User talk:Milbury - Revision history

imported>Milbury at 17:12, 22 February 2009

2009-02-22T17:12:22Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:12, 22 February 2009
(No difference)

imported>Milbury at 17:12, 22 February 2009

2009-02-22T17:12:22Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:12, 22 February 2009
Line 50:		Line 50:

	When did I ever say "Awww, yeah." to someone calling you a troll? [[User:Intuitive Empath\|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath\|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath\|Contributions]] 16:58, 20 February 2009 (EST)		When did I ever say "Awww, yeah." to someone calling you a troll? [[User:Intuitive Empath\|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath\|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath\|Contributions]] 16:58, 20 February 2009 (EST)
			: * Never, really. I just find the idea of someone as straight-laced and serious as you standing around and saying "Aww, yeah." to Thrashmeister's troll pronouncement to be hilarious. And, as you may have noticed, I'll parody anything if it brings the lulz. Especially myself. --[[User:Milbury\|Milbury]] 12:12, 22 February 2009 (EST)

imported>Intuitive Empath: /* Question */ new section

2009-02-20T21:58:36Z

Question: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:58, 20 February 2009
Line 46:		Line 46:
	::::Alright, I can see how having to cut his original story short would make them resent him, but I don't see what that has to do with them not knowing they would lose viewers, and that Adam could bring them back. - [[User:Josh\|Josh]] ([[User talk:Josh\|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Josh\|contribs]]) 21:40, 18 February 2009 (EST)		::::Alright, I can see how having to cut his original story short would make them resent him, but I don't see what that has to do with them not knowing they would lose viewers, and that Adam could bring them back. - [[User:Josh\|Josh]] ([[User talk:Josh\|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Josh\|contribs]]) 21:40, 18 February 2009 (EST)
	::::I'm not saying bringing Adam back would reverse the show's fortunes instantly, but it would definitely be a step in the right direction. The writers need to find the right balance between following their own creative road and giving the viewers what they want - Volume 3 was a drastic divide between the former (the first six episodes) and the latter (the later seven). Volume 4 is getting things back on track but there are still a lot of problems in need of fixing. --[[User:Milbury\|Milbury]] 21:47, 18 February 2009 (EST)		::::I'm not saying bringing Adam back would reverse the show's fortunes instantly, but it would definitely be a step in the right direction. The writers need to find the right balance between following their own creative road and giving the viewers what they want - Volume 3 was a drastic divide between the former (the first six episodes) and the latter (the later seven). Volume 4 is getting things back on track but there are still a lot of problems in need of fixing. --[[User:Milbury\|Milbury]] 21:47, 18 February 2009 (EST)

			== Question ==

			When did I ever say "Awww, yeah." to someone calling you a troll? [[User:Intuitive Empath\|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath\|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath\|Contributions]] 16:58, 20 February 2009 (EST)

imported>Milbury: /* Theory:Adam Monroe */

2009-02-19T02:47:39Z

Theory:Adam Monroe

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:47, 19 February 2009
Line 45:		Line 45:
	:::True, but the strike forced a lot of changes that the writers did not originally intend to make. Maya being some sort of messiah that saves the world with her anthrax tears and the Shanti virus actually being released are the two greatest examples I can think of, but it's safe to say the strike changed everything. --[[User:Milbury\|Milbury]] 21:28, 18 February 2009 (EST)		:::True, but the strike forced a lot of changes that the writers did not originally intend to make. Maya being some sort of messiah that saves the world with her anthrax tears and the Shanti virus actually being released are the two greatest examples I can think of, but it's safe to say the strike changed everything. --[[User:Milbury\|Milbury]] 21:28, 18 February 2009 (EST)
	::::Alright, I can see how having to cut his original story short would make them resent him, but I don't see what that has to do with them not knowing they would lose viewers, and that Adam could bring them back. - [[User:Josh\|Josh]] ([[User talk:Josh\|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Josh\|contribs]]) 21:40, 18 February 2009 (EST)		::::Alright, I can see how having to cut his original story short would make them resent him, but I don't see what that has to do with them not knowing they would lose viewers, and that Adam could bring them back. - [[User:Josh\|Josh]] ([[User talk:Josh\|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Josh\|contribs]]) 21:40, 18 February 2009 (EST)
			::::I'm not saying bringing Adam back would reverse the show's fortunes instantly, but it would definitely be a step in the right direction. The writers need to find the right balance between following their own creative road and giving the viewers what they want - Volume 3 was a drastic divide between the former (the first six episodes) and the latter (the later seven). Volume 4 is getting things back on track but there are still a lot of problems in need of fixing. --[[User:Milbury\|Milbury]] 21:47, 18 February 2009 (EST)

