HEROES Honcho Gives Explosive Answer

“So why,” asked fans in the wake of HEROES ho-hum finale, “did Nathan swoop in to grab his brother and fly his about-to-detonate butt into the sky when Peter could have flown away himself?” Well, thanks to TV Guide’s current issue, we now know the answer… but we doubt it’ll go far toward alleviating fan gripes about the finale. “You’re not supposed to be thinking about that,” says creator Tim Kring, apparently completely ignoring both human nature in general and the fact that he build a show with a layered mythology which practically insisted viewers scrutinize details. “Peter was supposed to be incapacitated with this surge of power,” he goes on to say, offering up a more reasonable explanation… only to completely blow it a second later by adding, “But the real explanation is that we wanted Nathan to show up and do it.” Frankly, if storylines are going to be subject to the creator’s whims as opposed to logic, they might want to consider renaming the series LAMEOES.

Related Post
Why I Hated Last Nights HEROES Finale

For all the latest TV news and reviews

  • “Because we wanted to” that explains the lamest most boring cliffhanger for a series ever?

  • ewanspotter

    Amen, Dave.

  • Mel

    Speaking of the completely LAME finale, someone at work took me to task when I was complaining bitterly that a) the show-down was a boring, disappointing whimper not an epic clash of good versus evil, b) why did Peter need Nathan to fly away? and c) why didn’t Claire just shoot him when she knows he won’t die?
    Because — they told me somewhat self-importantly — Peter can only use one power at a time and its not about the fight . . . . .
    And now I feel so vindicated — I didn’t miss the memo on the powers thing. It WAS just lame. (You called it, TVAddict!)
    “Because we wanted to?” That’s it???
    ‘I’m not supposed to be thinking about that?’ What’s the hell??? That man seriously doesn’t get the OCD nature of a genre audience, does he?
    Doesn’t bode well for season two.