A quick assessment of the most recent fantasy novels I've read (by coincidence, all four are I had to be put on the waiting list to get ahold of, due to the high number of other readers interested in these books for one reason or another):
Graceling by Kristin Cashore
A book about a girl with the Grace (essentially specialized power) to kill other people. Meaning she's a really, really good fighter and she always wins. Except it loses a lot of the credibility in the attempting-to-empower-women department due to the fact that there are no other women fighters in the novel - or even in the military, apparently - and she's surrounded by dozens and dozens of male characters. I only got halfway through, but I didn't even encounter a single other female character.
The main character also proved herself to be unbearably self-centered when it was revealed that the other Graceling she had met had different powers from what she thought he had (he could read people's minds...sort of) and threw a temper tantrum, refusing to speak to him, and complaining about how difficult it was for her. Then the two of them escaped to the countryside, and she turned uber moody and hated him and cried over him and was madly in love with him all in the course of a split second...and they spent long moments thinking about one another as it devolved into a romance...and I stopped reading.
Warbreaker by Brandon Sanderson.
For the most part, I loved the Mistborn trilogy. And even here, Sanderson is one of the most readable writers I've ever encountered. But, similar to Cashore, he tends to lose some credibility in making the main characters female; though his is due more to the fact that, in the ultimate climax, neither of them did anything active or of importance whatsoever. His three major male characters, however, all did. In fact, in the grand scheme of things, they were all significantly important, and the sisters Siri and Vivenna...not so much. I also found that their characterizations were little more than different facets of Vin. Though, at least in this book, he actually had other female characters with names and everything besides the two protagonists.
Also, while the gradually-revealing-mystery method worked spectacularly well in the Mistborn books - primarily because the world was so interesting and original - here, it started to feel a little trite. Maybe Sanderson could experiment with different methods of storytelling; I'd hate to think that he's already run out of ideas with how to tell his stories.
And can someone tell me why this book was called Warbreaker? What is a Warbreaker, exactly?
Would I read a sequel? Probably not.
Fablehaven by Brandon Mull
This one has being getting a lot of attention, and everyone seems to be reading it, so I thought I'd see what the fuss was all about. My first reaction: nothing special. I mean, it has some relatively interesting ideas, that for reasons I'm not quite sure why, don't seem all that original. It also doesn't help that the two main characters seemed rather stereotyped for people of their age; she, as the girl, is cautious and obedient and never does anything wrong. And he, as the boy, is always disobedient and adventurous and up for doing anything exciting. Plus, there seemed to be a repetition of: Seth is told not to do something; he does it anyway; consequences ensue; the situation is rectified and the aforementioned person takes responsibility; repeat. It made Seth a really unlikeable character.
Plus, it took more than half the book just to develop a plot. I was starting to get a little bored with the day-to-day activity, and was just waiting for something to finally happen. And the book's ultimate theme/moral seems a bit convoluted; don't ever take any risks, and as a result, you'll be able to save your family...by taking risks...???? I don't quite understand how the reward for Kendra of never having done anything to participate in the fantasy of the forest and allowing her to be the one person to save everyone quite worked out. So are we to take away from this that we should take risks? That we shouldn't? I suspect Mull didn't know when he wrote it.
That being said, I will definitely read all of the sequels. In the same vein, I would never judge the Harry Potter series by the first book - or even the second - and I've been assured by others that the series gets better.
Storm Glass by Maria Snyder.
I loved Poison Study. Magic Study was a fun read, but lost me at the end. Fire Study was difficult to follow. But picking up with another character intrigued me enough (though, in general, I'm not a fan of first-person, and I rather wish she hadn't continued with that style of writing). It was engaging enough of a read - though I did find my attention drifting at times, (which is what happened to me in Fire Study). The character was fine, but she rather suffered due to what I feel is Snyder's greatest weakness exemplified in this book: she's a bit of a superficial storyteller. Though clocking in at over 500 hundred pages, with plenty of material, and sufficient amount of things happening, I feel like she kinds of glosses over in the rush to get to the next part of the story. It's like she's just skimming over the surface of everything - particularly any emotional or character moments - and never, ever lets herself really dip below the surface. And as a result, nothing ever really feels earned. It starts to leak her into the territory of writers who spend a lot of time telling and not showing. For example, Opal comes to the realization that she had been keeping herself aloof and distant from the other students, and this was repeated a great deal in the second half of the book - but I don't ever remember a time when she actually demonstrated that fact. Such a revelation would have worked better, even, if it had happened in the process of one her supposedly aloof interactions with another of the students.
The best way I can describe is that the storytelling just felt very, very rushed, and there were way too many moments that she skipped over dwelling on some of the most important material that required deeper contemplation. Even in some of the most essential, plot-driven parts of the story.
I wish I could say that I hope Snyder will get better as a writer, but she seems to have already hit her peak with her first book (Poison Study) and each book has gotten progressively worse. That being said, I would probably read a sequel, were it produced (which, I'm assuming there will be one).
Friday, September 18, 2009
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Gene Roddernberry's "Vision"
So as we come to the close of the summer and take a look back over the movie season, I have to add some positive commentary to what I thought was easily the best movie to come out these last four months (and even this year). And even though taking a defensible position on any issue at this juncture probably seems redundant and unnecessary (due to the overwhelmingly positive response to the movie), I feel inclined to add my response to a particularly negative critique of the new Star Trek movie that I've been scratching my head over: the idea that it violated, or lacked, this thing called "Gene Roddenberry's vision."
I've seen it from some ardent fans that didn't like the movie, as well from a few critics - including Mr. Ebert himself, who lamented the "Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action." (link) I've seen similar complaints of it lacking social commentary, moral relevance, etc. There seems to be an idealization of the the original series going on which implies that every episode was brimming over with brilliant commentary that left that viewer stunned with a new world perspective.
To these people (including Mr. Ebert), I have to ask: have you actually seen all of the original series?
Now, maybe I'm crazy, but somebody might have to point out to me what part of the episode Spock's Brain taught tolerance, or gave some in-depth commentary of social relevance. Because about the only thing I remember in that episode was McCoy walking Spock's body around via remote control (along with some unintentionally hilarious lines at the beginning of the episode about brain retrieval).
But before I get to that, I just have to break two of the most significant flaws:
1. It implies all the greatest of the original Star Trek contained messages of commentary, moral relevance, tolerance, etc.
2. It implies that it was one of the primary aspects (if not the only) that made the original series great, or even of significance - as if it was the only reason it gained all the fans and acclaim in the ensuing decades.
So what about The Way to Eden, when the space hippies - wearing their exceptionally funky outfits - spend a healthy portion of the episode singing about The Man (i.e. Kirk) bringing them down? Or And The Children Shall Lead, where the children dance around and a genie appears? Or Operation: Annihilate (the episode I like to think of as, the one with the pancake aliens) where the aliens fly around and control people's nervous systems and we learn Spock has an inner eyelid? Or Plato's Stepchildren, where powerful aliens make Kirk, Spock, et. al laugh, cry, sing, dance, and mimic horses, all for their amusement?
Mudd's Women had a man transporting women and selling them as wives and then the episodes ultimate moral was that every woman can learn to be beautiful - because that's all she's really worth! Shore Leave had a large rabbit, a shirt-ripped Kirk chasing an imaginary friend, and McCoy getting speared with a joust. The Naked Time had Sulu jaunting about the ship shirtless with a sword and Spock crying for his mother. I must've missed the ten minute discussion they had at the end where they discussed the social relevance of their experiences.
Now, it could be argued that none of these are considered among the best of the series, and are, therefore, not the most fair to use in judgment. So let's look at some of the more popular episodes:
The City on the Edge of Forever is not only widely considered one of the best episodes of the series, but it's heralded as a classic across television. And it's not a great episode because of its social commentary. It doesn't even have social commentary. It's a classic because it's great science fiction. Which plenty of the series was - doing its best and excelling at its own genre; and not all of that always had anything to do with social commentary.
How about The Trouble With Tribbles? It's one of the most popular episodes. (It's also one of the few episodes to elicit intentional laughs.) It's about tiny little aliens that purr and reproduce at an infinite rate, and Klingons trying to steal a planet out from under the Federation's control. At the end, we don't learn a lesson about understanding the little guy for the Tribble's sake; or learn to have an open-mind when dealing in a cold war-like situation with the Klingons. In fact, they send all the Tribbles over to the Klingons ship to spend a life in agony together! And then they all stand around and have a laugh about it! Where exactly is the moral relevance of that episode??
Another great one is Amok Time. You know what makes it great? We finally get to learn background on Spock, and discover, and even see so many new things about Vulcans and the planet they come from and some of their customs. No cold war analogies; no messages about racial tolerance. It's great because it's great science fiction.
