“Heroes” continues to please, and “Studio 60” improves…although I muse on a missed opportunity. Minimal spoilers below:
HEROES: Another strong entry as more and more of the threads begin to intertwine. Yes, it’s a huge coincidence that a flying superbeing happens to skid to a landing one hundred feet away from a diner where another superbeing is having breakfast, pretty much up there with three of our heroes happening to converge on Las Vegas all at the same time. Then again, I suppose one does have to allow for the hand of destiny here and there. And I can just see the mantra of the series—“Save the cheerleader”—showing up on buttons or t-shirts. It may be that we’re angling toward a climactic sequence where she has to be sent in to defuse a weapon and she’s literally the only one who could survive the experience…walking through a wall of fire or somesuch. Have to admit, I loved future Hiro, complete with samurai sword strapped to his back. I see now why I wasn’t sure it was the same actor: It’s amazing how much difference a haircut can make. Unlike other series which make you feel that the producers are kind of drifting along and even making it up as they go, “Heroes” gives you a clear sense that you’re watching a novel unfolding on a weekly basis. I suspect by the time we get to the end of the launch storyline…at the end of the season, most likely…this series is going to feel like a hurtling freight train, and we’ll all be holding on for the ride.
STUDIO 60: Okay…I figured out what’s wrong with the series. Yes, this week’s was an improvement over last week’s, and we actually got some interesting storylines and characterization that doesn’t make my teeth hurt. But here’s the problem: When the old guy who was a veteran of the Philco Theater was reminiscing about the 1950s and the blacklist, I found what he had to say—and his capsule description of the other writers—more interesting and more intriguing than anything I’ve seen in the first few episodes of “Studio 60.” I realized I wanted to see that show. A series set in the 1950s with old-time comedy writers producing sketches that are supposed to be goofy distractions from the real world, set against a growing encroachment from the government and the slow erosion of civil rights. Just as “MASH” was able to comment on the Vietnam war even though it was set against Korea, a 1950s “Studio 60” could have commented on what’s happening now by showing what was happening then, and underscoring how little things have changed. I’ll grant you, period shows can be a tougher sell…but Sorkin would have carried over a lot of “West Wing” goodwill into the launch, people would have sampled it, and they might not be jumping ship as rapidly as they are now. Plus it would have given it further breathing room from the more entertaining “30 Rock.”
• 
We had that show…the Ðìçk Van Ðÿkë show.
Or something.
“Still not entirely sure what direction they’re going to take the elder Petrelli brother. True, he’s a politician, and corrupt by definition, but he doesn’t seem entirely irredeemable. “
He’s just so lovable! How can I dislike a guy who can renegotiate his own blackmail with such charm? 🙂
Craig: I’m desperately hoping that BBC America picks up Torchwood. And the Sara Jane show. And the new K-9 series, I don’t care if it’s aimed at kids or not.
Actually, the show Peter described sounds an awful lot like On the Air, the show that David Lynch tried to follow Twin Peaks with, and which bombed after like four episodes. Incidentally, I get the same feeling from Studio 60 that I got from On the Air (a show about a TV show that pales in comparison to the creator’s previous work).
Future Hiro looked and sounded cool, but they will have to give him some limits on his power or he can simply redo anything that doesn’t work. (“Turn left! D’oh.” [travels back in time] “Turn right! Alright!”)
Well, that entire bit about risking creating “a rift” is a possiblity we need to see pan out.
“By the way, points to whomever coined “Cheerverine.””
Yeah, that would be me, in my October 17 posting, in which I wrote:
“The two characters at the furthest end of the spectrum remain the most interesting: the aptly named Hiro, who learns the harsh consequences of using one’s powers for personal gain, and Cheerverine, whose resurrection in the middle of her own autopsy remains the cliffhanger highlight thus far (“Be honest…does this sheet make my ribcage look fat?”)”
Now I don’t know if anyone else said it anywhere else first, but in this neck of the woods, it was me.
“Someone said they expected “Save the Cheerleader Save the World” to show up on t-shirts, etc.
It’s already on cafepress!”
And that was also me…in the blog entry at the top of this thread of comments. Jeez, guys, c’mon. It’s bad enough that you don’t remember I was the source of stuff I said a week ago, but in the same freakin’ post?
PAD
Well, I just ran a google search and was slightly torqued to find that the name “Cheerverine” has been showing up since early October, so I’m not the first one out there. But I’m pretty sure I’m the first one here. That should count for something.