imported>Josh: /* Theory:Adam Monroe */ comment

2009-02-19T02:40:38Z

Theory:Adam Monroe: comment

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:40, 19 February 2009
Line 44:		Line 44:
	:::Actually, Volume 2 was already written when the writers strike started. - [[User:Josh\|Josh]] ([[User talk:Josh\|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Josh\|contribs]]) 21:25, 18 February 2009 (EST)		:::Actually, Volume 2 was already written when the writers strike started. - [[User:Josh\|Josh]] ([[User talk:Josh\|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Josh\|contribs]]) 21:25, 18 February 2009 (EST)
	:::True, but the strike forced a lot of changes that the writers did not originally intend to make. Maya being some sort of messiah that saves the world with her anthrax tears and the Shanti virus actually being released are the two greatest examples I can think of, but it's safe to say the strike changed everything. --[[User:Milbury\|Milbury]] 21:28, 18 February 2009 (EST)		:::True, but the strike forced a lot of changes that the writers did not originally intend to make. Maya being some sort of messiah that saves the world with her anthrax tears and the Shanti virus actually being released are the two greatest examples I can think of, but it's safe to say the strike changed everything. --[[User:Milbury\|Milbury]] 21:28, 18 February 2009 (EST)
			::::Alright, I can see how having to cut his original story short would make them resent him, but I don't see what that has to do with them not knowing they would lose viewers, and that Adam could bring them back. - [[User:Josh\|Josh]] ([[User talk:Josh\|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Josh\|contribs]]) 21:40, 18 February 2009 (EST)

imported>Milbury: /* Theory:Adam Monroe */

2009-02-19T02:28:32Z

Theory:Adam Monroe

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:28, 19 February 2009
Line 43:		Line 43:
	::And, I argue, they didn't <i>care</i>. Adam came to prominence during the writer's strike, a time when many of them were out on the streets. Now they're back. Have you noticed how just about every single Season 2 character (introduced, again, during the strike) has either been killed anviliciously or written out in some form or fashion? One could argue this was due to Season 2's unpopularity, but I don't think that's it at all. I think the writers just felt like 'taking creative control back', at the expense of established continuity. Thus the farce of a plot that is Volume 3 is explained - it was primarily the writers' way of cleaning house, so to speak. The most recent CBR interview seems to confirm this - when asked if Adam would return, they are scornful about the idea, clearly having no desire for Adam to return in spite of his importance to the storyline and popularity as a villain. --[[User:Milbury\|Milbury]] 21:13, 18 February 2009 (EST)		::And, I argue, they didn't <i>care</i>. Adam came to prominence during the writer's strike, a time when many of them were out on the streets. Now they're back. Have you noticed how just about every single Season 2 character (introduced, again, during the strike) has either been killed anviliciously or written out in some form or fashion? One could argue this was due to Season 2's unpopularity, but I don't think that's it at all. I think the writers just felt like 'taking creative control back', at the expense of established continuity. Thus the farce of a plot that is Volume 3 is explained - it was primarily the writers' way of cleaning house, so to speak. The most recent CBR interview seems to confirm this - when asked if Adam would return, they are scornful about the idea, clearly having no desire for Adam to return in spite of his importance to the storyline and popularity as a villain. --[[User:Milbury\|Milbury]] 21:13, 18 February 2009 (EST)
	:::Actually, Volume 2 was already written when the writers strike started. - [[User:Josh\|Josh]] ([[User talk:Josh\|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Josh\|contribs]]) 21:25, 18 February 2009 (EST)		:::Actually, Volume 2 was already written when the writers strike started. - [[User:Josh\|Josh]] ([[User talk:Josh\|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Josh\|contribs]]) 21:25, 18 February 2009 (EST)
			:::True, but the strike forced a lot of changes that the writers did not originally intend to make. Maya being some sort of messiah that saves the world with her anthrax tears and the Shanti virus actually being released are the two greatest examples I can think of, but it's safe to say the strike changed everything. --[[User:Milbury\|Milbury]] 21:28, 18 February 2009 (EST)

