I have confidence that word of mouth is spreading about how great the show is again. I enjoyed the premiere very much and was saddened to see the ratings. They're pretty much the same as the season finale last season with a small dip for the second half of the finale. Then I started to see more piling on from the media and others that like to bash the show. I'm confident that word of mouth will increase the ratings from here on in, but for the worse case scenario, do you think the staff should consider really pulling a "LOST" and setting an end date for Heroes? This way they can officially get in their 7 or 8 seasons as they want. I said not sure because I want to see how word of mouth does over the next few weeks before the Heroes staff really considers this.

No. This is not Lost. This is an issue that's been brought up time and time again. Setting an end date isn't a magic cure all for ratings problems.

It may not be a cure for ratings problems, but maybe they can draft out set storyline threads, to ensure that we get as cohesive of a story as possible.

Heroes can't go forever, they may as well have a plan for how they want to end it.

No X 1000000000000000000000000000000

Yes. It's worked wonders for Lost, in terms of quality story. To me one of the best aspects of season one was the clear concise storyline that didn't take as long to introduce as say, the virus story. Heroes could benefit by picking a date to end it and moving it's stories towards that point. It may not get ratings, but let's face it, with the ratings it's been getting it won't last much longer. So I'd rather get a real ending then it just being cancelled.

When Heroes dies, it dies, but lets not start burying it while it is still kicking.

I don't think it'll work like Lost did, they had a definite ending in mind to move towards, I don't think Heroes has that kind of specific ending in mind so I don't see it helping them any, it's not like Heroes is just putting in filler to wait and get to that ending, they're just trying to entertain and go as long as they can. Lost almost should have been like a miniseries from the beginning, with a definite start and a definite end.

These are very good arguments and I'm not burying the show. I posted this suggestion to be in place to prevent the show from being buried as it were. I see the show lasting 7 or 8 seasons and I have confidence that word of mouth is spreading well and the ratings will increase now. However, if that doesn't happen, then this option is the only last ditch effort to not bury the show and all the bashers and media can stop people from turning away.

whoa, whoa, whoa! Lost hasn't had any real rating problems, it's just they've reached a good spot to say goodbye. Their ratings aren't in any real danger it's just the right time to end the show on a good point.

Actually Lost was taking a looooooot of flack before they announced the end date. Because Lost is set up more like a film story, not a television story. I know a lot of people who watched and were all like "Well, I love the show, but I sort of just want to know what the deal is."


Heroes isn't leading towards anything. Because there will always be specials, and always be more stories. Every single character that is on now could die and they could still come back for another season.

I get what you guys are saying. But what kind of closure could we get from them "ending" it? "And then Peter, Sylar, Claire, the whole lot of them walked off into the sunset holding hands, ready to start their forever."

Come on lol

This would be another good reason to announce an end date. Lost was being trashed by critics, as Heroes is now (one of the reasons people seem to think Heroes' ratings are dipping) but after announcing an end date, all the Lost critics regained a lot of respect for the show. Perhaps the same would happen with Heroes?


Hey now, I'm not saying have some perfect, closure heavy finale, but the writers/producers/SOMEONE must have some ending in mind. If NBC were to cancel it and tell them to write a finale, I'm sure they'd have an idea of what they'd like to write. The show isn't about nameless superheroes, it's about the characters Peter, Claire, Hiro, etc. It's a character drama, which is the reason they DIDN'T kill off every character at the end of season 1. The audiences had grown attached to these characters. So yes, they COULD end these character's stories; Peter and Claire finally embrace their heroic side, Sylar is finally killed, hiro dies, Noah and Angela create a Professor X-esque company to help specials, etc. etc. See I just wrote an ending in 2 minutes As I said, season 1 worked best because it was a character drama with a very specific plan for the season, if they can do that again by setting an end date then they should. Plus, NBC would be less likely to cancel it abruptly if they know it's going to end in 2 years or so, rather then them cancelling it this year if the ratings continue this way or drop (which imo, seems likely)

Eh, I don't think running Heroes like LOST is really a good idea. That type of "leading towards an end" formula only works for certain shows. Heroes isn't one of them, I don't think.

I do think that each season needs to lead to an end of something (kind of like S1 did).

