Like Matt, that song has meaning to me.

Heroes: I won't discuss the cliffhanger any more than to say that I liked it. There's more that I'd like to say but I suspect Mr. David is right about waiting. As to the odds of so many characters meeting in Vegas...well, the dice were loaded. The painter, Isaac and Hiro with his time-bending abilities are shaping events to bring the characters together.

I 'mreally hoping that that they either kill off Isaac, or give him some character development other than crazy-future-painting-drug-addict. He's important to the plot but I hate him.

Finally, what was it in Isaac's future vision that could have made Claire run away in such raw terror? What can frighten her? Did the mysterious shadowy figure tell her that she was going be dropped in the concrete foundation of a building for all eternity? Of did she just meet the creepy-black-guy that seems to muck with people's powers?

Finally, the only black person with powers that we've seen so far, and he's a villian? If they're gonna go with that route, then they better make him really cool. There are so few cool black heroes in comics, but there's an even greater shortage of cool black villians. If the Heroes team can pull that off, it would be great.

PAD,

You have nailed it when you commented on the shifting moral values in Heroes. It is a fascinating thing to see unfold. Whether it is Simone's son knowing what she has been up to, Hiro gaining profit from a power, or glasses man using bald guy to control others, it is unclear yet where it is headed or who really is "good" or "bad."

The moment this became the most real was when Simone left the congressman. I cheered. I was somewhat diappointed at the stereotype of the congressman willing to commit adultery -- and the stupidity of doing so in a place where a reasonably paranoid person might realize it could be recorded. When Simone's other side came out, it did make sense what happened next. It really illustrated her dual sides and that, in the context of the show, neither was necessarily all good or bad. Her "dark side" could do what needed to be done.

Bottom line, in terms of morality I have mixed feelings. I don't agree with things being quite so gray, and the violence/graphic scenes are more than I think are needed. But in terms of story, it only gets better. This clearly is not Brian Bendis decompressed extended story telling. In 3 episodes significant movement is made. After this espisode was done, I was hooked for the rest of the season. I want to see what happens and how they get there.

One side issue: I have found the previews, especially for the last episode, way too revealing. The shock value of at least one major decision was completely ruined by what they showed the week before.

Iowa Jim

IJ, I believe you meant Nikki when you said Simone ... Simone is the chick with Isaac and Peter.

And I agree with you about Nikki wanting to cheer her on when she left the Peter's brother. He's really a shit, isn't he?

Sorry about the missing punctuation on the previous reply. I really DO need to hit preview first!

I actually posted my thoughts on "Studio 60" on my own blog this morning, but more and more I come to the conclusion that the ideal solution would be for Tina Fey to work on the "show bits" and let Sorkin run wild on the rest.

JSM

Peter, I agree with you up to a point regarding last night's STUDIO 60, but I think the reason Jordan is at NBS and not HBO was identified quite clearly when she was trying to get that kid to bring his show to her network. The speech about Pericles (sp?) and how good TV should be free for all.

"IJ, I believe you meant Nikki when you said Simone ... Simone is the chick with Isaac and Peter"

That's my bad. I wrote "Simone" instead of "Nikki" in my original post. Jim was just referencing what I said.

PAD

I keep this simple Heros 2nd best show next to Battle Star..But I still have to see how this goes after sweeps and the cliffhanger of nukeing NYC.. It could lose me after that. Stuido 60 should just go back into the studio hate it on so many levels.

Jericho started out good buy going the way of lost to me hopefully they bring it back down to the basics and cut out the drama cliff hanger stuff... But luving the Heros gonna make Friday Sci-fi Heros at 7, Than into a ok Dr. who capped off with a dose of battle Star...

And one last thing Vote for Jerry Springer on dancing with the stars. I don't watch the show hate it but a few friends want to see jerry win because he is so bad..

Whoa, I just had a flashback of last week's Studio 60!

(Who deserves the cred for the "joke" and all)

heheheh! eh hem.

moving right along ... nothing to see here ...

Look, I know 'Studio 60' is supposed to be the *drama* series ri...ah....'inspired' by SNL, but geez louise, do the sketches we get to see on the show HAVE to be so unfunny??!

I'm feeling a bit more optimistic about "Heroes," especially after the full-season order. And the pace has gotten better with each episode, especially the pace of revelations. The slow pace of "Twin Peaks" combined with David Lynch's audience abuse was the death of that show. So far, "Heroes" has respected the audience's intelligence - including something that nobody has mentioned, the fact that the promo ending the show contained an important clue for the series!

I was almost ready to say that the show approached the pacing of one of my favorite current comics, DC's "52" - except not even DC would think of the clever use of a self-promoting ad to advance the plot. Making your promos worth watching? WHo'd a thunk it?

By the way, Hooper, the point about the unfunniness of the sketches in "Studio 60" is that the behind-the-scenes drama of the show's creation is the thing under consideration, not the show they create. It's just like how, in the various versions of "Phantom of the Opera," the opera they put on is not important.

Also, for the most part, people who create comedy are not funny people in real life. Comedy is about pain, and the people who do it have suffered (and still suffer) a lot. And for them to take pleasure in the stuff they create, outside of a professional interest in making sure it works, is like laughing at your own jokes; it makes jokes automatically unfunny.

I liked the Nancy Grace sketch. Wasting a police officer's time on a daily basis so that she can dramatise a girl losing her cel phone? Not a huge laugh, but I liked it.

I don't know, I liked this Studio 60 better than last week's. I liked the reporter digging for a story. I liked the main characters ineptly trying to hide things. I liked what they went through when the hidden things came out. It was a slower paced episode, and I wouldn't want them all to be this way, but I enjoyed it.

