"Heroes" continues to please, and "Studio 60" improves...although I muse on a missed opportunity. Minimal spoilers below:
HEROES: Another strong entry as more and more of the threads begin to intertwine. Yes, it’s a huge coincidence that a flying superbeing happens to skid to a landing one hundred feet away from a diner where another superbeing is having breakfast, pretty much up there with three of our heroes happening to converge on Las Vegas all at the same time. Then again, I suppose one does have to allow for the hand of destiny here and there. And I can just see the mantra of the series—“Save the cheerleader”—showing up on buttons or t-shirts. It may be that we’re angling toward a climactic sequence where she has to be sent in to defuse a weapon and she’s literally the only one who could survive the experience…walking through a wall of fire or somesuch. Have to admit, I loved future Hiro, complete with samurai sword strapped to his back. I see now why I wasn’t sure it was the same actor: It’s amazing how much difference a haircut can make. Unlike other series which make you feel that the producers are kind of drifting along and even making it up as they go, “Heroes” gives you a clear sense that you’re watching a novel unfolding on a weekly basis. I suspect by the time we get to the end of the launch storyline…at the end of the season, most likely…this series is going to feel like a hurtling freight train, and we’ll all be holding on for the ride.
STUDIO 60: Okay…I figured out what’s wrong with the series. Yes, this week’s was an improvement over last week’s, and we actually got some interesting storylines and characterization that doesn’t make my teeth hurt. But here’s the problem: When the old guy who was a veteran of the Philco Theater was reminiscing about the 1950s and the blacklist, I found what he had to say—and his capsule description of the other writers—more interesting and more intriguing than anything I’ve seen in the first few episodes of “Studio 60.” I realized I wanted to see that show. A series set in the 1950s with old-time comedy writers producing sketches that are supposed to be goofy distractions from the real world, set against a growing encroachment from the government and the slow erosion of civil rights. Just as “MASH” was able to comment on the Vietnam war even though it was set against Korea, a 1950s “Studio 60” could have commented on what’s happening now by showing what was happening then, and underscoring how little things have changed. I’ll grant you, period shows can be a tougher sell…but Sorkin would have carried over a lot of “West Wing” goodwill into the launch, people would have sampled it, and they might not be jumping ship as rapidly as they are now. Plus it would have given it further breathing room from the more entertaining “30 Rock.”
I just love the fact that not only was future-Hiro accessorizing with a katana, he also sported a trenchcoat, soul patch, and ponytail . . . just like a geek who wanted to look like an uberbadass would.
I just hope they have an episode called "Hiro's Journey" soon. :)
BTW, any chance for a roundup for BATTLESTAR GALACTICA? "Exodus, Part 2" was just chock full of great scenes and kickassery.
I actually thought Studio 60 wasn't as good as last week's. I guessed the outcomes of at least two of the 4+ plots (baseball player and old guy) pretty much exactly about 15 minutes before they were shown. Sorkin was telegraphing it all over the place. If I can guess it, I'm figuring it's way too contrived.
Seemed like Sorkin took the easy way out at every turn on this episode.
Nice to see The Ugly, but you could figure out where that story was going from the start.
The writer showing around his parents came off as a total twit. His parents, simply good natured and stupid. Exposition, exposition, exposition... almost redeems itself at the end, but by then it was far too late for me.
The Black Comedy Writer... heavy handed and preachy, plus exposition, exposition, exposition as we get into Hughley's back story.
Drunk Jordon... trying real hard to be funny but never connecting. Watching characters stumble and trip over their words is rarely amusing on its own.
Harriet... don't like her.
The Hot Chick with no comedic talent... don't like her.
The Three Bimbos... for the love of god, why couldn't one of these girls display some sort of redeeming feature. Pure cliche and the lowest form of comedy. You see, Hollywood actresses are stupid... and black people and white people are different, but that's stupid to joke about.
Best part of Steven Weber thoroughly mocking the TV series about the U.N. And unless there's some serious great writing on that show, he'd be right... and considering how seldom there's seriously great writing on any show, he probably *is* right. But I'm sure we'll learn later on that the show becomes a monster hit and America suddenly becomes informed and literate overnight because of it.
I've got to agree with both of you, but it was still must-see for me. The bit with Hiro was cool, but Isaac and Petrelli completing the painting was cooler, and I really dug the zoom-zip flight scene. The brain sucker bit in the hospital was really good. This show is addictive.
Studio 60: I figured that the baseball player was gonna pull something like that and it was gonna get back to Harriet, so no real surprise there. There were some heavyhanded bits, but all told it was very well written, and I stayed glued to the screen except during commercials when I went to tell my wife the Adventure Quest junkie what was going on. Eli Wallach was a joy, even though there wasn't enough of him. And DL finding out that he was hipper than Willy was great. This was the best Studio 60 since the pilot. Give Aaron a few more episodes to get his feet under him properly, and we'll see Emmy noms.
and I really dug the zoom-zip flight scene.
I think that scene pretty much epitomizes the concept of "Up, up, and away!"
"Best part of Steven Weber thoroughly mocking the TV series about the U.N. And unless there's some serious great writing on that show, he'd be right... and considering how seldom there's seriously great writing on any show, he probably *is* right."
I have a funny feeling that some parts of Weber's rant was lifted from some TV exec who despised the notion of turning "West Wing" into a series.
PAD
My only issue with the episode is that Ando meeting with Nikki seemed a little forced, and could probably have been cut.
Loved Heroes of course, though too many damn commercials. (Sorry no tivo here!) Heroes is the fastest hour on tv (whereas it used to be Lost!).
I liked Studio 60 once again!
I'm sorry, but the bimbette scene was one of my favorites, cliched or not. It made me fall in love with Matt even more. As a woman, we crave more men to be attracted to brains AND exterier, not just the latter- and SHOW IT.
Too many times I see my co-workers (educated men at that!) slobber over eegits blondes just because they laugh at their lame jokes and have hot bods. Ugh. Intelligent gals know that men like Matt are far more attractive than men like Baseball player playuhs- just wish more men realized the same about women.
The whole "So what does a writer do?" bit had me in stiches!
>too many damn commercials. (Sorry no tivo here!)
No VCRs, either? People used those to zip through commercials in seconds long before Tivo ever existed.
Yeeees, I have a VCR, but not blank tapes on hand. Guess I'll have to make a stop and pick some up just so I can enjoy the show without interuptions ...
The whole scene was the typical cliche about writers... the bimbos wouldn't give him the time of day because he wasn't famous. It's not that Chandler rejected him, it's that they were never the slightest bit interested in him because he's a writer... and writers aren't important in Hollywood. The whole scene is about him flailing, trying to impress them with the knowledge that he's the boss and they're too stupid to understand this.
