Topic: Heroes (Read 88147 times)

0bsessions · « **Reply #250 on:** 21 Nov 2008, 13:28 »

Quote from: KvP on 21 Nov 2008, 12:45

Dunno, I imagine Lost has considerable DVD sales. Possibly such that if the DVDs weren't on the market Lost wouldn't have lasted as long as it has.

Lost is a completely different beast in that it has always had a specific beginning, middle and end plotted out. The show was actually catching a lot of shit for meandering before they actually set an end date in stone. It's practically written with DVD in mind and they probably wouldn't get nearly as much leeway were the show expected to maintain a serialized story with no end in sight like Heroes.

I also don't doubt that that has cut significantly into ratings.

And I'd be right. Typing that made me curious, and look here: Lost TV ratings down the hatch.

Shit, this opinion article actually drives my point home:

Quote

If I didn’t have the wonderful invention they call a DVR, I may have gone bonkers over all the commercials.

Look around network television. Serialized television is dying a slow death. It's honestly been dying out since the advent of affordable VCRs, but DVRs have really hit the gas on it. While we have some great storytelling in shows like Lost, it's not a long term sustainable format in today's network TV market where ratings are needed to keep shows afloat, but people are DVRing everything and killing the value of advertising dollars. As budgets rise and advertising dollars plummet, we're going to see things drastically change in the future.

Chesire Cat · « **Reply #251 on:** 21 Nov 2008, 15:59 »

Im with Obsession on this one entirely. You guys are viewing it strictly from a consumer (and in the case of DVRs not even that, you dont get a vote) point of view. If a show cant make money while its on air, its going to have to come out of production values or get canceled outright. Someones got to pay for the shows upfront, and those someones are the advertisers and the networks, who operate a business as a business, and it's not good business to take unnecessary risks on the hope of DVD sales.

Jackie Blue · « **Reply #252 on:** 21 Nov 2008, 22:00 »

The bizarre thing is that TV networks actually give a crap about Nielsen ratings. In my experience they're not a great indicator of how many people love your show, especially with Hulu. If I were a network, I'd aim squarely at the Hulu audience with the knowledge that a serialized show that someone watched on there would likely buy the DVDs if they liked it. I know that's what I do, and I'm in the target demo that they consider most important (18-35 year olds with disposable income).

0bsessions · « **Reply #253 on:** 22 Nov 2008, 10:53 »

The problem with that is that Nielsen ratings are the only proper way to actually gauge advertising value. Hulu is essentially worthless to advertising because you don't actually have to sit and pay attention to make sure you catch it when it's back on. When I'm watching on Hulu, I just check shit online during the thirty second breaks and then click back after about a minute.

The networks are kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place on this.

Jackie Blue · « **Reply #254 on:** 22 Nov 2008, 11:36 »

But on the rare occasions I sit down and watch a show, I tune out the commercials too - I go get a drink, go to the bathroom, read a few pages of a book, whatever. I think there are a lot of archaic myths about advertising, and as a model for getting shows made it seems like it's less and less relevant. At least with Hulu, even if you open a new tab or whatever, most people are still at least HEARING the commercial, and it's too short to use as a drink/snack/bathroom break.

I think the most important thing is for fans to vote with their dollars; don't torrent a season of a show, buy it. Otherwise there won't BE any more shows except on cable.

Chesire Cat · « **Reply #255 on:** 22 Nov 2008, 12:08 »

So you are saying every level of business from production companies to advertisers, to networks should very suddenly reverse the way they do business and rely extremely heavily on DVD sales (which have always existed) and not rely on the standard methods of funding that have existed since the dawn of television.