Heroes: Good stuff. The drug addict saying that he's going to save everyone is an interesting juxtaposition. Make way for Captain Heroin, I guess. Some characters are acting less and less heroic, and the ones I didn't expect to act heroic are getting there. I don't really trust anyone in this show, and that's kind of interesting.

I think the dismal quality of the sketches we see bits of on "Studio 60" undercuts the notion that Matt is supposed to be a brilliant comedy writer. If he was brought in to revitalize the show, to save the show, even his mediocre stuff should be funny. Admittedly, writing good comedy isn't the easiest thing in the world--Peter will probably back me up on this--but Jesus, they only showed us a minute of "Nicolas Cage, Relationship Therapist" or whatever it was called and I was squirming almost immediately at the sub-"MadTV" Nicolas Cage impression that just went ON and ON and ON...to reinforce the idea that Matt is this brilliant writer, the material we're shown should be really good stuff--and if Sorkin can't come up with it on his own, he should consider bringing someone in who can.
Maybe they ought to have Joe Straczynski make a guest appearance where he tells Matt it's insane for one person to try to write an entire TV series all by himself--Joe would know, after writing over 100 of the 100 episodes of "Babylon 5."
And as for the "Stop dressing like you're in junior high" remark: None of the big names in late-night comedy (Leno, Letterman, Stewart, O'Brien) come to work in a suit, and the guys who aren't on camera generally don't even dress for the show.

I was actually kind of bored by both episodes, Heroes less so than Studio 60. I'll stick with Heroes, but Studio 60 is on probation with me (of course, everyone in my household watches it, so I'll probably keep watching it just because it's on).

The Sting scenes annoyed me. Partly because I never could stand his voice, and partly because, when I used to watch SNL, the musical guests were always times for me to switch to another channel. I just never saw the point of having them in a sketch comedy show, and I certainly don't want musical guests in a drama series ABOUT a sketch comedy show!

I'm loving Heroes myself. I wonder if Nikki will be expecting another kid after the events with the Congressman. I also wonder if her son will exhibit more ability as a boy genius; the logic so far seems to suggest that the propensity for special abilities is definitely congenital. Surely that's the reason that Claire's adopted, so that we're not all eyeing her little brother for potential powers.

I'm also of the opinion that the nuclear event that needs to be stopped will be in a November show, since the time is established to follow our time (Hiro's watch when he realizes he's in the future). This also makes sense since Jeph Loeb said on Fanboy Radio that they were trying to keep the show moving along quickly (as opposed to Lost).

I'm willing to look past the startling coincidences for now, since at least some of the meet-ups have made a bit more sense. I'm not a big fan of "fate" as an explanation for things, but I'll take it if the show is as entertaining as this one.

Studio 60 might work if they avoided the skits almost entirely. Maybe a few seconds in the background as they're dealing with something else, but considering that so much of the show has been about the creative process, the lame-ass stuff they're putting up on the screen is really hurting the central conceit of the show... that these guys are creating quality when everyone is worshipping crap. The show invited the audience to have high expectations and they've not only have failed to reach those lofty goals, they're not even in the sub-basement.

I mentioned earlier, I think 30 Rock is aiming at a low enough goal to succeed. You only have to believe that this show *could* be a hit, that it's comparible to SNL and MAD-TV... and having numerous SNL veterans running around lends credibility to that notion. If they can field a few reasonably funny skits or have the cast complaining about the unfunny skits in some entertaining manner, then they've hit the target.

But Studio 60 just seems so in love with its own crap. Even the "bad" skits, they're attempted to pass off as quality, because the talent can make it funny... like that crappy bear joke or the baby skit in the last episode. They have a bad joke, they know they have a bad joke, but they *still* can't admit that it's as awful as everyone watching the show knows it is. And to watch everyone watching and laughing at awful, awful skits just makes everyone look like idiots. The show within the show is just undercutting them at every turn.

Heroes has become, in 4 short weeks, my most favorite show this season above all. It's beceome the one show I cannot miss, no matter what.

Studio 60 is still very entertaining, but I think I've figured out part of the problem. Aaron's writing skits for the Studio 60 show that are funny as all hell... but only to him. Yes, Nancy Grace harping on and on about the absolutely inane is comedy. It's just not comedy that appeals to a large number of people.

The best thing that Sorkin and Schlamme could do for the show is get someone who CAN write effective, smart comedy to do the skits for the show-within-the-show. Sorkin can write situational comedy well, but what's supposed to pass as "smart slapstick" (and no, the two are not mutually exclusive) only passes as "heh" at best. Get some real comedians in there to help, and it'll improve dramatically on that front.

Plus, I'm really hoping that he's doing so much exposition as opposed to action simply because it's still very early on in the show. I'm hoping we have a LOT less of it later on, should this show survive.

Ok, I thought someone here said on another thread that Sorkin is NOT writing the skits??

And, as a woman, the Sting part (including the remarks) were right on target. Just sayin.

"And as for the "Stop dressing like you're in junior high" remark: None of the big names in late-night comedy (Leno, Letterman, Stewart, O'Brien) come to work in a suit, and the guys who aren't on camera generally don't even dress for the show."

I was thinking something similar. Then Matt had that bit later where he told someone that he'd yelled at the writers for it, and "apparently" he felt very strongly about it. My impression was that he actually didn't care, he was just super frustrated and that's how it came out.

Another reason I love HEROES? Loving nods to that ubiquitous comic book device: the retcon.

Not only are Claire's first words upon waking up on the slab not the same, Mohinder's father's picture was completely different as well!

You gotta appreciate such devoted adherence to the genre.

