Watched the latest episodes on Sci-Fi yesterday and have come to the conclusion that it's a Watchmen rip off.
It most certainly is, with a dash of X-men:Days of future past.
Some of the Watchmen rip-offs are so blatent that all I could do was laugh.
but then, as someone else mentioned, Watchmen is based on an old episode of The Outer Limits.
What kind of rip offs? Thanks.
***but then, as someone else mentioned, Watchmen is based on an old episode of The Outer Limits.***
Well that's going a bit far; one story "idea" in Watchmen is based on an episode of the outer limits: the fake alien intrusion. Heroes basically lifts Watchmen's story and plot for another series about superheroes set around an incident that will happen in New York.
I can see similarities I wouldn't say rip off, basic idea is the same but then most T.V. is a bit of a rip of something or another. Its certainly better than a lot of other junk on T.V at the moment and I cant wait till next season, unlike Lost it presents answers to almost all its questions and give a nice wrap up of the season plot as well as opening the next season(or chapter as they call it) interestingly.
Spoilers on my theory for next season
Sylar who crawls off into the sewers at the end of Chapther one will meet up with the bigger bad mentioned by the tracking girl(molly) and some other nasty/disaffected Supers creating a Legion of evil type group and it will be up to the Heros we know(along with some new ones we'll meet next season) to stop them. Meanwhile Hiro who transported back to Ancient Japan will learn his history and the history of the Heros and why they come about(something to do with the Eclipse from the start of chapter one and in ancuient times where Hiro ends up) as well as the symbol too.
CU Radbacker
According to one interview I read, the previous generation of Heroes is supposed to be a big plot thread i.e. Malcolm McDowell's character when he was younger, Nathan Petrelli's dad, etc. Bit like the 60s superheroes from Zenith, but worldwide.
davidbishop
Anyone else just think it's all abit rubbish? I stuck with it for a while but just got sick of how slow it was. I don't like the way that there is no real plot for each episode and instead just a slow sequence of mini revelations to keep you hooked. I find these types of programmes really annoying as I'm only watching to find out what's going on rather than just enjoying it. I also found that out of each episode about 80% was pure filler and in the remaining 20% something cool would happen now and again.
The sad thing is though, Heroes is probably better than the upcoming Watchmen movie (the alien invasion is possibly influenced by an EC comics, Weird Science story anyway).
Odd thing to say for a movie that hasn't even begun shooting yet.
Yeah, I guess that could have been clearer. For all it's faults I do enjoy Heroes and I can also see where Watchmen has influenced it. But I also think that a multi episode TV series a bit like Watchmen is probably going to be better than the Watchmen movie itself. I just don't hold out much hope that the upcoming film will do Watchmen justice. Hope I'm wrong though.
I love Heroes. I think it's one of the best series we've had in a while. I like Lost and Galactica too, but there seems to be a lot less filler. As for moving the plot along, I agree that it took a while to move along the main series plot, but then it is a character based show as much about exploring individuals reaction to their powers as it is on the main story line. In this I think it works very well.
As for Watchmen,I vaguely remember a comic book of that name, but I don't remember it having much to do with this show apart from the fact it concerns superheroes. (That being said it was a while ago. Was the the book including a superhero called The Owl, or am I thinking of something else?)
As for thoughts for the last episode and the next series...
Could it be that when Hiro goes back to ancient Japan, he actually becomes that Samurai warrior hero whose sword he stole from Linderman. I have my doubts this will be the case as I would have thought he would have to spend years in that time, and I think they would want to move him to the present day at some point, but wouldn't that be an ironic mind twister?
It seems likely Peter Petrelli will regenerate although I find that a bit of a contradiction to the rules of the show since you'd think his brain would be vaporised. Maybe the explosion doesn't actually destroy the person but emanates out from him... if that makes sense.
What about Nathan? It seems likely he made the supreme sacrifice by helping his brother, but he can fly pretty fast (and Peter can fly too.) Could he have taken his brother high then zipped away out of the blast zone? Would he have had time?
That scene when Peter went back and spoke to the man in the wheel chair (I don't know his name)... I wonder was that a vision, or did he actually teleport back? He would have absorbed Hiro's power, even if he hadn't learnt to use it yet. Since the man remarked that he was apparently invisible, I think the latter, which means that the chap in the wheel chair would be an 'empowered' person too. One who can see in ways others can't maybe.