On Heroes and coincidental meetings: I think all shows deserve get some leeway on this at first. Not forever, if they keep coincidentally meeting forever then that's a stretch. And I'm not saying there isn't an overabundance of coincidence, Hiro meeting one super and then calling his brother a few hours later is a bit much.
However, several of them coming together in Vegas doesn't bother me at all. Here's why: Usually, that happens in the first episode or before. Star Trek: Next Generation started with all the crew meeting on the newly completed ship. A-Team started with the team already formed and the audience was just given a brief description of how they met in the war. Sitcoms generally start long after the Mom and Dad got married and had the kids, or else they start when the couple first meet.
There are lots of supers out there, that was established by Syler's map. What we're seeing is the story of these particular supers, and the first several episodes are about how they got together. If the first episode had been the meetings in Vegas, nobody would have thought anything of it. The unusual thing is that we're getting little bits of their lives *before* they all get together and get organised.
Again, the show definitely has the potential to overdo it if the meetings keep happening too easily. But so far things aren't that odd.
The opening narration of this week's HEROES talks about how the newly evolved species follows some unseen force that brings them to a new place... or something like that.
They are drawn together because the siren call of Evolution draws them together.
It is official. Heroes has move to the top of my list. If I could only watch one hour of TV during the week, this would be it. I do still enjoy Lost, but it can't compete with this runaway freight train!
I was confused by one thing. Hiro suddenly seemed to have a better mastery of English. If he could talk this well, why was he leaving Japanese messages on Isaac's machine? Maybe it is part of his "powers," but it was the one wrong note for me in the episode.
Has the congressman flown before (other than to rescue his brother)? I suspect not much, but it was definitely a cool scene. It did make a certain amount of sense that he wouldn't fly all the way back to NY since it would raise too many questions. It also seemed to indicate that Claire's Dad doesn't know everyone's powers since he didn't stop the escape.
His brother (sorry, forgot the name) seeing and then completing the painting was cool. So if he is next to the cheerleader, does he become invlunerable?
One thought: Much as I would hate to see it being true, the congressman seems to me to be someone to watch out for. Not just because he would cheat on his wife, but because of how he handled the blackmail situation. It would not surprise me to find the show ending up being brother against brother. I hope I am wrong.
Iowa Jim
Nathan, (Congressman Bro), is definately headed for the dark side unless something changes. (Sorta like Pyro joining up with Magneto- the aspects of his moral ambiquity is making him ripe for classic villian material.)
I think "brother against brother" would make for excellent viewing.
Haven't watched the whole episode yet (Heroes), but that opening sequence, where he flies away, the speed and sound made me immediately think of Sam "Cannonball" Guthrie (I think that was the character's last name)...
"The whole scene was the typical cliche about writers... the bimbos wouldn't give him the time of day because he wasn't famous. "
The thing is, that's not a cliche. Those people exist (male and female) and people like Matt have to deal with them. Heck, I design video games for a living, and it drives me nuts that every video game award show *ever* has had tons of awards for the voice actors who worked for 2 days but none for the programmers and designers who spent years actually *making* the games. People who don't understand the industry (like Nate's Dad) and stupid hangers on (like the bimbos) are very real. The scene wasn't about Matt failing, the scene was about how he actually does *extremely* well, so well that he is the boss of the famous people, but he has to deal with true idiots sometimes.
I do agree with Steven Clubb that Studio 60's biggest problem is the gobs and gobs of exposition. I kept wondering why Nate Cordry was giving his parents the *entire* history of the studio. Then I saw the bit with the old writer and realised that Nate's history lesson about black listing was to set up the old guy. That felt forced.
But overall, I still liked the episode. The whole thing was about appreciation. The stage manager appreciates the old guy before he even knows who he is, and later the two producers want to experience everything he has to tell. Nate just wants his Dad to appreciate him. Harriet and Matt both already have people who appreciate them, each other, but they're being distracted by various kinds of idiots currently. D.L. Hugely has some serious concerns that he feels need to be addressed, and goes nuts when even the comedian he picked out seems to be failing him. Even Steven Webber thinks he knows what's best, but everyone else may be correct in *not* appreciating him. There were weak points in places, but the episode as a whole resonated with me.
Heroes: In a way, less happened in this episode than most. However, it still seemed extremely important to the story because it unfolded how several characters relate to each other.
Cheerverine's Dad especially impressed me. Before I thought he was a sociopath who didn't feel any emotion, he just faked it so he could pretend to be a normal guy with a normal family. That was pretty scary. Now I've seen that he really loves his daughter, and he's *much* scarier because of it. I can believe that this guy would get much, much worse if Cheerverine dies.
Thing is about the writer gag... it's been done and done and done and done and done some more and done a lot more and done to death. It's the single most obvious joke to do in any movie or TV show about Hollywood. It's the Hollywood equivalent of brothers like sisters with big butts.
When the old guy who was a veteran of the Philco Theater was reminiscing about the 1950s and the blacklist, I found what he had to say—and his capsule description of the other writers—more interesting and more intriguing than anything I’ve seen in the first few episodes of “Studio 60.”
I have a funny feeling that some parts of Weber's rant was lifted from some TV exec who despised the notion of turning "West Wing" into a series.
I said almost the samething to my mom. It should have been at least a whole episode about the previous incarnation. They could even use existing cast members playing other characters like in 'The X-Files' episode 'Triangle'.
Cheerverine's Dad especially impressed me. Before I thought he was a sociopath who didn't feel any emotion, he just faked it so he could pretend to be a normal guy with a normal family. That was pretty scary. Now I've seen that he really loves his daughter, and he's *much* scarier because of it. I can believe that this guy would get much, much worse if Cheerverine dies.
That's where I think this is going. Dad set off the nuke after he flips out and decides that all Specials must die when his daughter is killed by Syler. Saving her keeps him on kilter so to speak.
OK, here's a question about Studio 60: What did everyone think of the comedian who bombed but got the job?
When I saw him bombing, I got what they were doing. They were saying that he had more potential than the first guy, he just needed a lot of help. I even chuckled a little at his jokes. However, the emotion of the scene was still dominated by people booing in the audience, and I thought that might make it feel too much like he *wasn't* actually talented.
I was expecting this thread to have people saying how unfunny the guy was and how that scene was another example of the same problem as the sketches not being funny. Did anyone actually feel that way?
"It's not that Chandler rejected him, it's that they were never the slightest bit interested in him because he's a writer... and writers aren't important in Hollywood."
John Ordover has said that there's never been a film in production that ground to a halt because the writer refused to come out of his trailer.
"Thing is about the writer gag... it's been done and done and done and done and done some more and done a lot more and done to death. It's the single most obvious joke to do in any movie or TV show about Hollywood. It's the Hollywood equivalent of brothers like sisters with big butts."
