Comments on: Heroes: The Second Coming

By: Heroes: Into Asylum | Pink Raygun.com

Heroes: Into Asylum | Pink Raygun.com — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 16:36:23 +0000

[...] district in New York City. It’s roughly the size of Notre Dame, which is totally believable. I believe I’ve expressed my horror at the Petrellis, they of the calculatingly political background, relying on God or a church for anything more than [...]

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 05:49:34 +0000

Late to the party, but Mohinder was reading a poem at the end, one with which this episode of the series shares a name: "The Second Coming," by William Butler Yeats. It was magnificently done; too bad it was lost on a lot of people, apparently. In the words of Handy from The Tick, "Read a book!"

By: Susan Hated Literature » links for 2008-09-30

Susan Hated Literature » links for 2008-09-30 — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 17:00:25 +0000

[...] Heroes: The Second Coming | Pink Raygun.com (tags: heroes heroes.season.3 heroes.the.second.coming) [...]

By: TrinityVixen

TrinityVixen — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 19:43:51 +0000

Doctor Zen – Trying to make sense of time travel has given me a headache with this show. Either you make too many rules to excuse why time paradoxes never happen, or you ignore everything (a la Doctor Who). Heroes won’t commit to either. But you’re right: Sylar has Claire’s powers now, which is supposed to doom the future, according to Future!Hiro. Have things changed enough since New York didn’t blow up that that’s no longer the case? I bet they never even address it.

And the Claire love declaration is a TV Trope so common I can just ignore it because it’s not the first time, nor will it be the last.

MB – I do feel dumb not recognizing that Mohinder’s babbling was, in fact, a real poem. I blame his line reading. It was soulless and droning and I couldn’t follow it long enough to realize it was one poem, not disjoint lines plucked from the ether.

By: MB

MB — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 05:51:20 +0000

Not a fan of Yeats?

By: Doctor Zen

Doctor Zen — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 02:04:34 +0000

I forgot my biggest grie: the key scene (“I’ve always loved you, Peter) that’s been advertised on tv, online and even in movie theaters comes and goes in the first five minutes, AND it takes place in a future that supposedly never happens. Plus, the scene between Sylar and Claire doesn’t make sense; didn’t they establish that Sylar’s victims always had their brains missing?

By: Doctor Zen

Doctor Zen — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 01:01:28 +0000

Only watched the first few minutes; after your review not sure I want to go on. What I saw shattered my dream that we’d have a season without a bad future to undo (much less one stolen from X-MEN). It looks like the writers have discovered ST: VOYAGER’s worst plot device: the time anomaly that allows them to do anything they please to the characters and then say it never happened. If, as current theory and Future!Peter’s presence indicate, time travel doesn’t change the timestream but merely spins off a new one, then our Heroes are accomlishing nothing: New York still blew up on the first timeline and the plague was unleashed on the second, camps and experiments on the third. And it doesn’t say much for Peter’s humanity that he is willing to kill his own brother without a second thought to accomplish his goal. Your comment about the world supposed to stay saved is a good one; Sylar becoming unbreakable renders the climax of season one moot, doesn’t it?