One great, the other…not so much. Spoilers and such below
HEROES: Plot lines and individuals begin to intersect with greater regularity, albeit a bit of eye-blinking coincidence (half the cast in Vegas? No pun intended, but…what are the odds?) What’s intriguing is seeing the divide between the heroes (for lack of a better word) who are gaining a sense of the big picture (in Isaac’s case, literally) as opposed to those who are simply trying to keep their heads above water as the flood rises around them. 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?”) Particularly compelling is the way personal morality is becoming bent as the show progresses, ranging from Hiro’s aforementioned profiteering, to the growing ascendance of Simone’s dark side, to Claire’s decision to take justice into her own hands.
I refuse to talk about the final cliffhanger at this point, out of deference to people who might be Tivoing or following the series via the Friday Sci-Fi channel repeat. In fact, I would appreciate if other commenters followed my lead on this, since the cliffhangers are becoming such a signature of the show. After all, there’s always the following week to discuss it, right?
STUDIO 60 ON THE SUNSET STRIP: Writers have a very different existence from others. If you have a bad day or even a bad week on the job, a couple weeks it’s forgotten. When you’re a writer and you have a bad day or bad week, it shows up in print or on TV weeks or months later and the audience is left going, WTF?
That was pretty much my reaction to Studio 60. I couldn’t quite believe that there was a story credit given to another individual, because the script’s major problem was a complete lack of story. We’re less than a month into the series and the episode felt old, tired and strained. Any interesting developments at all were centered around the network president’s refusal to take a run at acquiring a staggeringly tasteless reality series because it offends her moral sensibilities, while at the same time trying to acquire a high-pedigree drama that she feels will help elevate her network’s quality. I know we’re supposed to admire her pluck (Ed Asner guest starred as the network head and, tragically, didn’t tell her she had spunk) but instead we’re just left wondering what the hëll she’s doing at NBS when she’d be a much better fit at HBO, Showtime or even PBS. Meanwhile Sorkin endlessly violates the maxim of “Show, don’t tell” by having Harriet rattle on for long minutes about her background, and perform in a Nancy Grace send-up so paralyzingly unfunny that one wants to borrow Matt’s baseball bat and smash in either the TV set or one’s own head. The only truly diverting moments were courtesy, not of anything written by Sorkin, but instead Sting singing madrigals while strumming a lute.
It takes more than Aaron Sorkin having a bad day/week at the office to make me drop the series. But it bothers me that even when West Wing, under Sorkin’s reign, had a less-than-stellar episode, it was still better than most of what was out there. This time it wasn’t even better than the show preceding it…and the division in quality was noticeable.
PAD
• 
While the premise of HEROES has its moments, I’m not sure I’ll stick around. The endless round of cliffhanger endings gets irritating after a while. It wasn’t so bad with the Republic Serials where you knew there’d be another installment next week and the end was just a few months away, but with network television today’s haphazard scheduling, pre-empting, rerunning,, and so on, one might have to wait weeks (if not months) before the next bit. That got old real fast.
The news that characters might die makes one wonder. Who? Much as I like Hiro I can see him being one. If only because, if he ever gets the hang of really using his power well, he becomes almost unstoppable. The only real threat to him then would be either a power nullifier or a mind controller. Even the mimic can’t match him as this latter has shown no ability to instinctively know how to use the powers he duplicates, giving the original the edge.
I thought the ending was sort of telegraphed but was surprised they went through with it. An underrated ability that character has, to be sure.
Kath, Yes! That’s exactly the line! You met STING?! Wow. Totally jealous. He does seem like a down to earth artist- unlike so many others. I’ve been in love with him since 8th Grade and Ghost in the Machine.
Speaking of fine wine and only getting better with age! That certainly goes for him too!
RE: The Office. I loathe that show. I work with a guy just like the main character. Don’t need to be reminded of him when I’m home away from the office, attempting to forget about that condescending meglomaniac!
Heroes:
Why do we assume that Nikki has super powers and isn’t just crazy? ‘Nikki 2’ seems to be the stereotypical protector personality in MPD. Just darker and less restrained morally.
Mike P: I wondered the same thing–what if Nikki being the “hero” was a red herring, and it was actually her boy genius son?
But then I remembered that, in the garage scene, one of the guys was ripped in half. She’d have to have some kind of super strength (or super psychotic strength) to do that.
