Deals with the Devil: American Gothic and Profit

[selenak]

Conversations with both likeadeuce and wee_warrior this past week made me think about shows that basically put the villain in the central character position and pull this off without being narratively dishonest (i.e. they don’t go the simple route of just making all the good guys look stupid, incompetent and/or bland so the villain/hero shines all the more). What started the conversation was Dexter, of course, and certain things in the last three episodes of season 2, but the two other shows that came to mind for me were American Gothic and Profit.



These two have a lot in common, other than being cancelled very quickly; Profit didn’t even get a full season; American Gothic at least got a complete season plus Shaun Cassidy was told about the cancellation in time to write the season finale in a way that works as a series finale. Both shows are well written, both star great actors, both have co-creators who went on to write on more successful shows - Profit was the brain child of David Greenwalt, who then went to work with Joss Whedon on the first three seasons of Buffy The Vampire Slayer and co-created Angel with him, working there for three seasons as well; American Gothic’s co-creator, together with Shaun Cassidy, was David Eick who joined Ron Moore to produce Battlestar Galactica.

(Other AG alumni include among the writing staff: one David Kemper who went on to give us Farscape, and on the producing side there was that Sam Raimi fellow of Xena, Spider-man and Army of the Dead fame.)

Both shows have a ruthless, charismatic central character (played by excellent actors – Gary Cole as Lucas Buck in American Gothic, Adrian Pasdar as Jim Profit in Profit) who is great with both manipulation and blackmail, goes over dead bodies if he has to, and thrives on corruption/seduction more than on blunt violence, though he is capable of that, too, if he doesn’t get his way through the former. Both shows do show this character perform his most hideous deeds early on, in the pilot and first episodes, and then show him winning both audience and other characters around nonetheless. Which I think is central to why the shows’ narrative concept works. Lucas Buck, in American Gothic, kills a young defenseless girl in the pilot and via flashbacks is shown to have raped her mother. Jim Profit, in the pilot and first episode, kills his father, frames one woman (who likes and trusts him) so he can get her job and frames an innocent man for murder, landing said guy in jail. This establishes what they’re capable of, but it does so before the audience had time to bond with their victims. Later on in their respective shows, their schemes of the week either bring down villains of the week, or they’re following the “corruption via manipulation, charisma and possibly honest feeling” route. Thus Lucas never forces Gail Emory to do anything, he doesn’t harrass her or stalk her, and when she finally has sex with him, it’s voluntarily. Jim Profit might have blackmailed his secretary Gail (why are there so many Gails on tv?) into working for him, but he never lays a finger on her, and she goes from a scared fascination to voluntary cooperation with maternal overtones.

Both shows play the villain/antihero as mentor and (manipulative) truth-teller card: Jim Profit makes both Gail and Nora Gracen face and go up against their former tormentors and secrets of their pasts, Lucas Buck does this both with Gail Emory, his entire arc with his son Caleb is a process of mentoring, and on occasion, he does it with his deputy (who over at Profit mostly resembles the Gail there, in that he’s scared by the man he works for and disapproves of Lucas’ darker deeds, but also fascinated and the closest thing Lucas has to a friend, much as Gail N. is for Jim Profit.

Speaking of former tormentors, both shows know that in order to achieve audience sympathy for your dastardly villain/anti-hero, it definitely helps to throw in the occasional scum who is despicable without any redeeming features and whom the audience secretly longs to get defeated in a variety of dastardly ways by the main guy. Cue brute thugs, rapists and child molestors making their appearance and getting dealt with. But if they were simply worse to the main character’s bad, he would be the good guy by default. Something is missing, something that is essential to both shows not coming across as cheap. I alluded to it earlier: just as every hero needs a villain, every villain/anti-hero needs genuine good guys to be contrasted and go up against, not just people worse (and less imaginative) than himself. In Profit, that job goes to one Joanne Meltzer, who, like Profit, had a lousy childhood full of physical abuse, but unlike Profit did not turn into a sociopath because of it. She’s his match in wits, she’s also very good in her profession and successful, but she doesn’t go over other people (in either a lethal or a manipulative way) to be there. And she’s the one person in the ensemble who at no point is charmed, removed or won over by Profit. In American Gothic, the job of being Lucas’ arch-nemesis goes to two characters: Dr. Matt Crower, who has his own flaws, is all too aware of them, and copes with a quiet dignity and steel until he gets written out by the network’s insistence in the last third of the season, and Merlyn Temple, the girl Lucas kills in the pilot. Unlike certain other female characters killed in pilots to inspire the male heroes and provide some pain and angst, Merlyn’s death actually is just the beginning for her character – she goes from victim to player, as her ghost starts out as a guardian angel and over the course of the season gets formidable, ruthless, scary, oh, and also utterly uncharmed by Lucas.