:)

Zeek-
I assume you mean the fine instrument line? I have to agree. I met Sting once back when he was part of the Police and you would have been hard pressed to find another rocker who took the time to find out the names of the locals that were working on his show for that (or those) night(s). I can think of a few but Sting came across as a gentleman and a scholar in the time I got to talk to him.
Kath

I wanted to like "Studio 60", but I really can't be bothered now. First, I don't think I care enough about how a late night sketch show is produced to spend an hour on it each week. (I only had to care for 30 minutes at a time for "Sports Night".) Second, this series takes itself far too seriously. (Something which I don't believe could ever have been said for either "Sports Night" or the Sorkin guided "West Wing".) Third, although I get the sense that the show is supposed to be character driven, there are just too many characters to develop. I'm done.

"Heroes"? Don't watch it.

Kudos to John Hudgens and every other nimwit here who utterly ignored PAD's request: "I would appreciate if other commenters followed my lead on this, since the cliffhangers are becoming such a signature of the show. After all, there's always the following week to discuss it, right?"

Peter, agreed about HEROES being the (surprisingly) better show of the night between it and STUDIO 60. The former started at its low point and has been improving while the latter just the opposite.

And I think with THE WEST WING, there was a lot of tension because simply because the CONSEQUENCES were greater. It's why classic Tragedy were about rich, powerful, famous "important" people instead of the average working stiff simply because the fall would be so much greater.

-- Ken from Chicago

P.S. Speaking of White Houses and falls, have you been following your buddy, Olberman, about the fall of Habeas Corpus? It's almost like a novel, a scifi novel where the President is given vast uberlegal powers over the populace. The only thing missing or psionics, karate kicking Quakers and giant mutant telepathic dogs.

Anyone else think that Sylar might be Nikki's Mr. Hyde?

Didn't Sylar have an address, under that name, in New Jersey, as revealed either last week or the one before?

Studio 60: I'm still sticking with it. It was a hell of a premiere and it's still holding my interest, though said interest is only maintaining itself instead of building.

I flat-out don't believe that this one dude is writing the whole show by himself while a big (BIG) writing staff is just sitting in a room ordering lunch every day. In reality, everyone on that staff would be collecting their paycheck and using their office time to develop the projects they're going to pitch when their contracts are up. They sure aren't going to be working hard on developing scripts for a writer/producer who ain't buying.

If the show teases this into an actual developing storyline -- mid-season burnout requires the show to be more of a collaborative effort -- then...good. Otherwise...not so much.

I would also like to see a couple of scenes that are, you know, _lit._ "Studio 60" is a world in which it's always 7:44 PM.

I also defy anyone to name a successful sketch comedy show in which all of the female castmembers have such conventional, primetime-drama good looks.

Still and all, I'm liking it and I'm sticking with it.

Heroes: I saw the premiere and it sort of confirmed the biased opinion that I formed over the summer. The producers are going to tease us for an entire season, and then there'll be a season finale whose sole purpose is to tease us until the second-season premiere. I just didn't care about any of these people and I didn't get any sort of beginning-middle-end.

LOST is a terrific show, but so much of TV drama these days is a meal of nothing but appetizers, episode after episode after episode. Enough with the cheese sticks, enough with the hot wings, enough with the nacho. Give me a damned steak already, then follow it up with a slice of pie and a nice cup of tea.

Lord knows that the worst thing about Trek was that no episode every had any sort of connection to any other episode, but still: each episode absolutely _has_ to be a satisfying experience in and of itself.

And I absolutely acknowledge that this is based solely on the premiere and much has happened since then. I'll check back in at the end of the season, and if I'm still hearing good things maybe I'll rent the DVD set. But I just can't invest an hour of my life every week to maybe, hopefully, dear God please, getting some sort of a complete story by the end of the season.

Also: Hiro annoys the living crap out of me. The third time his girly high-pitched squeal pierced my speakers and then my eardrums, I started flipping channels.

The big winner of this season is THE OFFICE, actually. I liked it last season, but I triple-heart-love it now. They're doing some _exciting_ things with development of plot and character. It's probably one of the best dramas on TV, and it's successfully masquerading as a comedy.

A few years ago I'd never have guessed that I'd like this American version more than the original...but there it is.

I'd have to say, Hiro is my favorite character, but Simone is a close second. I've been a fan of the Hulk for years and her darkside really reminds me of that: "Don't make me angry, you wouldn't like when I'm angry, (And looking in a mirror!)

IIRC, wasn't Mark McKinney (from Kids/Hall and SNL) brought in to work on the comedy segments on the show?

Even though I get all the refernces, the obtuseness of the show is wearing thin. Pericles? I doubt Jamie Tarses pitched a writer by quoting him.

Yeah, he's doing the comedy bits... and, curiously enough, a parody of the Major General Song also turned up during his tenure on SNL. Reading the transcript, that one actually appears to be mildly funny, poking fun about the host being nervous even though he hasn't watched SNL since the 70s.

What was particularly wrong with last nights in-show skits were that they were all prime examples of one, not nearly that strong idea, being expected to be the only thing holding up the skit.

The Nancy Grace bit; the one joke was that cable had gone berzerk over someone losing their cell phone. And they just kept repeating and repeating that one point. That should've been the starting point. Move from there to the specially constructed graphic for "Cell Phone Held Hostage: Day 7". Bring in someone trying to spin it into a Republicrat plot (I don't care which party, pick one). Have banal (funny) call-ins from viewers. Have one of the call-ins be a pitch from a cell phone plan. Have a commentator admit they have absolutely nothing new to say. Etc. Play with the cable cliches.

Nicolas Cage: Relationship Councillor. Why? So an actor can do a painfully exaggerated parody of Cage's mannerisms? Again, not funny. Now, a Michael Jackson relationship councillor skit; that's got potential. Or a Lindsay Lohan/Jessica Simpson/Paris Hilton one.

