Subscribe
Bryan Fuller has finally rejoined "Heroes", and the writer-producer cum consultant is getting his feet wet from day one. He talked to EW’s Ausiello and revealed some interesting prescriptions on what it takes to get the show back on its feet.
According to Fuller, one of the best things about "Heroes" season 1 was a very clear vision of the metaphors for the heroes’ abilities. Unfortunately, those metaphors have gotten complicated in the past two seasons, the show became too dense and took the face off the drama. "I thought the "Villains" arc started out very interestingly, and then became sort of muddy and dense and I couldn’t get my hooks into the characters to understand their motivations."
The big question is, will the new Fugitives volume be any different? "It really is a fresh start…. We need to get back into a character place, because that’s where this story started: Very clean, superhero metaphors to everyday life. That’s the path that we’re taking."
What other changes can we expect for the next seasons of Heroes?
(SPOILERS from Fuller on the "Heroes Fugitives" after the cut.)
The interview with Ausiello revealed that changes are about to happen on the show and the cast.
- All of the characters are back in their real lives. You see Peter as a paramedic. Claire is looking for colleges. We get away from the world of formulas and quasi-magic.
- People will die.
- Matt’s wife [Janice] comes back. We’ll find out what happens when you have a superbaby.
- We’re also going to tell fewer stories per episode. We’re going to limit it to three or four with one big one that you can wrap the stories around.
Do you like where Bryan Fuller is taking the series? Is he the person to take Heroes back to its season one glory? What do you think?
Image credit: Newscom
Finally!! Geez. Why did we ever get away from this concept to begin with? I was always wondering how Claire got out of skipping her senior year in school (how she’ll be looking for colleges having missed the first half of her school year is anyone’s guess) and how Nathan got away with missing so many votes as a new Senator. I’m sure that’s getting a lot of good press in the editorial pages of the NYT.
…this has always been, IMO, the “elephant in the room” character-wise. What happened, I suspect, is that we had writers who, despite perhaps their best intentions, really had little grasp of what draws many adult (males mostly) to the comic book genre (not the books themselves, but the concept) and the concept of ordinary folks with extraordinary abilities and situations.
As for Claire, I’ve just about had all the teen angst whining I can tolerate. A bit of it is expected, but it’s been overkill for too long. So I hope the writers “grow her up” already…
[...] up Chapter 3: Villains and will be heading into Chapter 4: Fugitives in January with a whole new direction. I personally enjoyed chapter 3, and I was happy that Milo’s character made the decisions he [...]
Villains was fine to some extent. There were a few things we could excuse due to the writer’s strike, but all that should have fixed itself by the end. It didn’t. By the end of the volume, everything we gained was lost except a handful of things. All new villains are now dead or useless. Daphne is around, for now. Tracy had moments, and even though i love ali larter, her inclusion was not justified either by the end. Maya’s removal essentially made her entire appearance seem pointless except for the fact that her power showed mohinder where the powers come from. however, villains made this fact pointless bc a new, better formula was created anyway. Mohinder’s mutations are gone now too. nathan is evil, and it would take a volume to show us that. Can we finally kill off sylar? Really? He went from scary to interesting to badass – killing alejandro then making out with maya – to back to his old self to scary then to Villain’s flip-flop every 5 seconds. Villains ruined his potential. Where the hell is caitlin?
and what’s the deal with the butlers? Are they really going to stay in costa verde? Sylar’s found them there twice now. Killing some characters off is great, but since they keep coming back to life anyway – i dont think anyone needed arthur to come back to life – maury should have illusioned art after he heard most of the other founders were dead and he wanted to control the company, and that would have been less frustrating to the general public. We have established angela as the unreliable source of groundbreaking, episode ending twists, but really, now it’s just a gimmick. Are the writers just trying to do a one time episode by episode thing? Because villains was not classic by any means. the cliffhanger when angela says sylar is her son had so much weight that it becomes cheap after the first run. you can’t watch it more than once. ok, kill niki off, but getting rid of new orleans? I really don’t want to be that guy, but aside from hiro and mohinder, what minorities are left? Count the cuts from season 1.
[...] goes back into looking at the characters’ lives. Rejoining Heroes as consultant, Bryan Fuller adds that the series is going back to where it started: “Very clean, superhero metaphors to [...]
sylar is the only one with true potential acting skills…he is not evil, his power is driving him crazy…no matter how many times hez tried to put himself into a nice guy type character, ppl hav only ruined his efforts by tragically hurting him by one way or other only for shear pleasure or thier own personal gains….dont blame SYLAR for tat…. He is the best in the whole series…. mark it up…most hav th same opinion as mine