imported>Josh: /* Theory:Adam Monroe */ comment

2009-02-19T02:25:37Z

Theory:Adam Monroe: comment

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:25, 19 February 2009
Line 42:		Line 42:
	::Huh? The writers didn't know it would lose viewers. - [[User:Josh\|Josh]] ([[User talk:Josh\|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Josh\|contribs]]) 21:09, 18 February 2009 (EST)		::Huh? The writers didn't know it would lose viewers. - [[User:Josh\|Josh]] ([[User talk:Josh\|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Josh\|contribs]]) 21:09, 18 February 2009 (EST)
	::And, I argue, they didn't <i>care</i>. Adam came to prominence during the writer's strike, a time when many of them were out on the streets. Now they're back. Have you noticed how just about every single Season 2 character (introduced, again, during the strike) has either been killed anviliciously or written out in some form or fashion? One could argue this was due to Season 2's unpopularity, but I don't think that's it at all. I think the writers just felt like 'taking creative control back', at the expense of established continuity. Thus the farce of a plot that is Volume 3 is explained - it was primarily the writers' way of cleaning house, so to speak. The most recent CBR interview seems to confirm this - when asked if Adam would return, they are scornful about the idea, clearly having no desire for Adam to return in spite of his importance to the storyline and popularity as a villain. --[[User:Milbury\|Milbury]] 21:13, 18 February 2009 (EST)		::And, I argue, they didn't <i>care</i>. Adam came to prominence during the writer's strike, a time when many of them were out on the streets. Now they're back. Have you noticed how just about every single Season 2 character (introduced, again, during the strike) has either been killed anviliciously or written out in some form or fashion? One could argue this was due to Season 2's unpopularity, but I don't think that's it at all. I think the writers just felt like 'taking creative control back', at the expense of established continuity. Thus the farce of a plot that is Volume 3 is explained - it was primarily the writers' way of cleaning house, so to speak. The most recent CBR interview seems to confirm this - when asked if Adam would return, they are scornful about the idea, clearly having no desire for Adam to return in spite of his importance to the storyline and popularity as a villain. --[[User:Milbury\|Milbury]] 21:13, 18 February 2009 (EST)
			:::Actually, Volume 2 was already written when the writers strike started. - [[User:Josh\|Josh]] ([[User talk:Josh\|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Josh\|contribs]]) 21:25, 18 February 2009 (EST)