The "I'm Incomplete Without A Baby" bit. Again, just slamming the concept and repeating it. Want a funny skit from that premise? She gets a pet, then another one, and another one, to make up for the lack of kid. Run with that and its possibilities.

Thomas E. Reed wrote:
"Also, for the most part, people who create comedy are not funny people in real life. Comedy is about pain, and the people who do it have suffered (and still suffer) a lot."

No offense meant, but isn't that a bit of a cliche? Or at least an overstatement? Is Jon Stewart in pain right now? Would Ricky Gervais be dull at a party? I'm not convinced that what you say is always true, or even true the majority of the time.

"And for them to take pleasure in the stuff they create, outside of a professional interest in making sure it works, is like laughing at your own jokes; it makes jokes automatically unfunny."

I dunno, that sounds like a rather antiseptic and not very tenable approach to comedy (or to any art).

Plus, I've heard/read interviews with various people who do comedy, in film or on television, where they a) laugh at some of their own bits, and b) take themselves, or at least the other writers in the room, as the barometer of whether something's funny or not. They always sound like they took pleasure in it. (Listen to John Cleese talk about the genesis of some of the Python sketches, for example.)

On the other hand, if you're saying that the characters on Studio 60 shouldn't be laughing at their own material, because it would kill the joke for us, the actual viewing audience, well, maybe. But there would have to be something funny there to begin with, wouldn't there? And more to the point, the lack of scenes of characters on the show finding the material funny isn't what people are complaining about.

The bottom line is, even if the show-within-the-show isn't the actual focus of Studio 60 (as a lot of the apologists for the show's sketches have argued), what we do see of it, or what material we hear from it, should be good enough to convince us that the Matthew Perry character actually is brilliant, or to convince us that the studio audiences have some reason to laugh. Otherwise, it's just a slightly less direct way of Studio 60 simply telling us the show-within-the-show is funny, or Matthew Perry is brilliant, without actually showing us that this is the case.

It's as if we were told that CJ Craig was at handling the press, but then given scenes in the pressroom were clunkers. Or as if we were told that Pres. Bartlett's a brilliant man, inspiring leader, and great politician, but then shown regular scenes where he gives stale, poorly written speeches, or comes up with political solutions that are, well, dumb. Followed a shot of, I dunno, Toby saying "That's brilliant! That's why I work for that guy!" (I didn't watch the show regularly, so I'm assuming this kind of thing didn't happen.)

It undercuts the believability of the drama, which undercuts the drama itself.

Unless Sorkin's trying for some kind of crazy Brechtian alienation thing, where the show-within-the-show is intenionally unfunny. But I kinda doubt that's the case.

Anyhoo, you're right about "Heroes" improving, partly because the pace has picked up. I didn't like the premiere, and I'm still on the fence about it, but it's improving, things are moving along, and the ending of the previous episode was really good.

Oops, that should be "It's as if we were told that CJ Craig was __highly adept__ at handling the press, but then given scenes in the pressroom __that__ were clunkers

I imagine I’m in the minority but, the skits on Studio 60 are a helluva lot better than anything I’ve seen on SNL in a long, long time. I enjoyed the Nick Cage sendup, figured anything using Juliet Lewis is a bit dated and thought the setup for the baby skit showed a lot of promise.

I’m a sucker for Christine Lahti though too and that might have something to do with it. Like a fine wine she just gets better with age.

Studio 60 may not be knocking it out of the box but, I think that has more to do with expectations in regard to Sorkin and following up West Wing. It’s a totally different beast though and in comparison to a lot of other new shows this season, it’s still a keeper.

HEROES: While the progress is a little slow (we *know* they have superpowers, but it's taking them a while to figure it out; heck, the scientist looking for them doesn't believe the first person who comes to him about it), this series is developing nicely. I like Hiro's optimism, the mystery around the split-personality woman (why do we assume she's a hero?) and the forecast of doom. (Though I wonder what'll happen after they resolve the catastrophe. "This week: New York and the Heroes are destroyed. Next week: 60 minutes of dust and debris.") I want to see what happens next. Will they go public? (Yes, if they save NY publically enough.) Will they wear masks and tights? (I doubt it.)

As for Syrus (sic), there was a recent issue of the (wonderful) comic P.S. 238 where a character showed up who said she could fly, was super strong, and resisted damage; another one commented that she was the 83rd superhero with that power combination. Syrus looks like he can fly and resist bullets. Then again, he showed some mind control (forcing the police officer to draw the gun on herself), so maybe he created his escape as an illusion.

And kudos to dave g for suggesting that Peter's power may not be flight but instead mimicry.

STUDIO 60: I'm enjoying it so far, even if is has slipped a bit in quality. As for the poor quality of the show-within-a-show skits, I wonder if that's a deliberate swipt at SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE. SNL is still considered by many to be the best of late-night programming, and so many sketches are just awful -- either one-joke ideas that go on and on, or no-joke ideas. (The "high point" of recent years was the Debbie Downer sketch where the cast cracked up.)

All this talk about the poor quality of the sketches reminds me of the movie Henry Fool. The premise of the film is that a guy writes a book that is acclaimed as a work of genius by some and a piece of obscene pornography by others, but the audience is never allowed to choose a side, because we never hear any excerpts from it. Because, you see, Hal Hartley, the writer/director of the movie, was smart enough to know that nothing he could come up with could live up to the hype, or be as powerful as simply leaving it up to the audience's imagination.

I can't help but thinking that Aaron Sorkin should have taken a similar approach.

And Andy is right: The Office is the very best show on TV right now.

