Heroes: An alternate reality

I typically don't read other reviews of Heroes because I find them to be overly negative. I fully understand that people are paid to watch and write about certain shows, so it's not always as easy as "if you don't like it, why do you continue watching it?" But my perspective is, why do I want to listen to somebody rip apart a show I mostly enjoy?

Nonetheless, I decided to read the review over at the EW website, basically because I found the introduction humorous (saying last night's episode "managed to be the least bad episode of the season so far"). Overall the column pretty much echoed what I had said in my post. One point really struck me, though: That the final battle at the end of season one would have benefited from at least two characters dying.

And that got me thinking -- what if the writers had just pulled the trigger and knocked Sylar off?

Don't get me wrong. Zachary Quinto, at the end of the day, will likely end up the breakout star of this show. And Sylar is undeniably one of the most popular characters. But, in the grand scheme of things, has he really done anything of significance since the first season?

Honestly, his character hasn't really served a major purpose. Adam could have been the villain during "Generations," Papa Petrelli and a plethora of others during "Villains," Danko during "Fugitives," and Samuel during "Redemption." Instead, we got the show spreading themselves too thin. During each volume, Sylar and the "B" villain were at odds, with the viewers likely WANTING to root for the more popular Sylar. But at the end of the day, Sylar would do something dastardly to one of our heroes, leaving the audience feeling a bit deflated and dejected.

Right now I really have no emotional attachment to any incarnation of Sylar, in large part because of this stubborn desire to make him a perennially torn character instead of a full-on villain. Had Hiro vanquished him in that awesome moment at the conclusion of season one, he would have gone out while he was still on top.

And who else should have been killed off during that battle? There are two obvious candidates: Parkman and, I'm sad to say, Nathan. Parkman could have died while he was still a genuinely likable, "real" character. And Nathan sacrificing his life for his brother and his daughter -- and effectively saving millions at the expense of his political aspirations -- would have been a wonderful conclusion to his story (although he's the one character of the bunch that HAS contributed to the series since its inaugural season).

Of course, hindsight is 20/20 and it's easy to play Monday morning quarterback. And for what it's worth, the EW column was a tad too harsh (a good episode is a "cowardly embarassment" now?) and I believe he's remembering season one with some lovely rose colored glasses (main characters were hardly dying every single week). But the intentions of the article are accurate. And one thing is for certain -- apparently Adrian Pasdar found out he was being written out when he read the script. How screwed up is that????