Opinions on "Heroes"?

[Guynemer]

Missed that. Thanks.

[padillah]

Originally posted by Guynemer
How did you get that timeline, Admiral? Did Nathan or his mom say something about the election?

Also, Hiro tells Ando they only have two weeks to stop NYC from blowing up ('cause they're now back in Las Vegas).

Tom P.

[padillah]

Originally posted by Tattila the Hun
Well, Linderman hired Nikki/Jessica to whack that diamond guy, so I'd say he's pretty evil.

Like I said, "unless something happened Monday".

Now that I've watched Monday's epi I'm on track with Linderman being evil (unless some bizarre twist messes everything up).

Claire's dad is stil up for grabs though.

BTW I leave the CC on so I don't have to turn the TV up very much (I don't like "loud") and the CC has him as D.G.B. if I remember correctly.

Tom P.

[Lorizael]

Evil or not, Clare's dad is not a nice guy. While his ends may be good, his means are not.

[padillah]

And I think that can be said of most of the heros.
[*]Hiro has stolen and shown no remorse.[*]Micah has stolen and doesn't even know enough to be remorseful (his dad should have had a hard time with accepting that money).[*]D.J. broke out of jail, has received stolen property, has passed stolen property.[*]Matt has violated peoples most intimate privacy and stolen.[*]Nikki has obstructed justice and fled from police.[*]Issac was a drug user for the longest time.[*]Nathan is almost, but not quite, despicable.[*]Claire has done assault with intent to do great bodily harm.

...I think Peter is the only one that comes close to being "just good" and that's simply because he lacks the impetus. There's no moral conflict in his case...yet.

I'm not saying this is bad. In fact I like that they are portrayed as "people". It makes me feel for them more than some lofty, untouchable, yet angst-ridden superhero that has a triple-standard - One for normal people, one for him, and one for him when he makes mistakes.

Tom P.

[Lorizael]

I think what Mr. Bennet has done goes a little beyond what the other heroes have done. He destroys lives. He's given his wife severe brain damage just so he can cover up his own secrets.

But I don't disagree with you; I like that the characters are not black and white.

Though not a "hero" per se, I also think that Mohinder seems to be a genuinely decent fellow.

[padillah]

Well, there are those on the show that have done even worse, I was just talking about those we are regarding as "good guys". I think he could still pull it off. Especially with the empassioned "I did it for my family" plea we saw in the previews.

And I'm not sure Nathan hasn't ruined a few lives, we just don't know about it. At least Mr Bennet was following orders, Nathan is doing his stuff out of pure selfishness and greed.

I wonder how the Haitian is going to handle the effects he's having. I wonder how many times he's "operated" on that poor lady.

I agree that Mohinder is one of the genuine good people but I thought they hinted at his having an ability. When he was back in India. But if he had an ability his father would have been all over him. Especially after his sister dying.

See -Jrabbit, it's gotten pretty interesting.

Tom P.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by padillah
And I'm not sure Nathan hasn't ruined a few lives, we just don't know about it. At least Mr Bennet was following orders, Nathan is doing his stuff out of pure selfishness and greed.

Oh yes. Nathan's got it coming to him.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm not entirely sure, that Mr. Bennet MEANT to affect his wife in such a way. She's likely just been zapped one too many times and no one expected this.

His means may not be the best, but its a reach to then say he is 'evil' if his end goals (whatever they are) are good.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
His means may not be the best, but its a reach to then say he is 'evil' if his end goals (whatever they are) are good.

Why? Do the ends really justify the means?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Why? Do the ends really justify the means?

It depends .

And plenty of times they just might (like, say, Jack Bauer ).

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Why? Do the ends really justify the means?

They don't. But I would never use the term "evil" to describe someone who sought good goals.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
They don't. But I would never use the term "evil" to describe someone who sought good goals.

Why not? In what way do you feel that good intentions absolve a character from having the term "evil" applied to them?

[Guynemer]

Agreed with DD.

Jack Bauer is almost certainly an evil man, as is Bennett. They're trying to use their evil for good.

[OzzyKP]

I think true evil is extremely rare among human beings. And I think it only occurs when someone does evil acts for evil intents.

Was Harry Truman evil for nuking Japan?
Is Bush evil for invading Iraq?

Horrible things happened in both cases, but I wouldn't at all label them as evil. Both had noble goals (reasonable people should assume) and while not in the category of someone who uses good means to acheive good ends (Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr, etc) I wouldn't ever call them evil.

What if someone is trying to rush a severely injured person to the hospital and mistakenly takes a wrong turn that ends up sufficiently delaying their arrival at the hospital that the injured person dies. Is the driver "evil" since his action led to the death of his passenger?