While the premise of HEROES has its moments, I'm not sure I'll stick around. The endless round of cliffhanger endings gets irritating after a while. It wasn't so bad with the Republic Serials where you knew there'd be another installment next week and the end was just a few months away, but with network television today's haphazard scheduling, pre-empting, rerunning,, and so on, one might have to wait weeks (if not months) before the next bit. That got old real fast.

The news that characters might die makes one wonder. Who? Much as I like Hiro I can see him being one. If only because, if he ever gets the hang of really using his power well, he becomes almost unstoppable. The only real threat to him then would be either a power nullifier or a mind controller. Even the mimic can't match him as this latter has shown no ability to instinctively know how to use the powers he duplicates, giving the original the edge.

I thought the ending was sort of telegraphed but was surprised they went through with it. An underrated ability that character has, to be sure.

Kath, Yes! That's exactly the line! You met STING?! Wow. Totally jealous. He does seem like a down to earth artist- unlike so many others. I've been in love with him since 8th Grade and Ghost in the Machine.

Speaking of fine wine and only getting better with age! That certainly goes for him too!

RE: The Office. I loathe that show. I work with a guy just like the main character. Don't need to be reminded of him when I'm home away from the office, attempting to forget about that condescending meglomaniac!

Heroes:
Why do we assume that Nikki has super powers and isn't just crazy? 'Nikki 2' seems to be the stereotypical protector personality in MPD. Just darker and less restrained morally.

Mike P: I wondered the same thing--what if Nikki being the "hero" was a red herring, and it was actually her boy genius son?

But then I remembered that, in the garage scene, one of the guys was ripped in half. She'd have to have some kind of super strength (or super psychotic strength) to do that.

I finally have the new season "locked and loaded" in my Tivo. The only new shows that survived the first few weeks trial are Heroes and Studio 60.

Each week, the shows I most look forward to seeing are Galactica, Dr. Who, Veronica Mars, and Heroes. If I was forced to narrow it down any further, I'm really not sure which would go.

Studio 60: Matthew Perry is what makes the show for me. He is a fantastic actor and definitely the best part of Friends.

Heroes: How could anyone on this board NOT be enjoying this? You've got fun, mystery, sci-fi, action, drama--well a little of everything. And it all fits. None of it seems forced. Even the convergence of the characters in Vegas seems fine to me. I think it only looks forced to some people because they knew it was coming and then it happens all at once. I think it would have been more unnatural to go the other route of characters meeting one at a time, each meeting taking one episode. THAT would have felt formula and slow.

Hiro is BY FAR the best character. He truly GETS what it means to be a hero. He's just a little eager and naive. His journey will be the most fun to watch.

Last thought--the cliffhangers. They're great. Definitely a throw-back to the old serials. And there's nothing wrong with that. It gives us something to talk/speculate about for a week while waiting for the next episode.

The problem with S60 is not the unfunny comedy sketches. It's as if I was watching the West Wing. Honestly, Sorkin writes Danny like he's Josh from WW and the reporter like she's CJ. It's tiring. I've seen that already. I can take the snappy dialog, but it's as if they all retired from politics and decided to go run a TV show.

I want to like this show, but it's making it very hard.

Heroes is great...and I'm glad to see that it's at least doing well ratings wise it's first couple of weeks. There's a passing resemblance to last season's Surface that I was more than a little worried that Heroes might not make it past January, like Surface.

Apparantly, normalish people with powers (super or otherwise, that's debateable) runs better with the general public than giant boat-eating sea-mosters and cute little CGI Nims.

Heroes is very much using comic norms and conventions very well, from the mysterious agency, developing origin stories, and the end-of episode/issue cliff-hanger. I find the overlap between episodes annoying, but with multiple storylines, it's acceptable. I find it also to be a bit talky at times, but as someone mentioned, it's a TV series with hopefully 22-26 episodes to fill in a season, so some wasted exposition/filler is needed.

With Loeb writing, I've no doubt that the story should hold together, which was Surface's biggest problem. Since time travel's involved, I hope they inject the whole "how could you have called me in the future if I'm here with you now" problem with Hiro and Andro. The show is so clearly aware of all the fanboy debates about plots like this, it'd be a shame if they ignored their chance to comment.

The show has a ton of potential, and the pace so far seems to be far better than Lost...although Lost has only managed some 70 days in over 2 seasons, and Heroes is on something like 5 or maybe 6 days in four episodes, so that's not really an indication of rapid time passing. Not that I want to see "One Year Later" like on Battlestar, but BSG has shown that a show can take such a risk as moving things ahead in time and still be successful.

RE: The Office. I loathe that show. I work with a guy just like the main character. Don't need to be reminded of him when I'm home away from the office, attempting to forget about that condescending meglomaniac!

I don't "like" Michael Scott but he's like a pile up on the freeway. It's impossible to look away. When I think about what a person like him must be like... completely unaware and oblivious to even the most basic human reactions, I think he must have some kind of psychological problem. He is constantly trying to fake his responses as though he doesn't have a clue as what he should be feeling.

He is insecurity personified.

"He is insecurity personified."

HA! And that is EXACTLY the guy at my work!

Syrus looks like he can fly and resist bullets. Then again, he showed some mind control (forcing the police officer to draw the gun on herself), so maybe he created his escape as an illusion.
Actually, all of his powers look like it could simply be TK (using it to fly, to stop bullets as a type of armor, and twisting the gun in the agents hand).

"Kudos to John Hudgens and every other nimwit here who utterly ignored PAD's request: "I would appreciate if other commenters followed my lead on this, since the cliffhangers are becoming such a signature of the show. After all, there's always the following week to discuss it, right?"

