Radio Times

I watch telly, all day and every day, for a living. Great, isn’t it? Particularly when you consider what else I’d be fit for. I wouldn’t be able to earn my living in light engineering for instance, or herding donkeys. Thus my colleagues and I, this tiny band of brothers and sisters, watch DVDs of forthcoming programmes for previewing purposes. (It’s a deadline thing, we couldn’t do our jobs if we had to watch programmes in what we in Radio Times Land call “real time”.)

Thus we watch these DVDs in our various offices and the hurly-burly of the working day means we have to interrupt one another’s viewing every now and again. A colleague came into my office the other day, so I dutifully freeze-framed my DVD. He looked at the screen. “What are you watching? Is it Emmerdale?”

Once I’d stopped laughing – about a week later – I pointed out that no, it wasn’t Emmerdale, it was Heroes. Though I could see what he meant. It could have been the kitchen at Home Farm, or whatever it’s called, except one of the characters involved was a pint-sized female superhero who could regenerate her flesh, even after she’d suffered the most appalling injuries. I’m not sure the Dingles could do that.

Heroes is one of those series that you feel you ought to like. And I’ve tried, really I have. But it’s torrid pap, the kind of pretentious, portentous drivel that 16-year-olds think is like really, really awesome and deep, you know, just because people talk a lot. The fact that they talk nonsense seems irrelevant.

And no-one talks as much nonsense as the perpetually pained Mohinder Suresh. It sounds really meaningful, but it’s the sort of stuff that could sit happily inside a greetings card adorned with pictures of weeping teddy bears. “You cannot understand the depth of the changes inside.” Eh? “They cannot fathom how much you stand to lose in failure.” What was that?

Heroes is clever in a way, though, in that it does a good job tapping into post-9/11 paranoia and pandering to that feeling of mass helplessness in the face of an unseen enemy. Our salvation is in the hands of ordinary people, it says, so take that, terrorist scum!

But it’s Heroes’ woeful presentation of women that irks the most - an internet porn "star" with an inexhaustible supply of skimpy vest-tops and a cheerleader who spends a good chunk of the series running around in a teeny, tiny skirt. Heroes? Pah, forget Emmerdale, it’s Baywatch, but without the sand.

**

Alison Graham is TV editor of Radio Times.

I am a young 16 year old boy and, up until now when Alison so kindly enlightened me, i hadn't realised that i was actually half as intelligent as the rest of the world. I don't know how in touch our gifted TV editor is with the youth of today, but, as i am a part of the youth of today, i feel quite shocked to find that when i watch Heroes, as i qiute regularly do, i'm not, in fact, enjoying the comic book darkness and fun of the show, but, as Alison said, marvelling at how "awesom and deep" it is. I completely agree with Alison that she couldn't do any other job, especially working with children(was she ever one?), and add that maybe she can't realy write reviews either, unless you think of reviews as bitching about other poeple.

Maybe Radio Times should take notice of the amount of poeple who have complained..

As I am 58 years old I can hardly fall into the 16 year old bracket yet I really look forward to heroes and watched series one twice. I am an avid reader of both classics and modern science fiction and one of my criticisms of TV and cinema sci fi is that it tends to compressed action, shoot them up, narrow repetitive plots. Heroes is none of this. It has a slow moving in depth plot that is perhaps not for the shallow minded. As it evolves it creates more depth to ones understanding of it as long as one has the patience and concentration to follow it. Nothing is black and white, a perfect reflection of reality.

I feel sorry for Alison Graham being so bored by it. Perhaps she should stick to reviewing Emerdale Farm after all.

Well, I'm sorry, but I feel slightly insulted.

As of this writing, I am 17. I read a lot, and I've often got high results in my exams. I like to think I am intelligent. I also love this show. I have never once tried to claim that it is "deep" nor have I tried to convince other people otherwise. I enjoy watching it, therefore I will.

You obviously don't.

