What Happened to "Heroes"

I don't check out a lot of new television series anymore. Part of it is having less time than I used to, with two jobs (one of which contains a great deal of overtime), occasional college classes and the general but apparently overwhelming responsibilities of taking care of your own home. I still love TV but as most new series require weekly viewing to understand what's going on, I find I have a hard time making the commitment these days.
So when I saw an ad for a new show called "Heroes" last fall on the NBC website, I was a bit hesitant to start tuning in. But as I've been a comic book fan for basically my entire life, the premise of a group of normal human beings who suddenly discovered they could do remarkable physical things seemed intriguing enough to warrant at least a couple of viewings. I didn't have great expectations; most modern science fiction or fantasy tends to be "concept heavy" but "substance light", geared more toward younger audiences who, I know from experience, aren't nearly as discriminating as older ones.
But after watching the pilot episode, I had high hopes. This was a group of diverse, everyday people who suddenly gained these abilities, and they were just as much in the dark about where they came from, what they were, and more importantly, what to do with them as the audience was. We had a hospice worker, a high school cheerleader, a morally conflicted politician, a struggling young painter, a cop with a failing marriage, a young Japanese Don Quixote wannabe stuck in a dead end job, and a glamour model down on her luck. Throw an idealistic young scientist and a shady government agent tracking the phenomena into the mix and you had a very intriguing group of players who we cared about, empathized with, and identified with. The powers were interesting and vague enough to keep our interest (the characters continued to discover new traits of their abilities). Key to the show's appeal to me was the way it was firmly rooted in the real world; only these people had powers, and their daily lives were, at the start at least, complicated by all the things all of ours are. What could have easily been a comic book knockoff was in fact a really original take on the "superpowers" idea; I particularly liked the fact that several episodes would go by with some of the characters never even displaying their powers.

The show's pacing was a bit slow at first, to be sure. It seemed like the first twelve episodes were mostly teasers for the big revelations to come. But around the second third of the season, the episodes started becoming more fast paced and intense. "Company Man" and the glimpse of the heroes' possible future, in particular, jet propelled the series into a new "must watch" zone, where some questions were actually answered, though of course, being a television series, they were replaced with new questions.

Everyone was braced for a barnburning season finale, and in some ways, it almost succeeded. The fans' long desired wish for the heroes' to unite was finally realized, and there was a fateful confrontation with the show's "ultravillain", Sylar. Everything seemed to be coming into place for a truly groundbreaking action series with a great ensemble cast dealing with truly universal human issues like responsibility, morality, identity and destiny.

Then something happened. It may have just been the overly hyped nature of the finale, or carelessness on the part of the writers', or simple fatigue. But the show succumbed to many gaps in logic and narrative inconsistencies (why couldn't Claire have shot Peter in the end of the episode to stop him? He'd have revived anyway and Nathan wouldn't have had to risk his life; why would Nikki attack Sylar? She didn't know he was evil; why wasn't the battle with Sylar longer, more intense and more satisfying? Why did they have to give in to the old cliche of the villain "escaping death" at the very end?).

Still, "Heroes" had in general ended its first year strongly. The long sought after convergence of all the heroes had finally occurred, promising perhaps more interaction in the future. The writers had assembled a strong cadre of interesting continuing characters, and these characters were portrayed by compelling, strong actors who had garnered a lot of popularity with audiences. And the show had done a great job of balancing revelation with tease; some central questions about the show were indeed answered, while simultaneously raising others to keep viewers intrigued. The ratings were strong and despite some troubling signs in the final episode, things were looking good for a truly blockbuster second season.

Unfortunately, the second season bombed terribly. A series of romantic storylines failed to connect with fans, and the show was unable to construct a new villain to compete with or replace Sylar (who was still alive, surprise, but greatly weakened and out of contact with the rest of the cast for most of the year). The writers' strike halfway through the year didn't help matters much; by the time the show returned in the fall of 2008 with new episodes, whatever steam the show had previously had pretty much dissipated, and by now it seems like the only ones still watching are the hardcore fans who will probably follow it no matter what type of quality it puts out.

What happened? How does a show go from extreme popularity one season to almost unanimous jeering the next season, with by and large the same creative team and cast?

