Talk:Heroes (American TV series)

Season 1

In the section of season one it states that characters gradually learn about their "abilities". However true this might be I suggest to point out that the presence of the eclipse be part of it. You see it in the title sequence before every episode and on the front cover of the DVD. (English Version, I cannot say what overseas have) Its not fair to overlook it. Andrewkowalc (talk) 23:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Fantasy/SF

I changed the intro to say this is a "fantasy" rather than "science fiction" series. Even by the very relaxed standards of TV, the "abilities" of most of the "heroes" are simply magical and flat-out impossible scientifically. Just blathering about genetics every now and then (and they seem to have given up even mentioning that any more) is not sufficient to make it "science fiction".Barsoomian (talk) 12:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Uhm... "scientifically impossible" is the very defenition of science-fiction. It does fit. — Edokter • Talk • 14:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

And "Scientifically possible" is the very definition of "Hard Science-Fiction". Heroes is not SF, whatever the definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wfpoulet (talk • contribs) 15:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

"scientifically impossible is the very definition of science-fiction" No, that's "the very definition of fantasy". Which was my point. Heroes isn't hard, soft or even marshmallow science fiction, It's fantasy. They don't even try to explain how any of these "powers" work. They just happen. If it's SF you have to at least do some handwaving to make the events plausible. If you include Heroes as SF, better go over to Pushing Daisies and change that too (currently it's described as "Fantasy")-- as that was actually more logical in its worldview. Barsoomian (talk) 18:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

If I had to define SF with only two words, they would be scientifically possible or even scientifically plausible, which are both far from impossible. --Dekker451 (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Throughout the series, you see dr. Suresh study the phenomenon of these special powers using his expertise in genetic evolution. In The 4400, the powers were explained as a result of the influence of the future human kind. If this isn't science-fiction, then what is? They both are science-fiction, and practically every website classifies them as such. — Edokter • Talk • 10:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

There are numerous comic book stories that feature scientists studying superhuman phenomena. Does that mean those stories should be categorized as SF? --Dekker451 (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Where then do you draw the line between SF and Fantasy? Arguably, Heroes is neither, it's "superhero fiction". But it certainly is not science fiction. Suresh never explains anything that I noticed. You might as well say that Harry Potter is SF because Snape and Dumbledore "use their expertise" to study magic. As for 4400, I've never seen it, have no idea why you think it's relevant. I suppose that indicates you couldn't find anything approaching a SCIENTIFIC explanation in Heroes itself. Again, that was my point. And why did you revert my punctuation correction? Are you going to revert everything I do just on principle now? Barsoomian (talk) 13:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no line; they overlap. SciFi Channel show a lot fantasy series if going by your defenition. However, you are the only one asserting the series is fantasy, and you were obejected. That usually means you need to build consensus before you can make the change again. Failing to do so constitutes edit warring. The spelling was simply overlooked. — Edokter • Talk • 13:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Why should a 24-hour cable channel be considered a definitive and/or authoritative source? --Dekker451 (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see, you are the only one who has said it's "Science Fiction". Three people have voiced an opinion, and 2 voted for fantasy. Three people mean nothing, but that's all we have here.

And the channel that used to be called "SciFi" gave up the name because they were hardly showing any. Is professioanl wrestling science fiction? And why can you revert me and assert that if I do the same, I'm edit warring? It takes two to "war". Given your assertion that ""scientifically impossible" is the very defenition of science-fiction" it seems you have no knowledge of the subject beyond what you see on "SyFy". And "the spelling was overlooked". So I was right, you are just blindly reverting without reading what you are changing. Since I'm sure you will just revert anything I do, I'll leave this for the moment. I don't have the stomach for dealing with you now.Barsoomian (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Opinions: Fantasy/SF?