The best time to end it would be in 3 or 4 years from now. One of my favourite endings would be that Hiro and Claire live happily ever after

We wouldn't get respect because they would just say "Oh, so they are just copying Lost. So they REALLY had no idea what they were doing!"

If we get to the situation where the show is going to be cancelled then yes, it will be nice of them to end it. By why end it prematurely? As a "just in case!". I'd rather have more of a show that doesn't get a perfect ending then less of a show that gets tied up neatly with a ribbon at the end of it.

I'm pointing this out mainly because there were things other than the show itself that made the storyline so long and drawn out. They were planning for a full season 2 and didn't expect the show to get cut in half by the unexpected writers' strike. The virus was going to play a huge role in the entire season. You couldn't expect them to give away all the answers in the first half of the season when they had a set plan in mind.


1. No. Heroes is not Lost. It does not have an overall arcing plot like Lost. Lost knew from the beginning, for the most part, there would be an end. Heroes has not had a clear ending in mind at all.

2. Be that as it may, there have been plenty of well known characters that people loved and they're gone now. Isaac was a fan favorite and his story ended perfectly. Simone, while not as important as others, ended her story as well. Elle, one of the more likable and well known characters, was killed off last season. Her story is over. This is a show called HEROES not PETRELLIS or GRAYS or BENNETS. That's just how it is. There are plenty of other characters out in the world of Heroes that we can love just as much as Peter and Claire and Hiro.

3. As for the ending you wrote, that can work perfectly as a Season Finale, rather than a Series Finale. Hell, maybe it could work for THIS season finale. Write endings for certain characters, have them leave, and make room for more characters that we all will love. We already know they can make characters we love that don't have the last name Petrelli. There's no need for an overall ending to the show when there is major potential to just get rid of some of the things that may be causing what people consider to be "problems" or what critics think is "wrong" with the show.

We may think the show is fine, but if the rest of the audience and the critics don't think that, then major things need to happen. An ending for certain points in the show would be nice, and endings for certain characters, but not an ending for the overall show itself. That will only hurt more than help.

How can they get rid of some of the "problems" or what critics think is "wrong" with the show? I know the show is fine and see it lasting for 7 or 8 seasons. So how can those "problems" and "wrongs" get fixed to save the show?

You remove them, correct them.

If character "A" is causing problem "B" with the show, removing character "A" removes said problem and leaves space open for character "C" to provide better entertainment than character "A" did.

If people think Hiro is being used merely for comedic purposes rather than actually being a part of the overall story, which seems to be what people think, then removing Hiro leaves space open for another character to actually give something back to the story.

Then again, instead of getting rid of the problem downright, perhaps you can just give the character a new situation. Why can't Hiro be using what little time he has left to making sure Peter leads a healthier and less obsessed life than he already is? Why can't Hiro be talking with HRG and helping him with the Company?

Obviously Hiro is just an example here.

EDIT: Like I said, we may think the show is great and nothing is wrong, but our opinions mean little. If Heroes is getting bad reviews and is not making money for NBC, it's gone. The only way we keep our show is if it makes money and critics give better reviews. To make that happen, certain things need to be done (i.e. remove any perceived problems detracting from the show's overall performance).

True. Good point


To me the show is already in that situation. I really don't see it making another full season unless the ratings suddenly improve, which seems unlikely. But I'll eat my words if they do


Oh no no not just the writer's strike. But when did they actually introduce NYC being wiped out? Episode 6 or 7? That's 7 hours into the season! Whereas in the first season we learned of the bomb at the very end of the first episode. I believe Tim Kring even said one of the problems of the second season is that it took too long to introduce the overarching plot of the volume.



While it's true that they can technically introduce new characters and make them the main focus while they slowly fade the other characters away, like ER, I don't see them doing that. Simply because it wouldn't be smart. The ratings have already dropped so I don't see them risking anymore potential audience members by dropping their stars like Hayden and Milo, or even Jack Coleman. I would be incredibly risky if they were to do something like that. To me, after they changed their initial plan to bring in a whole new cast in the second season, the show became about the characters Peter, Claire, Hiro, Noah, and everyone else. But of course like any show some of these characters will eventually be killed off for dramatic purposes (like Simone or Elle)


Which is why Heroes has an advantage. Since the endings of their seasons could perfectly fit as series finales they don't have to do much rewriting to make it work. I'm not saying they plan a two season overarching storyline (like Lost), but having the characters actually develop towards an end that they're planning would be nice.