I think the answers lie in the very original concept of "Heroes", and unfortunate tendency of network television shows to get too caught up their own success to remember what made the show special in the first place. "Heroes" was conceived as a show about a group of diverse but overall ordinary human beings who just happened to attain very special abilities. The promise of the show, largely captured during the first season at least, that it would examine the different ways in which these people would react to these powers; how they would change their lives and what they would do with them. The powers and fantastic aspect of the story were there, to be sure, but underpinning them was true human drama; these were people that would have been interesting to us whether they had powers or not. They had jobs, relationships, dreams, strengths and weaknesses and all of that humanity was magnified and communicated through the crucible of the acquisition of these powers. It was a show about people, and the powers were a device by which we understood the people.

I think the show has now flipped that equation. In the last 20 episodes, the show has become about the powers themselves and the people are simply secondary devices that are caught up in increasingly confusing and convoluted plots. No one on the show seems to have a job anymore; Hiro is the head of his father's company but he's never there (and Ando must be sponging off of him), Peter's been running off on missions and personal quests for two years, Parkman hasn't donned a policeman uniform all season, Claire seems to have either dropped out of school or graduated early. The non powered characters that grounded and humanized the powered characters are rapidly disappearing. Nathan seems to have forgotten that he not only has two other children besides Claire, he has a wife! All of Claire's acquaitenaces and friends from school are gone, and her brother has only been glimpsed once this year. Suresh never mentions his father anymore, a puzzling omission since the ghost of Dr. Suresh was a strong motivating presence for his son. Everyone in "the Company" or should I now say "the Companies" is powered now. The humanity of the series is in jeopardy as a result of these developments.

The show has also moved away from the promise of character interaction we saw at the end of season one. I understood the need for divergent plotlines early on as it didn't make sense that the characters would bond together instantly; they needed to establish themselves as interesting individuals before joining together as a group. But here we are, two seasons later, and the show is still committed to the "Lost" theory of multiple, ongoing storylines with a few connecting threads strewn throughout. This seemed original with "Lost" but here tends to make the narrative seem very disjointed and disorganized. Rather than creating a complex but overall cohesie mosaic, here it seems to create something of a patchwork quilt where some corners don't match others, some areas seem brighter than others, and overall the whole doesn't hold together. It also strengthens the notion that the show is now more about gimmicky revelations and "let's see if this will work" spectacles rather than about an ongoing attempt to examine the ramifications of the original premise. This is particularly troubling with a series who's ratings are dropping. You want to make it easy for prospective new viewers to jump on and understand what's going on, not confuse them with divergent timelines, inconsistent character relationships and schizophrenic plot directions.

Repetition of plots seems to be a problem as well. The first year the whole "Save the cheerleader, save the world" thing worked because it was the first time the heroes had to "save the world" but now we've had, by my count, three possible apocalypses, including the nuking of New York in S1, the pandemic outbreak of S2, and the Pinehearst/"everybody gets powers" dark future of S3. Likewise the characters seem to be put through the same plotlines again and again. Nathan keeps getting tempted by dark forces, whether by his mother and Lindeman in Season One, or by the faux Lindeman and probably his father in Season 3. Mohinder is a veritable textbook of bad character judgements. So far he's allied himself with the neighbor/double agent, Sylar, Noah Bennett, the Eric Roberts "Company" guy, and now Arthur Petrelli. It's getting increasingly hard to care about this guy; at some point he's got to wise up and be his own man. Peter isn't much better. He's trusted Adam Monroe, thrown in with an Irish mafia (why didn't he just force them to give him that box?), shot (as a future self) his own brother to stop him from revealing the hero's existence (why not just talk him out of it?), and seems poised to trust his megalomaniacal mother again. No one seems to grow much or learn anything. I think it's great that the heroes make mistakes but to have some of them make the same mistakes over and over again seems to be lazy writing.

The buzz about "Heroes" in the first year was that, unlike "Lost", it actually answered things. I'm not sure that we can still make that claim. Three seasons in (well, two and a half actually, since the season year only lasted twelve episodes because of the writers' guild strike) and we still don't really have answers about where the powers came from. Some, apparently, were born with them and others were "given" them but the show keeps changing the answers according to the needs of the current plot. It's hard to believe that they intended for some of the powers to be "given" in the first season, when the symbol of the eclipse was strongly hinted to have something to do with the appearance of the abilities. The connection between all the "heroes" (again, a "Lost" type development) is also still quite murky.