Let's take this over into the movies. Star Trek II is still considered by most to be the best of the series. That movie doesn't strive for philosophy or ideology; it's about revenge! We love it because Ricardo Montalban gives a great scene-chewing performance and Spock has a heartbreaking death!
Not even all the movies tried for ideology; Star Trek I was probably attempting something, but it got too steeped in its own special effects for anyone to care. IV was about saving the whales, but that's not why we like it; we like it because it's surprisingly hilarious to watch the characters try to interact with 1986 San Francisco. V attempted it, and look what a pittance that movie is.
VI is the only one of the original series movies to try and succeed. And it even did so aptly because it drew upon past events, and came timed at the end of the cold war with Russia. So fine - I'll give you Star Trek VI.
Yes, I'll acknowledge that Classic Trek did strive for that on multiple occasions, and oftentimes succeeded rather well. Let That Be Your Last Battlefield and Errand of Mercy are two of the foremost that spring to mind. Even some of the more ham-fisted, containing some of William Shatner's absolute best overacting, like The Enemy Within and What Are Little Girls Made Of? I'll even warrant that it had a pretty broad scope of issues and ideas that it would explore: tolerance, and obvious cold war metaphors, the ideas of the yin and yang, being cast out of paradise, the dangers of over-reliance on machines, humans vs. themselves, etc. And it was interesting.
But it wasn't what made the series great.
You know what made the series great? The characters. I mean, can you imagine the original series being half as good if it didn't have Kirk, Spock and McCoy and their wonderful relationships at the core?
You know one of the reasons the new movie succeeded so well? Because, at its core, it was so very, very much about the characters of Kirk and Spock.
And on top of that, it was great science fiction.
If you didn't like the new movie, fine. Even if you're a fan of the franchise who was unhappy with that, I can respect a difference of opinion. I can understand dissatisfaction with having to adjust to new actors playing the characters, and the fact that Abrams' Star Trek looks very, very different from anything the franchise has ever produced before.
But claiming that the new Star Trek is lacking because it didn't have some deeper meaning about philosophy, or social commentary is just a way of trying to make onself look and feel superior to those who actually did like the movie. It's an arrogant means of over-idealizing the series that, frankly, doesn't deserve that high of a pedestal to be placed upon. It was a good series in its day, and it was, at times, striving for something higher. But acting like that was what made it the series, and why it's continued in pop culture to this day, is ignoring all the other things that made the series.
I've seen it from some ardent fans that didn't like the movie, as well from a few critics - including Mr. Ebert himself, who lamented the "Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action." (link) I've seen similar complaints of it lacking social commentary, moral relevance, etc. There seems to be an idealization of the the original series going on which implies that every episode was brimming over with brilliant commentary that left that viewer stunned with a new world perspective.
To these people (including Mr. Ebert), I have to ask: have you actually seen all of the original series?
Now, maybe I'm crazy, but somebody might have to point out to me what part of the episode Spock's Brain taught tolerance, or gave some in-depth commentary of social relevance. Because about the only thing I remember in that episode was McCoy walking Spock's body around via remote control (along with some unintentionally hilarious lines at the beginning of the episode about brain retrieval).
But before I get to that, I just have to break two of the most significant flaws:
1. It implies all the greatest of the original Star Trek contained messages of commentary, moral relevance, tolerance, etc.
2. It implies that it was one of the primary aspects (if not the only) that made the original series great, or even of significance - as if it was the only reason it gained all the fans and acclaim in the ensuing decades.
So what about The Way to Eden, when the space hippies - wearing their exceptionally funky outfits - spend a healthy portion of the episode singing about The Man (i.e. Kirk) bringing them down? Or And The Children Shall Lead, where the children dance around and a genie appears? Or Operation: Annihilate (the episode I like to think of as, the one with the pancake aliens) where the aliens fly around and control people's nervous systems and we learn Spock has an inner eyelid? Or Plato's Stepchildren, where powerful aliens make Kirk, Spock, et. al laugh, cry, sing, dance, and mimic horses, all for their amusement?
Mudd's Women had a man transporting women and selling them as wives and then the episodes ultimate moral was that every woman can learn to be beautiful - because that's all she's really worth! Shore Leave had a large rabbit, a shirt-ripped Kirk chasing an imaginary friend, and McCoy getting speared with a joust. The Naked Time had Sulu jaunting about the ship shirtless with a sword and Spock crying for his mother. I must've missed the ten minute discussion they had at the end where they discussed the social relevance of their experiences.
Now, it could be argued that none of these are considered among the best of the series, and are, therefore, not the most fair to use in judgment. So let's look at some of the more popular episodes:
The City on the Edge of Forever is not only widely considered one of the best episodes of the series, but it's heralded as a classic across television. And it's not a great episode because of its social commentary. It doesn't even have social commentary. It's a classic because it's great science fiction. Which plenty of the series was - doing its best and excelling at its own genre; and not all of that always had anything to do with social commentary.
How about The Trouble With Tribbles? It's one of the most popular episodes. (It's also one of the few episodes to elicit intentional laughs.) It's about tiny little aliens that purr and reproduce at an infinite rate, and Klingons trying to steal a planet out from under the Federation's control. At the end, we don't learn a lesson about understanding the little guy for the Tribble's sake; or learn to have an open-mind when dealing in a cold war-like situation with the Klingons. In fact, they send all the Tribbles over to the Klingons ship to spend a life in agony together! And then they all stand around and have a laugh about it! Where exactly is the moral relevance of that episode??
Another great one is Amok Time. You know what makes it great? We finally get to learn background on Spock, and discover, and even see so many new things about Vulcans and the planet they come from and some of their customs. No cold war analogies; no messages about racial tolerance. It's great because it's great science fiction.
Let's take this over into the movies. Star Trek II is still considered by most to be the best of the series. That movie doesn't strive for philosophy or ideology; it's about revenge! We love it because Ricardo Montalban gives a great scene-chewing performance and Spock has a heartbreaking death!
Not even all the movies tried for ideology; Star Trek I was probably attempting something, but it got too steeped in its own special effects for anyone to care. IV was about saving the whales, but that's not why we like it; we like it because it's surprisingly hilarious to watch the characters try to interact with 1986 San Francisco. V attempted it, and look what a pittance that movie is.
VI is the only one of the original series movies to try and succeed. And it even did so aptly because it drew upon past events, and came timed at the end of the cold war with Russia. So fine - I'll give you Star Trek VI.
Yes, I'll acknowledge that Classic Trek did strive for that on multiple occasions, and oftentimes succeeded rather well. Let That Be Your Last Battlefield and Errand of Mercy are two of the foremost that spring to mind. Even some of the more ham-fisted, containing some of William Shatner's absolute best overacting, like The Enemy Within and What Are Little Girls Made Of? I'll even warrant that it had a pretty broad scope of issues and ideas that it would explore: tolerance, and obvious cold war metaphors, the ideas of the yin and yang, being cast out of paradise, the dangers of over-reliance on machines, humans vs. themselves, etc. And it was interesting.
But it wasn't what made the series great.
You know what made the series great? The characters. I mean, can you imagine the original series being half as good if it didn't have Kirk, Spock and McCoy and their wonderful relationships at the core?
You know one of the reasons the new movie succeeded so well? Because, at its core, it was so very, very much about the characters of Kirk and Spock.
And on top of that, it was great science fiction.
If you didn't like the new movie, fine. Even if you're a fan of the franchise who was unhappy with that, I can respect a difference of opinion. I can understand dissatisfaction with having to adjust to new actors playing the characters, and the fact that Abrams' Star Trek looks very, very different from anything the franchise has ever produced before.
But claiming that the new Star Trek is lacking because it didn't have some deeper meaning about philosophy, or social commentary is just a way of trying to make onself look and feel superior to those who actually did like the movie. It's an arrogant means of over-idealizing the series that, frankly, doesn't deserve that high of a pedestal to be placed upon. It was a good series in its day, and it was, at times, striving for something higher. But acting like that was what made it the series, and why it's continued in pop culture to this day, is ignoring all the other things that made the series.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
"Strong women" of new Star Trek
So in light of the news regarding the sequel(s) (link) - and the fact that we're pretty much guaranteed a third movie - woohoo! - I wanted to address a particular issue I keep stumbling across. Like most people who saw the new Star Trek movie, I absolutely loved it. But I keep running across quotes from JJ Abrams, Robert Orci, and others from the film, claiming that they were encouraged to make this movie by their wives "because of the strong women" and the like. (link) To which, I have to ask: what strong women?
