It's right after he drugs Sylar. I spent the entire next scene laughing. Oh, I was just watching this episode thinking how they've sucked all the drama out of possibly hugely dramatic scenes...
This is probably why the show pains me so much: there is something amazing they could be doing with their set up. They're determined not to do it. Ever.
I was the most annoyed by the reunion scene between Peter and his dad. Do they remember the events of "Six Months Ago"? Peter's relationship with his father is fraught. His death had a huge impact on him--I'd credit the death of his father with Peter's obsessive need to be important, to prove himself.
So you bring the father back in, at a time when Peter has been flailing for direction over the last few episodes and Nathan, his compass of choice, is ignoring him, and his mother drugged him, and you bring in the father? There was such an opportunity there, for Peter to be cowed by his father, to be sucked into working for him. It was clear from the beginning of season one that though Nathan was the good son that realized all his parents' ambitions, Peter was the dutiful son--staying close to home, more aware of his mother's needs. You bring the father in, and Peter would want to do what he asked. At the same time, he would be hugely conflicted, since at the time his father died, Nathan had just convinced him to testify against him. So he'd probably feel guilty and want to redeem himself to his father, but still have a niggling doubt that his father is not a good man.
So much potential! And all we get is megalomaniacal ramblings and power-stealing. Maybe Peter can be interesting again as a mere mortal, but I doubt it.
See, there is potential, they just don't see it. Because they've forgotten that the f'ed up family dynamic is what made the threat against New York in the first season scary--because you believed that otherwise good people were going to let it happen.
With Arthur coming back, they're re-writing the dynamic entirely, starting with Angela, as it turns out they're much more adversarial than the show previously proved. The first time we met Angela, Nathan was bailing her out of jail for shoplifting because she was lonely with her husband dead. Not so much? Wha-happened?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2008-10-26 07:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-27 01:22 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-27 04:05 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-27 04:24 am (UTC)So you bring the father back in, at a time when Peter has been flailing for direction over the last few episodes and Nathan, his compass of choice, is ignoring him, and his mother drugged him, and you bring in the father? There was such an opportunity there, for Peter to be cowed by his father, to be sucked into working for him. It was clear from the beginning of season one that though Nathan was the good son that realized all his parents' ambitions, Peter was the dutiful son--staying close to home, more aware of his mother's needs. You bring the father in, and Peter would want to do what he asked. At the same time, he would be hugely conflicted, since at the time his father died, Nathan had just convinced him to testify against him. So he'd probably feel guilty and want to redeem himself to his father, but still have a niggling doubt that his father is not a good man.
So much potential! And all we get is megalomaniacal ramblings and power-stealing. Maybe Peter can be interesting again as a mere mortal, but I doubt it.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-28 02:11 pm (UTC)With Arthur coming back, they're re-writing the dynamic entirely, starting with Angela, as it turns out they're much more adversarial than the show previously proved. The first time we met Angela, Nathan was bailing her out of jail for shoplifting because she was lonely with her husband dead. Not so much? Wha-happened?