So I’ll quickly coin other names, see if I can be the first one: Peter, the guy who repeats other powers, will henceforth be called Repeter.
PAD
Claire the Cheerleader (memorize that mantra, it’s the only way you’ll remember her name) is being used by her father. His little speech to the football player indicates that his “love” for her is the love of someone trying to raise a championship dog…or, perhaps more precisely, a hunting falcon to rip someone’s eyes out.
The only sympathy he really showed for anyone was for – surprise – the quarterback! Why would he be so “nice” to the guy? It wasn’t simply the matter of leaving a dead body in a hospital bed with his airhose jammed or something. I get the feeling he’s done stuff like that before.
I think he recognized that the quarterback has a lot in common with him; someone who uses force and lies to get what he wants. The QB’s only flaw was he didn’t finish the job and he got caught. If he had, he would’ve gone nuts with the loss of his pet project, but in a larger view, the QB would have proven to be the better manipulator. What we just witnessed was a gun battle, with the winning gunslinger shooting the loser’s hand so he won’t be able to compete again.
About Hiro Osaka; according to “Comic Buyer’s Guide,” the actor who plays him DOES know kendo, and has suggested that he could effectively fight with a sword in a future episode, if the writers and producers want to write the scene. It would make sense; as a salaryman with a very active fantasy life, he would probably have done something physical, if only to impress fellow geeks at conventions. The real trick is, there’s a difference between practice and actually fighting to hurt or kill, and that may be a hard life lesson for Hiro. (Which came from another Western, to extend the metaphor; I remember Paladin in “Have Gun Will Travel” trying to teach a man to shoot, and warning him that living targets are a different matter than plinking tin cans.)
IF the promo for next week is accurate (dámņ good promos, by the way!) it looks like Rose/Thorn (what the heck is her name?) is going to have her “passionate” personality talk to her “passive” personality. This could be interesting. Apparently several people with schitzophrenia do live normal life with two or more personalities, and sometimes the personalities do “talk” to each other.
Motivational writer Steve Chandler actually considers multiple personalities a brave act, someone “reinventing” himself in the face of horrifying difficulties. I can see her two sides arguing and negotiating with each other in the future, which is a great story idea that I don’t think has been used in a TV series before.
As far as Tshirts that say ‘Save the Cheerleader…’, on the TV Guide channel, they have a show called InFANity, and they did one about Heroes. And some of the crew were wearing black shirts with white font saying just that, ‘Save the Cheerleader…’ and I’m assuming the back finishes it, although you don’t see the back.
You know, the cliches of the folks who have absolutely no idea what a writer does, and of relatives who remain clueless in the face of a creative person’s extreme success, are cliches for a reason. They EXIST. In fact, they’re common.
Back when I had a day job, I often had co-workers look at books I’d written, stare at them with puzzled expressions, and say, “Ummm…so why is your name is this? Is there, like, a place where you pay someone to put your name on a book like this?” No, I wrote it. “Umm. What does that mean? Did you draw the cover?” No, those words between pages 1 and 444? I wrote them. “Ummm. Why?” Because it’s what I do. “And, how did you get somebody to print it?” I didn’t get somebody to print it, they got me to write it. I was paid. “Ummm. Why?” Because they then make money selling it to people. “People buy this?” Yes. “Why?” Because they want to read it. “Ummm. Why?” Because my books are fun to read. “Ummm.” (Flipping through the pages, looking for pictures). “Why aren’t you rich like Stephen King?” (or worse) “You know, I have a great idea for a book. Why don’t you write it and we can split the money?”
I am absolutely NOT exaggerating. This was a common conversation, and it’s a good thing I entered most of them already bald, because I would have pulled my hair out. I understand, from many conversations with folks who have been in that end of the business, that it’s worse in Hollywood, as the common perception — not even an occasional perception, but a common perception — among a lot of people is that the actors in tv and movies are indeed making up crap as they go along. This may or may not be the most startling scene for Sorkin to dramatize, but it would be more unrealistic for him to present a world where the writer of a tv show is automatically treated as celeb by everybody he meets. The girls in that scene exist, and Sorkin would not be doing his duty, as a portrayer of the milieu, if he failed to include them.