To which I then add: other than Uhura, what women?
So let's do a run-down of what women we have in this movie.
Women Who Have Names:
Uhura - Obviously, the most important one. True, she does get a bit of fleshing out when we first meet her and it's established that she's really talented in alien languages, etc. But in the latter half of the movie, once it's established she's in a romantic relationship with Spock, her character devolves to: expressing the emotions Spock can't, and displaying a tendency to chase Spock around the ship. You know what was extraordinary about the original Uhura? She wasn't hooked up with any guy. The cast and producers talk about how unusual it is for the "hero" (Kirk) not to get the girl, but his best friend (Spock) rather, instead. You know what would've been even more extraordinary? For the one, signature female to end up with no one at all! For the definition of her character to be something other than "well, see, she's dating this guy..."
Gaila - We see her in her underwear and making out with Kirk. Do we even remember anything else about her?
Women Who Have Names That Are Not Spoken In The Movie:
Winona Kirk (Kirk's mother)
Amanda Grayson (Spock's mother) - And so the only other two significant women in the movie are both Mothers. Yes, that shows real awareness of trying to move forward with more interesting women in the genre - women whose role in the story is defined by whether or not you ever pushed a human being out of your vagina, and whether or not you lived up with the accompanying duties expected thereof. Shall we give the same judgment to the male characters in the movie/franchise - how many women they have impregnated, and how well they live up to their Fatherly duties. I don't think Kirk would come off too well...
So we have four women - one of whom is in a relationship with a male character, one of whom we see in her underwear, and two of whom are Mothers. There are also a couple of women on the bridge of the Enterprise...and one female Admiral in the academy to about ten males.
Could someone direct me to the strong women again? In all the times I saw this movie, I must not have been paying very good attention.
And let us also not forget that the women in this movie are wearing mini-skirts!!
The original uniforms for the women are outdated and blatantly sexist. And I have a hard time grasping the credibility of a "egalitarian" military future where the women are wearing clothing so short as to practically be showing off their underwear. Really, Abrams? You claim that this movie has strong women - and put them all in mini-skirts?? You changed so many other things to the franchise - but you couldn't be convinced to lose the mini-skirts?
Here's the thing: I wasn't watching this movie expecting or hoping for an excess of strong women. The point of this movie was to reboot the original series, and make the franchise accessible to people beyond the fanbase. And of both those goals, it did extraordinarily well. But there was only one female character in the original series, and she didn't even really have a personality. Adhering to the original story and its characters doesn't allow much for strong women. And that's fine - your movie doesn't have to be cited as a Pioneer for Women's Rights in Science Fiction. But please don't pretend or claim that it is.
The only explanation I can think of is that some of the men involved in the process looked at the overall picture, realized what a dearth of women they are, knew what a risk that could be, and so decided to start spreading the rumor that there are a lot of strong women - as if that will somehow start to convince people of the existence of something that it so clearly not there. As if saying that there are strong women will somehow compensate for the lack.
It's like if someone started talking about how fantastic this movie was because of what a clear ensemble it was. Which, of course, it wasn't. I mean, each of the individual characters gets their moment in the spotlight - Scotty does amazing technical things and makes people laugh, Chekhov is a 17 year-old genius, Sulu is a pilot that fences (albeit shirted), and McCoy is snarky and sardonic - but ultimately, the movie belongs to Spock and Kirk. And that's exactly how it should be. I don't hear anyone claiming that this movie is "such a great ensemble" to try to distract people from the fact that it clearly isn't.
Claims like this from Abrams is like two steps backwards in the struggle to get more and interesting women depicted in pop culture; it kind of makes things worse. So Abrams and co. officially go into the category of: Men Who Don't Try Very Hard...But Think That They Do.
And if you really care about depicting strong and interesting women in sci-fi, I would recommend looking to the likes of Joss Whedon, Ron Moore, and David Eick for inspiration.
To which I then add: other than Uhura, what women?
So let's do a run-down of what women we have in this movie.
Women Who Have Names:
Uhura - Obviously, the most important one. True, she does get a bit of fleshing out when we first meet her and it's established that she's really talented in alien languages, etc. But in the latter half of the movie, once it's established she's in a romantic relationship with Spock, her character devolves to: expressing the emotions Spock can't, and displaying a tendency to chase Spock around the ship. You know what was extraordinary about the original Uhura? She wasn't hooked up with any guy. The cast and producers talk about how unusual it is for the "hero" (Kirk) not to get the girl, but his best friend (Spock) rather, instead. You know what would've been even more extraordinary? For the one, signature female to end up with no one at all! For the definition of her character to be something other than "well, see, she's dating this guy..."
Gaila - We see her in her underwear and making out with Kirk. Do we even remember anything else about her?
Women Who Have Names That Are Not Spoken In The Movie:
Winona Kirk (Kirk's mother)
Amanda Grayson (Spock's mother) - And so the only other two significant women in the movie are both Mothers. Yes, that shows real awareness of trying to move forward with more interesting women in the genre - women whose role in the story is defined by whether or not you ever pushed a human being out of your vagina, and whether or not you lived up with the accompanying duties expected thereof. Shall we give the same judgment to the male characters in the movie/franchise - how many women they have impregnated, and how well they live up to their Fatherly duties. I don't think Kirk would come off too well...
So we have four women - one of whom is in a relationship with a male character, one of whom we see in her underwear, and two of whom are Mothers. There are also a couple of women on the bridge of the Enterprise...and one female Admiral in the academy to about ten males.
Could someone direct me to the strong women again? In all the times I saw this movie, I must not have been paying very good attention.
And let us also not forget that the women in this movie are wearing mini-skirts!!
The original uniforms for the women are outdated and blatantly sexist. And I have a hard time grasping the credibility of a "egalitarian" military future where the women are wearing clothing so short as to practically be showing off their underwear. Really, Abrams? You claim that this movie has strong women - and put them all in mini-skirts?? You changed so many other things to the franchise - but you couldn't be convinced to lose the mini-skirts?
Here's the thing: I wasn't watching this movie expecting or hoping for an excess of strong women. The point of this movie was to reboot the original series, and make the franchise accessible to people beyond the fanbase. And of both those goals, it did extraordinarily well. But there was only one female character in the original series, and she didn't even really have a personality. Adhering to the original story and its characters doesn't allow much for strong women. And that's fine - your movie doesn't have to be cited as a Pioneer for Women's Rights in Science Fiction. But please don't pretend or claim that it is.
The only explanation I can think of is that some of the men involved in the process looked at the overall picture, realized what a dearth of women they are, knew what a risk that could be, and so decided to start spreading the rumor that there are a lot of strong women - as if that will somehow start to convince people of the existence of something that it so clearly not there. As if saying that there are strong women will somehow compensate for the lack.
It's like if someone started talking about how fantastic this movie was because of what a clear ensemble it was. Which, of course, it wasn't. I mean, each of the individual characters gets their moment in the spotlight - Scotty does amazing technical things and makes people laugh, Chekhov is a 17 year-old genius, Sulu is a pilot that fences (albeit shirted), and McCoy is snarky and sardonic - but ultimately, the movie belongs to Spock and Kirk. And that's exactly how it should be. I don't hear anyone claiming that this movie is "such a great ensemble" to try to distract people from the fact that it clearly isn't.
Claims like this from Abrams is like two steps backwards in the struggle to get more and interesting women depicted in pop culture; it kind of makes things worse. So Abrams and co. officially go into the category of: Men Who Don't Try Very Hard...But Think That They Do.
And if you really care about depicting strong and interesting women in sci-fi, I would recommend looking to the likes of Joss Whedon, Ron Moore, and David Eick for inspiration.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Summer box office predictions
I know I'm a bit late on the reactions to this, but I still have to ask: are critics and analysts really that surprised with the amounts of money Transformers 2 is making? I realize that, among other things, its rating on rottentomatoes is low (and getting lower), but since when is that kind of thing ever a deciding factor for a wanna-be blockbuster like the new Transformers?
I only read these claims on imdb, so I don't know how much other analysts were weighing in, but they kept claiming that the supposed "negative word-of-mouth" was going to play a role in bringing down its total. To which I have to ask: what negative word-of-mouth? Just because the critics all hated it? The overall impression I've gotten is that the majority of people who loved the first loved the second - what more can you really ask for in guaranteeing a money-maker?
I think the most important factors that need to be taken into account are the fact that the first made lots of money (some 319 million domestically) and people really, really liked it. History has proved time and time again that such instances always result in a bigger take for the second movie - even if only for the start. I mean, look at Pirates of the Caribbean: the first movie only made 46 million in its opening weekend, got decent word-of-mouth, and ended up with just over 300 million total. The second Pirates movie made 135 million in its opening weekend, and is one of only four movies to gross over a billion dollars worldwide.