I finally have the new season “locked and loaded” in my Tivo. The only new shows that survived the first few weeks trial are Heroes and Studio 60.
Each week, the shows I most look forward to seeing are Galactica, Dr. Who, Veronica Mars, and Heroes. If I was forced to narrow it down any further, I’m really not sure which would go.
Studio 60: Matthew Perry is what makes the show for me. He is a fantastic actor and definitely the best part of Friends.
Heroes: How could anyone on this board NOT be enjoying this? You’ve got fun, mystery, sci-fi, action, drama–well a little of everything. And it all fits. None of it seems forced. Even the convergence of the characters in Vegas seems fine to me. I think it only looks forced to some people because they knew it was coming and then it happens all at once. I think it would have been more unnatural to go the other route of characters meeting one at a time, each meeting taking one episode. THAT would have felt formula and slow.
Hiro is BY FAR the best character. He truly GETS what it means to be a hero. He’s just a little eager and naive. His journey will be the most fun to watch.
Last thought–the cliffhangers. They’re great. Definitely a throw-back to the old serials. And there’s nothing wrong with that. It gives us something to talk/speculate about for a week while waiting for the next episode.
The problem with S60 is not the unfunny comedy sketches. It’s as if I was watching the West Wing. Honestly, Sorkin writes Danny like he’s Josh from WW and the reporter like she’s CJ. It’s tiring. I’ve seen that already. I can take the snappy dialog, but it’s as if they all retired from politics and decided to go run a TV show.
I want to like this show, but it’s making it very hard.
Heroes is great…and I’m glad to see that it’s at least doing well ratings wise it’s first couple of weeks. There’s a passing resemblance to last season’s Surface that I was more than a little worried that Heroes might not make it past January, like Surface.
Apparantly, normalish people with powers (super or otherwise, that’s debateable) runs better with the general public than giant boat-eating sea-mosters and cute little CGI Nims.
Heroes is very much using comic norms and conventions very well, from the mysterious agency, developing origin stories, and the end-of episode/issue cliff-hanger. I find the overlap between episodes annoying, but with multiple storylines, it’s acceptable. I find it also to be a bit talky at times, but as someone mentioned, it’s a TV series with hopefully 22-26 episodes to fill in a season, so some wasted exposition/filler is needed.
With Loeb writing, I’ve no doubt that the story should hold together, which was Surface’s biggest problem. Since time travel’s involved, I hope they inject the whole “how could you have called me in the future if I’m here with you now” problem with Hiro and Andro. The show is so clearly aware of all the fanboy debates about plots like this, it’d be a shame if they ignored their chance to comment.
The show has a ton of potential, and the pace so far seems to be far better than Lost…although Lost has only managed some 70 days in over 2 seasons, and Heroes is on something like 5 or maybe 6 days in four episodes, so that’s not really an indication of rapid time passing. Not that I want to see “One Year Later” like on Battlestar, but BSG has shown that a show can take such a risk as moving things ahead in time and still be successful.
RE: The Office. I loathe that show. I work with a guy just like the main character. Don’t need to be reminded of him when I’m home away from the office, attempting to forget about that condescending meglomaniac!
I don’t “like” Michael Scott but he’s like a pile up on the freeway. It’s impossible to look away. When I think about what a person like him must be like… completely unaware and oblivious to even the most basic human reactions, I think he must have some kind of psychological problem. He is constantly trying to fake his responses as though he doesn’t have a clue as what he should be feeling.
He is insecurity personified.
“He is insecurity personified.”
HA! And that is EXACTLY the guy at my work!
Syrus looks like he can fly and resist bullets. Then again, he showed some mind control (forcing the police officer to draw the gun on herself), so maybe he created his escape as an illusion.
Actually, all of his powers look like it could simply be TK (using it to fly, to stop bullets as a type of armor, and twisting the gun in the agents hand).
“Kudos to John Hudgens and every other nimwit here who utterly ignored PAD’s request: “I would appreciate if other commenters followed my lead on this, since the cliffhangers are becoming such a signature of the show. After all, there’s always the following week to discuss it, right?”