Please anyone else who has an opinion weigh in -- preferably with some explanation, not just yea or nay. Barsoomian (talk)

I agree with Edokter. It's science fiction. According to the The American Heritage Dictionary, sci-fi is a type of fantasy. Thus, it science fiction would be listed, as it is more specific. Ophois (talk) 16:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, I know Wikipedia can't be used as a source, but take a look at the articles you would be linking them to. What Wikipedia says about science fiction applies perfectly to Heroes. Ophois (talk) 16:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it does not. I have cited my sources. Barsoomian (talk) 14:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

And about your comments that the series does not give scientific explanations for the powers... they did, at least in the early seasons. Though not much anymore. Ophois (talk) 16:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, science fiction is a kind of fantasy. It is a SUBSET of fantasy, a kind of fantasy that tries to make the events it describes plausible in a scientific framework. Heroes does not do that. So it's Fantasy; but not SF. See these collected definitions of science fiction by respected SF authors and critics.

Kingsley Amis: Science Fiction is that class of prose narrative treating of a situation that could not arise in the world we know, but which is hypothesized on the basis of some innovation in science or technology, or pseudo-technology, whether human or extra-terrestrial in origin.

It's not a subset of fantasy but rather, they are both subsets of the speculative fiction genre.

SF doesn't "try" to be scientifically plausible. It either is or it isn't. If it is it's SF. If it isn't it's fantasy. Arguably "science fantasy" is an overlap, a bridging or mixing of the genres, but in my experience most people aren't familiar with that term even if they're aware of SF and fantasy. For that matter it Heroes isn't science fantasy either, but I thought I'd mention it anyway given the broader discourse regarding genres.

Either way, as has already been pointed out, it would be better categorized as superhero fiction.

[1]

[2] --Dekker451 (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

There are many others, but most relevantly to this question: John W. Campbell, Jr.: The major distinction between fantasy and science fiction is, simply, that science fiction uses one, or a very, very few new postulates, and develops the rigidly consistent logical consequences of these limited postulates. Fantasy makes its rules as it goes along...The basic nature of fantasy is "The only rule is, make up a new rule any time you need one!" The basic rule of science fiction is "Set up a basic proposition--then develop its consistent, logical consequences." As for "scientific explanations for the powers": What? When? Please cite if you can. I've seen every episode (I don't hate the show, I just don't consider it SF), they never do, except to say that the powers are inherited, then later they can be induced with a potion. Then some can transfer them with a touch. There is no consistency or logic. (Other than typical comic book retcon logic.) No explanation of how these amazing, all different, powers that arise. Certainly no explanation of how particular powers can work, breaking physical laws with abandon. Harry Potter's Muggles and magical people is the same basic idea, though more logical.Barsoomian (talk) 16:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The entire first season is dedicated to explaining it through Mohinder. The abilities are gained through human evolution. Ophois (talk) 16:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Except evolution does not work like that, in science. It's just invoking the word "evolution" with no relation to the real world. Thus, it's fantasy. And beyond that, that does not explain how people can fly, heal from mortal wounds instantaneously, create nuclear explosions, etc, etc. Biology doesn't grant such powers. Anyway, it is acknowledged and even celebrated that "Heroes" is in the tradition of the comic book superhero story. Looking at probably the most famous of these (on TV), [Adventures of Superman (TV series)] I see it is categorised in Wikipedia as "Genre: Fantasy, Action, Adventure, Drama". This despite the "scientific" handwaving of Krypton, red/yellow suns, etc. Superman is acknowledged as fantasy. How is Heroes not? 16:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC) Barsoomian (talk) 16:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This explains the source of their powers. Ophois (talk) 16:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. It just boils down to "evolution". "Let's take human flight, as an example. One can imagine the ability to fly would enhance a person's chance of survival AND be attractive to the opposite sex." Sure, flying and these other powers would be useful. It DOES NOT EXPLAIN how they work. IF superpowers like these could arise OF COURSE evolution would favour them. Superman, like Nathan, flies by willpower alone. One major reason he is fantasy.Barsoomian (talk) 16:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Just because the show says there is an explanation and claims to offer one does not make it true. The excerpts from the fictional book don't really explain anything. They only make fantastic claims and a vague allusion to natural selection. Far from explaining "every little detail", they don't even bother with any explanation of how the powers work.