Unless I'm missing something, they haven't done that at all. Or perhaps my request was unclear: I asked for a moritorium on discussing THAT WEEK'S cliffhanger. But once the following week's episode airs, in which the cliffhanger is now part of the opening of the episode, then as far as I'm concerned it's fair game. John, as near as I can determine, only talked about the cliffhanger from two weeks ago, so the "statute of limitations" for that one would be long past.

PAD

Heroes hasn't quite won me over yet, partly because I have a strange feeling that the women are being mishandled so far, particularly Claire. Claire the cheerleader suffers freak accident after freak accident, and is then nearly raped--an act prevented by yet another freak accident. She needs to be a teensy bit more careful, because I'm not sure how strong my stomach will be next time I see her insides on her outside.

And someone needs to tell the writers that other characters besides Hiro and Ando are allowed to be funny every now and then. Everyone else seems stuck in melodramatic mode.

I'm still enjoying Studio 60. Love the characters, love the humor. Hate the sketches. (They shouldn't take up so much of the show's time, because then we realize how unfunny they are.) This latest episode probably wasn't very good, but I'm already hooked so I'm seeing it through a rose-colored filter. Matthew Perry hasn't been this funny since the first couple seasons of Friends. That said, the show needs to pick up some steam. Do they have enough material for several seasons, or will it degenerate into soap opera?

Re: The Office

George Haberberger: He is insecurity personified.

That's a big part of it, sure. I think a good deal of the problem is the setting. Who else has had a boss that tried to act like your buddy? In most workplaces, I think it would make the employees kinda tense, because they never know if they're talking to the buddy boss or the *boss* boss. I've actually had a boss or two like that. One moment, we'd be chatting like nothing was wrong, and the next I'd be lectured about some mundane thing or another. It's kind of off-putting.

Michael Scott, however, seems to act like this outside of the office too--probably because the camera is still following him around. He's not being himself because he's trying so hard to look good on television, plus he seems kinda lonely. Both he and David Brent just want to be liked, but have no idea how to go about doing it. Scratch that--they've got ideas, just no good ones.

Something I'd like to see cleared up a bit in "Heroes" is whether Claire is really more fragile than a normal person, or if they're just ramping up the drama in the scenes where she gets injured because they can. (I mean, most people don't break their necks just by falling over.) It's not a big deal, but it wouldn't take more than one throwaway line to clear it up, either.)

Oh, and speaking of Claire--the autopsy scene made think of a bit that really long-time BID fans should remember. One word: "Slosh."

When whatever-his-name-is-from-Friends (yes, I don't care) told the writers to stop dressing like they're in junior high I immediately felt the show slip out of reality and into some sort of weird non-fantasy fantasy world that isn't much fun.

If you actually watched the show, you'd have seen 1) him chastising himself in the next scene about that because it was just him venting his frustrations at them and 2) later on, he's dressed just as schlubby as they are.

And it is a fantasy world. It's where quality wins out over exploitative...intelegence matters...right beats might...that's the fantasy of the show. Just like CSI has a fantasy that csi techs solve crimes and interogate criminals, or Criminal Minds that an FBI group acctually has the budget these guys do to fly all over in a custom jumbo jet...any sitcom that hot babe marries fat lazy guy...You either buy into the fantasy reality or you don't.

Mike P:

Typhoid Niki tore one of the gangsters in half.
She has super strength. If you don't accept what's been on the show, the show's creator has said she's the show's Hulk character (though, seems more Typhoid Mary/Thorn-Rose to me). She has a seperate personality that has access to her super powers.

S60: Tyg, on the skits..while I agree they're dogs (and really..who does a Nic Cage impression...who'd recognize a Nic Cage impression)...We rarely see them a) whole or b) in their final form. We see them in rehersal, we see them in camera tests. We see Matt going off to rewrite them last minute. They should be better, I agree.

Sorkin gets by with stuff by telling us what's what and shaping things so it fits. West Wing, a lot of the "power" of the characters, is because they're facing straw men. In the pilot, Bartlet's entrance is enhanced and powerful, quoting biblical passages....set up by a religious zealot who doesn't know the order of the 10 Commandments....now I'll give you that religious hipocrates often don't truly know the words they're saying from the Bible, but you're not going find one who's gotten to major national level that thinks "Honor thy mother and father" is #1 on the list. It sounds nice on the page and screen, but it makes no sense. CJ was great...when she's putting off reporters who are dumb.

This time, he's trying to get by saying how awsome the show is...but that's harder to fake than Bartlet's brillance.

But hey, it's funnier than 30 Rock.

i'm enjoying Studio 60. a lot. altho i've heard of Sorkin's "style", i never watched Sports Night or West Wing...but knew what to expect. so far my expectations have been met (characters not so much as 'talking' to one another as much as sharing long winded dialogues...but well written so can be forgiven).

i'm pretty surprised about all of the criticism regarding the sketches tho. i'll admit that during the pilot, i wasn't sure if they'd ever show a sketch for exactly that reason. it'd have to be funny. not just funny but legendarily funny (is that a word?) in order to fit the premise of Matt and Danny being geniuses and pulling the show out of the gutter.

of course, if they didn't show the sketches, i think most viewers would be left feeling somewhat wanting. almost cheated. you see what goes on behind the show...building up to the show...but you never see the show itself.

kind of a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't scenario, no?

what i find myself doing is basically just suspending disbelief during the sketches. i believe that in the "Studio 60 universe"...the sketches are original and funny. why? am i letting Sorkin and company off the hook? i don't think i am. the rationale is that the show is about what goes on behind the scenes. -that- is what i pay attention to. it's the characters. it's the chemistry between the characters. it's a voyeuristic view of behind-the-scenes hollywood that "normal" folk like me don't ordinarily get to see.

the show isn't the sketches. if the show was the sketches then it would be a sketch comedy show.

when we read comic books, we suspend disbelief in order to enjoy the story itself to its fullest potential. i humbly suggest that folks do the same here.

if you can get past the fact that the sketches (in the 'real' world) aren't cutting edge comedy that will pull in a majority of American viewing audiences on a Friday night and concentrate on what goes on -around- the sketches, i think you'll find a good show. trust that in the fictional Studio 60 world, they're comedy gold.