I have some respect for you, Alison Graham; I enjoy reading your editorials at the beginning of each issue. But there are lots of reviewers who do enjoy the show, so why not leave it to them? Why waste time reviewing something you don't even like? That's just confusing.

There are some of us who are waiting for season 2 and don't need to read depressing articles like the one you mentioned in the latest issue of RT. You don't think it's interesting? Of course not. I don't expect you to. But I don't see why you couldn't leave the review to someone else.

(although, to be fair, I agree with you about the narration part).

Oh, and for the record, I don't see how the way women dress on this show defines them as characters.

They really do speak nonsense a lot..and some of women in it don't cover up much.. but who cares heroes is great! then again i'm 14...and not particularly 'deep' i wanna see what she makes of hollyoaks :-D

oh and i don't think i can spell particularly.. hmm.

I really enjoy Heroes; unlike Lost, which"Lost" me entirely after about 8 weekof waiting for something to properly develop, I remain hooked :

I just love the way in which ( most recent episode) our cheerleader is told sharply by her mum to watch her manners, while their world is visibly crumbling around them, with 2 Heroes having entered the home and holding them hostage...this juxtaposition of reality/absurdity and plain good comic book fun charged with menace is great and more than makes up for the boring Suresh, who is admittedly so pleasing on the eye but talks such sanctimonious drivel....

maybe all the pontification and character explanations that comprise the "Heroes unpacked" slots have produced an aura that Heroes has to explain itself in grandiose terms...surely this is just basically a ripping yarn which is very well put together.............

Heroes isn't perfect but for many people is hugely entertaining and not just for 16 year olds fooled into believing it is 'deep'. Mohinder's voiceovers can be tedious but they are a small part of the show and do not detract from all the positive things about it.

I just enjoy it on the level of entertainment and am intelligent enough to see it for what it is. I don't need for the mechanics of how powers work to make complete sense and much is as yet unexplained, as long as the character motivation and writing rings true, that's enough for me in a fantasy/sci-fi drama.

While there may be concerns about use of female stereotypes (and this is addressed with some exceptionally strong characters in series 2), it is worth noting that they potray a strong single mother in a mixed-race relationship and a 'cheerleader' who is intelligent and has genuine emotional depth (I initially disliked the character but Hayden Panetierre's portrayal has won me over). Perhaps your own prejudices about 'internet porn stars' and 'cheerleaders in short skirts' influence your summary dismissal.

The peripheral female characters in it are also in multiple roles as Dark_Phoenix mentioned.

For me, the strengths are in the the fact that the characters are not either good or bad, as in real life- they can be conflicted and do questionable things, and even the villain Sylar is not just shown as evil through and through. HRG (Bennet) is another who can't be pigeon-holed.

Another is their use of a multi-ethnic, international cast and international locations as well as using subtitles rather than pandering to the American public - these are new things from a mainstream US programme. Whether you enjoy it or not, I think that these are undeniably good things.

Coleberg (below) said: "It is a comic book masquerading as a drama series." I beg to differ - it is a comic book, translated into the medium of television, and it's hit the jackpot precisely for that reason.

I know Suresh's intro/outro spiel is somewhat tedious, and there's a tendency towards the over-dramatic, but this show's treading a fine line in doing what it does - the comic-book thing - and it is in its first season. Look at some of the long-running shows back in their freshman years and then tell me which ones started stronger and with a better sense of direction than this. Lost, I'd say, is the only show with the same attitude and vigour in the SF market; House, for the drama team; and Weeds, in the comedy arena (altho' imho it's as much a drama as anything else around, just one that makes me cough liquid out my nose if I'm not careful). The rest of the shows are like kids down the shallow end of the pool by comparison.

Heroes came out the gate like a beast possessed, all engines firing, all guns blazing - loud and proud of what it was and the audience it was aimed at and, for that, I think it deserves all the awards it's scooped and more.

Oh, and as for the girls and their skimpy outfits? Hayden's over eighteen now...