It's just the dramatic source for modern dei ex machina. --Dekker451 (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, early versions of Superman were based in science, not fantasy, but that's a different subject. Heroes does not have to give a specific explanation for every power. The explanation of every power is given and is based in science, which makes it science fiction. Ophois (talk) 16:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

(I know the 1930s Superman could just "leap" high, which was reasonable. We're talking about the 1950s Superman of the first TV series and later, who could fly faster than light on a whim.) I've asked several times for the "explanation" of these powers. You say they are given: be specific. How does Nathan's flight work, for example? We've become blase about this because of Superman and other such shows, but it remains totally impossible and inexplicable. "Evolution" does not explain levitation, invisibility, etc, etc. If they are inherently genetic (the original idea, silly as it is)it does not explain how a "power" can be transferred by touch. Barsoomian (talk) 04:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Which fits exactly with Kingsley Amis's definition of scifi that you provided. Ophois (talk) 11:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Not if you read the entire sentence. What is the "innovation in technology"? People are just born with magical powers, same as Harry Potter. Not even a radioactive spider bite or similar superhero origin myth.Barsoomian (talk) 11:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

"...a situation that could not arise in the world we know, but which is hypothesized on the basis of some innovation in science or technology, or pseudo-technology, whether human or extra-terrestrial in origin." Fits perfectly. Ophois (talk) 11:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I ask again: What innovation was hypothesized? I read the "Activating Evolution" page, nothing about innovations. Nothing about causes at all. If I missed something, please elucidate. Barsoomian (talk) 12:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Evolution in humans to the extent that it gives them superhuman abilities.Ophois (talk) 13:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

That's gibberish. HOW? Barsoomian (talk) 14:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

How do you explain someone naturally able to fly without wings, or someone who lives for ever young, or someone able to spark lightning from his hands? That is no science. It's fantasy. Heroes is Fantasy. Heroes is 0% SF. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wfpoulet (talk • contribs) 11:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Adam Monroe's ability is explained within the show. Otherwise, please read the above discussion, as it explains how it is science. Ophois (talk) 11:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't say "it's explained" without citing an explanation. If you're implying that "evolution" is an explanation, rubbish. "Evolution" does not explain how Peter and Sylar, etc can simply "absorb" powers from other heroes by touch, in a second. If they are genetic (which is what "evolution" means), than that can't happen. Even aside from the completely impossible nature of many "powers" -- transforming a body into water and back, flying ... It's purely magical, wish fulfilment. Fantasy. Barsoomian (talk) 14:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it's explained as human evolution. Science fiction does not have to give every little detail on how something works. It just has to be based in science, which the series is. So I assume that you would consider something such as War of the Worlds to be "fantasy" because the technoglical aspects of the aliens' ray guns is not fully explained? Ophois (talk) 14:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't argue with a straw man. I never claimed that. But in WotW heat rays were a reasonable extrapolation of then current technology. Technology gives us many "powers" other creatures have never, and will never "evolve" in billions of years of evolution. Barsoomian (talk) 04:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

And as I've said before, multiple powers are explained. Adam Monroe can live forever because his cells regenerate at a rapid enough rate, and Peter can absorb powers because his genetic code resequences itself to mimic other powered beings (and the writers based this in current science, as this has been observed in organisms in the real world). Ophois (talk) 14:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

@Ophois: These "explanations" you talk about are not based on any science; if they were you would be able to provide sources supporting your claim! Heroes is not Science-Fiction. It's Magic. It's Fantasy! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.52.225 (talk) 11:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

"his genetic code resequences itself"? When was this ever stated in the show? Is this your own retcon, in which case it doesn't count. In any case, to "resequence" every cell in his body in ONE SECOND? (Really, just magic.) And "observed in organisms in the real world"? Fascinating, please cite these. Barsoomian (talk) 04:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

That explains why he is biologically immortal, but not how.