Which doesn't render it any less true. I've told people I write comic books and often been greeted with, "Someone WRITES those? Seriously?"
My favorite fictional writer moment was in the original play of "The Odd Couple." Oscar rustles up the dippy Pidgeon sisters as their dates, and (unwisely) leaves Felix to entertain them. They asked what he did for a living and he said he wrote for the evening news. And one of the sisters asks, wide-eyed, "Where do you get your ideas?"
PAD
"Which doesn't render it any less true."
Exactly what I thought as well.
OK, here's a question about Studio 60: What did everyone think of the comedian who bombed but got the job?
When I saw him bombing, I got what they were doing. They were saying that he had more potential than the first guy, he just needed a lot of help. I even chuckled a little at his jokes. However, the emotion of the scene was still dominated by people booing in the audience, and I thought that might make it feel too much like he *wasn't* actually talented.
I was expecting this thread to have people saying how unfunny the guy was and how that scene was another example of the same problem as the sketches not being funny. Did anyone actually feel that way?
I certainly didn't. Like you, I get what they were doing and I think they framed things well so as to set up where they were going with the second comedian.
When Simon and Matt see the first comedian and walk out, they talk about how he's getting big laughs with unoriginal, unsophisitcated white-people-are-so-this-black-people-are-so-that humor. Because we know they were hoping for more, we're not surprised when there turns out to be something more in the second guy's performance. Or to put it another way, since Simon & Matt, the characters we (ostensbily) care about, don't like the guy getting the big laughs, doesn't the absence of laughs with the second guy subtly reinforcce or imply the idea that he's someone Simon & Matt (and by extention, us) would like?
I don't think it was done as "anvil-iciously" as some other writers (or Sorkin at other times) would do it, but especially when you add this sequence to the recurring themes of the show so far--funny isn't necessarily immediately popular, etc.--I think the whole thing was constructed well enough so the audience would understand where they're going. I suppose they could have been clearer in positing that the second guy's talents were in his jokes and his ideas rather than his performance ability, but I think as it stands, things were done well enough.
I'm late to the Heroes train, but TIVO'd episodes 2-5 this week. Does anyone know if they'll be replaying the first episode anytime soon? Can I make a go of the series without seeing the first one? It seems odd that they'd replay all of them except the first.
I'm Brazilian, so I can watch Heroes only by downloading the episodes. Probably won't be able to until later tonight. :(
Very good news: Zap2It says Heroes still is the leading show among adults Monday nights, and furthermore the fifth episode had the best ratings yet.
For a variety of reasons, Heroes was a very risky bet, but thankfully it seems to be paying off so far. It's actually gaining viewers, instead of slowly losing them, as might be expected from a truly serial story with a complex plot.
Still hope for intelligent television! :) And it's great to see serious stories about superpowers being better accepted by the general public. Who'd think, 10-15 years ago?
"I have a funny feeling that some parts of Weber's rant was lifted from some TV exec who despised the notion of turning "West Wing" into a series.
PAD"
I get the feeling that there are many, many parts of "Studio 60" that are lifted from episodes in Sorkin's life. I would bet good money that the relationship between Matt Perry and Bradley Whitford's characters rather closely resembles Sorkin's with Tommy Schlamme.
Bobby, starting with the second episode shouldn't be a problem. I think part of the reason that the show is gaining viewers is that they do a good job of recapping. So far all you really need to know is that people are developing powers and the public doesn't know about it yet. You should be able to pick up everything else without too much problem.
Well, I watched the marathon of episodes 2-4 of "Heroes" on Sunday, and now I'm hooked. I'd have to say that, based on my own experience, you don't need to have seen the first episode to jump on.
Iowa Jim, the reason Hiro spoke good English on the train and later needed his brother to translate is that the Hiro who speaks good English is from the future--he even said so. Presumably, his English improved with practice after the disaster he's trying to avert.
Man, I loved the takeoff-and-blast-away that Nathan did, and the landing was excellent, too--particularly the wincing and ouching when he landed. Clearly, he's been practicing, but obviously not barefoot on dirt and gravel.
Claire's power seems to depend on the nature of her fatal injury: When she got sacked by the football player and her head got turned completely backwards, she recovered almost immediately, but when that branch pierced her brain, she stayed dead long enough for her assailant to dispose of her body, for her body to be found, taken to the morgue and the autopsy begun, only reviving after the branch was removed from the wound. I wonder if she would have revived if the guy had buried her instead of dumping her in the river for someone to find within hours? There's gotta be a level of damage beyond which she can't recover.
Over on "Studio 60," I really felt for the writer showing his parents around, because the message he has to take away from that is "Mom will never understand what I do for a living and Dad will never be proud of me." The first is frustrating, the second is devastating. And you just know Dad will spin that record once, say he doesn't get it and never play it again.
"I'm late to the Heroes train, but TIVO'd episodes 2-5 this week. Does anyone know if they'll be replaying the first episode anytime soon? Can I make a go of the series without seeing the first one? It seems odd that they'd replay all of them except the first."
Bobby, I'm not sure how acessible this series is if you lose one episode. I suppose you'll catch up to what is happening real soon, but still HEROES is, like PAD said, truly like one big novel, and every chapter seems important.
But if you feel confused, there are very detailed synopsis of all the episodes so far in wikipedia and NBC's own site for the series.
You also can always download the pilot episode in one of the many Torrent sites. Technically illegal, but I doubt NBC would object to potential fans using this resource as a way to jump on the bandwagon...
I thought last night's Heroes was the best episode so far, and Studio 60 was the best episode since the pilot, so I'll be sticking around for both of them.
Two things bugged me about Studio 60, though: the fact that Tom's relationship with his father is an almost exact duplicate of Dan Rydell's relationship with HIS father, and the fact that the token black guy comes from a "Boyz N the Hood" background. So while I'm glad that those two characters finally got some character development, I'm annoyed that that development is based on cliches and recycled material.
Oh, another "Heroes" thought:
They've been cagey about what Niki's power is, exactly. I had a thought about that during last night's episode: NIKI doesn't HAVE any powers--but the person she becomes during her blackouts does.
"Nathan, (Congressman Bro), is definately headed for the dark side unless something changes."
I'm thinking the opposite, that he's the Sawyer of the show (i.e. a character who initially seems to be a villain, but turns out to be a decent guy after all).
Paul1963,
I don't think that IowaJim was referring to the different levels of English fluency between Future-Hiro vs Present-Hiro. I think that he's referring to the fact that Hiro was able to have a passable conversation with Nathan without the aid of his friend (Ando?) to tranlate. Jim, if that's what you're wondering, I've got an idea.