Unless I’m missing something, they haven’t done that at all. Or perhaps my request was unclear: I asked for a moritorium on discussing THAT WEEK’S cliffhanger. But once the following week’s episode airs, in which the cliffhanger is now part of the opening of the episode, then as far as I’m concerned it’s fair game. John, as near as I can determine, only talked about the cliffhanger from two weeks ago, so the “statute of limitations” for that one would be long past.
PAD
Heroes hasn’t quite won me over yet, partly because I have a strange feeling that the women are being mishandled so far, particularly Claire. Claire the cheerleader suffers freak accident after freak accident, and is then nearly raped–an act prevented by yet another freak accident. She needs to be a teensy bit more careful, because I’m not sure how strong my stomach will be next time I see her insides on her outside.
And someone needs to tell the writers that other characters besides Hiro and Ando are allowed to be funny every now and then. Everyone else seems stuck in melodramatic mode.
I’m still enjoying Studio 60. Love the characters, love the humor. Hate the sketches. (They shouldn’t take up so much of the show’s time, because then we realize how unfunny they are.) This latest episode probably wasn’t very good, but I’m already hooked so I’m seeing it through a rose-colored filter. Matthew Perry hasn’t been this funny since the first couple seasons of Friends. That said, the show needs to pick up some steam. Do they have enough material for several seasons, or will it degenerate into soap opera?
Re: The Office
George Haberberger: He is insecurity personified.
That’s a big part of it, sure. I think a good deal of the problem is the setting. Who else has had a boss that tried to act like your buddy? In most workplaces, I think it would make the employees kinda tense, because they never know if they’re talking to the buddy boss or the *boss* boss. I’ve actually had a boss or two like that. One moment, we’d be chatting like nothing was wrong, and the next I’d be lectured about some mundane thing or another. It’s kind of off-putting.
Michael Scott, however, seems to act like this outside of the office too–probably because the camera is still following him around. He’s not being himself because he’s trying so hard to look good on television, plus he seems kinda lonely. Both he and David Brent just want to be liked, but have no idea how to go about doing it. Scratch that–they’ve got ideas, just no good ones.
Something I’d like to see cleared up a bit in “Heroes” is whether Claire is really more fragile than a normal person, or if they’re just ramping up the drama in the scenes where she gets injured because they can. (I mean, most people don’t break their necks just by falling over.) It’s not a big deal, but it wouldn’t take more than one throwaway line to clear it up, either.)
Oh, and speaking of Claire–the autopsy scene made think of a bit that really long-time BID fans should remember. One word: “Slosh.”
When whatever-his-name-is-from-Friends (yes, I don’t care) told the writers to stop dressing like they’re in junior high I immediately felt the show slip out of reality and into some sort of weird non-fantasy fantasy world that isn’t much fun.
If you actually watched the show, you’d have seen 1) him chastising himself in the next scene about that because it was just him venting his frustrations at them and 2) later on, he’s dressed just as schlubby as they are.
And it is a fantasy world. It’s where quality wins out over exploitative…intelegence matters…right beats might…that’s the fantasy of the show. Just like CSI has a fantasy that csi techs solve crimes and interogate criminals, or Criminal Minds that an FBI group acctually has the budget these guys do to fly all over in a custom jumbo jet…any sitcom that hot babe marries fat lazy guy…You either buy into the fantasy reality or you don’t.
Mike P:
Typhoid Niki tore one of the gangsters in half.
She has super strength. If you don’t accept what’s been on the show, the show’s creator has said she’s the show’s Hulk character (though, seems more Typhoid Mary/Thorn-Rose to me). She has a seperate personality that has access to her super powers.
S60: Tyg, on the skits..while I agree they’re dogs (and really..who does a Nic Cage impression…who’d recognize a Nic Cage impression)…We rarely see them a) whole or b) in their final form. We see them in rehersal, we see them in camera tests. We see Matt going off to rewrite them last minute. They should be better, I agree.
Sorkin gets by with stuff by telling us what’s what and shaping things so it fits. West Wing, a lot of the “power” of the characters, is because they’re facing straw men. In the pilot, Bartlet’s entrance is enhanced and powerful, quoting biblical passages….set up by a religious zealot who doesn’t know the order of the 10 Commandments….now I’ll give you that religious hipocrates often don’t truly know the words they’re saying from the Bible, but you’re not going find one who’s gotten to major national level that thinks “Honor thy mother and father” is #1 on the list. It sounds nice on the page and screen, but it makes no sense. CJ was great…when she’s putting off reporters who are dumb.