As for Sylar... no doubt he'll survive into the next series, but I find it kind of unrealistic since that should have killed him, especially without medical help. I wonder if he has some kind of regenerative ability too. Not on the scale as Clare and Peter's (I doubt he could come back from the dead for one thing), but maybe he can use his telekinesis to close wounds, knit flesh together at the molecular level even. If he can extract parts of peoples brains and somehow 'wire' it into his own, I don't think that's much of a stretch. His own specific power seems to be to see how things work and fix them... so I guess that could include himself too.
I could go on but this post is getting long...
"Odd thing to say for a movie that hasn't even begun shooting yet."
Not really. Not unless you think you can sit down and read Watchmen from start to finish within two hours. It might end up being an enjoyable film, but it won't really be Watchmen.
We all know Watchmen will never be as good as it's source but that's not what I was talking about. I was referring to the comparison that was made between Watchmen and Heroes -which I think is a series that treats it's audience rather dumbly- and if Watchmen is made with the spirit and intent of the original using the "required" film form & grammar for it to work, it will be far better than Heroes is.
That's not what you said at all. You said it was odd to compare Heroes to Watchmen when Watchmen hasn't started filming yet.
In any case, I already know what Heroes is like and I don't see how a two hour film is going to top it for depth of characters and backstory. How dumbed down do you suppose Watchmen will have to be to condense it into a two hour film?
Personally, I'm not looking forward to Watchmen at all- although I would be if it was going to be a series instead of a film.
***That's not what you said at all. You said it was odd to compare Heroes to Watchmen when Watchmen hasn't started filming yet. ***
Which more or less implies you can't compare them since one does not exist yet. So criticism of Watchmen must be witheld until it's made. Who said the film is only 2 hours anyway? I believe you can do justice to the story but not the design structure that's why the film will be different no matter what.
I've seen some of the laziest writing on Heroes and the end of series one just fizzled out in a predictable fashion, but that's just my opinion. I think Watchmen as a film, even distilled and done well, can challenge it's audience were heroes doesn't. The direct comparison with Heroes is Lost which as a TV series does challenge and can carry interest across several seasons. I doubt Heroes will judging by it's beginnings; I believe the series shot it's load early on and the producers decided to dumb it down by trickling out it's anti-climactic wrap ups leaving a lot of it's characters, in the end, useless.
L.A. Confidential was a film of a book 10 times more complicated but was still adaptable into a damn good movie that carried all the original's main characters, themes and elements.
And Skurvy's original post states that Heroes will probably be better than Watchmen, not that it absolutely will be. I assume that, like me, he's basing that opinion on what he already knows about Heroes and how much you'd have to cut out of Watchmen- even if it was stretched out to a three hour film.
There is, in fact, no criticism of Watchmen at all. Learn to read.
I can read well enough, so there's no need to be be sarky.
As Skurvy said:
"The sad thing is though, Heroes is probably better than the upcoming Watchmen movie"
In using the word IS he is suggesting that Heroes IS probably better than the unmade Wathmen movie, that's jumping the gun and is a criticism of value.
I enjoyed Heroes for most of the time, the biggest problem for me was that there are too many characters, so if you get an episode centering on a characher you don't like it's a bit tedious.
In my view the Petrellis arn't dead, and that fact that ON ONE checked on Sylus (sp?) to see his condition is just dopey.
I think Hero will become the samuri from the legend and we will hear more from the big bad.
As for the Watchmen movie, this series may actually help it, getting the public into that sort of 'mind set' althought it will probably be seen as a Heroes rip off even though it pre dates it by 20 odd years.
Starts next Wednesday on BBC2.
in an interview the creator stated that next Volume may not take up the whole season and we will get volume 3 as well. So my guess is Hero's story and wrap up of characters we know as well as introductions to new characters(he's gone on record stating he loves telling the origin part of the heroes and not so much after that) then second half will be new story about the new guys with the sreason 1 heroes crossing into new story when needed. I like and will stick around for next year at least, what i do enjoy most about this is it doesn't drag its mysteries llike Lost, 90% of the questions get answered straight away instead of having to wait 3 seasons to find out why Polar bears are on a tropical island or some such.
CU Radbcker
You can read well enough, but not well enough to recognise an obvious grammatical error when you see one then? Either way, your argument still comes undone with the inclusion of the word probably. I would imagine that 'probably' is used for the simple fact that Skurvy can't possibly know for sure.
Either way, there is no criticism- just speculation.
You're right, I don't know for sure. Bet you a tenner I'm right though!
We'll judge next year, when it's made.
Fine. In the meantime, feel free to speculate.