First, Hiro was shown to speak some English in Episode 2 when he tele/timeported to New York. He could answer some simple questions in passable English, but answering more complex questions from the Police stymied him. Second, most people have more difficulty with a second language when they're upset. It might be that Hiro was uneasy about calling a man with the goal of convincing him that a man from the future knows he's going to die. Third, Hiro seems to be more capable of communicating face-to-face. Think of the increased difficulty in conveying humor or other complex emotional statements on this blog without the ability to use body-language and facial expressions. Hiro was trying to communicate with Isaac over the phone and Isaac didn't strike me as the type of guy to patiently try to figure out what a foreign-sounding person is saying. Finally, Hiro's conversation with Nathan stayed close to comic-book style themes and Hiro is known to be a major fan of American Comics. He might simply be more capable of discussing such matters in English (as opposed to other subjects, not as opposed to describing them in Japanese).
Also to Paul 1963: I've stated this in other HEROES entries that Mr. David has posted, but I'll say it here too. I don't agree with the idea that Niki's powers only work when Dark Niki is dominant. I think that she's got super-strength and simply suppresses that knowledge. In circumstances where she really needs that strength, her alter-ego tends to come out anyway. Just my two cents.
Various thoughts concerning “Heroes”:
First, “save the cheerleader...”? Nice mantra and all, but in this Post_ Buffy_ world, my first thought is that it’s the cheerleader who _does_ the saving.
But then if PAD’s “defuse the bomb” theory is correct, the cheerleader _will_ save the world.
By the way, points to whomever coined “Cheerverine.” What can you do with these points? What else? Be the first on your block to collect ‘em all.
Jason M. Bryant, does Claire’s dad _really_ love her, or does he just have his own plans for her? I got the impression that he A) knows about her unique status (or at least _something_ about it) and B) believes she _doesn’t_ know (or perhaps doesn’t know the full extent of her capabilities). He wants to make sure she remains in the dark, at least to some degree. Why? Perhaps he wants to properly “guide” her.
Conversely, if he _does_ really love his daughter (and knows of her abilities) he might want to keep his own superiors from finding out about them. He doesn’t care about the others, but Claire is _his_ daughter (adopted, yes, if I remember correctly, but still part of his family) Thus, she’s _not_ expendable.
Speaking of what Claire’s dad does to show his “love” for her, he tells the quarterback he could kill him, but won't. Yet he has his associate wipe his memories clean. What’s the difference? Sure, the _body_ is still alive, but isn’t Quarterback himself now dead? As the Doctor once said, “A man is the sum of his memories, you know.” Take away his memories, does Quarterback still exist? Are you still _you_ if I erase every memory you ever had of being you?
“I think, therefore I am,” Descartes said. Yes, but if you’ve been mindwiped, are you whom you were?
Second philosophical matter: If Claire had come to the conclusion that since the quarterback had killed her (and presumably had been the one to dump her body), she was free to kill him with impunity (since dead people cannot be held accountable to the law), wouldn’t it also follow that she’d have to give up the protections of the law? In other words, wouldn’t the flip side of “you killed me, so I can do anything I want” be “since you’re dead, you have no civil rights. Off to the lab with you.”? I would think so.
As to the “coincidences”, they don’t really bother me. They’re not of the “oh, come on!” variety. And sometimes you _do_ need to escape from an exploding Skrull saucer. Plus, in works of fiction, you know the various disparate characters you "meet" will eventually come together (or at least most of them will); otherwise, they wouldn’t be in the story. I introduced a friend to _Doctor Who_ in college, and remember his having a hard time understanding how it is that the Doctor would _just happen_ to meet the people on the planet, space station, starship, whatever that the audience “met” in the opening scenes. I explained to him that we saw those people _because_ they’d become involved with the Doctor. If they didn’t, why have them in the story? He still didn’t quite get it.
But then he also believed that if you took a gun back in time to a period before its invention (or the discovery of gunpowder), it wouldn’t and couldn’t work. I tried to explain that all the appropriate laws of physics (and chemistry) would still apply, but he couldn’t quite wrap his brain around the concept.
Oh, and again to Jason M. Bryant: if Hiro had called _Peter_ after meeting Nathan, you might have a point, but he called Isaac. It just happened that Peter was there. O.K., it’s a subtle distinction, but I think the former scenario is much more of the “oh, come on!” school.
I don’t watch _Studio 60_, but by an interesting coincidence I did recently come across a theme similar to that show’s “writer’s aren’t important in Hollywood.” In this case it was from the movie “Dead Again”, which I watched on Sunday. When a starlet asks Roman Strauss if he’s in “the (moviemaking) business”, and he says “no, I’m a composer”, she says, “Oh, then you’re not anybody”, and walks off.
When you think about it (and I just checked with friend and co worker who has composed music, for confirmation), a composer _is_ a writer. At least in most cases.
Paul1963, you’re right about future Hiro on the subway. Obviously, his command of English will improve between “now” and “later.” However, I was under the impression his fellow office worker is a friend, not his brother. Is that incorrect?
Iowa Jim, as to Peter and Nathan ending up on opposite sides, it could happen. “Brother against brother” isn’t an uncommon theme. Same with “former best friends become enemies.” Returning again to _Doctor Who_, the Third Doctor once said he and the Master had been good friends, years ago; and apparently there had been some fan speculation either during the time Roger Delgado played the Master, or after his death, that we would learn/would have learned they were actually brothers. Whether such a revelation was ever seriously considered by the producers, I don’t know; but either way, they had once been simpatico.
On the other hand, maybe Nathan will have an epiphany and realize that with great power comes great responsibility.
Hey, that’s not a bad line. Some superhero somewhere should embrace that.
Rick
HEROES: I just had a thought. Someone above posited the speculation that Claire (Cheerverine) would be needed to do something that no one else could survive in order to stop the nuke that's going to hit New York. I think that's almost correct. I think that the heroes are going to be put in a situation that calls for most or all of their powers to be vested in a single person. In other words, I think they're going to have to come together and vest all their powers in Peter and he won't be able to pull off the Big Effing Feat without Claire's ability to instantly herself.
Just my two cents.
Rick, the image that I got of Cheerverine's Dad is that he started his investigation into supers because of his daughter. He wanted to understand her without doing anything to her, so he started kidnapping and doing who knows what to others. When Syler kills her, Dad starts nuking whole cities just to make sure that he doesn't miss Syler. He really seemed to be generally angry when he talked to the quarterback, and not "you almost ruined my plans angry" but "keep away from my daughter" angry.
It could certainly be something else. It'll be fun to see!
About Heroes; You seem to be forgetting to how little of the things mentioned above (Hiro talking to both brothers inside day; all coming to Las Vegas) is actually an accident.