This time, he’s trying to get by saying how awsome the show is…but that’s harder to fake than Bartlet’s brillance.
But hey, it’s funnier than 30 Rock.
i’m enjoying Studio 60. a lot. altho i’ve heard of Sorkin’s “style”, i never watched Sports Night or West Wing…but knew what to expect. so far my expectations have been met (characters not so much as ‘talking’ to one another as much as sharing long winded dialogues…but well written so can be forgiven).
i’m pretty surprised about all of the criticism regarding the sketches tho. i’ll admit that during the pilot, i wasn’t sure if they’d ever show a sketch for exactly that reason. it’d have to be funny. not just funny but legendarily funny (is that a word?) in order to fit the premise of Matt and Danny being geniuses and pulling the show out of the gutter.
of course, if they didn’t show the sketches, i think most viewers would be left feeling somewhat wanting. almost cheated. you see what goes on behind the show…building up to the show…but you never see the show itself.
kind of a dámņëd-ìf-ÿøû-dø-dámņëd-ìf-ÿøû-døņ’t scenario, no?
what i find myself doing is basically just suspending disbelief during the sketches. i believe that in the “Studio 60 universe”…the sketches are original and funny. why? am i letting Sorkin and company off the hook? i don’t think i am. the rationale is that the show is about what goes on behind the scenes. -that- is what i pay attention to. it’s the characters. it’s the chemistry between the characters. it’s a voyeuristic view of behind-the-scenes hollywood that “normal” folk like me don’t ordinarily get to see.
the show isn’t the sketches. if the show was the sketches then it would be a sketch comedy show.
when we read comic books, we suspend disbelief in order to enjoy the story itself to its fullest potential. i humbly suggest that folks do the same here.
if you can get past the fact that the sketches (in the ‘real’ world) aren’t cutting edge comedy that will pull in a majority of American viewing audiences on a Friday night and concentrate on what goes on -around- the sketches, i think you’ll find a good show. trust that in the fictional Studio 60 world, they’re comedy gold.
Doug Atkinson said:
Oh, and speaking of Claire–the autopsy scene made think of a bit that really long-time BID fans should remember. One word: “Slosh.”
heh. i hadn’t thought about that… but i do remember it now.
to be fair, Elektra was fully autopsied and sewn back up. in Claire’s case, we can assume that she had -just- been opened up. nothing removed for examination and tossed back in.
but definitely good callback 🙂
Michael Scott, however, seems to act like this outside of the office too–probably because the camera is still following him around.
And why is that exactly? I mean why is there a camera crew interviewing everyone? Have they ever explained it? I know this show is an Americanized version of a British show so I suppose that show had the same set up. I think I’ve seen every episode and I don’t remember an explanation for the what is really an integral aspect of the show.
One more thing about the sketches. We’re actually viewing them under terrible circumstances. Take the Nancy Grace sketch, for example.
We’re put in the middle of it, practically mid-line. There was little laughter, even though we’re all used to expecting laughter for that kind of comedy. The camera spent as much time on the director as the characters, and the director was yelling out things that were stage direction and set notes, not comedy. I’ve seen several comments from people about how it’s just one joke with no escalation, yet those people missed the fact that Nancy had been calling this police officer every day for a long time, which was an escalation of the joke. They missed it because there was so much else going on in the scene besides that sketch.
The only sketch we’ve seen with from the beginning with proper camera angles, costumes and everything else was the cold open musical number in the first episode. Unsurprisingly, that’s the one that a fair number of people think was actually funny.
That doesn’t mean the problem isn’t there. We’re getting the impression that the sketches aren’t funny, and even if that’s unavoidable, it’s still a problem. So I’m hoping that future episodes don’t show sketches as often.
George: In the British version, the in-story reason for the cameras was that the office was being filmed for a BBC documentary. I assume the reason is similar for the American version. (The nice thing about the British version is that eventually we see them reacting to the stuff that ended up on television.)
I’m chalking up Claire’s knack for suddenly being thrust into situations that would have killed her before her power manifested to the same dramatic necessity that makes you wonder how Lois Lane possibly survived to adulthood before Superman came along.
