what's on my mind grapes?

Have I lambasted Heroes enough on this blog? Probably. But I’ve also talked more than enough about other stuff and not cared. So I’ll cross-post from a Facebook wall rant, and give more depth than such a rant affords.

Heroes is the worst show on television. I do not feel I am exaggerating. I could give that award to some other show I don’t watch; The O.C. was a contender in the 20 minutes I saw, and apparent copycat One Tree Hill has to be in the running. Surely, just about any reality TV also irks me (except “Deal, No Deal, Or Top Nanny Race” and “The Real World Death Challenge: Darfur” and “Armed and Dangerous Skating C-List Celebrities”!). Two and a Half Men is annoying as hell. There are a lot of bad shows on TV. But because I’m prone to hating prime time soaps and traditional sitcoms and reality programming, I can’t be totally impartial in judging them. Heroes, on the other hand, has a premise that I expected myself to like. In fact, I was very much looking forward to it before it started. Yet week after week, it failed to do anything to earn my respect.

Genre-wise, Heroes should be a favorite. It had the potential to turn superhero convention on its head and bring to television the compelling episodic writing that Jeph Loeb demonstrated in the comic medium. Meanwhile, there was the hope that Crossing Jordan’s Tim Kring would again strike paydirt with likeable, unique characters.

To say that the show has not fulfilled its potential is an understatement akin to saying that Arrested Development could have gotten better treatment from Fox. Instead of being original, Heroes has used every cliche in history. Whether it’s Hayden Panettiere’s Wolverine-like healing powers mixed with a Rogue-ish alienation from the world, or Masi Oka’s Peter Parker turn as a geek-turned-hero, the show is taking superhero themes decades old and selling them as innovative. While Loeb’s comic arcs often relied on cliffhangers and mystery, things happened in each issue. Heroes fails to give any real payoff – the closest thing to plot advancement is seeing Oka demonstrate some new overacted emotion or, if viewers are lucky, the mysterious bad guys killing someone new.

Of course, lacking a coherent plot to keep viewers watching isn’t a death sentence for television. Gilmore Girls shows that even if the day-to-day happenings are mundane, a show can succeed (and, in fact, be outright brilliant). Yet again, the show fails on the strengths of a creator – there is no character development to speak of. While the aforementioned archetypes and predecessors of the show’s characters had personalities and a sense of realism, Heroes doesn’t even bother with this. I’m sure the acting is part of it – giving Oka or Milo Ventimiglia a complex role could only further highlight their acting shortcomings. Nonetheless, Ali Larter’s got a solid acting resume – surely, the Niki/Jessica role could be played with much more anguish, fear, and confusion if the writers gave a damn about character development.

In summary, Heroes has failed on every level possible for a television show. It does not feature the action-packed hours of 24 or Alias. There’s no sense of depth to the characters, which was how Lost compensated for its sometimes small payoffs early on. There is no unique storyline, no standout acting, no clever dialogue to keep me chuckling through each hour. Heroes is an insult to everything that came before it in the comic world (and the films based upon them), and its continued success on television (it’s been picked up for a second season) is nothing short of baffling.