Heroes: Getting Better, "Journalists" Not Helping

I know this isn't tech news, but it's something that irks me every time I see it: A highly respected, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist adequately and creatively dissects the latest episode of Heroes, eloquently pointing out the intricacies of the varying storylines.  Then, when the analysis is complete, a slew of commentators intellectually discuss the well-developed, carefully crafted piece and proceed to (in a sophisticated manner, of course) deduce how the series could better improve itself and answer some questions that fans have been asking ever since season 2.

Just kidding.

Some person who's allowed to write for an online publication and calls herself a journalist, goes on a rampage over the last episode of Heroes because it didn't live up to her expectations. The "article" is a page long diatribe blasting the writers for being less-than-stellar and not wrapping up plot lines the way the author would like, followed by thread upon thread of knuckle-dragging mouth-breathers agreeing with her and spewing such gems as (and I sh*t you not):

"Maybe in the next season they'll reveal that President Worf is a mutant with the power to grow a weird-looking forehead and say things like "If you were any other man, I would kill you right where you stand" in some alien-sounding language. Oh, wait, that would be suspiciously akin to plagiarism. Then, again, this is Heroes after all..." - Roklimber

and

"...What I'd like to see is Sylar on a marathon breast cancer walk... with shape-shifty cameos from his mom. (With all his screwy DNA issues from the shifty process he/she is bound to get breast cancer...)" - Mercurial Chimaera

Wow.  I am a better person for having read those pearls of wisdom.  Thank you.

To be honest, I do feel that the show has been a bit lacking in terms of plot and character development.  However, it's not entirely the show's fault - the writers' strike killed the second season (in terms of both length and plot development).  Since then, it's struggled to get back on its feet and I am hopeful that when the new season premiers, it returns to its roots and the things that made the first season so excellent.  A few suggestions might be:

- Less jumping around from character arc to character arc
- Don't introduce so many "heroes" at once
- Give us some more villains to follow, rather than just Sylar
- Give everyone their original powers back

I miss Hiro being able to both stop time AND teleport without getting a nosebleed.  I miss Peter's ability to walk by someone and gain their power.

In response to this riveting work by i09's Annalee Newitz, I say the following:

The tone and anger you took in your article were both unwarranted and just plain dumb.  It's a television show.  I know you're upset with the direction in which they took Sylar - I am too.  However, I also know of three different ways to fix your problem: Channel Up, Channel Down, and Power.  If you don't like the show anymore, use one of those three buttons to remedy the situation. 

I will continue to follow the show for as long as it's on - I'm invested in the characters.  I love the stories and I'm always eager to see what's coming next - and I know I'm not the only one.  I haven't given up on the show and I hope more people will stand by it.  Will it ever be as awesome as season 1?  Probably not.  No show ever is.

When Heroes first aired, it was completely different to everything else that was on TV at the time.  It was a fresh series that had nowhere to go but up.  Combine the premise with some really great promos (I still get chills when I see Claire attempt to kill herself by jumping off the platform in that "home video") and you've got yourself a certifiable hit.

The one thing I will say is that the season premises - just discovering their powers, a potential virus to eradicate those with abilities, giving everyone on earth a power, villains, and the government hunting down the specials - are really great.  They're outlines for fantastic volumes.  Now that the season is over, the writers have the opportunity to go back and find the magic that made the first season so great and (God willing) make Heroes the show we've all hoped it would become - super-powered.

For now, though, I'll just teleport-on-by the yokels who get paid to rant incessantly (and I suggest you do the same). 

The difference between me and them, you ask?  I do it for free.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Has Twitter Pecked Facebook's Eyes Out?

Facebook, once a place for the privileged few (I mean, those still in college), soon opened its doors to high schoolers, then to the world.  Now that everyone and their mother (literally) are on Facebook, is it doomed to the same fate that has affected sites like Friendster and MySpace?  Are we done with Facebook?

The (not so) new wave in social networking is Twitter - a micro-blogging site that allows people to post what are, at their most basic level, Facebook status updates in 140 characters or less.  Twitter has nothing to do with Facebook, but the analogy seems to fit.  It's a place where anyone can sign up and "tweet" about whatever is going on in their lives: "I just ate a pancake," "Off to the bathroom - wish me luck," and other sophisticated offerings.

Twitter has been around since 2006, but didn't really catch on until news about politicians tweeting during a Presidential address took flight.  Since then, everyone from celebrities (Greg Grunberg, Kevin Smith for example) to the average housewife has a Twitter account.

In its most useful form, Twitter has become a secondary RSS feed - another way to get important/interesting news.  On the opposite side, Twitter is a way to feed the ego - a way for average people to feel like they have numerous friends because their followers range in the hundreds, sometimes thousands.  In both instances, this is where Twitter "out-socials" Facebook.

Facebook is about "friends" - people you know who you can connect with as long as they confirm your friend request.  Once the "Confirm" button is clicked, you are welcomed into their closed-off circle of acquaintances.  Sometimes, you're one of 500 - other times, you're one of five.  However, Facebook, even though it's open to the public, still seems closed off.  It still fuels the clique mentality that permeated high school, college, work life, and beyond.  If an invite to a party is sent on Facebook and you're not the sender's friend, you can pretty much guarantee you're not going.  If a dozen people are tagged in a note and you're not, you're probably going to be upset and a little hurt.  Twitter's not like that.  Twitter eliminates the class system and puts regular citizens on the same level as politicians and Hollywood royalty.  Where else would you be able to communicate with Oprah or Ashton directly?  How great would it be if you posted a link and Shaq found it interesting enough to re-tweet and link to your profile?  You don't get that type of interactivity with a Facebook or MySpace because that's not how they work.  Twitter truly is about social networking - you can follow whomever you choose and they can follow you back.  If they don't follow you, then at least you can see what they're talking about and comment on it.

Facebook has tried to mimic this with their news feed, but it's not the same.  Since the news feed is updated any time someone makes a minor update to their profile, it's pretty easy to get lost in the fold.  That awesome video you found on YouTube? - trapped between Person A's status update and Person C's addition of 11 favorite movies and 300 photographs from their trip to Cancun.

What does everyone else think?  Are you done with Facebook?  Do you love Twitter?  Do you hate both and use something completely different?  Leave a comment and let's start the discussion...

Powered by ScribeFire.