Not going to happen. Businesses dont stay successful by radically changing their business model. And trust me, upstart tech era companies like Google or Hulu or whatever, arent going to be able to fund these shows for you, its going to be the advertisers and networks. From what you are saying, that every level of show making should embrace this new (old) venue for funding, is the only way TV will surver. For that to happen there would have to be a transitional period, and do you want to sit through 10 years of shit low budget TV while they figure there sit out. Because thats what will have to happen, corporations (the money guys) move and change slowly. And since DVD sales have been around for a while, this isnt new funding for shows, this is just forcing a small slice of the pie to coverer the larger portion on fundmaking

Alex C · « **Reply #256 on:** 22 Nov 2008, 13:42 »

The other thing is that well, frankly, I don't see myself ever really paying meaningful amounts of money for television programs. I realize I'm at the extreme end of the market, but I cannot help but suspect that there's a large portion of casual viewers out there who just kind of tune into whatever's on once in a while to see kill some time and see what's out there. For example, I really liked the episodes of Always Sunny in Philadelphia that I've seen, but I regularly go months without watching the show and will likely never purchase an episode. I cannot help but suspect that there's many people out there who feel that way about a wide variety of programs. Advertisers are a great source of income because they don't give two shits about whether someone is a diehard and buys dvds or not. Advertisers only care about whether a decent number of people might be paying attention to the TV at any one given moment in time.

Chesire Cat · « **Reply #257 on:** 22 Nov 2008, 15:33 »

The truth!

And dont underestimate your position in the market, there are alot of you people out there.

Jackie Blue · « **Reply #258 on:** 22 Nov 2008, 16:36 »

Quote from: Chesire Cat on 22 Nov 2008, 12:08

So you are saying every level of business from production companies to advertisers, to networks should very suddenly reverse the way they do business

Er, no, my post didn't say that at all.

Chesire Cat · « **Reply #259 on:** 22 Nov 2008, 16:48 »

Current primary sources of funding TV Shows:

Money from:
Producers \
Networks > TV show
Advertisers /

Your prospective way of funding TV Shows:

TV Show < Residual DVD money

Seems pretty backwards to me. Not to mention its pretty hard to spend future bux when you need actual money up front to pay for the creation of TV shows (marketing, actors, crew, sets etc).

Ã¶de · « **Reply #260 on:** 23 Nov 2008, 07:35 »

Hollywood originally got almost all of it's money from U.S. cinemas. Today a film probably won't break even at the U.S. box office, it'll get most of it's money from foreign box offices, DVD sales, and other markets. Then the studio takes the money it earns from that and invests it in a new blockbuster.

october1983 · « **Reply #261 on:** 23 Nov 2008, 08:36 »

Quote from: Chesire Cat on 22 Nov 2008, 16:48

Not to mention its pretty hard to spend future bux when you need actual money up front to pay for the creation of TV shows (marketing, actors, crew, sets etc).

Surely the same pretty much applies to advertising, though? I may be wrong, but surely unless they're dealing with a TV show that's massive and pretty much guaranteed to pull in viewers (so, perhaps Heroes Seasons 2 and 3 might be different), advertisers are unlikely to pay for advertising before the show enters production. Networks/production companies must be funding shows currently in production with the money made from previous success, whether that be from advertising or DVD sales. That is kind of how a lot of businesses work, by reinvesting profit into new projects.

I am sceptical that DVD sales could ever replace the amount of money made from advertising, but much like the music industry, it looks like TV is going to have to adapt to the internet. I don't know what American networks are like, but in the UK big strides have been made to accommodate for it, with the two biggest hitters providing excellent online services: BBC iPlayer (perhaps less relevant to the argument as they're not funded by advertising anyway), and 4 On Demand, who are funded by adverts. Interestingly, 4oD not only offers recently broadcast episodes for free online, but also back catalogues of many of its most popular shows, which presumably cuts into their DVD sales in favour of showing people adverts during the episodes online.

KvP · « **Reply #262 on:** 23 Nov 2008, 12:29 »

Keep in mind that advertisers might be willing to pay for advertising based on the timeslot itself more than whatever show fills it. If Heroes was on at 1 in the morning you'd see less credit card / car insurance / whatever commercials, and you'd see more commercials for local businesses, or phone sex operators.

october1983 · « **Reply #263 on:** 23 Nov 2008, 15:07 »

Sure, but my point is that the advertising for that particular slot is unlikely to be arranged far enough in advance for it to actually fund the production of the episodes it will accompany, so the production companies will be using money made from previous endeavours to finance new ones, which applies to both advertising and DVDs.

Jackie Blue · « **Reply #264 on:** 23 Nov 2008, 15:22 »

Quote from: Chesire Cat on 22 Nov 2008, 16:48

TV Show < Residual DVD money

OK dude I never said that. I said that people who like shows should buy the DVDs instead of torrenting them so that the studios will make up some of the money they might be losing because of poor Nielsen ratings.

