Greatness is found out on a limb
Here’s James Poniewozik talking about storytelling, television, Lost, and Heroes.
But I firmly believe that its original sin was in trying to objection-proof itself, and thereby setting a ceiling on how great it could ever be. Heroes was its own thing, yes, but by starting from the position of satisfying fans better and quicker than its serial competition, it started from a position of timidity.
It had a pretty good first season, and some great individual episodes. But in all it was testament to a theory I have about TV, and storytelling in general, which you may disagree with: you cannot suppress the worst tendencies of a show without suppressing its best, because they come from the same place. Put another way: you have to be willing to suck if you ever want to be great. “Awesome” and “awful” are actually closer to each other on the continuum of quality than either is to “meh.”
If your first priority is creating something amazing, you will make some mind-blowingly awful mistakes. If your first priority is avoiding mistakes, you will preclude the possibility of succeeding wildly (and you may end up making mistakes anyway).
I think Poniewozik’s theory applies to more than just TV and storytelling.