So while I don't think Transformers is going to do as impressive a total as Dark Knight (i.e. make over 500 million domestically, or a billion worldwide), and the 60% drop-off from first to second weekend is one of the many indicators of such, it's still going to do a huge amount in the long-run. And so I have to ask again: are people really that surprised Transformers 2 is making so much money?
Anyway, based on the first half of the summer so far, and the fact that, pretty much, the only major competitor still to be released this summer is Harry Potter 6, my prediction for the top five grossing movies of the summer (in order) are:
1. Transformers 2
2. Harry Potter 6
3. Up
4. Star Trek
5. The Hangover
The trickier part is to predict how much each of them will end up with (all domestically, of course; worldwide can be harder to gauge). So loosely, I'm going to say:
1. Transformers will undoubtedly make more than 400 million. How much more? Maybe 20-25. It's already made so much, this is all but assured, but with the heavy competition, and the higher-than-average declines from weekend to weekend will put it among the top movies...but it won't get anywhere near 500 million.
2. Harry Potter is the hardest to predict, since the book series has ended, and two years is the longest wait we've seen thusfar between movies, meaning there could be less enthusiasm from some of the more casual crowd. At the same time, simply because it's been so long, it could also have the reverse of generating even more impatient enthusiastic. Personally, I'm guessing the latter. Though no Harry Potter has ever, say, cracked the top ten all time movies (Sorcerer's Stone made 317 million), I'm going to predict that Harry Potter 6 will become the second highest grossing movie in the franchise with somewhere in the final tally of 300 million.
3. After holding on to the upper end of the chart for an impressive amount of time, Up is finally starting to taper down toward it's finale (currently at 264 million) and I'm willing to bet it will end up in the realm of 280-290 million. I'd be surprised if it passed 300 million - but it's already taken its place as the second best a Pixar a movie has ever done. (No way will it pass Finding Nemo's 339 million.)
4. Star Trek's the easiest to gauge, as its been out the longest and is the closest to the end of its run. It should pass 250 million today, and will probably end somewhere just past 260 million. (Adjusted for inflation, it's already since passed Star Trek: The Motion Picture as the highest grossing movie of the franchise. Woohoo!)
5. I find The Hangover has surprised me the most of any movie this summer - mostly because it had a bigger-than-expected opening, and has dropped no higher than 36% (!) from one weekend to the next. It's already passed 200 million, and should end in the realm of 230-240 million.
As for the rest of the movies? I'd loosely say 6-10 will constitute: X-Men: Wolverine, Night at the Museum 2, Angels and Demons, Terminator: Salvation, and Ice Age 3, possibly in that order. Whereas Transformers has generated much enthusiasm, and the other four have (or probably will) benefit from positive word-of-mouth, I found these last five blockbuster wanna-be's just haven't generated quite the excitement of the top five.
As for the year, the only movie I could possible see overtaking Transformers 2 would be James Cameron's Avatar - which could either be the biggest hit or the biggest bomb we've seen in a long while.
I only read these claims on imdb, so I don't know how much other analysts were weighing in, but they kept claiming that the supposed "negative word-of-mouth" was going to play a role in bringing down its total. To which I have to ask: what negative word-of-mouth? Just because the critics all hated it? The overall impression I've gotten is that the majority of people who loved the first loved the second - what more can you really ask for in guaranteeing a money-maker?
I think the most important factors that need to be taken into account are the fact that the first made lots of money (some 319 million domestically) and people really, really liked it. History has proved time and time again that such instances always result in a bigger take for the second movie - even if only for the start. I mean, look at Pirates of the Caribbean: the first movie only made 46 million in its opening weekend, got decent word-of-mouth, and ended up with just over 300 million total. The second Pirates movie made 135 million in its opening weekend, and is one of only four movies to gross over a billion dollars worldwide.
So while I don't think Transformers is going to do as impressive a total as Dark Knight (i.e. make over 500 million domestically, or a billion worldwide), and the 60% drop-off from first to second weekend is one of the many indicators of such, it's still going to do a huge amount in the long-run. And so I have to ask again: are people really that surprised Transformers 2 is making so much money?
Anyway, based on the first half of the summer so far, and the fact that, pretty much, the only major competitor still to be released this summer is Harry Potter 6, my prediction for the top five grossing movies of the summer (in order) are:
1. Transformers 2
2. Harry Potter 6
3. Up
4. Star Trek
5. The Hangover
The trickier part is to predict how much each of them will end up with (all domestically, of course; worldwide can be harder to gauge). So loosely, I'm going to say:
1. Transformers will undoubtedly make more than 400 million. How much more? Maybe 20-25. It's already made so much, this is all but assured, but with the heavy competition, and the higher-than-average declines from weekend to weekend will put it among the top movies...but it won't get anywhere near 500 million.
2. Harry Potter is the hardest to predict, since the book series has ended, and two years is the longest wait we've seen thusfar between movies, meaning there could be less enthusiasm from some of the more casual crowd. At the same time, simply because it's been so long, it could also have the reverse of generating even more impatient enthusiastic. Personally, I'm guessing the latter. Though no Harry Potter has ever, say, cracked the top ten all time movies (Sorcerer's Stone made 317 million), I'm going to predict that Harry Potter 6 will become the second highest grossing movie in the franchise with somewhere in the final tally of 300 million.
3. After holding on to the upper end of the chart for an impressive amount of time, Up is finally starting to taper down toward it's finale (currently at 264 million) and I'm willing to bet it will end up in the realm of 280-290 million. I'd be surprised if it passed 300 million - but it's already taken its place as the second best a Pixar a movie has ever done. (No way will it pass Finding Nemo's 339 million.)
4. Star Trek's the easiest to gauge, as its been out the longest and is the closest to the end of its run. It should pass 250 million today, and will probably end somewhere just past 260 million. (Adjusted for inflation, it's already since passed Star Trek: The Motion Picture as the highest grossing movie of the franchise. Woohoo!)
5. I find The Hangover has surprised me the most of any movie this summer - mostly because it had a bigger-than-expected opening, and has dropped no higher than 36% (!) from one weekend to the next. It's already passed 200 million, and should end in the realm of 230-240 million.
As for the rest of the movies? I'd loosely say 6-10 will constitute: X-Men: Wolverine, Night at the Museum 2, Angels and Demons, Terminator: Salvation, and Ice Age 3, possibly in that order. Whereas Transformers has generated much enthusiasm, and the other four have (or probably will) benefit from positive word-of-mouth, I found these last five blockbuster wanna-be's just haven't generated quite the excitement of the top five.
As for the year, the only movie I could possible see overtaking Transformers 2 would be James Cameron's Avatar - which could either be the biggest hit or the biggest bomb we've seen in a long while.
Sunday, July 5, 2009
An open analysis of Heroes
I've spent the past month or so watching the first three seasons of Heroes - and as I've explored the web for fan reaction, I've found it rather mixed. People lauded the first season to the skies, and now, many of the fans speak of the series with increased loathing over the second and third seasons. I wanted to post a reaction and analysis to my watching of the series - mostly because I feel a similar sense of frustration with it, but, I get the impression, for very different reasons from many of the fans.
(Warning: these are as many of my initial reactions and thoughts I can compile, as well as some of my more long-term reactions to the series, so this is very long.)
A couple of statements to begin with: I began watching the series as a direct result of seeing the new Star Trek movie. Meaning I had one very specific motivation is watching the series, and that it was all but foreordained that Sylar would be my favorite character (which, yes, he was - and it continued for the duration of the series). Also, my overall opinion of the series would be: fun and engaging, but immensely flawed. I feel like it's an enjoyable series on the surface, but when you start to dig deeper, much of its foundations begin to crumble even under the barest of scrutiny.
Season One
What I liked:
Of the three seasons, it probably had the strongest foundational arc. It was well-established early in the season that all the events would ultimately be pointing toward the nuclear bomb that destroys New York. Plus, Isaac's painting of it on the floor of his loft was so haunting and cool.
It's an obvious reason, but Isaac's paintings. Not only is it a great way to hark to the very comic-book nature that the series notably draws inspiration from, but it created a fantastic backdrop for the season as a whole. I thought this became no more true than when, late in the season, characters would come and essentially scan through the events of the season by looking at the loft of paintings.
Time travel as a plot device - before even Lost started physically jumping in time in its 4th and 5th seasons, having Hiro jump back and forward in time, and using that jumping to show flashback and flash-forward for all the characters, I thought, was brilliant. And is also demonstrative of the fact that Six Months Ago and Fears Years Gone are among the strongest and most engaging episodes of the season.