Hiro went to Las Vegas because of Isaac's comicbook, which was supposed to make things RIGHT. Therefore of the three people in Las Vegas, only two had come there willingly, instead of three.
Peter was at Isaac's place because future Hiro had asked him; therefore, it wasnt a chance at all, but a planned event. Its also possible that many of the other accidents were caused by either Isaac or future Hiro (or both). In a show where you can see/read/change future, it should not be assumed that everything is just a convenient plot device, without any grounds in the world itself.
If you go thru the storylines again, you will notice how they start intercepting. If Peter wouldnt have seen Isaac's painting about himself flying, he wouldnt have tried it (and would therefore still be nursing the old man, without trying to talk to the indian professor etc). Nathan got apparently lots of sympathy votes from Peter's suicide attempts, which got him to Vegas (asking money).
Hiros trip into future made him want to travel to America, and because of the comic he brought his workmate with him. Because of the comic, he chose a car he couldnt himself operate (thus stranding him to Vegas when his friend abandoned him) and the workmate also made him fall into trouble with the cowboy, causing them to be stranded at the diner.
Many of the accidents were not accidents at all, but planned scenes, from the seers as well as from the writers.
I see what you're driving at with the cliche of the writer not being respected. It is true enough, but at least the Odd Couple example that was sited led to a reasonably witty punchline. They had a good gag there.
On Studio 60, the whole gag seemed to be that this one girl just couldn't figure out what a writer did... which was kinda funny the first time, but got old the second or third time they revisited it.
That is pretty much the problem. They go for the obvious, the stuff that's been done a bazillion times before and they're not really giving that little extra special that makes the scene truly memorable. Off the top of my head, I could think of a way to play that scene better... have the girl asking what a writer does be messing with Chandler, playing dumb to see if he's a completely shallow male only interested in her tits, and have *her* hit him with a zinger at the moment of his ultimate frustration. That would even fit in with how the show operates, with a bunch of super-clever folks swimming among idiots, but she'd need a really good line to pull of the scene. Instead, the three bimbos are all completely shallow and stupid, and not even stupid in a particularly clever way.
As for the black comedian. His stuff wasn't terribly funny, but was decently clever. I thought it met minimal standards for a scene in which an undisciplined talent is brought into the fold. Had his stuff been really funny, then the scene wouldn't have worked. If it wasn't clever, it wouldn't have worked. But they hit the mark. You can see how his material could be funny, but it wasn't there yet.
Ok. I think I’ve figured it out.
The African-America star of the show, who is so special that the “cool gang kids” kick him out so he won’t end up in prison for the rest of his life like they will, uses his power to rescue another African-American whose humor isn’t as crowd pleasing because he’s too smart for the room.
The funny but obscure TV history obsessed son who isn’t appreciated by his parents because he’s not as important as their other son, the uniform clad defender of freedom risking his life for God and country.
The smart, sexy, funny star of the show dumps the handsome, popular (but caddish) baseball player so she can further pine over the guy who, instead of hanging out with babes and booze at the party, would rather spend 3 hours talking to a guy about the 50-year old McCarthy hearings.
Studio 60 is Arron Sorkin’s “Ultimized” version of “Revenge of the Nerds”!
Now that explains Timothy Bussfield.
I got the impression that he A) knows about her unique status (or at least _something_ about it) and B) believes she _doesn’t_ know (or perhaps doesn’t know the full extent of her capabilities).
He certainly knows, and knows that she knows. Her father was shown, in the 2nd episode, as being the one in posession of Zach's missing videotape of Claire's jump off the bridge and subsequent run into the fire.
"Cheerverine's Dad especially impressed me. Before I thought he was a sociopath who didn't feel any emotion, he just faked it so he could pretend to be a normal guy with a normal family. That was pretty scary. Now I've seen that he really loves his daughter, and he's *much* scarier because of it. I can believe that this guy would get much, much worse if Cheerverine dies."
"Cheerverine" - BWAH!!
I don't think the dad really loves her - I think he's using her. I think he knows how powerful she is, may even be responsible for it in some way, and only wants to protect "his investment".
Someone said they expected "Save the Cheerleader Save the World" to show up on t-shirts, etc.
It's already on cafepress!
see:
http://www.cafepress.com/buy/SAVE%20THE%20CHEERLEADER/-/cfpt2_/cfpt_/source_searchBox/copt_
Niki is Hulk/Jeckle&Hyde/Typhoid Mary. Take your pick.
"I would say that it's a very safe thing to sort of assume that it's a Dr. Jekyll-and-Mr. Hyde or Hulk kind of personality," Kring said.
http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?category=0&id=38572
Sorry to spit it out, but if readers of PETER DAVID'S blog can't see Hulkesque characters, there's a problem:)
Someone mentioned the Father not approving of the son's career as coming from Sport's Night. There were similar themes with Bartlett in West Wing.
Sorkin has daddy issues, and the same things keep showing up in each of his show. He reuses...A LOT...if seeing characters/plots/jokes/themes from SN or WW show up on S60 is gonna bug you, bail now.
Torchwood has been very enjoyable. Two episodes so far, both were lots of fun.
I just thought I'd mention that. :)
"I get the feeling that there are many, many parts of "Studio 60" that are lifted from episodes in Sorkin's life. I would bet good money that the relationship between Matt Perry and Bradley Whitford's characters rather closely resembles Sorkin's with Tommy Schlamme."
And Matt's relationship with Harriet draws comparisons to Sorkin's relationship with Kristin Chenowith.
Heroes continues to give off a very Rising Stars vibe to me. As a couple of people have mentioned, it has a very strong sense that it knows where it's going.
Maybe it's just me, but the father of the cheerleader (can't think of her name right now) was definitely acting as a father protecting his daughter. I get the feeling that he's going to turn out to not be as bad as his first impression. He could have just as easily killed the quarterback, but he didn't. He let the cop go relatively unharmed, with only a partial memory wipe.
Still not entirely sure what direction they're going to take the elder Petrelli brother. True, he's a politician, and corrupt by definition, but he doesn't seem entirely irredeemable.
-Rex Hondo-
Nytwyng: "He certainly knows, and knows that she knows. Her father was shown, in the 2nd episode, as being the one in posession of Zach's missing videotape of Claire's jump off the bridge and subsequent run into the fire."
I'll have to take your word for it. I didn't see the second episode. But even if Claire's dad knows that she knows about her powers, it's still possible she doesn't know _everything_ about them. Again, I got the impression from his... chat with the quarterback that there are some things he _doesn't_ want Claire to know about herself. But perhaps it was more about his own activities.
Rick
HEROES: David Hunt beat me to the thought about the cheerleader surviving so that her healing could be combined with the others' powers in Peter to stop the catastrophe. Of course, Peter's power will have to have a greater range or longer duration than it does now; or he'll have to tie all of the other characters to him.