imported>Milbury: /* Theory:Adam Monroe */

2009-02-19T02:13:18Z

Theory:Adam Monroe

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:13, 19 February 2009
Line 41:		Line 41:
	: Hey Josh, great of you to stop by. Now, as to Adam. Yes, I do firmly believe that Adam was killed off solely because the writers resented his character. Why do I think that? Just check out the [[Nielsen Ratings]] page. You'll see how dramatically the viewership has fallen in Season 3 compared to Season 2, much less Season 1. Do I think killing off Adam is the <i>only</i> reason why viewership has fallen? Certainly not. But Adam is arguably the penultimate Heroes villain - the Heroes equivalent of Apocalypse to the X-Men, or Ra's Al-Ghul to Batman. Heroes sorely lacks good villains - they're either terrible, like Arthur, or they get killed off, like Knox. Additionally, the <i>way</i> in which Adam was killed was terrible. Heavy-handed, character derailment full stop, just an absolute disgrace. I have to say that one episode almost made me stop watching Heroes altogether. It was a travesty. But I digress. --[[User:Milbury\|Milbury]] 21:01, 18 February 2009 (EST)		: Hey Josh, great of you to stop by. Now, as to Adam. Yes, I do firmly believe that Adam was killed off solely because the writers resented his character. Why do I think that? Just check out the [[Nielsen Ratings]] page. You'll see how dramatically the viewership has fallen in Season 3 compared to Season 2, much less Season 1. Do I think killing off Adam is the <i>only</i> reason why viewership has fallen? Certainly not. But Adam is arguably the penultimate Heroes villain - the Heroes equivalent of Apocalypse to the X-Men, or Ra's Al-Ghul to Batman. Heroes sorely lacks good villains - they're either terrible, like Arthur, or they get killed off, like Knox. Additionally, the <i>way</i> in which Adam was killed was terrible. Heavy-handed, character derailment full stop, just an absolute disgrace. I have to say that one episode almost made me stop watching Heroes altogether. It was a travesty. But I digress. --[[User:Milbury\|Milbury]] 21:01, 18 February 2009 (EST)
	::Huh? The writers didn't know it would lose viewers. - [[User:Josh\|Josh]] ([[User talk:Josh\|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Josh\|contribs]]) 21:09, 18 February 2009 (EST)		::Huh? The writers didn't know it would lose viewers. - [[User:Josh\|Josh]] ([[User talk:Josh\|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Josh\|contribs]]) 21:09, 18 February 2009 (EST)
			::And, I argue, they didn't <i>care</i>. Adam came to prominence during the writer's strike, a time when many of them were out on the streets. Now they're back. Have you noticed how just about every single Season 2 character (introduced, again, during the strike) has either been killed anviliciously or written out in some form or fashion? One could argue this was due to Season 2's unpopularity, but I don't think that's it at all. I think the writers just felt like 'taking creative control back', at the expense of established continuity. Thus the farce of a plot that is Volume 3 is explained - it was primarily the writers' way of cleaning house, so to speak. The most recent CBR interview seems to confirm this - when asked if Adam would return, they are scornful about the idea, clearly having no desire for Adam to return in spite of his importance to the storyline and popularity as a villain. --[[User:Milbury\|Milbury]] 21:13, 18 February 2009 (EST)