It's a bit repetitive of me to state that I love Sylar, but it remains true. I love all things Sylar. In first season, he makes for such an awesome, creepy villain.
HRG. I think he was one of the strongest and most surprising elements of the season. I spent the first half of it wondering if the man even had a conscience - and then, in one episode (Company Man) they managed to completely flesh him out and give full explanation for his actions that made perfect sense. From that point on, it was a given that HRG was going to be one of the most interesting characters on the series.
What I didn't like:
This season is slow. More than that, the series itself is just slow, slow, slow. I could barely get through the first third of the season. If I had watched it while it was on (rather than on DVD) I'm sure I would've given up after a couple episodes. And even on DVD, if I hadn't had the motivation of wanting to meet Sylar, I likely wouldn't been all that interested in continuing.
Plot is your friend. I mean, I get the appeal of character development - I really do. I love series that take time for serious and deep character development. But when it gets so much in the way of everything else that the series essentially has no plot for the first third of the season, you've got a problem. (It probably doesn't help that, for me, not all the character's stories in the first part of the season were all that engaging.)
The unfortunate nature of the anti-climax. Particularly in the first season, I felt there were multiple instances of the series demonstrating its extraordinary ability to create build-up - and then fizzle that all out with an anti-climax. Isaac and Peter spend how many episodes anticipating the confrontation of Sylar coming to get Claire - and when we finally see it, the whole thing abruptly ends with Sylar and Peter falling off a roof. The season finale was even more the case - other complaints aside, I thought the final showdown of Sylar vs. all the heroes should've been epic. Instead it was...kind of boring. And lame. Even the introduction of Linderman's character; we had been hearing so much about him for so long, and how he had his hands in the lives of pretty much all the main characters, and then we meet him he's...nothing special. I felt he should've been a character that was larger than life - but due partly to the writing, partly to the casting, he came off as...pretty average.
The last three episodes. So in Six Months Gone (yes, I enjoyed it, but it has holes) Hiro and Ando travel to the future, where they meet Future Hiro, who explains the importance of Save the Cheerleader Save the World: Peter saves Claire from Sylar, Sylar won't be able to regenerate when fighting the heroes at Kirby Plaza, and the world is saved. Only problem is, that same episode also establishes two things: Claire had been saved, and the explosion had still taken place, resulting in Sylar killing Nathan and becoming President - meaning Sylar likely would've triumphed regardless of whether or not he had Claire's regenerative abilities; and Peter always was the exploding man. Even furthering the fact that whether or not Sylar or killed Claire didn't really make an difference - thereby negating the entire Save the Cheerleader, Save the World. And the season finale demonstrated that the key in changing events wasn't Claire - it was Nathan. Unfortunately, the show never really seemed to realize or acknowledge this.
Also, Sylar has a vision of the exploding man, at which he balks; he visits and accidentally kills his mother, to which he comes to the conclusion that destroying New York is his destiny. So in the next episode, he captures and kills Ted to acquire his nuclear powers (good job on getting Ted to New York for that, HRG). And then...he conveniently waits around for an episode for a confrontation with Peter. Instead of, you know, just destroying New York. It could be argued that he, thanks to his acquiring of Isaac's powers, he wanted specifically to bait Peter into doing that - except he didn't paint that confrontation with Peter or know about that until the start of the next episode. I'll never understand why Sylar was looming over New York at the end of the second to last episode and not just destroying the city like he believed he was destined to do.
So, like I said, I feel the season starts to crumble if you analyze it too deeply; no matter how enjoyable it is to watch on the surface.
Favorite episodes: Company Man, Six Months Ago, Five Years Gone (mostly for the reveal that Nathan was really Sylar and had been all along - I had to go back and rewatch all of Nathan's scenes, it was so awesome)
Favorite quote: Sylar to Ando - "Please! What would I want with your brain?"
Least favorite character: Isaac. Bland, unmemorable, and barely had a personality. I thought the most interesting thing about him was the fact that Sylar killed him.
(And, in all honesty, I would love for someone to come along and, respectfully, explain to me why it is that the fans all love season one so much. I wasn't crazy about it myself, but I'm sincerely curious and open to hearing the reasons why others were.)
Season Two
It's pretty much a given among most the fans that season two had struggles, and I think a lot of those reasons are pretty obvious why. The biggest one: it was slow. Even slower than the first half of season one (which I didn't think was possible). Honestly, I almost wept with utter boredom when the show spent fifteen minutes on the Awkward Dinner Conversations of the Bennett House instead of doing something like, oh, say, trying to establish any kind of a plot.
Also, Maya and Alejandro are (or were) totally the new Nikki and Paulo. Though at least they got the eventual introduction of Sylar into their story - who automatically makes anything he's involved in 100 times more interesting. Too bad they were both such annoying characters. And really - weeping poison? What kind of a power is that?
I think I really did cry when Hiro told Ando, via notes-in-the-samurai-sword, that he had decided to stay in rural China a while longer. And that's when I stopped watching or caring about Hiro.
Fortunately, the show picked up, and I thought the last three episodes were great. Too bad the series got hit so bad by the writer's strike. It would've been interesting to see where things had gone had the virus been released (as they obviously planed). But even in spite of that somewhat abrupt end to that storyline, I still found the last three episodes cohesive and engaging on every front. (Heck, I even enjoyed the Sylar-less third-to-last episode, and that almost never happens.)
My favorite thing about second season: I didn't know who to root for. I mean, the underlying assumptions about The Company was that it was always subversive, but did that really mean rooting for Adam? I wasn't really sure who was Good and Bad in that whole scenario, and I honestly don't think I was supposed to. And even more incredibly, I think the show managed that on purpose (which is pretty impressive). My only beef is that I wish we had been given more development toward Adam reaching the point of wanting to wipe out the human race; a plausible explanation, but not very developed, and painful indicative of how lacking Adam's character was as a villain. (Well, maybe they did explore that in the Hiro-time-traveling; I never could go back and watch that plotline, it was so boring.)
Favorite moments of the season: Sylar tormenting Mohinder. Mohinder started to become something of a self-righteous prick in second season, so I found it pretty satisfying to watch him cower in fear and confusion when Sylar returns in the last episode. The first scene where Mohinder returns to his apartment to find Maya cooking him breakfast is hilarious. Also, nothing in the series has given me quite the same amount of joy as the scenes in Isaac's loft. Maya, with Molly's help, realizes that Syler has killed Alejandro. While Sylar and Mohinder are figuring out that he's infected with the Shanti virus, Maja stands and is on the verge of another of her weepy breakdowns over the revelation when Sylar gets a hilarious "you've got to be kidding me" expression on his face, turns and shoots Maya dead. It was brilliant and awesome, and I think I watched it a dozen times.
Season Three
Here's where I imagine more of my opinions will vary from other fans, because I thought the first part of the Villains volume was awesome. (A word I never would've used to describe the first two seasons.) Granted, a lot of it probably had to do with my enjoyment over how much they managed to inject Sylar into the main story without him necessarily being the primary villain (and really - I thought Sylar and HRG as partners for The Company might've been the awesomest thing ever and totally deserved its own spinoff). Which was also a relief because the character was bound to get repetitive if all he did was continue on a brain-eating/stealing rampage that we saw the first season. (Though I had mixed feelings about Sylar-is-a-Petrelli! No, he's not!)
But what I also loved was how much it demonstrated the potential for so many of the hero characters to be evil. I mean, we had already seen Matt becoming a bit of an amoral prick in the future in Five Years Gone. But then, seeing who Claire became in the future in the third season finale - not to mention Nathan's distasteful presence. Tracy has often proved more of a question mark than Nikki ever was (also, I suspect Ali Larter would just be an awesome villain, no matter what). Even the future Peter, though fighting for what he thought was the Side of Right, was doing some very questionable things. Mohinder gains powers and, in the process, absolutely loses his mind. And Elle and HRG both became more muddled and uncertain.
Though there is some question as to its credibility as to its injection into the continuity of the show, I enjoyed the episode Villains quite thoroughly; a big reason being for how it fleshed out Angela Petrelli. Much like Company Man for HRG, it gives huge and sudden revelation to so many of her actions, and made her almost on par with HRG as one of the most interesting characters. (Though I felt third season rather demonstrated that the villains and those characters leaning toward villainy tend to be way more interesting than the "good guys.")
Unfortunately, the Volume's ending was led up to with some convolutions (the whole catalyst thing was just abrupt, ill-conceived and slightly bizarre) and the only really good thing about it was that Sylar killed Arthur Petrelli (which I hoped he would be the one to do).