Future Hiro looked and sounded cool, but they will have to give him some limits on his power or he can simply redo anything that doesn't work. ("Turn left! D'oh." [travels back in time] "Turn right! Alright!")
STUDIO 60: I think the 2nd black comic was meant both as an antithesis to the first one -- humor not as obvious but far more intelligent and original -- and paralleling the bimbos' earlier reactions that they recognized all the famous actors but couldn't understand that someone actually *wrote* what they said. When I was in college, I knew an excellent poet who had an actor read her poems because she knew she wasn't that good at public speaking. I'm sure if D.L. Hughley's character had done the second comics' material, the audience would have loved it. (Of course, it remains to be seen if the new writer will actually appear again, or will be relegated to the sitcom "we've shown we're not racist, now this character will vanish entirely" limbo.)
We had that show...the Dick Van Dyke show.
Or something.
"Still not entirely sure what direction they're going to take the elder Petrelli brother. True, he's a politician, and corrupt by definition, but he doesn't seem entirely irredeemable. "
He's just so lovable! How can I dislike a guy who can renegotiate his own blackmail with such charm? :)
Craig: I'm desperately hoping that BBC America picks up Torchwood. And the Sara Jane show. And the new K-9 series, I don't care if it's aimed at kids or not.
Actually, the show Peter described sounds an awful lot like On the Air, the show that David Lynch tried to follow Twin Peaks with, and which bombed after like four episodes. Incidentally, I get the same feeling from Studio 60 that I got from On the Air (a show about a TV show that pales in comparison to the creator's previous work).
Future Hiro looked and sounded cool, but they will have to give him some limits on his power or he can simply redo anything that doesn't work. ("Turn left! D'oh." [travels back in time] "Turn right! Alright!")
Well, that entire bit about risking creating "a rift" is a possiblity we need to see pan out.
"By the way, points to whomever coined “Cheerverine.”"
Yeah, that would be me, in my October 17 posting, in which I wrote:
"The two characters at the furthest end of the spectrum remain the most interesting: the aptly named Hiro, who learns the harsh consequences of using one's powers for personal gain, and Cheerverine, whose resurrection in the middle of her own autopsy remains the cliffhanger highlight thus far ("Be honest...does this sheet make my ribcage look fat?")"
Now I don't know if anyone else said it anywhere else first, but in this neck of the woods, it was me.
"Someone said they expected "Save the Cheerleader Save the World" to show up on t-shirts, etc.
It's already on cafepress!"
And that was also me...in the blog entry at the top of this thread of comments. Jeez, guys, c'mon. It's bad enough that you don't remember I was the source of stuff I said a week ago, but in the same freakin' post?
PAD
Well, I just ran a google search and was slightly torqued to find that the name "Cheerverine" has been showing up since early October, so I'm not the first one out there. But I'm pretty sure I'm the first one here. That should count for something.
So I'll quickly coin other names, see if I can be the first one: Peter, the guy who repeats other powers, will henceforth be called Repeter.
PAD
Claire the Cheerleader (memorize that mantra, it's the only way you'll remember her name) is being used by her father. His little speech to the football player indicates that his "love" for her is the love of someone trying to raise a championship dog...or, perhaps more precisely, a hunting falcon to rip someone's eyes out.
The only sympathy he really showed for anyone was for - surprise - the quarterback! Why would he be so "nice" to the guy? It wasn't simply the matter of leaving a dead body in a hospital bed with his airhose jammed or something. I get the feeling he's done stuff like that before.
I think he recognized that the quarterback has a lot in common with him; someone who uses force and lies to get what he wants. The QB's only flaw was he didn't finish the job and he got caught. If he had, he would've gone nuts with the loss of his pet project, but in a larger view, the QB would have proven to be the better manipulator. What we just witnessed was a gun battle, with the winning gunslinger shooting the loser's hand so he won't be able to compete again.
About Hiro Osaka; according to "Comic Buyer's Guide," the actor who plays him DOES know kendo, and has suggested that he could effectively fight with a sword in a future episode, if the writers and producers want to write the scene. It would make sense; as a salaryman with a very active fantasy life, he would probably have done something physical, if only to impress fellow geeks at conventions. The real trick is, there's a difference between practice and actually fighting to hurt or kill, and that may be a hard life lesson for Hiro. (Which came from another Western, to extend the metaphor; I remember Paladin in "Have Gun Will Travel" trying to teach a man to shoot, and warning him that living targets are a different matter than plinking tin cans.)
IF the promo for next week is accurate (damn good promos, by the way!) it looks like Rose/Thorn (what the heck is her name?) is going to have her "passionate" personality talk to her "passive" personality. This could be interesting. Apparently several people with schitzophrenia do live normal life with two or more personalities, and sometimes the personalities do "talk" to each other.
Motivational writer Steve Chandler actually considers multiple personalities a brave act, someone "reinventing" himself in the face of horrifying difficulties. I can see her two sides arguing and negotiating with each other in the future, which is a great story idea that I don't think has been used in a TV series before.
As far as Tshirts that say 'Save the Cheerleader...', on the TV Guide channel, they have a show called InFANity, and they did one about Heroes. And some of the crew were wearing black shirts with white font saying just that, 'Save the Cheerleader...' and I'm assuming the back finishes it, although you don't see the back.
You know, the cliches of the folks who have absolutely no idea what a writer does, and of relatives who remain clueless in the face of a creative person's extreme success, are cliches for a reason. They EXIST. In fact, they're common.
Back when I had a day job, I often had co-workers look at books I'd written, stare at them with puzzled expressions, and say, "Ummm...so why is your name is this? Is there, like, a place where you pay someone to put your name on a book like this?" No, I wrote it. "Umm. What does that mean? Did you draw the cover?" No, those words between pages 1 and 444? I wrote them. "Ummm. Why?" Because it's what I do. "And, how did you get somebody to print it?" I didn't get somebody to print it, they got me to write it. I was paid. "Ummm. Why?" Because they then make money selling it to people. "People buy this?" Yes. "Why?" Because they want to read it. "Ummm. Why?" Because my books are fun to read. "Ummm." (Flipping through the pages, looking for pictures). "Why aren't you rich like Stephen King?" (or worse) "You know, I have a great idea for a book. Why don't you write it and we can split the money?"
I am absolutely NOT exaggerating. This was a common conversation, and it's a good thing I entered most of them already bald, because I would have pulled my hair out. I understand, from many conversations with folks who have been in that end of the business, that it's worse in Hollywood, as the common perception -- not even an occasional perception, but a common perception -- among a lot of people is that the actors in tv and movies are indeed making up crap as they go along. This may or may not be the most startling scene for Sorkin to dramatize, but it would be more unrealistic for him to present a world where the writer of a tv show is automatically treated as celeb by everybody he meets. The girls in that scene exist, and Sorkin would not be doing his duty, as a portrayer of the milieu, if he failed to include them.