Both shows use very familiar tropes of their respective genres – Southern horror, corporate-games-plus-soap-opera – and twist them in inventive and witty ways. Your traditional soap opera might have the occasional “omg, are we related?” moment (see, for example, Fallon Carrington wondering early on whether Cecil Colby, whom she has slept with, is her father once her mother brings that possibility up (he’s not)), but Profit has the main character in a sexual realationship with his stepmother Bobbi, whom he calls “Mom” during make-out sessions, a relationship that definitely started when he was way under age (given that his backstory states he left home at 15). (The consensuality of the Bobbi/Jim sex is somewhat arguable even in the present day, where he’s around 28 years. For starters, it’s the one relationship in his life where he doesn’t have the power, the occasional situation as at the end of the pilot aside. Also, she initializes every sexual encounter, his narrator’s voice has remarks like “sorry, Mom, I can’t service you tonight” and he definitely looks like he’s giving in to blackmail a couple of times. On the other hand, he also is very eager on other occasions, and he does care for Bobbi. In the last existing episode, he has a perfect opportunity to get rid of her, and instead he’s seriously concerned and in the end grateful for her presence.)

Lastly, despite their main characters often described as “amoral”, both shows actually take care to give them a certain code of behaviour. To wit: if you strike a bargain with them, they deliver as promised. It might be a Faustian bargain that corrupts you morally and drives you to suicide eventually, but Lucas Buck does, as one guest star puts it, make sure the trains run on time in Trinity and he comes through with the protection even of a powerless and poor character like Bernie. Jim Profit gets Gail that exclusive health care for her sick mother, and does his best for Gracen & Gracen (because, as Joanne and Jack realize as early as episode 2, he’s not after the top job at Gracen & Gracen, he wants to be both the power behind the throne and the glue that keeps it together). There are fake-outs where for a short while the audience is meant to doubt and wonder whether the characters aren’t more evil than they ever thought (does Lucas really leave Caleb, Gail and Matt to be blown up by Ben’s hapless brother? Or leads Ben to his death? Does Profit really demand Gail have sex with her molestor, does he really remove Joanne by leaving her in a mental instituation?) - and then the solution always consists in a clever plan played out which shows, no, Lucas doesn’t, Profit doesn’t, they had something else in mind entirely. Which is why the narrative trick of making the audience the accomplice works; I think if those bargains weren’t kept, that step crossed – say, an episode where Lucas kills Ben, who is loved by the audience, or Profit engineering a situation where Gail does get raped – the shows would have fallen apart. Which brings me all the way back to Dexter again, for obvious reasons. Can a show based on the audience-as-accomplice narrative survive if the one step too many is taken? We’ll see. In the meantime, it’s always worth rewatching those shows who didn’t let that step be taken – and who got cancelled anyway.

Comments

[likeadeuce.livejournal.com]

It does sound like, if either of those shows were being made now, on Showtime, they'd get more of a chance both to cross lines and to keep going. I haven't seen either (though I think I have Profit lying around somewhere) but I really enjoyed reading this analysis!

[kernezelda]

I love this analysis. It's been so long since I've watched Profit (when it aired), but in all that time, I've never forgotten the idea of it, and how compelling it was, as with American Gothic. Both were terrific shows that gave us fascinating worlds.

Those were shows that both my mother and I loved, and we were very disappointed upon their cancellation.