And I'm not trying to bury Heroes while it's still kicking, just saying they should start to prepare the funeral arrangements

And sorry if I might come off as hostile or something in this debate, totally not my intention. I just think it's an interesting debate since everyone in this thread loves Heroes (obviously or we wouldn't be here) and has differing views on what's best for the show

YES. Will it solve ratings? No. But it works absolute wonders for storytelling.

The two most obvious examples that come to mind are LOST and Battlestar Galactica. Merely with the prospect of a final season approaching, and the writers knowing about it, stories suddenly became tighter, riskier, and, in my opinion, better. Creativity flows to its greatest potential, the writers knowing that they don't have to save an idea for two seasons before it can be used.

And though the very structure of HEROES with each season relatively self-contained doesn't require an end date to answer all those burning questions and overarching mysteries, characters can get old. Claire's story is the same thing every year, getting more and more boring as the series progresses. An end-date provides a perfect way to complete the character vs. drawing her out with the same old stuff.

End dates work.

Sometimes. You mentioned 2 for whom it worked. (Allegedly, anyway. I know more people, including me, who have despised both those shows for years, than who liked either/both of them.)

However, television history is replete with series where the writers pretty much phoned in the final season.

Setting a definitive end date is a hit or miss proposition, and there's no need for it on a show like Heroes.

Exactly, it's not worth it for Heroes.

I voted a big fat NO. Not only because I don't want to see it end, but I just can't see it as a necessity. I don't watch Lost, but I don't have to to know they need to get off an island. It is necessary that they set an end date.

Also as Leek said if Heroes set and end date everybody would say they are copying Lost again, so it is a losing battle either way.

The show will end when it ends.

With ratings like they have now, I don't think they'll have to worry about setting an end date. It'll probably just disappear.

If would be good if they ended some characters stories though and let them move on.

Exactly, SuperT.

If the ratings continue like they have, then they'll be lucky to get another season beyond this one. At some point telling the PTB that they need just one more season to wrap up storylines might be their only option. And not a very hopeful one at that.

As to bringing in brand new characters and just rebooting like they do on ER, well, that was the original idea, right? Before the show first aired each volume/season was supposed to revolve around entirely new "Heroes."

But that didn't work out. Why? One word.

Fanboys.

Although fanboys do not by any means constitute the entire Heroes viewership, it does make up a very large part of it. I mean, just look at this board. You've got Peter fanboys, Sylar fanboys, HRG fanboys, Tracy fanboys, even some Claire and Hiro fanboys. We've had Daphne and Elle fanboys.

To get rid of all of these characters and just "restart" the show would be interesting, IMO. I'd give it a chance. But all of these fanboys, you just know, would kick and scream and declare to the heavens (and hell, they'd probably prepare petitions to the studio and sponsors) that they will NEVER watch the show again.

Now, we all know most fanboys talk a lot of crap and they wouldn't even miss one episode. But with the show as shaky as it is now I seriously doubt the studio would want to take the risk.

And just my two cents; Battlestar Galactica ranks up there with Firefly as the best SF show we've had in decades.

I admit that BSG (reboot) ranks with Firefly. But that isn't good company to be in, imho. (And Firefly lasted..3 seasons?)

It's not even the fanboys that stop them from killing the entire cast and starting over. It's the blatant fact that it's a stupid idea. It was a stupid idea originally, and they scrapped it.

You can, over the course of multiple season, write off the original cast. But you can't do it in one season.

Agree to disagree, I guess. And Firefly lasted all of half a season. A travesty. Of course, we know that ratings don't always reflect the quality of a show, eh, Synch?

They scrapped it because the show got a fanbase dedicated to specific characters. That's a good enough reason to scrap the idea, but I still think the original idea wasn't bad, and I'd have given it a chance. Give a character a whole season, and people can bond with them. Make the writing crisp, and even getting to know new characters every season wouldn't be bad. Of course, given the writing during the second and third seasons, in hindsight it wouldn't have had a chance at all.