As for the clueless relatives: well, I can name some of my own, and pass along questions and comments that would make you cry, but I'm not such a big deal, so you might be inclined to agree with them. But let us, instead, think of that moment from the documentary about Woody Allen, filmed only a couple of years ago, when the world-famous writer, actor, director, comedian, and musician returned home after a long whirlwind tour of Europe, where he'd been lionized by everybody he met, and visibly wilted when his still-living mother and father sadly noted that he threw away a career as a dentist.
"Cheerverine" is cute and all but c'mon, I can't think of two characters that are as different as Wolverine and Claire. Now, if she had metal claws too...
Now, "Repeter" is genius! :D
Great episode, but the one character that is being a huge disappointment so far is Mohinder. He lacks powers, so it seemed his role would be to find and gather the superhumans, but they're already congregating without his help. Well, I suppose it's a good thing that the show isn't predictable.
Don't blame him for his skepticism though. To anyone not privy to his POV, Peter would sound like a raving lunatic. But Mohinder will have to do something useful the next episodes.
The only other small disappointment in a great episode: I had thought we'd be seeing much more of D.L. (Niki's husband). I wish the episodes were longer!
Paul1963, I think Claire can recover from anything as long as her brain is more or less intact and has no foreign objects stuck into it. She hasn't been shown regrowing arms or legs yet, but she regrew fingers in the pilot episode, so I think she can do it.
It is significant that Sylar seems to be the one that is going to kill her if not stopped, and he has that nasty habit of removing the brains from his victims.
Truthfully I'm still not sure whether Nathan will ultimately choose good or evil. If we accept the theory that the powers are a reflection of something inside the person, then Nathan must have something good in him, because flight seems to be a good guy power. :) As a plus, he has a kid brother that is eager to hero worship him if only he gave Peter the chance. I dunno, I'm a softie at heart and would like to see him turn heroic, but I just don't know at this point.
After seeing this episode I believe that Mr. Bennet is not as evil as he appears to be. I think his line about him putting more stock in Claire's humanity than Brody's is a hint of that. Don't get me wrong; he is amoral, controlling and sinister. But I also think that he will be shown as an 'ends justify the means' character who is primarily concerned with protecting Claire from Sylar.
I don't think he was involved in Chandra Suresh's murder, but he was spying on him (with Eden's help) because of the Sylar connection. If he was a coldblooded killer, I don't think he would have just let Mohinder go so easily in the pilot.
He kidnapped Matt (the cop) and had him scanned because of his recent contact with Sylar. When he was finished, he simply took him back to his home.
He tried to take Nathan, but it had just been discovered that Sylar might be targeting him. Now he may have been trying to do some 'super-evil' experiment on him, or he may just have been trying to take him out of Sylar's crosshairs.
Mr. Bennet is turning out to be the Gul Dukat or Scorpious of the series. A villan who (at times) fights an even bigger threat than himself. He is the 'devil you know'. I think that Sylar (the devil you don't know) is the one you need to worry about.
Me: "By the way, points to whomever coined “Cheerverine.”"
Peter David: "Yeah, that would be me, in my October 17 posting."
My first thought was that you _had_ invented the term "Cheerverine"; then I saw all the references on Google, and thought you might instead have picked it up elsewhere- one of those Internet memes. Hence the "whomever."
Adam-Troy Castro: I'm almost afraid to ask, but what planet were you on where people don't understand the concept behind a book- that they buy them to _read_ them? Or was that more a comment about you? I wonder if they think Stephen King "got somebody to print" his books, too.
Rick
My father was farmer his entire life. He has never been farther than 300 miles from where he was born. He is 86 years old and he is a big fan of Abbot and Costello. Abbot and Costello are about as mainstream as you can get. I couldn't believe that guy's parents never heard "Who's on First?" They would have had to have been cut off from anything resembling mid-20th century pop culture. It would be more likely that very young people wouldn't know "Who's on First" but those parents, (while younger than my dad) had to have heard that routine.
Sometimes Sorkin wants to make a point so badly he writes completely unrealistic scenarios.
"You know, I have a great idea for a book. Why don't you write it and we can split the money?"
My father tells virtually the same story, except not for writing. He was a programmer, and people would have an "idea" for business accounting software that they'd want him to make and split the profits.
Somehow, America has developed this myth that an idea created in an hour is worth more than the thousands of hours of work necessary to develop it into an actual product. Writing, business programming, art; no matter what you do, there will always be people who think your job is so easy that they'd be better at it than you with minimal effort.
Rick: well, it may be a comment about me, but it is absolutely true that among the general public there is a fairly wide population of folks to whom books are just a medium they want nothing to do with, but strange, alien objects of uncertain purpose. Were that the ONLY reaction I'd ever received from co-workers, I would have leaped out the window years ago. (I've also gotten the other kind, as well as every variation in between.) But, yes: that conversation, verbatim, has occurred several times. And I have encountered any number of folks whose reaction to an actual book was to flip through it, see words, and put it aside, puzzled, wondering just what the hell a human being was supposed to do with it. Other questions of the sort include,
Q: "I don't understand. You WROTE this?"
A: "Yes. It's a story I made up."
Q: (puzzled) "A story?"
A: "Yes."
Q: (puzzling some more) "What do you mean, a story?"
A: "A story. There are people in it, and things happen to them."
Q: (puzzling some more) "And people want to read this?"
Now, granted, this is the absolute cutting edge of the cluelessness writers deal with -- most reactions are somewhat more clued-in than that -- but it's hardly unheard of. There ARE people who have managed to reach adulthood without so much as knowing, even in theory, what a book is for. They exist. Peter, if you're around, help me out here. Haven't you ever had a conversation like this?
Oh, and one other thing: ignorance on the facts of publishing is not the sole province of idiots.
My favorite example is author Pat Conroy. You may not have read any of his books, but you have heard of him. He wrote THE PRINCE OF TIDES and THE GREAT SANTINI. (His best book, imho, is the wonderful LORDS OF DISCIPLINE, but please read the book, instead of seeing the much inferior movie.) Anyway, when he submitted his first novel to a publisher, this future bestseller received an offer of, let's say, ten thousand dollars. By his own admission, in later years, he furrowed his brow and said, well, that sounds good, but it will take me a while to come up with that much money.
"I couldn't believe that guy's parents never heard "Who's on First?"
yeah, that bugged me a bit too. Hell, My grams who is 89 and a Mennonite knows it! HA!