I'm curious about the real world organisms to which you refer. What species are they? --Dekker451 (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Barsoomian, "science fiction" and "fantasy" are, as your thread title suggest, matters of opinion. What the general public would call science fiction is going to differ very much from what a bunch of SF authors would call science fiction. Really, it just doesn't matter. Leave it as it is, even if it's wrong. (And don't forget, wikipedia isn't about right or wrong, it is about verifiable sources). If you have a bunch of good quality verifiable reliable sources calling it fantasy then you've probably got a good point. Until then, let it go. (And I'm someoen who agrees that it's fantasy, not sci fi. But most people don't call anything fantasy unless it has orks and wizards and hobbits and spells). Scrotal3838 (talk) 23:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

If they're only "matters of opinion", why list them here as if they were biological species identifiers? Since people insist on a category, at least make an attempt to use the terms correctly. And though I've been steamrollered here and my arguments ignored, I will certainly not concede. As for "verifiable sources", that's why I listed definitions by actual, real, science fiction authors, the people who invented and define the genre. Which were just blown off. I don't really care whether it's called "fantasy", but whatever it is it isn't SF. If you do agree with me, stand up and be counted. That would change the odds from 2:1 to 2:2, instead of just reverting and dismissing me they would have to address the question. (Yeah, it's a trivial issue , but you took the time to write here.)Barsoomian (talk) 14:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is ignoring your claims. You provided sources with definitions, and those definitions fit with Heroes, as has been explained to you. Ophois (talk) 14:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

You ARE ignoring all the definitions of science fiction I provided, sourced from real science fiction writers. How much more authoritative can you be? And that you keep repeating "It's all explained" without giving any specifics. That does not constitute an explanation. If you're going to repeat "evolution": the word is invoked, but doesn't make a bit of sense. Look up a definition of evolution: "The basis of evolution is the genes that are passed on from generation to generation" : which is negated in many developments -- transfer of "powers" by touch, for a start. Barsoomian (talk) 04:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Heroes is sci-fi. Bad sci-fi. 64.180.93.200 (talk) 00:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC) Heroes is Sci-Fi. Scientific plausible is a criterion for Hard Sci-Fi. They gave a not plausible explanation(Evolution(not that Evolution is not plausible, just the results shown in this series)). If Heroes isn’t Sci-Fi because there is no Scientific plausible explanation, than Star Wars isn’t Sci-Fi either(no Scientific plausible explanation for Jedi Powers) and Star Wars is undisputed Sci-Fi. --84.46.67.102 (talk) 08:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

No, "evolution" can explain how an attribute is passed down from generation to generation. It does not explain how it arose. And in "Heroes" powers are transmitted by touch, by a serum, by eating brains, etc... there is no vaguely internally consistent explanation or theory for "powers" given. As I said earlier, even Harry Potter is more logical. And as for "Star Wars", well , there is the midichlorians for the Force. And silly as that is, it seems to be consistent. They don't keep making up new "Forces", you can't steal or acquire a Jedi's "Force" by touching them. And anyway, that's the WP:Other stuff exists argument. If that's valid, see Adventures of Superman (TV series) which is "Fantasy" without any apparent dissent. "Heroes" is very much in the comic book superhero genre. Better to describe it as that rather than either fantasy or SF, but if one or the other, it IS fantasy. Not that anyone is actually paying attention to definitions here, the Heroes fans somehow feel offended that I even raise the question. Barsoomian (talk) 11:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

In my experience Star Wars is more often described as a space opera than SF, but even aside from that it's far from undisputed.

If scientific plausibility is only a criterion for "hard" SF and not "soft" SF, then what distinguishes the latter from fantasy? Never mind an overlap; without distinct characteristics they would be utterly synonymous. --Dekker451 (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Heroes, Avatar, StarWars, Doctor Who, Stargate, and Star Trek. They are all examples of fantasy shows with scientific trappings that when closely examined prove to be not plausible given our current understanding of how the universe works. To claim that any show which is not hard sci-fi is not sci-fi is simply ridiculous. Sci-Fi is different from fantasy in that a scientific explanation is assumed for abilities and inventions, even if not fully explained (warp drive, the tardis, stargates, the force, "mutant" super-powers, etc), as opposed to a mystical explanation for the fantastic. The line between fantasy and soft sci-fi is a blurry one, but Heroes never indicates that abilities have an arcane mystical, magical, or divine cause. All characters in Heroes who study the abilities seem to beleive in a scientific genetic cause for the superhuman abilities shown in the show. ASH1977LAW (talk) 19:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Heroes wiki