I neither stated nor even really implied that DVD sales would suddenly magically replace the ratings system, just that it's about time networks begin the process of re-evaluating what constitutes a "successful" show, and how to make one.

Scandanavian War Machine · « **Reply #265 on:** 25 Nov 2008, 11:06 »

last night i found a bar that watches Heroes every week. And i don't just mean they have it playing on a tv. they shut off all the music, put every single tv on the same channel, and tell people to shut up if they talk too loud during the show.

so stoked right now.

Boro_Bandito · « **Reply #266 on:** 26 Nov 2008, 20:55 »

See, last week's episode pissed me off. Goddamnit.

TheBoredOne · « **Reply #267 on:** 08 Dec 2008, 22:59 »

Tonight's episode confused the Hell out of me.

Spoilers ahead

After Hiro got the Light, where the hell did Papa Petrelli come from? How was he magically there 16 years ago, right on the rooftop? Are we to assume it had something to do with a different time traveler helping him go back? Was he an immortal who just happened to have been alive 16 years ago? Or am I missing something specifically?

0bsessions · « **Reply #268 on:** 09 Dec 2008, 06:29 »

An immortal?

Dude, don't know how to break this to you, but I was alive sixteen years ago too. I am also reasonably sure I do not have superpowers. By the look of him, Arthur may, in fact, have been alive to the tune of sixty to seventy years ago!

Anyways, it seems to be pretty clearly established that Arthur picked up a teleportation power years ago and, running the Company, probably had access to a precog or two back then. It'll probably be explained next week.

I was more interested in the absolutely badass manner of dispatching him. It was just fantastic. I seem to be alone on this, but Sylar's hero storyarc never sat right with me. I like his morally gray, self serving attitude. Plus, he delivered probably the best line of the season in "You're not a killer, Peter...I am."

Scandanavian War Machine · « **Reply #269 on:** 09 Dec 2008, 10:18 »

Quote from: 0bsessions on 09 Dec 2008, 06:29

"You're not a killer, Peter...I am." *splat*

there.

yeah, last night's episode was pretty sweet. except when Claire was holding herself in baby format i was quietly shouting "no, don't touch yourself! time paradox! TIME PARADOOOOOXXXX!!!!!!!"

0bsessions · « **Reply #270 on:** 09 Dec 2008, 10:47 »

NBC should've marketed the episode as thus:

"Tonight, the Heroes moment you've all been waiting for. Claire Bennett's will expose her bare chest and touch herself. Only on NBC."

CamusCanDo · « **Reply #271 on:** 09 Dec 2008, 11:40 »

Quote from: Scandanavian War Machine on 09 Dec 2008, 10:18

yeah, last night's episode was pretty sweet. except when Claire was holding herself in baby format i was quietly shouting "no, don't touch yourself! time paradox! TIME PARADOOOOOXXXX!!!!!!!"

I was waiting for Christopher Eccleston to burst in and be really really mad with Claire.

Aimless · « **Reply #272 on:** 09 Dec 2008, 13:02 »

The bad-guys' evil masterplan for taking over the world is "intelligent design".

I love it.

Chesire Cat · « **Reply #273 on:** 09 Dec 2008, 13:04 »

Quote from: TheBoredOne on 08 Dec 2008, 22:59

After Hiro got the Light, where the hell did Papa Petrelli come from? How was he magically there 16 years ago, right on the rooftop? Are we to assume it had something to do with a different time traveler helping him go back? Was he an immortal who just happened to have been alive 16 years ago? Or am I missing something specifically?

Keep in mind he stole Hiro's powers. Which he likely used against him.

Also I think the idea behind that is Papa Patrelli is trying to remake the world in his own image, thus making him god.

KvP · « **Reply #274 on:** 10 Dec 2008, 00:05 »

Just when you think they made Sylar an actual character it's yet another arbitrary change in alignment!

0bsessions · « **Reply #275 on:** 10 Dec 2008, 07:15 »

Yeah, because metaphorically ripping his balls off made him more interesting.

KvP · « **Reply #276 on:** 10 Dec 2008, 09:16 »

Don't you worry, pussy Sylar will make his glorious return next week!