Repeter! Love it. Hey, some of us knew who said it first, but then I actually READ the posts and replies. Some days I feel like I'm talking and the wall is the only one hearing. But then that's normal ANY where.
Sincerely,
Wallwhisperer (dang. not as clever Repeter.)
Adam-Troy Castro's story of not being able to get someone to understand that books are written by actual people reminded me of a Harlan Ellison anecdote in which he described a woman becoming very upset at Ellison's assertion that the words spoken by Kirk, Spock, et al, on "Star Trek" had originated anywhere other than in the heads of the actors playing them.
"I couldn't believe that guy's parents never heard "Who's on First?" They would have had to have been cut off from anything resembling mid-20th century pop culture."
I assume "that guy's parents" is a reference to people on _Studio 60_? Whichever the case, they'd have had to have been cut off from more than just mid 20th century pop culture to have never heard of it. The origins of the "Who's On First" routine pre-dates the Abbott and Costello comedy duo (and possibly the men themselves. (Abbott was born in either 1895 or 1898)). There's an article in the autumn 2006 Nostalgia Digest magazine by Curtis L. Katz that looks a bit into the history of "Who's on First" (as do other works, but I happen to have that one handy). Katz points out that word confusion routines were already Vaudeville staples (and Abbott & Costello came from vaudeville) by the start of the 20th century. One routine he cites, "Baker's Dozen", has inklings of "Who's on First." After the first guy tells the second guy his job in a bakery is loafing, the second guy asks, who's the boss?
First Guy: "Yes."
Second Guy: "Who's the guy you're working for?"
First Guy: "That's exactly correct.
Second Guy: "I'm asking you what's the name of the boss."
First Guy: "No, Watt's the name of the street..."
Katz also said that Vaudeville word confusion sketches with _specific_ connections to baseball date back to at least World War I. Yes, it's theoretically possible for people in this country to have never heard the "Who's on First" routine (or one like it); and it's theoretically possible for some to have never heard _of_ it, but the latter seems a bit harder to swallow. Not only because routines of that sort have been around so long, but also because baseball was _big_ when Abbott and Costello were doing the routine in the 1940s. (their first time, for the record, was on the Kate Smith Hour, March 24, 1938). Given that they did it so many times (an estimated 15,000), they stopped working from a script, you just know that people were entertaining (or tormenting) their friends and neighbors with their own takes on the routine.
It'd take a _really_ dedicated hermit to not have _any_ clue about it. But again, I don't watch _Studio 60_, if this is a _Studio 60_ reference, so maybe I'm missing something from the proper context.
Rick
P.S., because Abbott & Costello didn't work from a script, no two performances were exactly alike, but in every case, there were only eight players mentioned. We never learned who played right field.
No, wait. Who's on...
Never mind.
Pete-
Please please please please PLEASE make your next post about Rush Limbaugh's attack on Michael J. Fox -- I am chomping at the bit to hear your comments on The Ole Rushter: this homonculous with no soul, no compassion for human suffering, no sense of right and wrong, and, apparently, no sense of irony as well.
PLEASE!
[quote]We never learned who played right field.[/quote] Naturally seems to be the most common guess given that Abbott never says there is no naturally after Costello says he throws the ball to Naturally.
Btw PAD I mentioned the nickname RePeter on Televisionwithoutpity.com and that's now the name of his character thread.
This may have been in an earlier thread, but I have come up with some Super-Hero code-names for the Heroes:
Claire = Buffy the Indestructible Cheerleader, or Little Miss Immortal.
Hiro = Tempus
Nikki = Mirror Mistress
Nathan = Ex Mach-1, or Congressman Cannonball
You hit the nail on the head PAD about Studio 60: the story of the old man was more interesting because that time period was more interesting for television comedy than it is now. The concept being around a SNL-type show is just not that interesting. Because SNL has stopped being relevant in the culture and has stop being good for at least the last 15 years.
MB
Im starting to doubt if Niki actually has any super powers. Maybe she just has a split personality and it's her kid that has the power.
"Im starting to doubt if Niki actually has any super powers."
One of the guys in her garage was torn in half. If she doesn't have super powers, then she spent a lot of time setting up an elaborate rope and pully system to tear the guy in half.
Hiro's buddy has been teaching him phrases phonetically and Hiro has all the time in the world to memorize these words and phrases since he can stop time. Cramming for a test the night before would not be much of a problem if you could stretch 10 hours into 100.
Also, I think that there is a possibility that the explosion in New York wasn't nuclear but a rift (as mentioned by future Hiro) which may be energy released through a tear in the time space continuum caused by paradox that destroys the affected space of the paradox (meaning everything from Tokyo to New York since all of the time travelling started in Tokyo). After all it's not "Save the cheerleader, Save New York" it's "Save the Cheerleader, Save the World". But would the rift be caused by Hiro or by Sylar who is really a future version of ...
I've one question about Nikki's powers. When her alter ego killed the guys in her garage and she watched the video, it got snowy just when the fighting started, although she could hear the screams of the two men. However, when she got busy with the candidate (Nathan?), they had the video readily available.
My answer is that the actual recorder wasn't in the room, just the camera, therefore her powers didn't affect the recording. My wife's is she wanted the video to be viewable, so she didn't affect the recording.
Answers?
Bad News; hxxp://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,226092,00.html
Studio 60’ Cancellation Iminent
Here we go: despite receiving an order for three more episodes on Friday, the Aaron Sorkin NBC drama “Studio 60 on Sunset Strip” is about to be put out of its misery.
Cast members are already confiding in friends that the end is near. It’s likely NBC will pull the plug shortly I am told by insiders.
Damn, that's too bad.
I think Studio 60 is a lot like a M.A.S.H. or a Night Court. They were good in their first year or two and you could see the seeds for unrivaled genius and greatness in there as well. It just wasn't until the start of the third seasons that, for me, the two shows came into their own and really took off.
It's a damned shame that networks want instant gratification so badly these days that they'll ignore the lessons of some of TV's biggest shows and bury what is likely a future, M.A.S.H., Cosby, Dallas, etc. because it's not popping a killer rating from day one.
Shame.
Well this completely sucks, IMDB is predicting the death of Studio 60. http://imdb.com/news/sb/2006-10-30/#2
Someone needs to educate these idiots that good shows don't always get high ratings initially. If they had treated Seinfeld like this, look what they would have lost out on. I say move it to Wednesdays or kill off that suck fest known as E.R., a show way past it's heyday and give Studio a chance!
Not to mention Cheers, which was one of the least watched shows on TV its first season.
With any luck, perhaps it'll be able to find a home on cable. Though I suppose that would be somewhat ironic for a show about people trying to return intelligent programming to network TV.
-Rex Hondo-