As for the clueless relatives: well, I can name some of my own, and pass along questions and comments that would make you cry, but I’m not such a big deal, so you might be inclined to agree with them. But let us, instead, think of that moment from the documentary about Woody Allen, filmed only a couple of years ago, when the world-famous writer, actor, director, comedian, and musician returned home after a long whirlwind tour of Europe, where he’d been lionized by everybody he met, and visibly wilted when his still-living mother and father sadly noted that he threw away a career as a dentist.
“Cheerverine” is cute and all but c’mon, I can’t think of two characters that are as different as Wolverine and Claire. Now, if she had metal claws too…
Now, “Repeter” is genius! 😀
Great episode, but the one character that is being a huge disappointment so far is Mohinder. He lacks powers, so it seemed his role would be to find and gather the superhumans, but they’re already congregating without his help. Well, I suppose it’s a good thing that the show isn’t predictable.
Don’t blame him for his skepticism though. To anyone not privy to his POV, Peter would sound like a raving lunatic. But Mohinder will have to do something useful the next episodes.
The only other small disappointment in a great episode: I had thought we’d be seeing much more of D.L. (Niki’s husband). I wish the episodes were longer!
Paul1963, I think Claire can recover from anything as long as her brain is more or less intact and has no foreign objects stuck into it. She hasn’t been shown regrowing arms or legs yet, but she regrew fingers in the pilot episode, so I think she can do it.
It is significant that Sylar seems to be the one that is going to kill her if not stopped, and he has that nasty habit of removing the brains from his victims.
Truthfully I’m still not sure whether Nathan will ultimately choose good or evil. If we accept the theory that the powers are a reflection of something inside the person, then Nathan must have something good in him, because flight seems to be a good guy power. 🙂 As a plus, he has a kid brother that is eager to hero worship him if only he gave Peter the chance. I dunno, I’m a softie at heart and would like to see him turn heroic, but I just don’t know at this point.
After seeing this episode I believe that Mr. Bennet is not as evil as he appears to be. I think his line about him putting more stock in Claire’s humanity than Brody’s is a hint of that. Don’t get me wrong; he is amoral, controlling and sinister. But I also think that he will be shown as an ‘ends justify the means’ character who is primarily concerned with protecting Claire from Sylar.
I don’t think he was involved in Chandra Suresh’s murder, but he was spying on him (with Eden’s help) because of the Sylar connection. If he was a coldblooded killer, I don’t think he would have just let Mohinder go so easily in the pilot.
He kidnapped Matt (the cop) and had him scanned because of his recent contact with Sylar. When he was finished, he simply took him back to his home.
He tried to take Nathan, but it had just been discovered that Sylar might be targeting him. Now he may have been trying to do some ‘super-evil’ experiment on him, or he may just have been trying to take him out of Sylar’s crosshairs.
Mr. Bennet is turning out to be the Gul Dukat or Scorpious of the series. A villan who (at times) fights an even bigger threat than himself. He is the ‘devil you know’. I think that Sylar (the devil you don’t know) is the one you need to worry about.
Me: “By the way, points to whomever coined “Cheerverine.””
Peter David: “Yeah, that would be me, in my October 17 posting.”
My first thought was that you _had_ invented the term “Cheerverine”; then I saw all the references on Google, and thought you might instead have picked it up elsewhere- one of those Internet memes. Hence the “whomever.”
Adam-Troy Castro: I’m almost afraid to ask, but what planet were you on where people don’t understand the concept behind a book- that they buy them to _read_ them? Or was that more a comment about you? I wonder if they think Stephen King “got somebody to print” his books, too.
Rick
My father was farmer his entire life. He has never been farther than 300 miles from where he was born. He is 86 years old and he is a big fan of Abbot and Costello. Abbot and Costello are about as mainstream as you can get. I couldn’t believe that guy’s parents never heard “Who’s on First?” They would have had to have been cut off from anything resembling mid-20th century pop culture. It would be more likely that very young people wouldn’t know “Who’s on First” but those parents, (while younger than my dad) had to have heard that routine.
Sometimes Sorkin wants to make a point so badly he writes completely unrealistic scenarios.
“You know, I have a great idea for a book. Why don’t you write it and we can split the money?”
My father tells virtually the same story, except not for writing. He was a programmer, and people would have an “idea” for business accounting software that they’d want him to make and split the profits.
Somehow, America has developed this myth that an idea created in an hour is worth more than the thousands of hours of work necessary to develop it into an actual product. Writing, business programming, art; no matter what you do, there will always be people who think your job is so easy that they’d be better at it than you with minimal effort.