imported>Josh: /* Theory:Adam Monroe */ comment

2009-02-19T02:09:13Z

Theory:Adam Monroe: comment

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:09, 19 February 2009
Line 40:		Line 40:
	You suggest that the writers killed Adam off because they resent him. You support this by suggesting that bringing Adam back would bring viewers back. I point out that bringing Adam back at this point is difficult, and that the lost viewers weren't lost yet when they made it difficult. You point out that there eventually were lost viewers. How does that go against what I said, or support your theory? - [[User:Josh\|Josh]] ([[User talk:Josh\|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Josh\|contribs]]) 20:55, 18 February 2009 (EST)		You suggest that the writers killed Adam off because they resent him. You support this by suggesting that bringing Adam back would bring viewers back. I point out that bringing Adam back at this point is difficult, and that the lost viewers weren't lost yet when they made it difficult. You point out that there eventually were lost viewers. How does that go against what I said, or support your theory? - [[User:Josh\|Josh]] ([[User talk:Josh\|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Josh\|contribs]]) 20:55, 18 February 2009 (EST)
	: Hey Josh, great of you to stop by. Now, as to Adam. Yes, I do firmly believe that Adam was killed off solely because the writers resented his character. Why do I think that? Just check out the [[Nielsen Ratings]] page. You'll see how dramatically the viewership has fallen in Season 3 compared to Season 2, much less Season 1. Do I think killing off Adam is the <i>only</i> reason why viewership has fallen? Certainly not. But Adam is arguably the penultimate Heroes villain - the Heroes equivalent of Apocalypse to the X-Men, or Ra's Al-Ghul to Batman. Heroes sorely lacks good villains - they're either terrible, like Arthur, or they get killed off, like Knox. Additionally, the <i>way</i> in which Adam was killed was terrible. Heavy-handed, character derailment full stop, just an absolute disgrace. I have to say that one episode almost made me stop watching Heroes altogether. It was a travesty. But I digress. --[[User:Milbury\|Milbury]] 21:01, 18 February 2009 (EST)		: Hey Josh, great of you to stop by. Now, as to Adam. Yes, I do firmly believe that Adam was killed off solely because the writers resented his character. Why do I think that? Just check out the [[Nielsen Ratings]] page. You'll see how dramatically the viewership has fallen in Season 3 compared to Season 2, much less Season 1. Do I think killing off Adam is the <i>only</i> reason why viewership has fallen? Certainly not. But Adam is arguably the penultimate Heroes villain - the Heroes equivalent of Apocalypse to the X-Men, or Ra's Al-Ghul to Batman. Heroes sorely lacks good villains - they're either terrible, like Arthur, or they get killed off, like Knox. Additionally, the <i>way</i> in which Adam was killed was terrible. Heavy-handed, character derailment full stop, just an absolute disgrace. I have to say that one episode almost made me stop watching Heroes altogether. It was a travesty. But I digress. --[[User:Milbury\|Milbury]] 21:01, 18 February 2009 (EST)
			::Huh? The writers didn't know it would lose viewers. - [[User:Josh\|Josh]] ([[User talk:Josh\|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Josh\|contribs]]) 21:09, 18 February 2009 (EST)

imported>Milbury: /* Theory:Adam Monroe */ - Correcting awful, awful typo

2009-02-19T02:02:18Z

Theory:Adam Monroe: - Correcting awful, awful typo

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:02, 19 February 2009
Line 39:		Line 39:

	You suggest that the writers killed Adam off because they resent him. You support this by suggesting that bringing Adam back would bring viewers back. I point out that bringing Adam back at this point is difficult, and that the lost viewers weren't lost yet when they made it difficult. You point out that there eventually were lost viewers. How does that go against what I said, or support your theory? - [[User:Josh\|Josh]] ([[User talk:Josh\|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Josh\|contribs]]) 20:55, 18 February 2009 (EST)		You suggest that the writers killed Adam off because they resent him. You support this by suggesting that bringing Adam back would bring viewers back. I point out that bringing Adam back at this point is difficult, and that the lost viewers weren't lost yet when they made it difficult. You point out that there eventually were lost viewers. How does that go against what I said, or support your theory? - [[User:Josh\|Josh]] ([[User talk:Josh\|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Josh\|contribs]]) 20:55, 18 February 2009 (EST)
	: Hey Josh, great of you to stop by. Now, as to Adam. Yes, I do firmly believe that Adam was killed off solely because the ~~writer's~~ resented his character. Why do I think that? Just check out the [[Nielsen Ratings]] page. You'll see how dramatically the viewership has fallen in Season 3 compared to Season 2, much less Season 1. Do I think killing off Adam is the <i>only</i> reason why viewership has fallen? Certainly not. But Adam is arguably the penultimate Heroes villain - the Heroes equivalent of Apocalypse to the X-Men, or Ra's Al-Ghul to Batman. Heroes sorely lacks good villains - they're either terrible, like Arthur, or they get killed off, like Knox. Additionally, the <i>way</i> in which Adam was killed was terrible. Heavy-handed, character derailment full stop, just an absolute disgrace. I have to say that one episode almost made me stop watching Heroes altogether. It was a travesty. But I digress. --[[User:Milbury\|Milbury]] 21:01, 18 February 2009 (EST)		: Hey Josh, great of you to stop by. Now, as to Adam. Yes, I do firmly believe that Adam was killed off solely because the writers resented his character. Why do I think that? Just check out the [[Nielsen Ratings]] page. You'll see how dramatically the viewership has fallen in Season 3 compared to Season 2, much less Season 1. Do I think killing off Adam is the <i>only</i> reason why viewership has fallen? Certainly not. But Adam is arguably the penultimate Heroes villain - the Heroes equivalent of Apocalypse to the X-Men, or Ra's Al-Ghul to Batman. Heroes sorely lacks good villains - they're either terrible, like Arthur, or they get killed off, like Knox. Additionally, the <i>way</i> in which Adam was killed was terrible. Heavy-handed, character derailment full stop, just an absolute disgrace. I have to say that one episode almost made me stop watching Heroes altogether. It was a travesty. But I digress. --[[User:Milbury\|Milbury]] 21:01, 18 February 2009 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:47, 19 February 2009
Line 45:		Line 45:
	:::True, but the strike forced a lot of changes that the writers did not originally intend to make. Maya being some sort of messiah that saves the world with her anthrax tears and the Shanti virus actually being released are the two greatest examples I can think of, but it's safe to say the strike changed everything. --[[User:Milbury\|Milbury]] 21:28, 18 February 2009 (EST)		:::True, but the strike forced a lot of changes that the writers did not originally intend to make. Maya being some sort of messiah that saves the world with her anthrax tears and the Shanti virus actually being released are the two greatest examples I can think of, but it's safe to say the strike changed everything. --[[User:Milbury\|Milbury]] 21:28, 18 February 2009 (EST)
	::::Alright, I can see how having to cut his original story short would make them resent him, but I don't see what that has to do with them not knowing they would lose viewers, and that Adam could bring them back. - [[User:Josh\|Josh]] ([[User talk:Josh\|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Josh\|contribs]]) 21:40, 18 February 2009 (EST)		::::Alright, I can see how having to cut his original story short would make them resent him, but I don't see what that has to do with them not knowing they would lose viewers, and that Adam could bring them back. - [[User:Josh\|Josh]] ([[User talk:Josh\|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Josh\|contribs]]) 21:40, 18 February 2009 (EST)
			::::I'm not saying bringing Adam back would reverse the show's fortunes instantly, but it would definitely be a step in the right direction. The writers need to find the right balance between following their own creative road and giving the viewers what they want - Volume 3 was a drastic divide between the former (the first six episodes) and the latter (the later seven). Volume 4 is getting things back on track but there are still a lot of problems in need of fixing. --[[User:Milbury\|Milbury]] 21:47, 18 February 2009 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:40, 19 February 2009