I think this show has always had an end date end mind. It seems to me they were heading to a variation of the Five Years Gone future. The final episode could be called Five Years Came and Went. It could still end up with a Sylar/Nathan President.

Yeah, this would be a perfect thing to setup if they set an end date. Since a lot of things are set in fate, they could do this 3 or 4 years from now, but it would be under different circumstances and different consequences would happen instead of a repeat of the 5YG episode because that future cannot happen ever because it was prevented.

Well, considering fanboys, let's look at this site in particular, 9thwonders: the official/unofficial Heroes website. Now, if you look at the bottom of the main forum page, there's a statistic telling us the most users ever online. That number is close to 11,000. Considering that Heroes viewers rank in the millions, it's easy to see that fanboys, as you said, don't really make up a huge part of the Heroes fanbase/viewership. Anyone who thinks they can write a petition saying they won't watch a show for whatever "bad" reason there is, well, they're stupid, quite frankly.

As for getting rid of characters being too much of a risk? Nope. It was a risk at the end of season 1, but they still went ahead and took some characters out of the show anyways. Isaac is gone, along with Simone. Sure, taking ALL of the characters out and then just replacing them from season to season is a terrible idea, but that doesn't mean we can't get rid of a few characters as time goes by.

Look at Hiro and Sylar/Nathan. Hiro has been the comedic relief all throughout the show with silly storylines and a few genuine heroic moments here and there. He's never had a storyline where he ties in well enough with the other characters. Even now, he's off on his own, fixing mistakes of his past and righting his wrongs. Why? Sure, he's on a time limit and close to death, but why can't he be doing something important that will impact the other characters? No, Hiro should be allowed to just have his quiet death and be forgotten, allowed to rest in peace. He can disappear like all of the other characters with potential that never got used.

As for Sylar/Nathan... ugh. Nathan is dead, the real Nathan. If he comes back, I will be angry beyond belief. He's survived death so many different times, it's not even funny. Now, Nathan's just a body-double for Sylar, a joke of a character since we know what his fate will be in the end (there's too much Sylar love in this show...). Nathan's death should have been played up as a real sacrifice. he died so Peter and the others could stop Sylar once and for all! Oh, no wait, no he didn't. Nathan died just to die and so Sylar could have a place to be while he messes with Matt in a very stupid storyline.

Sylar's character ran out his welcome after Season 1. He was the big bad villain, the evil force the Heroes had to triumph over. They beat him and stopped the explosion, exactly what everyone wanted. Then again, Sylar rises from the ashes anyways to become yet another unstoppable force that not even the OTHER "unstoppable bad guy forces" could do anything against.

I love the character of Sylar. I love the fact that Zachary Quinto is a great actor (and the only reason why Sylar is even on the show still), but even after all of the good points are counted up, the bad points definitely take sway over the situation. Honestly, kill off Sylar, let Nathan have his FINAL sacrificial death (dear god, please!?), and allow Hiro to move on and out of the show.

That's three characters there that, imo, have proper reason to be booted off the show and give space for new characters. Anyone come debate it if you like, but yeah, it is what it is.


Agreed. It's just sad that they haven't been writing characters off of the show over the course of the past few seasons.


The sad thing is, I agree with you, to a point. They haven't killed of certain characters mainly because people liked them so much. They've kept certain characters on the show for too long, imo. I honestly wouldn't care if a character is well liked or loved, if they aren't giving any real contributions to the show, then what's the point? Ex: If Claire's just a pretty face, then what's the point?

I agree. I love ZQ as an actor and he plays Sylar very well. I have enjoyed the character of Sylar and thought many of his story lines and scenes were great, some even the greatest of Heroes. The entire last part of Season 3 I thought was great, mainly because it focussed on Sylar and had actual character development that didn't run in circles. However, the character has long served its purpose. We've seen and enjoyed his villainhood, we've seen how he became Sylar and started murdering and manipulating, we've seen his possible future in 5yg, we've seen how he would have become/stayed if he didn't have the powers and wouldn't have been forced into this life (by Elle and HRG), we have even seen him turn into something like an anti-hero for some episodes. The character is finished. It might be hard to finish him of for real giving him a worthy ending, however the episode Dual (finale of volume 3 "Villains") could have been a worthy ending. It's time to move on.

