TV Thoughts - Heroes and Supernatural
Apr. 27th, 2007 10:14 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sdelmonteHeroes: So anyone who's read Watchmen - possibly the single best comic book tale of all time - will recognize similarities between Linderman's plan and Ozymandias' scheme. Same city, same casualty rate, same seemingly good intentions, same Machavelian drive. One staff-blogger at TVGuide.com was actually rather annoyed that, after 18 weeks of not quite ripping off any ideas from the comics, they ripped off one from the holy text itself. I will admit that part of me likes to see everything be original, but most of me sees this as an homage. Or maybe a riff.
There are key differences. Linderman is not creating the event, only making sure it happens. He's not trying to prevent something else from happening (World War III) so much as trying to use this to his advantage. Yes, he clains he's one of the good guys, but he's also a mobster. And there was no Nathan Petrelli figure in Watchmen. Indeed, that story was built almost entirely on the costumed heroes. The political realities of that world were often evoked by headlines, text pieces, and so forth, but it was rather distant. On Heroes, it's at the center of things. So, I'd call it all a riff on a classic tale, but going in directions that Watchmen didn't.
Of course, next week we are getting a riff on the classic X-Men tale, "Days of Future Past." I wonder if X-fans will be as forgiving as I am of watching Watchmen.
A few other notes: Loved HRG's escape plan - isn't always the way that the one without the powers steals the show over and over. Also loved Matt calling HRG "middle managemaent" and a "schlub like us". Wondering if Papa Nakamura, like Mama Petrelli and Linderman, also has a power. And if so, why does he let his son go on his quest? Is he part of the Mama Petrelli camp?
And I have to note that the writer of ".07%" is Chuck Kim, who used to be an editor for DC Comics, where he was assistant to the late, great Archie Goodwin and where he edited part of James Robinson's run on Starman. Good to see he's making it big. I wonder if there's any chance he's suggested they hire Robinson, whose Hollywood career tanked after he wrote the screenplay for LXG.
Supernatural: An enjoyable episode that delivered a lot of what we love about this show, with a couple of flaws that I can't quite ignore.
1. Why would any public defender risk her career, and maybe her freedom, to help a client she just met in something she should have guessed was trouble? Henricksen is going to make her life miserable now.
2. Why couldn't Deacon just get the boys into the prison without getting them arrested? You could argue that Dean decided "we can do this ourselves, just watch our backs." Or maybe Deacon tried to get answers as a guard and felt he needed someone on the other side. But it was a bit of a logic hole, one that might have been overlooked so that the Winchesters vs. the Law subplot could advance.
Anyone else wonder if Henricksen is named after the actor who starred on Millennium, which would be a little odd since that was the only Chris Carter series that John Shiban DIDN'T work on?
And did we all see the ad for the Wildstorm comic that starts next week? This is the first time I've seen anyone advertise a comic book on TV since Marvel used to run ads for the GI Joe in the 80s. Yes, it was essentially an in-house promo, and cost nothing, but it's still something we rarely see.
Oh, and the title was misleading. They didn't played any Johnny Cash. :)
There are key differences. Linderman is not creating the event, only making sure it happens. He's not trying to prevent something else from happening (World War III) so much as trying to use this to his advantage. Yes, he clains he's one of the good guys, but he's also a mobster. And there was no Nathan Petrelli figure in Watchmen. Indeed, that story was built almost entirely on the costumed heroes. The political realities of that world were often evoked by headlines, text pieces, and so forth, but it was rather distant. On Heroes, it's at the center of things. So, I'd call it all a riff on a classic tale, but going in directions that Watchmen didn't.
Of course, next week we are getting a riff on the classic X-Men tale, "Days of Future Past." I wonder if X-fans will be as forgiving as I am of watching Watchmen.
A few other notes: Loved HRG's escape plan - isn't always the way that the one without the powers steals the show over and over. Also loved Matt calling HRG "middle managemaent" and a "schlub like us". Wondering if Papa Nakamura, like Mama Petrelli and Linderman, also has a power. And if so, why does he let his son go on his quest? Is he part of the Mama Petrelli camp?
And I have to note that the writer of ".07%" is Chuck Kim, who used to be an editor for DC Comics, where he was assistant to the late, great Archie Goodwin and where he edited part of James Robinson's run on Starman. Good to see he's making it big. I wonder if there's any chance he's suggested they hire Robinson, whose Hollywood career tanked after he wrote the screenplay for LXG.
Supernatural: An enjoyable episode that delivered a lot of what we love about this show, with a couple of flaws that I can't quite ignore.
1. Why would any public defender risk her career, and maybe her freedom, to help a client she just met in something she should have guessed was trouble? Henricksen is going to make her life miserable now.
2. Why couldn't Deacon just get the boys into the prison without getting them arrested? You could argue that Dean decided "we can do this ourselves, just watch our backs." Or maybe Deacon tried to get answers as a guard and felt he needed someone on the other side. But it was a bit of a logic hole, one that might have been overlooked so that the Winchesters vs. the Law subplot could advance.
Anyone else wonder if Henricksen is named after the actor who starred on Millennium, which would be a little odd since that was the only Chris Carter series that John Shiban DIDN'T work on?
And did we all see the ad for the Wildstorm comic that starts next week? This is the first time I've seen anyone advertise a comic book on TV since Marvel used to run ads for the GI Joe in the 80s. Yes, it was essentially an in-house promo, and cost nothing, but it's still something we rarely see.
Oh, and the title was misleading. They didn't played any Johnny Cash. :)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: Apr. 27th, 2007 06:46 pm (UTC)Agreed.
As for the next episode - I haven't seen the trailer, but considering that the very first episode refernced that X-Men storyline (or would have, had they gotten the issue # right), I would not be surprised if it is more of a pastige than a riff.