With Dexter, I persuaded my mom to watch the first two episodes, despite her distaste for the concept. We ended up watching the series on weekends over six weeks, and just recently she asked if the second season was over, so we could watch it together, too. Considering that Mom is even more of a pet-loving person than I am, and that young Dexter followed the usual pattern of serial killers, I call that a major successs on Dexter's part in winning over an audience.

[wee-warrior.livejournal.com]

Great analysis! ... she says, even though she has not watched Profit past episode 5 and American Gothic past the opening credits (which are great!).

(Also, my failure to get overly engaged with Profit (the show) proves to me that while I do think Adrian Pasdar is a great actor, I'm definitely mostly enarmoured with Nathan. That doesn't mean that Profit (the character) isn't fun, but not someone I find emotionally engaging - which does distinguish him decidedly from Dexter, for instance.)

[mymatedave.livejournal.com]

I haven't seen Profit for years and even then it was on BBC2 at around 1am Tuesday, and when I first saw Heroes I knew I recognised AP but until I read this post didn't remember who the actor was.

My two primary memories from the series are him putting pins or nails in his shoes during a lie detector test and him sleeping curled up in a cardboard box in his luxurious bedroom. I may have to look it up again for old times sakes.

[srichard.livejournal.com]

I have to say, I may be representative of the populace who got Profit canceled. I watched three or four episodes, then gave up, as I honestly couldn't feel any dramatic tension knowing that I was just waiting to see which bad things would happen rather than worrying and wondering whether they would. Also, Profit himself just didn't grab me as a character. Alas, because if I'd liked it, it would have given me some delightful Adrian screentime.

[cadesama.livejournal.com]

Ohhh, very nice analysis. I haven't seen American Gothic, but I definitely agree about Profit. I think it skates far closer to woobification than Dexter ever has (possibly because Joanne, while very competent, never actually succeeds in thwarting Profit, so his evil is contained entire by his own borders).

It is interesting, I think, that their weaknesses are both the dimension across their power/obsession primarily lays. Profit, we see, has absolutely no tolerance for sexual abuse. His plans are especially cruel in dealing with Gail's and Nora's molesters, and yet a great deal of the manipulation he perpetrates is sexual in nature. Dexter, of course, is traumatized by being left in a pool of his mother's blood (hrm, interesting Freudian symbolism there; reminds me of the imagery of Martha Wayne's pearl in blood as well) , yet collects it.

Can a show based on the audience-as-accomplice narrative survive if the one step too many is taken?

You know, I think it's not just that factor, but that Dexter has also seemingly removed the leash restraining his behavior. He says he doesn't need the Code, he no longer has Doakes on his trail, and the police are a far more distant threat. The balance of his own restrain, inherent to the Code, versus his "addiction" was always one of the more compelling points to me. I'm not sure I'm interested in a serial killer who is just a serial killer.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Oh, I think both shows would have a far better chance today and on Showtime. Try Profit, I think you'll enjoy it. Not love it, but enjoy it, and smile whenever something reminds you of Wolfram and Hart.*g*

American Gothic is The Awesome, and if you can get it somewhere, you must.

[wee-warrior.livejournal.com]

I haven't seen American Gothic

Ohh, I haven't seen it yet, either, so might that be a project to try out? Watch it together?

[cadesama.livejournal.com]

Sure, if I can find copies. The DVD availability here is very... strange. To say the least.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Oh, you must watch American Gothic! (And finish Profit. I find the later episodes to be the most interesting ones, which isn't surprising, since obviously at this point the exposition stuff was over and the writers started with the in-depth character exploration.)

I agree about Profit versus Nathan in terms of emotional engagement, though I think it's because of the quite different types of character they are. (In as much as Nathan is one; as opposed to Profit, he hasn't a fixed position in the universe he's in.) The comparison to Dexter (the character) is interesting; I think I was somewhat more engaged by Dexter after eight episodes, but it was the final four of season 1 which really made me feel for him - if the show had been cancelled after ep.8, I think I might have found Profit the character more interesting. Now the Dexter ensemble is a different issue, and that I do see as a difference. I like the Profit characters, from Joanne to Sykes to proto-Holland Manners Charles to Bobbi (yes, Bobbi - but then again, I love people like Kai Winn or Livia!), but I don't love them, whereas I loved Deb, Rita, Angel, LaGuerta, Doakes and Masuka far sooner than episode 8; I think around episode 4, I adored the lot of them.