This link reappeared after being gone for quite some time; I removed it, and it was restored with a description that it is the "official" wiki. Two things: one, the site is linked from the main page of NBC's Heroes site. Per WP:EL, we don't need to link to it since the link is thus easily accessible from our existing link to NBC. Two, even if we do use a direct link, it should not be described as the official site since NBC's link distinctly groups it under "other" instead of with their "official" sites. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree it's a stretch to call it the "official" wiki. Besides, Heroes Wiki's authority comes from its stability and activity, not from NBC's stamp of approval. Also, I think everyone's in agreement that the broken link to the old, abandoned wiki isn't helpful. But I'm not familiar with the external link policy you're referring to, that Heroes Wiki, which I believe is worth an external link based on its own authority, should not be linked because one of the other linked sites also links to it. I see something about minimizing links to interlinked official websites, but again, I don't feel Heroes Wiki is an official website, but something quite independent. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 23:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Heroes Wiki is "partnered" by NBC; they provide the primary funding, and as such is their main endorsement. Now, most articles which have a Wikia wiki, have a direct link to them on the main subject page. This should not be any different. Are we favoring Wikia over other wikis now? Also, the fact that the nbc.com Heroes page already links to the wiki is quite weak. We link to other wiki's as a service to our readers who want more in-depth information. WP:EL is also quite clear about other wikis under What not to link; Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Mirrors or forks of Wikipedia should not be linked. Is short, the Heroes Wiki should be linked. — Edokter • Talk • 15:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not a question that it "should" be linked, really more if there is consensus to link it. (We are under no obligation to provide links to external sites.) The fact that it is listed on NBC's main page is actually an incentive not to link it, as our goal is to reduce links, not increase them. There's also been some talk of tightening up on the Wikia links. As I said, it is about consensus; the link was actually removed some time ago, IIRC, and there's not been a push to restore it until this discussion started, so... --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

True, a reduction in links often improves an article, especially if the links are unhelpful (as the broken link to the abandoned wiki was). In this case, though, a link was replaced, resulting in article improvement but maintaining the same number of links. As for consensus, continuing developments on Heroes Wiki (expansion and official recognition) might be contributing to a consensus shift. I'd be in favor of linking Heroes Wiki, and perhaps trimming the link to the ex-producer's blog instead. The pictures on that blog are nice, but what flavor milkshake he had at the shoot is information I can do without. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 22:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Use of Heroes Wiki links

Refer to the List of Heroes episodes Talk Page to weigh in on the discussion.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by SnakeChess5 (talk • contribs) 05:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Critical response for second half of broadcast history

Although this is seems to happen a lot for series on WP, it seems odd to limit the coverage of critical response to the first two seasons. The abysmal reviews of the latter seasons (e.g., on avclub.com) seem equally notable, though fewer reviews are available from high-profile sources due to decreased promotion by NBC and lack of interest. 97.123.228.47 (talk) 05:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Season 5?

I don't have sufficient info to do it myself, but given that Season 5 just ended a few weeks ago, it looks to me like that section needs a serious revision, since it still talks about Season 5 as a future possibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dspitzle (talk • contribs) 01:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

That was season 4 that ended. -- I need a name (talk) 01:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, Volume 5 ended, not season 5.--PJDEP (talk) 02:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

While not a valid link for reference...the Maxim article about Hayden Panettiere seems to indicate that Season 5 is in the plans and will debut Wednesday, September 22, 2010. 98.21.210.102 (talk) 21:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Josef Adalian for New York Magazine's Vulture column is reporting that Heroes has most likely been cancelled: [3]. NBC's upfront on Monday will determine the show's future. --- Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 02:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)