Rick: well, it may be a comment about me, but it is absolutely true that among the general public there is a fairly wide population of folks to whom books are just a medium they want nothing to do with, but strange, alien objects of uncertain purpose. Were that the ONLY reaction I’d ever received from co-workers, I would have leaped out the window years ago. (I’ve also gotten the other kind, as well as every variation in between.) But, yes: that conversation, verbatim, has occurred several times. And I have encountered any number of folks whose reaction to an actual book was to flip through it, see words, and put it aside, puzzled, wondering just what the hëll a human being was supposed to do with it. Other questions of the sort include,
Q: “I don’t understand. You WROTE this?”
A: “Yes. It’s a story I made up.”
Q: (puzzled) “A story?”
A: “Yes.”
Q: (puzzling some more) “What do you mean, a story?”
A: “A story. There are people in it, and things happen to them.”
Q: (puzzling some more) “And people want to read this?”
Now, granted, this is the absolute cutting edge of the cluelessness writers deal with — most reactions are somewhat more clued-in than that — but it’s hardly unheard of. There ARE people who have managed to reach adulthood without so much as knowing, even in theory, what a book is for. They exist. Peter, if you’re around, help me out here. Haven’t you ever had a conversation like this?
Oh, and one other thing: ignorance on the facts of publishing is not the sole province of idiots.
My favorite example is author Pat Conroy. You may not have read any of his books, but you have heard of him. He wrote THE PRINCE OF TIDES and THE GREAT SANTINI. (His best book, imho, is the wonderful LORDS OF DISCIPLINE, but please read the book, instead of seeing the much inferior movie.) Anyway, when he submitted his first novel to a publisher, this future bestseller received an offer of, let’s say, ten thousand dollars. By his own admission, in later years, he furrowed his brow and said, well, that sounds good, but it will take me a while to come up with that much money.
“I couldn’t believe that guy’s parents never heard “Who’s on First?”
yeah, that bugged me a bit too. Hëll, My grams who is 89 and a Mennonite knows it! HA!
Repeter! Love it. Hey, some of us knew who said it first, but then I actually READ the posts and replies. Some days I feel like I’m talking and the wall is the only one hearing. But then that’s normal ANY where.
Sincerely,
Wallwhisperer (dang. not as clever Repeter.)
Adam-Troy Castro’s story of not being able to get someone to understand that books are written by actual people reminded me of a Harlan Ellison anecdote in which he described a woman becoming very upset at Ellison’s assertion that the words spoken by Kirk, Spock, et al, on “Star Trek” had originated anywhere other than in the heads of the actors playing them.
“I couldn’t believe that guy’s parents never heard “Who’s on First?” They would have had to have been cut off from anything resembling mid-20th century pop culture.”
I assume “that guy’s parents” is a reference to people on _Studio 60_? Whichever the case, they’d have had to have been cut off from more than just mid 20th century pop culture to have never heard of it. The origins of the “Who’s On First” routine pre-dates the Abbott and Costello comedy duo (and possibly the men themselves. (Abbott was born in either 1895 or 1898)). There’s an article in the autumn 2006 Nostalgia Digest magazine by Curtis L. Katz that looks a bit into the history of “Who’s on First” (as do other works, but I happen to have that one handy). Katz points out that word confusion routines were already Vaudeville staples (and Abbott & Costello came from vaudeville) by the start of the 20th century. One routine he cites, “Baker’s Dozen”, has inklings of “Who’s on First.” After the first guy tells the second guy his job in a bakery is loafing, the second guy asks, who’s the boss?
First Guy: “Yes.”
Second Guy: “Who’s the guy you’re working for?”
First Guy: “That’s exactly correct.
Second Guy: “I’m asking you what’s the name of the boss.”
First Guy: “No, Watt’s the name of the street…”
Katz also said that Vaudeville word confusion sketches with _specific_ connections to baseball date back to at least World War I. Yes, it’s theoretically possible for people in this country to have never heard the “Who’s on First” routine (or one like it); and it’s theoretically possible for some to have never heard _of_ it, but the latter seems a bit harder to swallow. Not only because routines of that sort have been around so long, but also because baseball was _big_ when Abbott and Costello were doing the routine in the 1940s. (their first time, for the record, was on the Kate Smith Hour, March 24, 1938). Given that they did it so many times (an estimated 15,000), they stopped working from a script, you just know that people were entertaining (or tormenting) their friends and neighbors with their own takes on the routine.