But I would say the same for the start of Fugitives as the start of Villains - it began really strong. Unfortunately, Fugitives completely went off the deep-end in its last few episodes...but I'll get to that in a moment.
One of the most interesting aspects of Volume Four was the role of Nathan. Though I've never particularly liked or disliked the character, I do feel he's always been one of the most interesting and compelling characters. And the decisions he reached for the start of the Volume I found to be credible and completely in character for him.
Volume Four did feel to get a bit more...lost along the way. Also, I started to feel like outside of Sylar, the Petrellis, HRG and Claire, the writers were struggling to keep any of the other characters on the show. Was Mohinder even in Volume Four? I honestly can't remember anything he did.
And while I enjoyed the Sylar storyline (because I tend to enjoy pretty much all things Sylar), I can understand why others didn't. I mean, ultimately, what did Sylar's daddy-issues have to do with anything - particularly in regards to the main plot of Nathan and the government rounding up people with powers? I so wish they had had Sylar captured along with all the others at the start of the Volume, and force him to work with the other characters to escape, etc. That could've been so interesting. And even more importantly, wouldn't it have been so interesting had Nathan remained the villain up through the finale? I wish they had kept on that track. It would've been more in keeping with the season's loose theme of "anyone has the potential for evil," it would been a welcome, more interesting change from having the Adams/Arthurs/Sylars of the world as villains, and it would've been completely in keeping with Nathan's character.
Jumping ahead to the season finale (because my reaction to that tends to overshadow much of the season), at the most base, I have to say: I have never been more irate after watching an episode of television in my life.
I felt like the show spent the season exploring the morally gray of all the characters...and then suddenly realized it was in over its head and jumped back to the black and white of things because it didn't really know how to handle the complexities. Having Sylar being the big bad again - and after spending a season fleshing out the character and making him more sympathetic, only to have him spontaneously and rather inexplicably revert back to Big Evil, thereby undermining all of his character development from the season was painfully illogical, to say the least! I know it's awesome to have his as the villain and all, but if I'm not supposed to at least somewhat sympathize with Sylar's character, then why did you spend so much of the season fleshing him out???
And not only did Sylar's spontaneous turnabout about drive me mad, but the season finale gave me endless amounts of distate for so many of the other characters I enjoy. Primarily HRG and Angela. I used to find them two of the most compelling characters; but now, I can't express the frustration I feel with the both of them, and the way the show treats them.
HRG really started to lose me this season, as his "I'm doing this all to protect Claire" became repetitive and one-note. Also, getting into the Fugitives Volume, when it was very clear that he was doing it even though it was very much not what she wanted, ultimately demonstrated how selfish that action is. Which undermined even more of his credibility. Also, arguments of logic aside, I lost most of my sympathy for him when we learned of his involvement of pushing Gabriel Gray into becoming Sylar. A man who has spent so much time working for The Company, capturing, using and manipulating people with powers, and then who does turn-about and thinks he deserves the moral high-ground in condemning those people - all the while demonstrating absolutely no remorse for anything he has done - is not deserving of sympathy. I find him so distasteful and despicable, I didn't even feel anything for him when Sylar essentially ruined his marriage. The show is way too easy on him, and I rather, judgmentally, feel he deserves much worse.
Not to mention that I find Angela and HRG forcing Matt to force Sylar to become Nathan so painfully amoral, I want to claw my eyeballs every time I think about it. I am absolutely appalled and incensed that the show lets Angela and HRG get away with using another person like that - especially a monster that they both helped to create. Angela and HRG do not get to be on the Side of Right - ever! They are both amoral and despicable creatures, and even have admitted to as much!
Am I over-sympathizing with Sylar? Probably. Has he done despicable things and deserves retribution? Definitely. But it doesn't change my irritation over the way the show and characters handled his attempt at redemption. Even though he's still ultimately to blame, if you deny a person's right to redeem past wrongs, you yourself are undeserving of sympathy, IMO. Yet another reason I find distaste at HRG's character (and Claire's).
But if we're going to condemn Sylar for past actions, can someone please explain to me why no one in the finale is making a fuss over Nathan (putting aside the fact that he's not really Nathan)? When they're burning "Sylar", how come not one of them walks up to Nathan and says,"Hey! Remember when you turned us into the President and ordered a team of people to round us all up and send us away to be caged!" No, they all conveniently forget. Just like Nathan and Tracy conveniently forget that Mohinder kidnapped and attempted to experiment on them both (and that he may have killed more than one person).
Which gets to the crux of why I'm so frustrated with this show: I feel like its morals are completely screwy. One of my biggest beefs with all of the "good guys" is I feel like so many have done so many amoral things, but with the exception of Nikki, not one of them ever takes responsibility for their actions or ever seeks retributions for past wrongs. Even in the future, in Five Years Gone, I didn't see Peter ever rushing out to people saying,"No, it wasn't Sylar - it was really me who blew up New York." He never even had a desire to take responsibility for what he had done; he just let all the blame fall to Sylar.
How am I supposed to sympathize and root for characters that have such screwed up morals? That all get to be forgiven at the end of the day (off-screen, of course) for past misdeeds, simply because they're "the good guys." If Sylar needs to answer for his actions, HRG needs to own up for all the evil he's done for The Company and all he's manipulated his family, Angela equally needs to own up on both grounds, Matt needs retribution for all the times he's gone off the reservation, Nathan needs to answer for all the lying and manipulating and using he's done of others with powers, Mohinder needs to answer for all the selfish acts he did with his powers, and so on.
But the show probably never will. Because they're "good guys" - so, apparently, they get away with murder.
So the question is, do I keep watching when the show returns for the Fall? Possibly. I spent days fuming over the rage-inducing season finale, and have been tentative ever since. And even in spite of that, it's still a show I enjoy watching - at least on the surface. Also, I have a somewhat morbid curiosity about how they're going to handle the whole Nathan-is-really-Sylar storyline. I'm not optimistic, but I may not be able to find myself about to turn away from the horror.
A couple of things I think the show needs to do (taking more than one cue from Lost):
Set an end date. It worked spectacularly well for Lost. And it might also help the show better tie together much of its exhausting disparate nature.
Get rid of excess characters. Volume Four made it quite clear there were some it had a hard time keeping in the story. And the show really has too many characters as it is. (Yes, I'm sure some people would say get rid of Sylar; though for me, personally, if there's no Sylar, there's no more reason for me to watch the show.)
I also wouldn't be against them reviving some of their dead characters. Nathan, most specifically. I know it would probably be jump-the-shark for some fans, but I watched five seasons of Alias, I feel these shows are in the same league, and I could go with it. Also, they've effectively ended Nathan's storyline, even with Adrian Pasdar still on the show. Whatever happens from here on out is Sylar's story and experience - not Nathan's. And Nathan was one of the few consistently interesting characters. And I'd really like him to experience some retribution for everything he did in Fugitives.
Final words:
Favorite character: Sylar (duh), followed by HRG (seasons 1 and 2), Angela (Volume 3), Peter (season 3)
Most boring character: Hiro. He's one-note, he's demonstrated time and time again, his motivations for wanting to be a hero are not altruistic, but rather wanting all the selfish glory. Also, I swear, he and Ando have the exact same argument every three episodes.
Most annoying character: Claire. Sweetheart, you have had a painfully good life; you have not two, but four parents, not to mention your grandmother and Uncle Peter, all of whom are constantly telling you how amazing you are, and giving you endless amounts of emotional and physical support. And the fact that you dare look down your nose at other people who've had it harder just serves to demonstrate how much of a spoiled, selfish brat you really are.
(Warning: these are as many of my initial reactions and thoughts I can compile, as well as some of my more long-term reactions to the series, so this is very long.)
A couple of statements to begin with: I began watching the series as a direct result of seeing the new Star Trek movie. Meaning I had one very specific motivation is watching the series, and that it was all but foreordained that Sylar would be my favorite character (which, yes, he was - and it continued for the duration of the series). Also, my overall opinion of the series would be: fun and engaging, but immensely flawed. I feel like it's an enjoyable series on the surface, but when you start to dig deeper, much of its foundations begin to crumble even under the barest of scrutiny.
Season One
What I liked:
Of the three seasons, it probably had the strongest foundational arc. It was well-established early in the season that all the events would ultimately be pointing toward the nuclear bomb that destroys New York. Plus, Isaac's painting of it on the floor of his loft was so haunting and cool.
It's an obvious reason, but Isaac's paintings. Not only is it a great way to hark to the very comic-book nature that the series notably draws inspiration from, but it created a fantastic backdrop for the season as a whole. I thought this became no more true than when, late in the season, characters would come and essentially scan through the events of the season by looking at the loft of paintings.
