The first year of this series started out as a 10, but the series declined as the seasons went by. One of the biggest problems was the self-destructive need to maintain actors and actresses that were becoming popular outside of the series well beyond their relevance to the series. For me, this was greatly exemplified by the continued presence of the Petrilli brothers. Their sacrifice at the end of Season 1 crowned that season and, if they had died as it was thought they would, the two characters would have been remembered as glorious examples for future "Heroes" to emulate. Instead, Peter's character became an unwieldy plot point because his powers were truly as ultra- powerful as Superman's. Likewise, Nathan's character vacillated between corrupt and good. I had heard that the original plan was that many of each season's characters were supposed to die at the end of each season.. This would have greatly helped the series for me. I can only imagine that this idea was rejected by the producers of the series. No new characters were ever allowed to stay for long, and so the fun of each good character's journey to Hero was removed. The Villains were usually a mixed bag, and the one good Villain, Sylar, was bound to the same overly extended stay on the series that the popular Heroes were, to the point where his fans began to lose their taste for him. Let this be a lesson: let the writers rule. If necessary, have them write a series Bible that details all plot lines, but don't have them re-write to adjust to what the producers think that audiences want. Producers are usually to insulated to know that answer.
Heroes
(II) (2006–2010)
Interesting premise ruined by pandering to the masses
26 April 2011
Warning: Spoilers