Re AP as an actor: here I'd compare Nathan versus Profit to David Fisher versus Dexter for Michael C. Hall. Dexter and Profit might arguably be the more challenging acting roles and greater performances, though again, arguable, but I like and love David and Nathan better.*g*

(It's interesting to compare individual acting choices, btw., in scenes with a surface similarity such as Bobbi and Profit in ep.8 - after Bobbi had an accident which was completely her own fault and Profit is furious with her but also, and that's when you realise for the first time, seriously concerned for her - and Angela and Nathan in either "Kindness of Strangers" or "Powerless". Each of these are powerful scenes and showcase very dysfunctional relationships, and the mother figures, though on the one hand in weaker positions - in jail and hospital respectively - on the other have the upper hand by the way they respond, with a mixture of cutting remarks and, again for the first time, serious concern, and there is a lot of boiling under the surface.)

[londonkds.livejournal.com]

I've been having thoughts about the Dexter debate in general but have been unwilling to post them because I haven't seen the series and am worried about getting something incredibly wrong.

Going off completely tangentially from a throwaway remark in your post, I don't think I've ever seen any analysis of how Alias does the loved-one-killed-off-early-on motivation trope with the usual genders reversed.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Thwarting Profit: well, he does not succeed in ousting Jack the first time around partly due to Joanna, and he doesn't manage to get rid of her ally Sykes, either. But I agree his evil is contained entire by himself - though wouldn't you say this is true for Dexter, too? Because the Code, while originally given by Harry, is something only he knows about, so until the last season 2 eps, his conscience, in lack of a better term, is the only thing holding him back. Doakes might have suspected and pursued for the better part of two seasons, but aside from the period between seasons 1 and 2, this did not result in Dexter being kept from killing, and even that period was less due to Doakes and more to again Dexter himself (i.e. his guilt over killing his brother).

It is interesting, I think, that their weaknesses are both the dimension across their power/obsession primarily lays. Profit, we see, has absolutely no tolerance for sexual abuse. His plans are especially cruel in dealing with Gail's and Nora's molesters, and yet a great deal of the manipulation he perpetrates is sexual in nature.

It is, though I find it interesting that he doesn't actually have sex with anyone but Bobbi and the reporter in ep 7. He flirts with Nora, but his emotional power over her comes from withholding sex and establishing himself as a platonic confidante who is too honerable for adultery instead. And while there is some subtext with Gail, he doesn't make a single overture (and later on I think can't anymore because by then her behaviour has taken on maternal overtones - the way she straightens his tie, for example - and he already has a bad mother to have sex with. Gail is the good one).

Dexter: and yet another reason why I'm unsure whether I'll watch s3.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

If you do, tell me ahead of time because I'll link you to a post with the correct episode order. The DVDS are arranged by idiots who slammed the four eps Americans didn't get to see (but we Europeans did, apparantly being morally corrupt enough!) at the end instead of in their proper place during the show, which ruins the character development.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

I don't think I've seen one, either, though it's worth analyzing, especially since Danny (the killed fiance of the pilot) is definitely used in the same way the usual dead girlfriends/mothers/abducted sisters are in season 1, and you can make an argument that Sydney's other boyfriends roughly conform to positions usually occupied by female characters as well - there's the best friend whom she loves but not romantically, though she has some hurt/comfort sex with him at two different points in the series, and the designed big love interest, Vaughn, who has the problem of not really having a storyline of his own and being somewhat bland as a result which is why they kept trying to find something to make him less so via changing his backstory. But the reason for the lack of meta is probably that the biggest emotional storylines and motivations throughout all seasons are reserved for the Bristow/Derevko/Sloane family drama, not the love interests, which is why that was where fannish attention went.