Doug Atkinson said:
Oh, and speaking of Claire--the autopsy scene made think of a bit that really long-time BID fans should remember. One word: "Slosh."

heh. i hadn't thought about that... but i do remember it now.

to be fair, Elektra was fully autopsied and sewn back up. in Claire's case, we can assume that she had -just- been opened up. nothing removed for examination and tossed back in.

but definitely good callback :)

Michael Scott, however, seems to act like this outside of the office too--probably because the camera is still following him around.

And why is that exactly? I mean why is there a camera crew interviewing everyone? Have they ever explained it? I know this show is an Americanized version of a British show so I suppose that show had the same set up. I think I've seen every episode and I don't remember an explanation for the what is really an integral aspect of the show.

One more thing about the sketches. We're actually viewing them under terrible circumstances. Take the Nancy Grace sketch, for example.

We're put in the middle of it, practically mid-line. There was little laughter, even though we're all used to expecting laughter for that kind of comedy. The camera spent as much time on the director as the characters, and the director was yelling out things that were stage direction and set notes, not comedy. I've seen several comments from people about how it's just one joke with no escalation, yet those people missed the fact that Nancy had been calling this police officer every day for a long time, which was an escalation of the joke. They missed it because there was so much else going on in the scene besides that sketch.

The only sketch we've seen with from the beginning with proper camera angles, costumes and everything else was the cold open musical number in the first episode. Unsurprisingly, that's the one that a fair number of people think was actually funny.

That doesn't mean the problem isn't there. We're getting the impression that the sketches aren't funny, and even if that's unavoidable, it's still a problem. So I'm hoping that future episodes don't show sketches as often.

George: In the British version, the in-story reason for the cameras was that the office was being filmed for a BBC documentary. I assume the reason is similar for the American version. (The nice thing about the British version is that eventually we see them reacting to the stuff that ended up on television.)

I'm chalking up Claire's knack for suddenly being thrust into situations that would have killed her before her power manifested to the same dramatic necessity that makes you wonder how Lois Lane possibly survived to adulthood before Superman came along.

PAD

"Just like CSI has a fantasy that csi techs solve crimes and interogate criminals"

Yeah, what's up with that? I've never seen any of the CSI shows, so I've always wondered how they can possibly have not one, but three TV series about crime scene investigators. I mean, they're not detectives, so they're not supposed to be able to "solve" crimes. I've seen Homicide: Life on the Street... the crime scene guys don't do a hell of a lot. And are there actual detectives in the CSI universe, and what exactly do they do if the CSI guys are solving everything?

"And why is that exactly? I mean why is there a camera crew interviewing everyone? Have they ever explained it?"

No, they've never explained it. It's simply a stylistic device that lets the characters talk to the camera, but serves no other real purpose.

As someone who never watched The West Wing and saw Sports Night only a few times, I gotta admit to really digging Studio 60 - though as someone who has worked in TV and film I perhaps have a better appreciation for the "inside showbiz" humor than most. Nevertheless, I agree with many of the criticisms noted above - especially those less-than-funny comedy skits. But the writing is so fresh and witty - at least compared to so much of the crap I read and/or see each day.

My thoughts are more mixed on Heroes. I disliked the "extended" pilot episode that screened at SDCC last summer, but thought it had improved when it finally aired. Still, as much as I wanted to really like it because of its "superhero" premise, I thought it rather poorly executed, with lots of story and character elements simply not clicking for me. It also felt a bit old-fashioned and stolid both structurally and dramatically - at least since there were so many "Lost" comparisons preceeding the premiere. But while Lost is (was?) fresh, hip, and unconventional in structure, Heroes felt to me like what Lost would have been if directed and produced by the guys who did Barnaby Jones a decade or two ago. There was something very "meh" about it (and yes, that is a technical term). However, Heroes has been growing on me, in part because of the nifty cliffhanger endings. I'm not sure if the final destination will be all that impressive once we get there, but the rest stops along the way have been pretty damn cool.

I don't think anyone's mentioned this yet, but I do believe that Claire just might be the first teenage girl to ever appear topless on network TV... ;)

Ray

I don't "like" Michael Scott but he's like a pile up on the freeway. It's impossible to look away.

Then you can call me "Mr. Impossible." I not only can look away from The Office, but I must look away, as I find it excruciatingly painful to watch.

As for the two shows in question...my wife & I are digging them both. And, our enjoyment of Studio 60 isn't boding well for our continued DVR'ing of The Adventures of SuperCaruso (aka CSI: Miami), as we're getting tired of having to go into another room to watch S60.

Even the Onion skewered Studio 60 with an article entitled Studio 60 Was Better When It First Came Out. A choice highlight from the first paragraph:

[W]hen the show first came out, I'd stay home every Monday night just to make sure I didn't miss an episode. There such a buzz around the show in the weeks leading up to its premiere, because it was something new, something no one had ever seen before. But ever since Judd Hirsch left, the show's totally gone downhill.

"And are there actual detectives in the CSI universe, and what exactly do they do if the CSI guys are solving everything?"

In CSI NY, the fixed the problem by making, at least the leaders of the team, actual detectives who are trained in csi work.