Line 44:		Line 44:
	:::Actually, Volume 2 was already written when the writers strike started. - [[User:Josh\|Josh]] ([[User talk:Josh\|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Josh\|contribs]]) 21:25, 18 February 2009 (EST)		:::Actually, Volume 2 was already written when the writers strike started. - [[User:Josh\|Josh]] ([[User talk:Josh\|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Josh\|contribs]]) 21:25, 18 February 2009 (EST)
	:::True, but the strike forced a lot of changes that the writers did not originally intend to make. Maya being some sort of messiah that saves the world with her anthrax tears and the Shanti virus actually being released are the two greatest examples I can think of, but it's safe to say the strike changed everything. --[[User:Milbury\|Milbury]] 21:28, 18 February 2009 (EST)		:::True, but the strike forced a lot of changes that the writers did not originally intend to make. Maya being some sort of messiah that saves the world with her anthrax tears and the Shanti virus actually being released are the two greatest examples I can think of, but it's safe to say the strike changed everything. --[[User:Milbury\|Milbury]] 21:28, 18 February 2009 (EST)
			::::Alright, I can see how having to cut his original story short would make them resent him, but I don't see what that has to do with them not knowing they would lose viewers, and that Adam could bring them back. - [[User:Josh\|Josh]] ([[User talk:Josh\|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Josh\|contribs]]) 21:40, 18 February 2009 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:28, 19 February 2009
Line 43:		Line 43:
	::And, I argue, they didn't <i>care</i>. Adam came to prominence during the writer's strike, a time when many of them were out on the streets. Now they're back. Have you noticed how just about every single Season 2 character (introduced, again, during the strike) has either been killed anviliciously or written out in some form or fashion? One could argue this was due to Season 2's unpopularity, but I don't think that's it at all. I think the writers just felt like 'taking creative control back', at the expense of established continuity. Thus the farce of a plot that is Volume 3 is explained - it was primarily the writers' way of cleaning house, so to speak. The most recent CBR interview seems to confirm this - when asked if Adam would return, they are scornful about the idea, clearly having no desire for Adam to return in spite of his importance to the storyline and popularity as a villain. --[[User:Milbury\|Milbury]] 21:13, 18 February 2009 (EST)		::And, I argue, they didn't <i>care</i>. Adam came to prominence during the writer's strike, a time when many of them were out on the streets. Now they're back. Have you noticed how just about every single Season 2 character (introduced, again, during the strike) has either been killed anviliciously or written out in some form or fashion? One could argue this was due to Season 2's unpopularity, but I don't think that's it at all. I think the writers just felt like 'taking creative control back', at the expense of established continuity. Thus the farce of a plot that is Volume 3 is explained - it was primarily the writers' way of cleaning house, so to speak. The most recent CBR interview seems to confirm this - when asked if Adam would return, they are scornful about the idea, clearly having no desire for Adam to return in spite of his importance to the storyline and popularity as a villain. --[[User:Milbury\|Milbury]] 21:13, 18 February 2009 (EST)
	:::Actually, Volume 2 was already written when the writers strike started. - [[User:Josh\|Josh]] ([[User talk:Josh\|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Josh\|contribs]]) 21:25, 18 February 2009 (EST)		:::Actually, Volume 2 was already written when the writers strike started. - [[User:Josh\|Josh]] ([[User talk:Josh\|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Josh\|contribs]]) 21:25, 18 February 2009 (EST)
			:::True, but the strike forced a lot of changes that the writers did not originally intend to make. Maya being some sort of messiah that saves the world with her anthrax tears and the Shanti virus actually being released are the two greatest examples I can think of, but it's safe to say the strike changed everything. --[[User:Milbury\|Milbury]] 21:28, 18 February 2009 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:25, 19 February 2009
Line 42:		Line 42:
	::Huh? The writers didn't know it would lose viewers. - [[User:Josh\|Josh]] ([[User talk:Josh\|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Josh\|contribs]]) 21:09, 18 February 2009 (EST)		::Huh? The writers didn't know it would lose viewers. - [[User:Josh\|Josh]] ([[User talk:Josh\|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Josh\|contribs]]) 21:09, 18 February 2009 (EST)