PAD
“Just like CSI has a fantasy that csi techs solve crimes and interogate criminals”
Yeah, what’s up with that? I’ve never seen any of the CSI shows, so I’ve always wondered how they can possibly have not one, but three TV series about crime scene investigators. I mean, they’re not detectives, so they’re not supposed to be able to “solve” crimes. I’ve seen Homicide: Life on the Street… the crime scene guys don’t do a hëll of a lot. And are there actual detectives in the CSI universe, and what exactly do they do if the CSI guys are solving everything?
“And why is that exactly? I mean why is there a camera crew interviewing everyone? Have they ever explained it?”
No, they’ve never explained it. It’s simply a stylistic device that lets the characters talk to the camera, but serves no other real purpose.
As someone who never watched The West Wing and saw Sports Night only a few times, I gotta admit to really digging Studio 60 – though as someone who has worked in TV and film I perhaps have a better appreciation for the “inside showbiz” humor than most. Nevertheless, I agree with many of the criticisms noted above – especially those less-than-funny comedy skits. But the writing is so fresh and witty – at least compared to so much of the crap I read and/or see each day.
My thoughts are more mixed on Heroes. I disliked the “extended” pilot episode that screened at SDCC last summer, but thought it had improved when it finally aired. Still, as much as I wanted to really like it because of its “superhero” premise, I thought it rather poorly executed, with lots of story and character elements simply not clicking for me. It also felt a bit old-fashioned and stolid both structurally and dramatically – at least since there were so many “Lost” comparisons preceeding the premiere. But while Lost is (was?) fresh, hip, and unconventional in structure, Heroes felt to me like what Lost would have been if directed and produced by the guys who did Barnaby Jones a decade or two ago. There was something very “meh” about it (and yes, that is a technical term). However, Heroes has been growing on me, in part because of the nifty cliffhanger endings. I’m not sure if the final destination will be all that impressive once we get there, but the rest stops along the way have been pretty dámņ cool.
I don’t think anyone’s mentioned this yet, but I do believe that Claire just might be the first teenage girl to ever appear topless on network TV… 😉
Ray
I don’t “like” Michael Scott but he’s like a pile up on the freeway. It’s impossible to look away.
Then you can call me “Mr. Impossible.” I not only can look away from The Office, but I must look away, as I find it excruciatingly painful to watch.
As for the two shows in question…my wife & I are digging them both. And, our enjoyment of Studio 60 isn’t boding well for our continued DVR’ing of The Adventures of SuperCaruso (aka CSI: Miami), as we’re getting tired of having to go into another room to watch S60.
Even the Onion skewered Studio 60 with an article entitled Studio 60 Was Better When It First Came Out. A choice highlight from the first paragraph:
You gotta love The Onion. 😆
“And are there actual detectives in the CSI universe, and what exactly do they do if the CSI guys are solving everything?”
In CSI NY, the fixed the problem by making, at least the leaders of the team, actual detectives who are trained in csi work.
Posted by: Zeek at October 17, 2006 12:36 PM
Anyone else think that Sylar might be Nikki’s Mr. Hyde?
I think Sylar could be the cute brunnette who is helping the dead scientist’s son.
I enjoy the show, but I heard one disappointing thing. Friends of mine couldn’t watch the first two shows, so when they tried to watch the third one, they were totally lost. They don’t plan to try again. Apparently the show isn’t “new viewer friendly.”
Kip
All Studio 60 needs to do to improve is for it to cease being ‘two guys and a supporting cast’. The West Wing worked because even in the Rob Lowe days, the large cast got reasonably even segments of the spotlight over the weeks. Right now, It’s the excellent Mr Whitford and Mr Perry, but, like Martin Sheen, their key character(s) work best when they are used sapringly and to bring out aspects of other members of the ensemble.
Time, much as though I like ’em, to have a few episodes where ex-Josh and ex-Chandler take a back seat.
The original CSI is the only one that really has the CSIs solving all the crimes (but working with a couple of detectives). Both Miami and New York feature police as the leads, with the CSI working backup.
Personally, I think the original is the only that really seperates itself from every other cop show out there, simply because they take the rather unrealistic notion that the CSIs are the ones solving the crimes. They’re very obviously bending police procedure, but it’s nice to see a cop show where they’re not drawing their guns every two seconds. They usually play straight-up mysteries that are solved by forensics.
Miami seems to be dirty with cop show cliches, with chases and gun battles and all that nonsense. New York is a bit more restrained, but more like a hipper, edgier Law & Order.