End date: May 21, 2007.

What? You know, posting usually goes with more information than that. I'd like to know why you think the show will end on that date (and yes, I realize this means in the show and not in RL, obviously).

Very interesting theory. However, I think their working for a date in the Heroes universe that coincedes with the 5YG future, so sometime in 2011. I don't know if they'll do a 5YG season, but you never know. I just hope that Hiro and Claire will have a chance because those two belong together

Please disregard this post...this is what happens when you don't read the above correctly.

My above post was in jest, guys. May 21, 2007 was the date of the first season finale in the real world. The point I made was that the show should have ended back then.

Carry on.

No, I understood your point. I just found it ludicrous, to say the least. Thus, I ignored you.

Why should there be an end date?

It's not like they're stuck on an island or something.

qft.

I think they should just keep going, and when the show ends, it ends, without any setups or official 'endings'. Heroes is about the lives of ordinary people who discover they have extraordinary abilities. We may have picked up the show around the point that they discover the abilities, but we still picked up in the middle of the life stories. We should leave off the same way, because that's what life is like. Life doesn't 'end'. It's a neverending story, and if Heroes is supposed to be about life, then it should be treated the same way.

Besides, an 'open ending' allows for imaginations to soar, and maybe for it to return in another form. Star Trek, for instance, was canceled at the end of the third season, and look at where it is now. Be nice if Heroes ended up as big someday...

Anyway. That's my opinion.

My most recent post in this thread was addressed to Requiem191 and bwm27. Please note, if you will, that those two responded directly to my comment. When I said that I was "speaking in jest, guys," you were not included in the scope of the term "guys."

Thank you, though, for saying the least, and nothing more.

Yes, good point. Another prime example of this is the new Doctor Who series in the UK. Doc Who had a full series that "sort of" ended a long time ago. In the past few years, they restarted it as though it had never ended and it worked beautifully. Great show that is doing great things.

I second the thought that Heroes is a show about life in general with a dash of action and some intense and over the top drama. Heroes doesn't need an ending because, as you said, life has no real ending, save for death, but that's a different story.

People can keep being brought on the show. To explain what I mean, look at the new character that was revealed in last night's episode. The episode forum for ink is mainly talking about this new character, Emma (the deaf chick). She is an incredible character and everyone warmed up to her instantly (I know I did).

If we can keep introducing characters like that, then there is certainly no need for an ending.

In my opinion every serialized show should have an end date.

I just don't see NBC cancelling Heroes, there top performer.

Having Heroes go up against House and DWTS is just not a good idea.

Heroes is a prize pig for NBC, but that doesn't disguise the fact that a pig is still a pig. House and DWTS are freaking supermodels compared to our show pig, but I for one will always love our lil piggy.

As long as NBC needs a top producer for their sub par network, they will keep Heroes around. They can't afford not to.

I don't really understand why people like House... besides Hugh Laurie, the show is pretty repetitive and bland.

I dunno about end dates, not very familiar with the concept... but Heroes has to either end someday or restart. If it wants to end it needs at most 5 seasons (wasn't that the planned number or something)? Otherwise, they need to kill/remove everyone off in some epic fight and load up new cool characters, then I could see it continue to exist.

If you look at Star Trek, it DID restart every so often...

3 more seasons with Claire whining, Sylar sylaring, Suresh working on research, and Parkman having self-esteem problems? Bah.

raissad posted an excerpt from this scifiwire article in this Spoiler forum thread, if you were interested. FYI - note where it was posted...

BSG lasted 4 glorious seasons and went out with a supernova of a finale Firefly lasted only one thirteen episode season as good as Firefly is it just doesn't hold a candle to the greatness of Battlestar Galactica.

Evacuate? In our moment of triumph?! I think you're underestimating their chances.

It wasn't THAT great.




It'll all depend on if ratings make such a decline that NBC no longer has faith in the program. Ratings indeed have declined from season to season of Heroes, but I think it theoretically could continue onwards for a season 5. Hopefully, by that time, the muddles by some of the writers will FINALLY get fixed. Time can only tell.

Not that it's a surprise, but Kristin's tone showed her opinion of HEROES...