I think that the writers have decided that continually denying the viewers full answers to these burning questions is bound to keep them coming back for more and that revealing everything at once will result in bored and complacant viewers. I don't think this logic holds up though. We've seen more and more mysteries piled on in the last couple of seasons while the viewership is correspondingly getting lower all the time. And I don't believe that the only way to garner large audiences is to never fully answer anything. If you have a strong group of compelling, identifiably characters and you place them in conflicts that test their resolve and force them to bounce opposing philosophies off of each other, you don't really need deep, ongoing mysteries to keep interest high. The characters will have enough internal and external conflict to keep the drama afloat you won't have to constantly play coy with the audience and throw a half dozen "disconnected but kinda connected" plots out that never really resolve themselves or make much sense but are just constructed to provide temporary shock effects and twists to keep the viewer from noticing that nothing much is really happening and there's no real long range narrative gameplan.

It's hard to watch "Heroes" fumble around trying desperately to find a storyline that will connect with viewers after such a promising, though flawed, first season. The cast is still strong, the characters are still, for the most part, interesting or at the very least, full of untapped potential and the entire concept of ordinary people suddenly in possession of great powers remains enormously interesting. I think the show could still be saved with sufficient promotion, and most importantly, a new direction that would key into the series inherent strengths and streamline the many divergent plot threads.

I think the characters need to form a group. Again, I know that Kring has rejected this idea, most likely out of the notion that it's exactly what is expected of him and he's trying to be 'original' and unpredictable, but think about it. All of these characters seek answers about where their powers came from and how to use them. Most of them know each other, at least tangentially, and know that only the others with powers can really understand what they are going through. The group could perform several functions; a kind of support group that would help all the members deal with the physical, psychological and moral issues inherent in possessing powers, as a kind of shared defense that would protect each member from any threats they might face as individuals or as a group, and as a defining force in their lives. Conflict could come from the different ways in which the individual members see the group; Peter and Hiro might want to use it proactively against superpowered bad guys and nefarious organizations, Nathan and Tracy might want to use it more as a defense mechanism, Parkman might want to work with local law enforcement to bring down criminal gangs, Claire might want to help solve societal problems like hunger or poverty, Suresh might want to use it to locate and recruit new 'powered' individuals for his research projects, etc. All of them would see the group as a force for good, but they'd disagree about what "good" was, and what their priorities should be.

The group would be the linking device for the characters, but they'd have private lives as well, going home to wives or children or parents, and trying to somehow live a 'normal' life while secretly having an entire side of themselves that their families might not understand or even know about. This would help return some semblance of reality to the series, as they'd try to be "normal" people most of the time while simultaneously acknowledging their special abilities via the group interaction. And it would eliminate the wandering, disjointed sense of narrative that predominates the show now. These are all compelling, interesting people with wonderfully varied outlooks on what their powers are and what to do with them; giving them a regular format to meet and interact in would ensure a lot of great inner conflict as their difference philosophies would routinely clash against each other.

Of course villains are a necessity; without them it's just "Emergency!" with powers. But like the heroes themselves, I'd limit the number of potential villains a bit moreso than now, to reinforce the notion that these powers are truly "special" and not something that one out of ten people on the planet possess. The "fight scenes" (almost non existent now) would be made even more interesting if you have a group of heroes fighting either a single foe or a group, as again, you have potential for great character interaction and inner, as well as outer, conflict.

I know that it's unlikely that Kring will ever choose this path, but at this stage of the game, it's not like he has much to lose. Like "Lost", "Heroes" complicated mythology makes it nearly impossible for new viewers to jump on and understand what the hell is going on (unless they are aided by the purchase of early season DVDs) so an ever more complex storyline isn't likely to boost the ratings at all. A streamlined plot, where all the heroes know and interact with each other, might be a great way to clear away the cobwebs and reset things to square one, allowing jump on viewers a chance to discover and experience these people and their unique lives without all the weight of multiple timelines and realities and flashbacks.

I'd also suggest doing away with the coy "we know stuff about the heroes that you don't" angle. Again, this is a "Lost" ploy and in that format it works (kind of) but here it often seems like a transparent gimmick to keep people watching and make it seem like something of deep signficance is happening, but it's starting to come off almost like a delaying tactic to allow the writers time to come up with reasonable explanations of all the dangling plot threads and questions they've raised over the past two years and may not have had definitive answers for.

"Heroes", as it was originally conceived, was a unique show with a story that had wonderful potential for entertainment value and riveting human drama at the same time. It's strayed a long way from that noble and promising path, but I still believe there's burning embers buried deep within the show's mound of plot ashes. But the time for repair is growing short, as the ratings continue to tumble and the network's patience with the show no doubt becomes thinner and thinner. It's time to circle the wagons and remind audiences what this show could have been, and just maybe, could be again.