In their defense, they don’t take that many more liberties with police procedure than virtually every other police show and movie out there… and they seldom make me have to believe something that defies my senses… like Studio 60’s comedy sketches being funny. I won’t take S60 to task for being unbelieveable about the inner-workings of a TV show, but I will take them to task for failing to deliver what they constantly congradualate themselves for delivering. Can anyone on that show *not* mention how the show is the best it’s ever been? Wouldn’t a “good show” suffice? No, it’s got to be BRILLIANT… and it’s not.
“I think Sylar could be the cute brunnette who is helping the dead scientist’s son”
I thought that too. There is something up with her … just can’t decide if she’s a hero or villain. My guess is villain.
Re: Heroes not being viewer friendly. I don’t see how that could be after just three episodes. There’s a pretty well-done “previously” at the beginning of every show. I found the telepathic cop being made to pass out very vague during the episode it happened in…in the next previously, it was explained that was what happened.
No disrespect to your friends, but were they really trying to get into the show? It’s not like Lost, where there’s 40+ episodes and flashbacks to go over. You’d need a chart and graph and some serious Power Point skills to even start to explain Lost to someone. Heroes, after just two episodes, needs just a sentence or two. People start to discover they have powers. There’s some mysterious group involved. Go.
I hope everyone who is enjoying Heroes is also checking out the weekely comic at http://www.nbc.com/Heroes/novels/. This week’s is especially interesting as it picks up right where the last episode left off.
I’m loving HEROES too.
The main strengths of the show are also the potential weaknesses, though.
I like the “real world aesthetics”, I like it that not a single one of these “Heroes” is a perfectly stable, perfectly moral person, just shining with goodness (Hiro and Peter come close, but one is too goofy and the other is insecure and borderline neurotic). I like the bold situations. But I’ve heard complaints about the show being too dark, too pessimistic, too depressing too.
I like it how it has a large cast with many parallel plots intersecting instead of following just one person or a group of persons in a single location, but it can become confusing to some, I suppose.
I like it that it’s one big story, I just can’t stand anymore shows where everything is wrapped up nicely in each week’s episode, but it can make it hard for new people to follow what is happening.
Anyway, I’m very relieved to read that the show seems to be gaining strength with each episode, ratings-wise.
I was pretty lukewarm on heroes for the first couple of weeks, but it’s started to suck me in. To tell you the truth, I’d probably keep on coming back for “Cheerverine” – some sadistic part of me is terribly entertained by the casual way she bounces back from graphic, disgusting injuries. I’m still not sure about Niki – genuine superpower, or just insane?
“I’m still not sure about Niki – genuine superpower, or just insane?”
She tore one of the gangster in half.
She’s the Hulk character according to Kring, though I’d say she’s more Typhoid Mary….Typhoid Niki?
I do believe Niki gains enhanced strength and/or enhanced reflexes when “Evil Niki” takes over, but probably the most concrete proof so far that she is a genuine superhuman is the small tatoo/mark in the shape of a helix that seems to appear on her back only when Evil Niki is in charge of her body.
It’s clearly visible when she is leaning over Nathan, but later, when they’re sleeping, it seems to be gone.
Re: “I’m still not sure about Niki – genuine superpower, or just insane?”
I think there’s a third possibility, in that it’s actually her ex-husband somehow occupying her body at times. Might explain the tattoo, and I’m pretty sure Niki said something along the lines of “If you ever threaten OUR son again…” when she had her heel against the goon’s temple in the elevator.
Does that fit with the backstory they’ve given for the dad so far (i.e., no one knows where he is, he has a temper, he loves his kid, etc, etc,…)?
I think that thing going on with Niki’s alter-ego is that she is “simply” suffering from MPD. I’ve read that the disorder is not in favor with real psychologists at the moment, but this is TV so…
She told the goon to not threaten “our” son but I don’t buy Benjamen’s theory of her being possessed by her ex. I think that Dark Niki(tm) is simply calling Micah that because she’s been around since before Micah was born and she considers him to be her son at much as Normal Niki.
Oh, and if Niki’s got super-strength there’s no reason it has to be there only when her alter-ego is in charge. She could easily be suppressing her knowledge of how strong she is. Anytime when she really needs it, it seems like her darker half comes out anyway…