	::And, I argue, they didn't <i>care</i>. Adam came to prominence during the writer's strike, a time when many of them were out on the streets. Now they're back. Have you noticed how just about every single Season 2 character (introduced, again, during the strike) has either been killed anviliciously or written out in some form or fashion? One could argue this was due to Season 2's unpopularity, but I don't think that's it at all. I think the writers just felt like 'taking creative control back', at the expense of established continuity. Thus the farce of a plot that is Volume 3 is explained - it was primarily the writers' way of cleaning house, so to speak. The most recent CBR interview seems to confirm this - when asked if Adam would return, they are scornful about the idea, clearly having no desire for Adam to return in spite of his importance to the storyline and popularity as a villain. --[[User:Milbury\|Milbury]] 21:13, 18 February 2009 (EST)		::And, I argue, they didn't <i>care</i>. Adam came to prominence during the writer's strike, a time when many of them were out on the streets. Now they're back. Have you noticed how just about every single Season 2 character (introduced, again, during the strike) has either been killed anviliciously or written out in some form or fashion? One could argue this was due to Season 2's unpopularity, but I don't think that's it at all. I think the writers just felt like 'taking creative control back', at the expense of established continuity. Thus the farce of a plot that is Volume 3 is explained - it was primarily the writers' way of cleaning house, so to speak. The most recent CBR interview seems to confirm this - when asked if Adam would return, they are scornful about the idea, clearly having no desire for Adam to return in spite of his importance to the storyline and popularity as a villain. --[[User:Milbury\|Milbury]] 21:13, 18 February 2009 (EST)
			:::Actually, Volume 2 was already written when the writers strike started. - [[User:Josh\|Josh]] ([[User talk:Josh\|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Josh\|contribs]]) 21:25, 18 February 2009 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:13, 19 February 2009
Line 41:		Line 41:
	: Hey Josh, great of you to stop by. Now, as to Adam. Yes, I do firmly believe that Adam was killed off solely because the writers resented his character. Why do I think that? Just check out the [[Nielsen Ratings]] page. You'll see how dramatically the viewership has fallen in Season 3 compared to Season 2, much less Season 1. Do I think killing off Adam is the <i>only</i> reason why viewership has fallen? Certainly not. But Adam is arguably the penultimate Heroes villain - the Heroes equivalent of Apocalypse to the X-Men, or Ra's Al-Ghul to Batman. Heroes sorely lacks good villains - they're either terrible, like Arthur, or they get killed off, like Knox. Additionally, the <i>way</i> in which Adam was killed was terrible. Heavy-handed, character derailment full stop, just an absolute disgrace. I have to say that one episode almost made me stop watching Heroes altogether. It was a travesty. But I digress. --[[User:Milbury\|Milbury]] 21:01, 18 February 2009 (EST)		: Hey Josh, great of you to stop by. Now, as to Adam. Yes, I do firmly believe that Adam was killed off solely because the writers resented his character. Why do I think that? Just check out the [[Nielsen Ratings]] page. You'll see how dramatically the viewership has fallen in Season 3 compared to Season 2, much less Season 1. Do I think killing off Adam is the <i>only</i> reason why viewership has fallen? Certainly not. But Adam is arguably the penultimate Heroes villain - the Heroes equivalent of Apocalypse to the X-Men, or Ra's Al-Ghul to Batman. Heroes sorely lacks good villains - they're either terrible, like Arthur, or they get killed off, like Knox. Additionally, the <i>way</i> in which Adam was killed was terrible. Heavy-handed, character derailment full stop, just an absolute disgrace. I have to say that one episode almost made me stop watching Heroes altogether. It was a travesty. But I digress. --[[User:Milbury\|Milbury]] 21:01, 18 February 2009 (EST)
	::Huh? The writers didn't know it would lose viewers. - [[User:Josh\|Josh]] ([[User talk:Josh\|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Josh\|contribs]]) 21:09, 18 February 2009 (EST)		::Huh? The writers didn't know it would lose viewers. - [[User:Josh\|Josh]] ([[User talk:Josh\|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Josh\|contribs]]) 21:09, 18 February 2009 (EST)
			::And, I argue, they didn't <i>care</i>. Adam came to prominence during the writer's strike, a time when many of them were out on the streets. Now they're back. Have you noticed how just about every single Season 2 character (introduced, again, during the strike) has either been killed anviliciously or written out in some form or fashion? One could argue this was due to Season 2's unpopularity, but I don't think that's it at all. I think the writers just felt like 'taking creative control back', at the expense of established continuity. Thus the farce of a plot that is Volume 3 is explained - it was primarily the writers' way of cleaning house, so to speak. The most recent CBR interview seems to confirm this - when asked if Adam would return, they are scornful about the idea, clearly having no desire for Adam to return in spite of his importance to the storyline and popularity as a villain. --[[User:Milbury\|Milbury]] 21:13, 18 February 2009 (EST)