Sure, there's a strike coming, but I'm sure the falling ratings and backlash from the critics and the fans (not here it seems, but everywhere else) have *nothing* to do with this.
Seriously, this show had one popular season; all these plans for a spin off or sister show, what have you, were ridiculous. They were overextending this "franchise" when its having enough trouble in its second season recapturing what made audiences like it in the first place. And the last thing Heroes needs is MORE new characters when the still-new characters just introduced haven't won the audience over (putting it lightly in the case of the Wonder Twins).
They must realize they'd be best served fixing the mothership before anything else.
False start for NBC's 'Heroes: Origins' By Andrew Wallenstein
Nov 1, 2007 Fears of a writers strike may have already contributed to a decision NBC made Wednesday to pull the highly anticipated spinoff miniseries of its hit "Heroes" from a midseason launch.
NBC declined comment, but "Heroes: Origins" is not going to get its six-episode run, which was expected to start as early as late April. While the network hasn't officially canceled the spinoff, producers of the series have been given no indication of when it might get a spot on the schedule.
Sources indicated "Origins" may be just the first of many projects lined up at the broadcast networks in 2008 that will get downgraded as a result of the potential strike, which could severely affect the TV industry. Budget allocations made months ago for a range of scripted programs, many of which will not be feasible without sidelined writers, will likely be reconsidered and potentially shifted to strike-proof material like reality and news programs.
"Origins" had been highly touted as a midseason addition since NBC's upfront in May, when then-entertainment president Kevin Reilly envisioned spelling "Heroes" when it took a late-season hiatus. The network had been promoting "Origins" well in advance of its premiere, noting the enlistment of such top directors as Kevin Smith and Eli Roth to write and direct select episodes.
However, it is also possible that NBC, now under the creative direction of Ben Silverman, may have seen its enthusiasm diminish for an expansion of the "Heroes" franchise given a pronounced ratings drop-off in recent weeks for the flagship series.
It is unclear at what stage "Origins" was in the preproduction process, though it is unlikely scripts had been completed.
In other NBC news, unscripted series "The Singing Bee" has been yanked from the schedule for the upcoming November sweeps period in favor of expanded two-hour installments of "The Biggest Loser."
Speaking as someone who has never gotten captured by these mainstream hype shows (Heroes, Grey's, Housewives, Hills, any other crap) I have to say this is good news. It might just show a collective reawakening of taste in American viewership, although I doubt it.
But honestly, what was there to like about Heroes? They took nerd culture and ripped it off (Heroes is just basically a high school play-version of Watchmen), placing it in a glamorized and dumbed-down mainstream wrapping for consumption. They prettied up and dumbed-down the storylines they stole and aside from Masi Oka or whatever his name is, prettied up and dumbed-down the actors involved. They used cheap stunts like George Takei cameo shots and blatantly pandering to real nerds like myself to try and boost "street cred". It's all sizzle and no steak. Maybe I'm just a bitter old nerd but I'd frankly rather keep deep, thought-provoking but non-mainstream shows like Battlestar Galactica alongside the traditional "loser" stereotypes of nerd culture than have nerds become a part of the mainstream but at the cost of intelligence and taste.
Isn't that just an invitation to TV dick waving? My show is better than your show, and if you don't understand the deep psychological undertones of my show, then you are an uncultured lemming!
I'll cop to not really getting "into" Heroes until the DVD came out and I could watch them all within a week. It suffered the same problem as this season seems to, in that lots of stuff is happening, but it's developing rather slowly if you've got six days to let it marinate.
I've enjoyed the show for what it is. The bad characters aren't truely bad, the good characters aren't truely good, and the plot moved somewhere interesting. Even though they laid the whole thing out for you at the beginning of the season, the show kept you enganged until the end. I mean, that says something when the show itself gives you spoilers, and it still manages to remain interesting. And it really is hard to call "stunt casting" when the actors play the roles as well as they do (Takei and McDowell, anyway).
So that's why I've enjoyed this particular series. And I would rather have had the success of this series last season have been a predictor of American viewing habits. Other than Lost (which I haven't gotten into, for whatever reason), there really hasn't been a good serial adventure show on network TV that wasn't a crime or hospital drama since Angel went off the air.
I will say, for the record, that I've never seen Battlestar Gallactica, and I really haven't had much interest. But I will say that it's a little silly to attack a show just because it's too "mainstream" for you. Obviously somebody is enjoying the shows, so why bitch about it?
On the other end of the spectrum:
I'm happy they cancelled "Heroes: Origins," because they've got quite enough characters to follow right now, and I don't see what the point of adding a bunch of new ones is unless they have a bearing on the story, or they can kill off/phase out one of the other minor characters on the show.