Time travel as a plot device - before even Lost started physically jumping in time in its 4th and 5th seasons, having Hiro jump back and forward in time, and using that jumping to show flashback and flash-forward for all the characters, I thought, was brilliant. And is also demonstrative of the fact that Six Months Ago and Fears Years Gone are among the strongest and most engaging episodes of the season.
It's a bit repetitive of me to state that I love Sylar, but it remains true. I love all things Sylar. In first season, he makes for such an awesome, creepy villain.
HRG. I think he was one of the strongest and most surprising elements of the season. I spent the first half of it wondering if the man even had a conscience - and then, in one episode (Company Man) they managed to completely flesh him out and give full explanation for his actions that made perfect sense. From that point on, it was a given that HRG was going to be one of the most interesting characters on the series.
What I didn't like:
This season is slow. More than that, the series itself is just slow, slow, slow. I could barely get through the first third of the season. If I had watched it while it was on (rather than on DVD) I'm sure I would've given up after a couple episodes. And even on DVD, if I hadn't had the motivation of wanting to meet Sylar, I likely wouldn't been all that interested in continuing.
Plot is your friend. I mean, I get the appeal of character development - I really do. I love series that take time for serious and deep character development. But when it gets so much in the way of everything else that the series essentially has no plot for the first third of the season, you've got a problem. (It probably doesn't help that, for me, not all the character's stories in the first part of the season were all that engaging.)
The unfortunate nature of the anti-climax. Particularly in the first season, I felt there were multiple instances of the series demonstrating its extraordinary ability to create build-up - and then fizzle that all out with an anti-climax. Isaac and Peter spend how many episodes anticipating the confrontation of Sylar coming to get Claire - and when we finally see it, the whole thing abruptly ends with Sylar and Peter falling off a roof. The season finale was even more the case - other complaints aside, I thought the final showdown of Sylar vs. all the heroes should've been epic. Instead it was...kind of boring. And lame. Even the introduction of Linderman's character; we had been hearing so much about him for so long, and how he had his hands in the lives of pretty much all the main characters, and then we meet him he's...nothing special. I felt he should've been a character that was larger than life - but due partly to the writing, partly to the casting, he came off as...pretty average.
The last three episodes. So in Six Months Gone (yes, I enjoyed it, but it has holes) Hiro and Ando travel to the future, where they meet Future Hiro, who explains the importance of Save the Cheerleader Save the World: Peter saves Claire from Sylar, Sylar won't be able to regenerate when fighting the heroes at Kirby Plaza, and the world is saved. Only problem is, that same episode also establishes two things: Claire had been saved, and the explosion had still taken place, resulting in Sylar killing Nathan and becoming President - meaning Sylar likely would've triumphed regardless of whether or not he had Claire's regenerative abilities; and Peter always was the exploding man. Even furthering the fact that whether or not Sylar or killed Claire didn't really make an difference - thereby negating the entire Save the Cheerleader, Save the World. And the season finale demonstrated that the key in changing events wasn't Claire - it was Nathan. Unfortunately, the show never really seemed to realize or acknowledge this.
Also, Sylar has a vision of the exploding man, at which he balks; he visits and accidentally kills his mother, to which he comes to the conclusion that destroying New York is his destiny. So in the next episode, he captures and kills Ted to acquire his nuclear powers (good job on getting Ted to New York for that, HRG). And then...he conveniently waits around for an episode for a confrontation with Peter. Instead of, you know, just destroying New York. It could be argued that he, thanks to his acquiring of Isaac's powers, he wanted specifically to bait Peter into doing that - except he didn't paint that confrontation with Peter or know about that until the start of the next episode. I'll never understand why Sylar was looming over New York at the end of the second to last episode and not just destroying the city like he believed he was destined to do.
So, like I said, I feel the season starts to crumble if you analyze it too deeply; no matter how enjoyable it is to watch on the surface.
Favorite episodes: Company Man, Six Months Ago, Five Years Gone (mostly for the reveal that Nathan was really Sylar and had been all along - I had to go back and rewatch all of Nathan's scenes, it was so awesome)
Favorite quote: Sylar to Ando - "Please! What would I want with your brain?"
Least favorite character: Isaac. Bland, unmemorable, and barely had a personality. I thought the most interesting thing about him was the fact that Sylar killed him.
(And, in all honesty, I would love for someone to come along and, respectfully, explain to me why it is that the fans all love season one so much. I wasn't crazy about it myself, but I'm sincerely curious and open to hearing the reasons why others were.)
Season Two
It's pretty much a given among most the fans that season two had struggles, and I think a lot of those reasons are pretty obvious why. The biggest one: it was slow. Even slower than the first half of season one (which I didn't think was possible). Honestly, I almost wept with utter boredom when the show spent fifteen minutes on the Awkward Dinner Conversations of the Bennett House instead of doing something like, oh, say, trying to establish any kind of a plot.
Also, Maya and Alejandro are (or were) totally the new Nikki and Paulo. Though at least they got the eventual introduction of Sylar into their story - who automatically makes anything he's involved in 100 times more interesting. Too bad they were both such annoying characters. And really - weeping poison? What kind of a power is that?
I think I really did cry when Hiro told Ando, via notes-in-the-samurai-sword, that he had decided to stay in rural China a while longer. And that's when I stopped watching or caring about Hiro.
Fortunately, the show picked up, and I thought the last three episodes were great. Too bad the series got hit so bad by the writer's strike. It would've been interesting to see where things had gone had the virus been released (as they obviously planed). But even in spite of that somewhat abrupt end to that storyline, I still found the last three episodes cohesive and engaging on every front. (Heck, I even enjoyed the Sylar-less third-to-last episode, and that almost never happens.)
My favorite thing about second season: I didn't know who to root for. I mean, the underlying assumptions about The Company was that it was always subversive, but did that really mean rooting for Adam? I wasn't really sure who was Good and Bad in that whole scenario, and I honestly don't think I was supposed to. And even more incredibly, I think the show managed that on purpose (which is pretty impressive). My only beef is that I wish we had been given more development toward Adam reaching the point of wanting to wipe out the human race; a plausible explanation, but not very developed, and painful indicative of how lacking Adam's character was as a villain. (Well, maybe they did explore that in the Hiro-time-traveling; I never could go back and watch that plotline, it was so boring.)
Favorite moments of the season: Sylar tormenting Mohinder. Mohinder started to become something of a self-righteous prick in second season, so I found it pretty satisfying to watch him cower in fear and confusion when Sylar returns in the last episode. The first scene where Mohinder returns to his apartment to find Maya cooking him breakfast is hilarious. Also, nothing in the series has given me quite the same amount of joy as the scenes in Isaac's loft. Maya, with Molly's help, realizes that Syler has killed Alejandro. While Sylar and Mohinder are figuring out that he's infected with the Shanti virus, Maja stands and is on the verge of another of her weepy breakdowns over the revelation when Sylar gets a hilarious "you've got to be kidding me" expression on his face, turns and shoots Maya dead. It was brilliant and awesome, and I think I watched it a dozen times.
Season Three
Here's where I imagine more of my opinions will vary from other fans, because I thought the first part of the Villains volume was awesome. (A word I never would've used to describe the first two seasons.) Granted, a lot of it probably had to do with my enjoyment over how much they managed to inject Sylar into the main story without him necessarily being the primary villain (and really - I thought Sylar and HRG as partners for The Company might've been the awesomest thing ever and totally deserved its own spinoff). Which was also a relief because the character was bound to get repetitive if all he did was continue on a brain-eating/stealing rampage that we saw the first season. (Though I had mixed feelings about Sylar-is-a-Petrelli! No, he's not!)
But what I also loved was how much it demonstrated the potential for so many of the hero characters to be evil. I mean, we had already seen Matt becoming a bit of an amoral prick in the future in Five Years Gone. But then, seeing who Claire became in the future in the third season finale - not to mention Nathan's distasteful presence. Tracy has often proved more of a question mark than Nikki ever was (also, I suspect Ali Larter would just be an awesome villain, no matter what). Even the future Peter, though fighting for what he thought was the Side of Right, was doing some very questionable things. Mohinder gains powers and, in the process, absolutely loses his mind. And Elle and HRG both became more muddled and uncertain.
Though there is some question as to its credibility as to its injection into the continuity of the show, I enjoyed the episode Villains quite thoroughly; a big reason being for how it fleshed out Angela Petrelli. Much like Company Man for HRG, it gives huge and sudden revelation to so many of her actions, and made her almost on par with HRG as one of the most interesting characters. (Though I felt third season rather demonstrated that the villains and those characters leaning toward villainy tend to be way more interesting than the "good guys.")