[wee-warrior.livejournal.com]

Oh, you must watch American Gothic! (And finish Profit. I find the later episodes to be the most interesting ones, which isn't surprising, since obviously at this point the exposition stuff was over and the writers started with the in-depth character exploration.)

I meant to watch AG for the longest of times, I simply never got to it. And this me, who likes Southern Gothic a lot. As for Profit, I'll get back to it eventually, I'm sure.

The comparison to Dexter (the character) is interesting; I think I was somewhat more engaged by Dexter after eight episodes, but it was the final four of season 1 which really made me feel for him - if the show had been cancelled after ep.8, I think I might have found Profit the character more interesting.

A huge part of it should be the vulnerability Dexter shows in the first season at least, and that is probably due to the way the voice over is used on both shows. With Dexter, you do get the feeling that he is honest, and that he mostly doesn't realize the emotions underlying his dealings with Deb, Rita, the kids, and Angel. With Profit, you're basically witnessing a performance of "The very secret diary of Jim Profit, contender for Richardesque villainy," which doesn't leave much room for emotions to seep through. Profit seems a lot more aware of his audience as an audience - like he has a guy with a camera tied up in his closet who is forced to listen to him.

Now the Dexter ensemble is a different issue, and that I do see as a difference. I like the Profit characters, from Joanne to Sykes to proto-Holland Manners Charles to Bobbi (yes, Bobbi - but then again, I love people like Kai Winn or Livia!), but I don't love them, whereas I loved Deb, Rita, Angel, LaGuerta, Doakes and Masuka far sooner than episode 8; I think around episode 4, I adored the lot of them.

This is a little different for me again, since I don't really like most of the Profit players, except for Gail and Bobbi (no reason to defend having fondness for her to me; I have a bit of a soft spot for characters that are ruthless and could be considered, erm, trampy). On Dexter, on the other hand, I loved everyone except Doakes, and even that changed in the last three episodes of this season.

Re AP as an actor: here I'd compare Nathan versus Profit to David Fisher versus Dexter for Michael C. Hall. Dexter and Profit might arguably be the more challenging acting roles and greater performances, though again, arguable, but I like and love David and Nathan better.*g*

Yes, that's the perfect comparison!

[wee-warrior.livejournal.com]

If you do, tell me ahead of time because I'll link you to a post with the correct episode order.

It would be lovely if you could do that, anyway, since I already have the episodes and could check if they're in the right order or not.

[cadesama.livejournal.com]

Because the Code, while originally given by Harry, is something only he knows about, so until the last season 2 eps, his conscience, in lack of a better term, is the only thing holding him back.

I think the difference for me is that Dexter's restraint is much more tied up in not getting caught than Profit's. Profit doesn't leave Joanna in the institution because he has no desire to. Dexter only kills murderers because of the Code -- the Code was developed as a means of hiding his crimes from the police, because if his victims are murderers, they are far less likely to be missed.

It is, though I find it interesting that he doesn't actually have sex with anyone but Bobbi and the reporter in ep 7.

Oh, absolutely. And it's very interesting for a sexual abuse victim to use sexuality in such a manner -- always casting himself as the beloved to be pursued. (And one reason why I find Profit/Peter Petrelli kind of hard to believe. Peter is already the beloved in nearly all his relationships.)

and later on I think can't anymore because by then her behaviour has taken on maternal overtones - the way she straightens his tie, for example - and he already has a bad mother to have sex with. Gail is the good one

Profit also only really engages in sexual relationships with people he a) considers his equals and b) people as empty as he is. That may be another reason he can't approach Gail on that level. She absolutely fits neither criteria, and being coddled/pursued is something he definitely seems to enjoy.

[cadesama.livejournal.com]

Ah, that'd be great! Although there's no telling what the DVDs I'd be getting would have been copied from. I got copies of The Inside (yet another short lived Tim Minear show) and the episodes were a mix of the Fox episodes aired in the US and the rest aired on ITV. Oh, China.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Here it is:

http://londonkds.livejournal.com/155442.html

[wee-warrior.livejournal.com]

Yay! *keeps fingers crossed*

[wee-warrior.livejournal.com]

Much obliged.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

I think the difference for me is that Dexter's restraint is much more tied up in not getting caught than Profit's.