Fluxuation · « **Reply #277 on:** 10 Dec 2008, 10:21 »

Quote from: Chesire Cat on 09 Dec 2008, 13:04

Quote from: TheBoredOne on 08 Dec 2008, 22:59
After Hiro got the Light, where the hell did Papa Petrelli come from? How was he magically there 16 years ago, right on the rooftop? Are we to assume it had something to do with a different time traveler helping him go back? Was he an immortal who just happened to have been alive 16 years ago? Or am I missing something specifically?

Keep in mind he stole Hiro's powers. Which he likely used against him.

Also I think the idea behind that is Papa Patrelli is trying to remake the world in his own image, thus making him god.

He didnt steal Hiro's powers until this past episode. In Africa all he did was wipe his mind. The Arthur we saw there was either Arthur from 16 years ago or present day Arthur travelling back in time. I think its the latter. Everyone seems to forget that Arthur stole Peter's abilities and that Peter had the power to time travel like Hiro.

0bsessions · « **Reply #278 on:** 10 Dec 2008, 10:27 »

D'oh. Well, the obvious has managed to elude all of us. Good point, Flux.

Jackie Blue · « **Reply #279 on:** 10 Dec 2008, 10:40 »

That episode pretty well redeemed the fact that the past several have been shaky.

If Arthur's death is another fake-out, though, just... fuck that.

It looks like this volume will conclude with Peter and friends vs. Nathan and Private Hulk. Which I am fine with.

0bsessions · « **Reply #280 on:** 10 Dec 2008, 10:47 »

Personally, I would've gone with Lieutenant America.

Jackie Blue · « **Reply #281 on:** 10 Dec 2008, 12:49 »

Also, there is apparently in next episode a fight between Hiro, wielding a loaf of bread, and his father, wielding a katana.

AWESOME.

Chesire Cat · « **Reply #282 on:** 10 Dec 2008, 15:25 »

Quote from: Fluxuation on 10 Dec 2008, 10:21

He didnt steal Hiro's powers until this past episode. In Africa all he did was wipe his mind. The Arthur we saw there was either Arthur from 16 years ago or present day Arthur travelling back in time. I think its the latter. Everyone seems to forget that Arthur stole Peter's abilities and that Peter had the power to time travel like Hiro.

No but the fact that he can steal a time travelers abilities creates the notion that he can create any time paradox he wants. Say he takes Hiro's abilities in early 2009 (after all he is present day age when he takes Hiro's powers in '92) then he can use his powers to go back in time to 1992 when Hiro is about to fuck up his plans royal and steal his powers. Thus giving him 16 more years of time travel ability and saving his master plan.

Boro_Bandito · « **Reply #283 on:** 10 Dec 2008, 19:49 »

For some reason I'm betting its another fake-out. I mean, An Arthur Petrelli with time control powers wouldn't be stupid enough to be shot in the head by his own son, head on, I don't care if the Hatian was there. I think I hate this show now. What the fuck.

0bsessions · « **Reply #284 on:** 10 Dec 2008, 19:58 »

"So do the proud men die: crucified, not on a cross of gold, but a stake of humble tin."

It's a very poignant quote. Often, those in positions of great power are brought down due to no more than their own overconfidence. Nixon and Al Capone are real life examples powerful men who were brought down more out of their own hubris rather than any brilliant fight. If this is indeed how Arthur dies, it's not at all unrealistic and quite appropriate. They don't all go out in a blaze of glory.

The quote above? It's from Gerry Conway, a comic book writer. It's the caption from the Green Goblin's death. The Goblin had just killed Spider-Man's girlfriend and, instead of being killed in a glorious battle to the death with Spider-Man, he accidentally impaled himself on his own glider while trying to kill Spider-Man.

Chesire Cat · « **Reply #285 on:** 10 Dec 2008, 20:16 »

Tin is obviously too heavy to fly, that quote is total BS

TheBoredOne · « **Reply #286 on:** 10 Dec 2008, 20:47 »

Quote from: 0bsessions on 09 Dec 2008, 06:29

Dude, don't know how to break this to you, but I was alive sixteen years ago too.