Posted by: Zeek at October 17, 2006 12:36 PM
Anyone else think that Sylar might be Nikki's Mr. Hyde?

I think Sylar could be the cute brunnette who is helping the dead scientist's son.

I enjoy the show, but I heard one disappointing thing. Friends of mine couldn't watch the first two shows, so when they tried to watch the third one, they were totally lost. They don't plan to try again. Apparently the show isn't "new viewer friendly."

Kip

All Studio 60 needs to do to improve is for it to cease being 'two guys and a supporting cast'. The West Wing worked because even in the Rob Lowe days, the large cast got reasonably even segments of the spotlight over the weeks. Right now, It's the excellent Mr Whitford and Mr Perry, but, like Martin Sheen, their key character(s) work best when they are used sapringly and to bring out aspects of other members of the ensemble.

Time, much as though I like 'em, to have a few episodes where ex-Josh and ex-Chandler take a back seat.

The original CSI is the only one that really has the CSIs solving all the crimes (but working with a couple of detectives). Both Miami and New York feature police as the leads, with the CSI working backup.

Personally, I think the original is the only that really seperates itself from every other cop show out there, simply because they take the rather unrealistic notion that the CSIs are the ones solving the crimes. They're very obviously bending police procedure, but it's nice to see a cop show where they're not drawing their guns every two seconds. They usually play straight-up mysteries that are solved by forensics.

Miami seems to be dirty with cop show cliches, with chases and gun battles and all that nonsense. New York is a bit more restrained, but more like a hipper, edgier Law & Order.

In their defense, they don't take that many more liberties with police procedure than virtually every other police show and movie out there... and they seldom make me have to believe something that defies my senses... like Studio 60's comedy sketches being funny. I won't take S60 to task for being unbelieveable about the inner-workings of a TV show, but I will take them to task for failing to deliver what they constantly congradualate themselves for delivering. Can anyone on that show *not* mention how the show is the best it's ever been? Wouldn't a "good show" suffice? No, it's got to be BRILLIANT... and it's not.

"I think Sylar could be the cute brunnette who is helping the dead scientist's son"

I thought that too. There is something up with her ... just can't decide if she's a hero or villain. My guess is villain.

Re: Heroes not being viewer friendly. I don't see how that could be after just three episodes. There's a pretty well-done "previously" at the beginning of every show. I found the telepathic cop being made to pass out very vague during the episode it happened in...in the next previously, it was explained that was what happened.

No disrespect to your friends, but were they really trying to get into the show? It's not like Lost, where there's 40+ episodes and flashbacks to go over. You'd need a chart and graph and some serious Power Point skills to even start to explain Lost to someone. Heroes, after just two episodes, needs just a sentence or two. People start to discover they have powers. There's some mysterious group involved. Go.

I hope everyone who is enjoying Heroes is also checking out the weekely comic at http://www.nbc.com/Heroes/novels/. This week's is especially interesting as it picks up right where the last episode left off.

I'm loving HEROES too.

The main strengths of the show are also the potential weaknesses, though.

I like the "real world aesthetics", I like it that not a single one of these "Heroes" is a perfectly stable, perfectly moral person, just shining with goodness (Hiro and Peter come close, but one is too goofy and the other is insecure and borderline neurotic). I like the bold situations. But I've heard complaints about the show being too dark, too pessimistic, too depressing too.

I like it how it has a large cast with many parallel plots intersecting instead of following just one person or a group of persons in a single location, but it can become confusing to some, I suppose.

I like it that it's one big story, I just can't stand anymore shows where everything is wrapped up nicely in each week's episode, but it can make it hard for new people to follow what is happening.

Anyway, I'm very relieved to read that the show seems to be gaining strength with each episode, ratings-wise.

I was pretty lukewarm on heroes for the first couple of weeks, but it's started to suck me in. To tell you the truth, I'd probably keep on coming back for "Cheerverine" - some sadistic part of me is terribly entertained by the casual way she bounces back from graphic, disgusting injuries. I'm still not sure about Niki - genuine superpower, or just insane?

"I'm still not sure about Niki - genuine superpower, or just insane?"

She tore one of the gangster in half.
She's the Hulk character according to Kring, though I'd say she's more Typhoid Mary....Typhoid Niki?

I do believe Niki gains enhanced strength and/or enhanced reflexes when "Evil Niki" takes over, but probably the most concrete proof so far that she is a genuine superhuman is the small tatoo/mark in the shape of a helix that seems to appear on her back only when Evil Niki is in charge of her body.

It's clearly visible when she is leaning over Nathan, but later, when they're sleeping, it seems to be gone.

Re: "I'm still not sure about Niki - genuine superpower, or just insane?"
I think there's a third possibility, in that it's actually her ex-husband somehow occupying her body at times. Might explain the tattoo, and I'm pretty sure Niki said something along the lines of "If you ever threaten OUR son again..." when she had her heel against the goon's temple in the elevator.
Does that fit with the backstory they've given for the dad so far (i.e., no one knows where he is, he has a temper, he loves his kid, etc, etc,...)?

I think that thing going on with Niki's alter-ego is that she is "simply" suffering from MPD. I've read that the disorder is not in favor with real psychologists at the moment, but this is TV so...

She told the goon to not threaten "our" son but I don't buy Benjamen's theory of her being possessed by her ex. I think that Dark Niki(tm) is simply calling Micah that because she's been around since before Micah was born and she considers him to be her son at much as Normal Niki.

Oh, and if Niki's got super-strength there's no reason it has to be there only when her alter-ego is in charge. She could easily be suppressing her knowledge of how strong she is. Anytime when she really needs it, it seems like her darker half comes out anyway...