I bitch about it because it seems that so-called "critics" end up bending more towards the will of the mainstream masses rather than actually critiquing shows. It's a giant crime that Battlestar has won no Emmies, that it isn't more recognized. Yet brainless drivel like Grey's is hailed as some second coming of great television. It's insulting.
But it's just television. People either like it or don't like it. KC Star sportswriter Joe Posnanski was opining about music today and he says when you hear it, it makes you feel happy or it doesn't. Can't the same thing apply to television? I like Heroes. I watch it once a week and I don't care it's fast food for my brain, I enjoy it. Does everything have to be critically acclaimed? Can't I just like it without a reason? I like Heroes. I like Lost. I like The Office. I like Earl. Hell, I like Ghost Hunters, and I'm pretty sure that's not critically acclaimed either.
CRZ had to edit my profile and close my table for me before, but I did this one all by myself with Frosty's help!
I think my point wasn't made clear. Let me try again...I in no way question people's right to like Grey's instead of the Office. We have the right to choose, fine. I'm not mad at the people. What I take issue with is accredited institutions, who hand out awards based on excellence in the field, consistently eschewing actually critiquing shows based on their merits. They pander to the tastes of the ignorant (the literal definition, lacking knowledge) masses and hand awards to the most popular shows instead of the best shows. Then pundits and bloggers and reporters and god knows who else all extol the virtues of these popular but lacking shows over the real cream of the crop. This lack of acknowledgment towards real merit bothers me.
No one should have to defend a critique of Heroes. It's a show for high-schoolers. What this show lacks is real tension -- character-driven tension. Defenders always claim "it's a comic book on TV" but the show ignores the central tension that comic book superheroes face: relationships with ordinary humans. Every character has a superpower on this show (e.g. every bro, sis, girlfriend, boyfriend, child and parent), and so all the tension dribbles out.
When Lois Lane discovers that Clark Kent is Superman, the story is always over.
I lost real interest when the Samurai dude discovered he cannot die. So much for real heroism, where lives are at stake. "Heroes" is like a Bush fantasy -- nothing is at stake. No one really dies.
Originally posted by BoromirMarkI think my point wasn't made clear. Let me try again...I in no way question people's right to like Grey's instead of the Office. We have the right to choose, fine. I'm not mad at the people. What I take issue with is accredited institutions, who hand out awards based on excellence in the field, consistently eschewing actually critiquing shows based on their merits. They pander to the tastes of the ignorant (the literal definition, lacking knowledge) masses and hand awards to the most popular shows instead of the best shows. Then pundits and bloggers and reporters and god knows who else all extol the virtues of these popular but lacking shows over the real cream of the crop. This lack of acknowledgment towards real merit bothers me.
(edited by BoromirMark on 4.11.07 0143)
In short, your complaint is that everyone disagrees with you as to what constitutes quality, so you assume that they must all be mindless sheep, because you won't consider the possibility that you might be wrong.
I mean, I'm a big BSG fan, and I think it should get more recognition, but I'm not going to dismiss everything I don't watch as drivel.
Originally posted by BoromirMarkWhat I take issue with is accredited institutions, who hand out awards based on excellence in the field, consistently eschewing actually critiquing shows based on their merits. They pander to the tastes of the ignorant (the literal definition, lacking knowledge) masses and hand awards to the most popular shows instead of the best shows.
Last season, especially the last half, was pretty compelling television. Personally, I thought the "Company Man" episode was one of the best hours of dramatic television I had ever seen. I credit that episode with the dragging me (kicking and screaming) into the Heroes "fan" fold.
Oh, and it looks like the season may be ending sooner than people thought. Like, say, December:
Originally posted by TV GuideSources confirm that the show is going back and shooting an alternate ending to the Dec. 3 episode that, if used, would allow the episode to function as a season finale in the event of a strike. Originally, the episode was only supposed to serve as the conclusion of the current "Generations" arc. Should an 11th-hour agreement be reached and a strike averted (fingers crossed!), the alt ending would likely be scrapped.
Given the beating that this show seems to be taking this season (from both the critics and the fans), I wonder if that may be the end of it - especially if this strike goes on a while.
I like how the two voting options on the first link there are basically "I'm glad it could be over soon, this season completely sucked!" and "Too bad it could be over soon, it really sucked, but it might have stopped sucking soon"
I'm really not sure which one I agree with, but I guess I'm leaning towards the latter...
THE SHORT VERSION: CBS wins the week with highest total viewers, ABC scores most 18-49 viewers...aka "see last week" RAW: The last episode of "Monday Night RAW" on Spike finished #4 (RAW) and #5 (Tied) (RAW Zone)