Unfortunately, the Volume's ending was led up to with some convolutions (the whole catalyst thing was just abrupt, ill-conceived and slightly bizarre) and the only really good thing about it was that Sylar killed Arthur Petrelli (which I hoped he would be the one to do).
But I would say the same for the start of Fugitives as the start of Villains - it began really strong. Unfortunately, Fugitives completely went off the deep-end in its last few episodes...but I'll get to that in a moment.
One of the most interesting aspects of Volume Four was the role of Nathan. Though I've never particularly liked or disliked the character, I do feel he's always been one of the most interesting and compelling characters. And the decisions he reached for the start of the Volume I found to be credible and completely in character for him.
Volume Four did feel to get a bit more...lost along the way. Also, I started to feel like outside of Sylar, the Petrellis, HRG and Claire, the writers were struggling to keep any of the other characters on the show. Was Mohinder even in Volume Four? I honestly can't remember anything he did.
And while I enjoyed the Sylar storyline (because I tend to enjoy pretty much all things Sylar), I can understand why others didn't. I mean, ultimately, what did Sylar's daddy-issues have to do with anything - particularly in regards to the main plot of Nathan and the government rounding up people with powers? I so wish they had had Sylar captured along with all the others at the start of the Volume, and force him to work with the other characters to escape, etc. That could've been so interesting. And even more importantly, wouldn't it have been so interesting had Nathan remained the villain up through the finale? I wish they had kept on that track. It would've been more in keeping with the season's loose theme of "anyone has the potential for evil," it would been a welcome, more interesting change from having the Adams/Arthurs/Sylars of the world as villains, and it would've been completely in keeping with Nathan's character.
Jumping ahead to the season finale (because my reaction to that tends to overshadow much of the season), at the most base, I have to say: I have never been more irate after watching an episode of television in my life.
I felt like the show spent the season exploring the morally gray of all the characters...and then suddenly realized it was in over its head and jumped back to the black and white of things because it didn't really know how to handle the complexities. Having Sylar being the big bad again - and after spending a season fleshing out the character and making him more sympathetic, only to have him spontaneously and rather inexplicably revert back to Big Evil, thereby undermining all of his character development from the season was painfully illogical, to say the least! I know it's awesome to have his as the villain and all, but if I'm not supposed to at least somewhat sympathize with Sylar's character, then why did you spend so much of the season fleshing him out???
And not only did Sylar's spontaneous turnabout about drive me mad, but the season finale gave me endless amounts of distate for so many of the other characters I enjoy. Primarily HRG and Angela. I used to find them two of the most compelling characters; but now, I can't express the frustration I feel with the both of them, and the way the show treats them.
HRG really started to lose me this season, as his "I'm doing this all to protect Claire" became repetitive and one-note. Also, getting into the Fugitives Volume, when it was very clear that he was doing it even though it was very much not what she wanted, ultimately demonstrated how selfish that action is. Which undermined even more of his credibility. Also, arguments of logic aside, I lost most of my sympathy for him when we learned of his involvement of pushing Gabriel Gray into becoming Sylar. A man who has spent so much time working for The Company, capturing, using and manipulating people with powers, and then who does turn-about and thinks he deserves the moral high-ground in condemning those people - all the while demonstrating absolutely no remorse for anything he has done - is not deserving of sympathy. I find him so distasteful and despicable, I didn't even feel anything for him when Sylar essentially ruined his marriage. The show is way too easy on him, and I rather, judgmentally, feel he deserves much worse.
Not to mention that I find Angela and HRG forcing Matt to force Sylar to become Nathan so painfully amoral, I want to claw my eyeballs every time I think about it. I am absolutely appalled and incensed that the show lets Angela and HRG get away with using another person like that - especially a monster that they both helped to create. Angela and HRG do not get to be on the Side of Right - ever! They are both amoral and despicable creatures, and even have admitted to as much!
Am I over-sympathizing with Sylar? Probably. Has he done despicable things and deserves retribution? Definitely. But it doesn't change my irritation over the way the show and characters handled his attempt at redemption. Even though he's still ultimately to blame, if you deny a person's right to redeem past wrongs, you yourself are undeserving of sympathy, IMO. Yet another reason I find distaste at HRG's character (and Claire's).
But if we're going to condemn Sylar for past actions, can someone please explain to me why no one in the finale is making a fuss over Nathan (putting aside the fact that he's not really Nathan)? When they're burning "Sylar", how come not one of them walks up to Nathan and says,"Hey! Remember when you turned us into the President and ordered a team of people to round us all up and send us away to be caged!" No, they all conveniently forget. Just like Nathan and Tracy conveniently forget that Mohinder kidnapped and attempted to experiment on them both (and that he may have killed more than one person).
Which gets to the crux of why I'm so frustrated with this show: I feel like its morals are completely screwy. One of my biggest beefs with all of the "good guys" is I feel like so many have done so many amoral things, but with the exception of Nikki, not one of them ever takes responsibility for their actions or ever seeks retributions for past wrongs. Even in the future, in Five Years Gone, I didn't see Peter ever rushing out to people saying,"No, it wasn't Sylar - it was really me who blew up New York." He never even had a desire to take responsibility for what he had done; he just let all the blame fall to Sylar.
How am I supposed to sympathize and root for characters that have such screwed up morals? That all get to be forgiven at the end of the day (off-screen, of course) for past misdeeds, simply because they're "the good guys." If Sylar needs to answer for his actions, HRG needs to own up for all the evil he's done for The Company and all he's manipulated his family, Angela equally needs to own up on both grounds, Matt needs retribution for all the times he's gone off the reservation, Nathan needs to answer for all the lying and manipulating and using he's done of others with powers, Mohinder needs to answer for all the selfish acts he did with his powers, and so on.
But the show probably never will. Because they're "good guys" - so, apparently, they get away with murder.
So the question is, do I keep watching when the show returns for the Fall? Possibly. I spent days fuming over the rage-inducing season finale, and have been tentative ever since. And even in spite of that, it's still a show I enjoy watching - at least on the surface. Also, I have a somewhat morbid curiosity about how they're going to handle the whole Nathan-is-really-Sylar storyline. I'm not optimistic, but I may not be able to find myself about to turn away from the horror.
A couple of things I think the show needs to do (taking more than one cue from Lost):
Set an end date. It worked spectacularly well for Lost. And it might also help the show better tie together much of its exhausting disparate nature.
Get rid of excess characters. Volume Four made it quite clear there were some it had a hard time keeping in the story. And the show really has too many characters as it is. (Yes, I'm sure some people would say get rid of Sylar; though for me, personally, if there's no Sylar, there's no more reason for me to watch the show.)
I also wouldn't be against them reviving some of their dead characters. Nathan, most specifically. I know it would probably be jump-the-shark for some fans, but I watched five seasons of Alias, I feel these shows are in the same league, and I could go with it. Also, they've effectively ended Nathan's storyline, even with Adrian Pasdar still on the show. Whatever happens from here on out is Sylar's story and experience - not Nathan's. And Nathan was one of the few consistently interesting characters. And I'd really like him to experience some retribution for everything he did in Fugitives.
Final words:
Favorite character: Sylar (duh), followed by HRG (seasons 1 and 2), Angela (Volume 3), Peter (season 3)
Most boring character: Hiro. He's one-note, he's demonstrated time and time again, his motivations for wanting to be a hero are not altruistic, but rather wanting all the selfish glory. Also, I swear, he and Ando have the exact same argument every three episodes.
Most annoying character: Claire. Sweetheart, you have had a painfully good life; you have not two, but four parents, not to mention your grandmother and Uncle Peter, all of whom are constantly telling you how amazing you are, and giving you endless amounts of emotional and physical support. And the fact that you dare look down your nose at other people who've had it harder just serves to demonstrate how much of a spoiled, selfish brat you really are.
Intro
I love pop culture and entertainment. Movies, books, television, video games and music. So, basically, the purpose of this blog is an excuse to get on and express my opinions on said subjects and, hopefully, get a chance to interact with other like-minded people. I also enjoy forums (i.e. ign and rottentomatoes) where people keep a running tab in their signature indicating what games they are playing, etc. and so will likely update my own underneath my side profile.
(The title of the blog is a reference to Steven Johnson's Everything Bad is Good For You - which is an excellent book that explains the inherent intelligence in the increasing complexities of entertainment media.)
(The title of the blog is a reference to Steven Johnson's Everything Bad is Good For You - which is an excellent book that explains the inherent intelligence in the increasing complexities of entertainment media.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)