I tried with the third season of Heroes, I really did. I thought I’d start afresh, come at it new and give it another spin. But no, 20 minutes into the season opener and my brain was threatening to leak out of my ears in a flood of myriad characters that were soon joined by even more characters. They all flit through a conveyor belt of disparate storylines that have no focus and no coherence to make new viewers feel welcome to the party.
Shame. The first season started brilliantly. There was genuine mystery and excitement, well-drawn characters and a storyline that was going somewhere. And by and large, that kept up throughout. Sure, the end was an anti-climax, but these things generally are. It’s often the journey that’s the important bit.
And then things went horribly wrong - executive producer/creator Tim Kring seemed to lose the map of where he was going and sent the truncated volume two down a blind alley (and Hiro to feudal Japan). The concept became watered down with the introduction of far too many new characters, when really, the ones they had were fine and dandy. The emperor, it seemed, was very much in the altogether.
Kring apologised to fans, which an exec should never, ever do, and promised a revitalised third season when the show returned after the writers strike…
And now Heroes is leaking viewers like a big leaky thing, and NBC is in real danger of losing a drama that has (had?) a halfway decent chance of being a long-term prospect on the network (and poor the BBC2, paying all that dosh for it).
And Tim Kring is at it again, talking up his show at a recent Screenwriting Expo, inviting new viewers to take a look at Heroes:
“You can [just] hop on the train, and you won’t have missed too much”
Well I tried that, and it didn’t work, so where do I go now? Kring didn’t have much advice beyond that, but went on to bemoan that the show is a victim of changing viewing habits and that the serial nature of Heroes is not conducive to modern audiences:
“It’s a very flawed way of telling stories on network television right now because of the advent of the DVR and online streaming… So [watching it] on air is related to the saps and the dipshits who can’t figure out how to watch it in a superior way.”
Which to be perfectly honest, sounds a littler bit whingey. I would have thought that serial dramas are exactly the way to go in the modern TV landscape for that very reason - because you can watch it on your terms, when you want.
Yes, network TV is entering a crisis zone as audiences fragment and view TV across a variety of platforms, but then network TV has to adapt. Perhaps the way audience levels are assessed have to be changed to gauge the total audience for a show (which is not an original thought).
But having a cry about modern viewing habits being the reason why people are not watching your show and leaving it behind in droves seems a little naïve. The bottom line is, after showing great potential early on, Heroes just isn’t very good.
Still, if it Heroes goes to a fourth volume, perhaps they could draft John Sergeant in as a new character. He’s at a loose end, after all.
I don't get King's comment, cause it kind of offends me. I watch programmes I might have missed or can't catch at the time online, but I like sitting down to watch a series week after week to follow the story. So that makes me stupid?
Altho, I don't dislike this season as much as the reviewer here seems to. I've drifted away from it because it's not as gripping. I'm not desperate to know what happens next... it's kind of a mushy mish mash of characters and plot lines. But when I do watch it, it's fairly enjoyable. It could be better, but it could be worse.
I love Heroes and watch it every week (either when it's on or on iplayer) but Tim Kring is wrong. It's so utterly convoluted at this point that you couldn't possibly "hop on the train" and expect to know what's going on.