"...the kind of pretentious, portentous drivel that 16-year-olds think is like really, really awesome and deep, you know, just because people talk a lot. The fact that they talk nonsense seems irrelevant."

Now now Alison, that seems unnecessarily personal. You're meant to review the programme, not the viewer. It would be like me saying "The Royal is the kind of rose-tinted, nostalgic drivel that middle-aged women think is really good, just because it taps into an inherent sense of whimsy and 'the good old days'. The fact that the show is complete tosh seems irrelevant."

The old adage about the female stars is laughable as well. You've clearly forgotten the female police chief, FBI officer, and the policitian's wife currently in a wheelchair and fighting to walk again, but then I suppose they weren't very condusive to your point, were they?

I can't remember which episode (I watch them a couple days after they're on in America so already on to the 2nd season) but there is a part where it's said Sylar eats the brain of his victim.

To both Coleberg and sibbs07:

Do we actually know exactly what Sylar does with the brains? As far as I recall, at this point all we know is that the power is centred in the brain (from Claire's autopsy) and that Sylar removes the tops of heads and, it appears, the whole brain.

I agree that Heroes is comic book. To me, that's the whole point. It's not great drama and it's not really saying anything profound. The biggest weakness in the show for me is the dialogue. Mohinder's pompous voiceovers are simply the best illustration of how poor it is. Having said that, I enjoy the show.

I like most of the characters and I enjoy the plots. I find myself pondering the source of the powers, the earlier generations, the motivation behind the organisation without initials that employs Bennett, etc. It's fun and I want to know what happens next.

I've never seen it as the job of a drama, particularly one so grounded in comics, to present politically correct images of women. I get Allison's point about the representation of two of the women but I think it's overstated to say that the representation of all the women is designed to show them in skimpy outfits. Angela Petrelli and Mrs. Bennet are both key roles and hardly in that mould. Over and above that, it is a sad fact of American viewing habits, with which this show has to conform, that they prefer looking at pretty people.

In reply to Coleberg;

He doesn't put part of their brain into his, he eats the brain in order to gain their power. Have you ever heard of the Aztecs? It has been recorded that some of them ate their enemy's heart to gain strength/bravery/power.

I too have seen the whole series, and I agree with Alison's statements entirely. It's all written in such a way to fool people into thinking that it's deep and meaningful, with Suresh's unnecessary intro and outro the very pinnacle of pretentiousness, filled with big words that are so vague they could apply to any episodes. It is a comic book masquerading as a drama series.

I mean, suspension of disbelief is one thing, it's necessary for fantasy and sci-fi. Therefore there it is quite acceptable to think that these people could really have these powers, you accept that when you turn it on. However, it features a main villain who cuts open people's heads, removes part of their brain, and then puts it inside his own. They expect us to believe in a watchmaker who performs brain surgery on people and then on himself, putting part of their brain into his, and closing it back again? Or does he take it orally? Does he eat the brain and digest it into his blood stream from which it goes to his head?

Every script reads as though someone was just thinking "Yeah, that sounds cool" without any real meaning. Snappy lines and powerful phrasing are all well and good, but they need some backing, some reason.

I'd be interested to hear if Alison reviewed The Da Vinci Code, a book and film that displayed similar flaws to Heroes, in that it pretended to be deep and meaningful with stock characters who do unrealistic things with no motivation in an unbelievable context, all written in a way to make people think that it's deep and meaningful with no real backing.

I feel compelled to say that I wholeheartedly agree with Alison Graham's comments. I am delighted that someone who can actually sensibly and concisely explain the way I feel about Heroes has done so, as now I can properly defend myself to the rest of the world who think I'm just mad.

Yatta!

Horatio Caine. HaaaaaahHahahahaHaaaahaaaaaaah!

My – poor Ms Graham does seem to have hit a nerve amongst the Nerd Community. (And before anyone starts getting touchy – or, more accurately, touchier - I'm a long time member of said community.)