It’d take a _really_ dedicated hermit to not have _any_ clue about it. But again, I don’t watch _Studio 60_, if this is a _Studio 60_ reference, so maybe I’m missing something from the proper context.
Rick
P.S., because Abbott & Costello didn’t work from a script, no two performances were exactly alike, but in every case, there were only eight players mentioned. We never learned who played right field.
No, wait. Who’s on…
Never mind.
Pete-
Please please please please PLEASE make your next post about Rush Limbaugh’s attack on Michael J. Fox — I am chomping at the bit to hear your comments on The Ole Rushter: this homonculous with no soul, no compassion for human suffering, no sense of right and wrong, and, apparently, no sense of irony as well.
PLEASE!
[quote]We never learned who played right field.[/quote] Naturally seems to be the most common guess given that Abbott never says there is no naturally after Costello says he throws the ball to Naturally.
Btw PAD I mentioned the nickname RePeter on Televisionwithoutpity.com and that’s now the name of his character thread.
This may have been in an earlier thread, but I have come up with some Super-Hero code-names for the Heroes:
Claire = Buffy the Indestructible Cheerleader, or Little Miss Immortal.
Hiro = Tempus
Nikki = Mirror Mistress
Nathan = Ex Mach-1, or Congressman Cannonball
You hit the nail on the head PAD about Studio 60: the story of the old man was more interesting because that time period was more interesting for television comedy than it is now. The concept being around a SNL-type show is just not that interesting. Because SNL has stopped being relevant in the culture and has stop being good for at least the last 15 years.
MB
Im starting to doubt if Niki actually has any super powers. Maybe she just has a split personality and it’s her kid that has the power.
“Im starting to doubt if Niki actually has any super powers.”
One of the guys in her garage was torn in half. If she doesn’t have super powers, then she spent a lot of time setting up an elaborate rope and pully system to tear the guy in half.
Hiro’s buddy has been teaching him phrases phonetically and Hiro has all the time in the world to memorize these words and phrases since he can stop time. Cramming for a test the night before would not be much of a problem if you could stretch 10 hours into 100.
Also, I think that there is a possibility that the explosion in New York wasn’t nuclear but a rift (as mentioned by future Hiro) which may be energy released through a tear in the time space continuum caused by paradox that destroys the affected space of the paradox (meaning everything from Tokyo to New York since all of the time travelling started in Tokyo). After all it’s not “Save the cheerleader, Save New York” it’s “Save the Cheerleader, Save the World”. But would the rift be caused by Hiro or by Sylar who is really a future version of …
I’ve one question about Nikki’s powers. When her alter ego killed the guys in her garage and she watched the video, it got snowy just when the fighting started, although she could hear the screams of the two men. However, when she got busy with the candidate (Nathan?), they had the video readily available.
My answer is that the actual recorder wasn’t in the room, just the camera, therefore her powers didn’t affect the recording. My wife’s is she wanted the video to be viewable, so she didn’t affect the recording.
Answers?
Bad News; hxxp://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,226092,00.html
Studio 60’ Cancellation Iminent
Here we go: despite receiving an order for three more episodes on Friday, the Aaron Sorkin NBC drama “Studio 60 on Sunset Strip” is about to be put out of its misery.
Cast members are already confiding in friends that the end is near. It’s likely NBC will pull the plug shortly I am told by insiders.
Ðámņ, that’s too bad.
I think Studio 60 is a lot like a M.A.S.H. or a Night Court. They were good in their first year or two and you could see the seeds for unrivaled genius and greatness in there as well. It just wasn’t until the start of the third seasons that, for me, the two shows came into their own and really took off.
It’s a dámņëd shame that networks want instant gratification so badly these days that they’ll ignore the lessons of some of TV’s biggest shows and bury what is likely a future, M.A.S.H., Cosby, Dallas, etc. because it’s not popping a killer rating from day one.
Shame.
Well this completely sucks, IMDB is predicting the death of Studio 60. http://imdb.com/news/sb/2006-10-30/#2
Someone needs to educate these idiots that good shows don’t always get high ratings initially. If they had treated Seinfeld like this, look what they would have lost out on. I say move it to Wednesdays or kill off that suck fest known as E.R., a show way past it’s heyday and give Studio a chance!
Not to mention Cheers, which was one of the least watched shows on TV its first season.
With any luck, perhaps it’ll be able to find a home on cable. Though I suppose that would be somewhat ironic for a show about people trying to return intelligent programming to network TV.
-Rex Hondo-