Rofl.
Okay, what I said didn't come out quite how I meant it.
I meant he looked like he hadn't aged at all. It looked like he was the present day version of himself. Usually if someone almost 20 years ago looks like a mirror image of themselves today, on a TV show like this, some kind of voodoo is involved.
[edit: Read Flux' post, now it all makes sense. Thanks!]

Chesire Cat · « **Reply #287 on:** 10 Dec 2008, 21:23 »

Also I dont think Sylar, Peter or Arthur gain the abilities from each other beyond the base, absorbing abilities ability. As in, all Arthur stole from Peter was the ability to steal abilities from a certain proximity, as opposed to the catalog of abilities Peter already absorbed.

Aimless · « **Reply #288 on:** 11 Dec 2008, 02:48 »

Nah, he got Elle's power through Peter, after all!

dozyrozy · « **Reply #289 on:** 11 Dec 2008, 03:47 »

Even if Arthur did just get Peter's power to absorb others powers then he could have absorbed Hiro's time travel power when he wiped his memory without it affecting Hiro's powers at all.

Boro_Bandito · « **Reply #290 on:** 11 Dec 2008, 09:33 »

see, that's why I hate these fucking characters that can absorb powers, because it all gets so complicated and convoluted and all this bullshit that none of it makes any sense whatsoever after a while. Fuck you Heroes, I'm watching Boston Legal.

0bsessions · « **Reply #291 on:** 11 Dec 2008, 09:34 »

Isn't Boston legal canceled?

Chesire Cat · « **Reply #292 on:** 10 Mar 2009, 15:39 »

PS: Rebel is totally Micah Sanders

Lines · « **Reply #293 on:** 10 Mar 2009, 17:55 »

Quote from: 0bsessions on 11 Dec 2008, 09:34

Isn't Boston legal canceled?

Yes, but I saw reruns on I forget what channel.

I was thinking Micah might be Rebel, but I'm not sure. They kind of wrote him out. Also, I'm confused, is Daphne still alive or not?

KickThatBathProf · « **Reply #294 on:** 10 Mar 2009, 21:37 »

Daphne is still alive. Matt and Peter found this out i think in the episode two weeks ago.

axerton · « **Reply #295 on:** 11 Mar 2009, 04:52 »

News flash: I finnally like Sylar.

Boro_Bandito · « **Reply #296 on:** 11 Mar 2009, 22:05 »

Quote from: Chesire Cat on 10 Mar 2009, 15:39

PS: Rebel is totally Micah Sanders

holy shit I hadn't thought of that, does seem weird though that he's been out so long, and he's probably grown a lot in the amount of time he's been gone.

0bsessions · « **Reply #297 on:** 12 Mar 2009, 10:37 »

Quote from: Chesire Cat on 10 Mar 2009, 15:39

PS: Rebel is totally Micah Sanders

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT!

Quote from: 0bsessions on 09 Feb 2009, 19:05

Hana Gitelman anybody?

Call it. Micah, while having great skill with computers, is still a twelve year old. A twelve year old, no matter how good with computers, is not capable of the kind of shit Rebel is doing. It's either Hana Gitelman, in a new body (Per the allegedly in continuity webcomic, she was technically killed, but her powers allowed her to live on as kind of an AI thing, rather confusing), or a completely new character with a similar power.

Not to mention, considering the files at the government's disposal, Micah's probably in custody to be honest. The Company had detailed files on him and was well aware of his powers and he isn't exactly someone who could give the government all that much trouble, compared to Hana, a former Israeli agent who technically does not have a body right now. The only drawback to the possibility of her being Rebel is that Katic is starring in Castle, but the different/no body idea would cover that easily, and it wouldn't be the first time the writers have used that in a situation like this (See Candace).

Boro_Bandito · « **Reply #298 on:** 12 Mar 2009, 10:57 »

I find it semi-hard to believe they would pull something out of the web-exclusive stuff for this, since a lot of people (like me) haven't read the majority of it.

0bsessions · « **Reply #299 on:** 12 Mar 2009, 11:10 »

I am relatively sure they've done it before. All it really requires is a slight summary. Really, it could be summed up in under a minute.

The idea of Micah makes absolutely no logical sense outside of his power, though. It's got to be either Gitelman or a brand new character.

THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

Author Topic: Heroes (Read 88147 times)