I'm also a long time reader of the Radio Times. I always enjoy reading Alison’s previews and reviews. I find them witty and perceptive, even if I don't always agree with them. And it’s certainly nonsense to say that “She seems to hate everything on TV”. As I recall she's championed both House and The Shield, both of which I like.

And I'd have to say, I largely agree with her about Heroes. I've now seen all of Series 1 – it’s already been shown in Ireland. (And on digital in the UK I understand.) I started watching it because of all the hype, and the fact that it was so big in the US. I stuck with it more out of habit and curiosity as to what would happen than real passion for it. I was able to undergo the required ‘willing suspension of disbelief’, and believe in all those super powers. What I wasn’t able to do was really care that much about any of the characters. I just didn't think it was that well written.

"Heroes is clever in a way, though, in that it does a good job tapping into post-9/11 paranoia and pandering to that feeling of mass helplessness in the face of an unseen enemy. Our salvation is in the hands of ordinary people, it says, so take that, terrorist scum!"

What tosh - the sort of rubbish usually spouted by lazy journalists to justify/explain shows that people watch because they are (in the main) very enjoyable.

If Alison Graham had been paying attention she'd know there is no "unseen enemy." Sure, things are unclear, and there are mysteries but it wouldn't be much of a drama if it was all blown in Episode 1.

In this arc, it seems pretty clear who the enemy is and none of it seems to suggest a feeling of mass helplessness. If I lived in the Heroes world I don't have super powers so Sylar won't be after me. No worries.

I have to agree with Alison on some things however. Heroes isn't particularly deep and Mohinder really does speak nonsense. I assume that anyone who has the smallest idea of biology and evolution cringes whenever his voice begins. We all like escapism but Mohinder's statements are 'not even wrong', and end up breaking the illusion.

I completely agree with Incandenza's point. For years I have had to bite my tongue when reading Alison Graham's tedious "reviews". She seems to hate everything on TV and rarely enjoys a bit of escapist fiction. But I guess you would get sick of watching TV "all day and every day for a living". If you can call it living. I'm sure she's a lovely person...her boss must like her very much...how else could she keep her job?!

I imagine Alison Graham must take all of these comments with a pinch of salt - in much the same manner as the people on whose efforts she pontificates take hers.

I must say, however, that I don't understand how anyone could settle on watching TV as a career. I wonder if she's ever considered getting a proper job.

Unlike you Alison, I watch TV primarily for entertainment. And Heroes does a good job of entertaining. Full of stereotyped characters? Sure... so was Bleak House, which I also enjoyed. It's fiction, that's the point.

You want to see pap and drivel on TV? Try watching a financial report on BBC news these days. Talk about dumbing down. I know what a "house" looks like. You don't need giant background graphics to show me...

Woeful representation of women? I think you've got a point, but I don't think any of the male Heroes come off as particularly progressive, wholesome or well-rounded, either. A long-suffering drug addict artist, a philandering politician and an overweight policeman - not exactly ground-breaking characters, are they?

"I watch telly, all day and every day, for a living."

Yes, it is great. But apparently you take it far too seriously. I quite enjoyed your comparison of Heroes to post 9/11 paranoia. That sounds like something Suresh would say!

Did you know that the Phones4U advert is also tapping into post 9/11 paranoia. The paranoia that if you don't have a mobile phone and are stuck on a plane that's about to be blown up, how could you ever call your loved ones.

I think the point about the representation of women is facile in the extreme - there would be more mileage in applying this criticism to the female characters in Emmerdale, or any British soap. However, this kind of comment simply sounds like somebody trying to be cool by disliking what a lot of other people find harmless, escapist fun. Watch TV for a living? Yes, you clearly have, and haven't you lost touch as a result!

"Heroes is one of those series that you feel you ought to like."

Do you see what you did there. You took a personal, subjective observation and then inaccurately extrapolated it to include other people in order to lend it weight.

Kind of like me saying 'Alison Graham is one of those journalists who you usually ignore but who occasionally says something so dumb you just need to reply.'