And it's very interesting for a sexual abuse victim to use sexuality in such a manner -- always casting himself as the beloved to be pursued.

You're the one with the psychology background: any comments?

And one reason why I find Profit/Peter Petrelli kind of hard to believe. Peter is already the beloved in nearly all his relationships.

*g* I've read only two such stories, and both used a nearly identical plot, with Profit intending to blackmail the Petrellis, seducing Peter, making sure it gets recorded on camera, and then blackmailing Nathan with the content. As this doesn't demand of Profit to actually fall for Peter, I can just about buy it, though you're right, for the plot to work either Profit has to change his m.o. of seducing people by making them seduce him, or Peter has to change his m.o. of taking the initiate (or at least believing he does).

...Mind you, I just got my s1 Heroes DVDs, and they really lucked out with Milo, because the whole Simone/Peter thing could have easily come across just as stalkery as the Claire/West one, and Peter as unlikeable as West. (As opposed to Simone/Peter merely coming across as not very interesting when compared to their respective other relationships.) I mean, look at those scenes on paper:
Simone: *thanks hired help for taking care of her dying father*
Peter: *makes incest joke*
Simone: ....?!?

Next thing:

Simone: My drug addicted boyfriend is in serious troube. I need a nurse and morphine.
Peter: Did I mention I have a destiny?
Simone: MORPHINE!
Peter: Destiny?

And in conclusion, they really can't write romances on this show (with the exception of Hiro/Charlie and both the beginning and the end of Hiro/Yaeko).

Anyway, back to the Profit/Peter idea: the whole thing hinges on the idea that Peter either subconsciously or consciously wants his brother anyway, and he does switch between pursuer and pursued in his relationship wiht Nathan (to wit, he pursues right until "Fallout" and then gets pursued), so I suppose a switch isn't impossible?

[cadesama.livejournal.com]

You're the one with the psychology background: any comments?

Well, mostly just that a lot of sexual abuse victims tends to unconsciously act out sexually, or repeat previous pattens. I wouldn't quite say that Profit does that. He's not compelled to use sex as a manipulative tool -- that's not the hammer that makes everything a nail to him. It's just another tool in his repertoire. However, he seems to largely let himself be treated as an object, which is acting out his previous abuse scenarios. You could argue that behavior increases when Bobbi is around (maybe, I don't know if it actually correlates), because he is never in charge when she is there, and that positioning himself as an object in other women's affections allows him to take back the power that Bobbi doesn't let him have, while safely avoiding his abuser.

Simone: My drug addicted boyfriend is in serious troube. I need a nurse and morphine.
Peter: Did I mention I have a destiny?
Simone: MORPHINE!
Peter: Destiny?

Not to mention:

Simone: *compliments cute new nurse*
Peter: Death is ~*~beautiful~*~!
Simone: ... I'm gonna be over there now.

And in conclusion, they really can't write romances on this show (with the exception of Hiro/Charlie and both the beginning and the end of Hiro/Yaeko).

And Peter/Elle! Which, okay, isn't so much a romance. I really think their problem lays in writing romances as plots, though. Claire/West didn't work, Matt/Janice was tiring and dull, DL/Niki never really went anywhere, nor did Peter/Caitlin; but Niki/Nathan, Peter/Niki, Noah/Sandra, Peter/Elle, and even Sylar/Maya worked fairly well -- because the romantic angle was just another exploration of each character, not a primary plot. And, in general, I think they do a good job of establishing believable married couple. They just need to stay away from domestic drama with them.

and he does switch between pursuer and pursued in his relationship wiht Nathan (to wit, he pursues right until "Fallout" and then gets pursued), so I suppose a switch isn't impossible?

It is, although Peter's pursuit of Nathan isn't at all through proving his own love for Nathan. It's multiple attempts to get Nathan to admit he loves Peter while Nathan tries to push him away. Nathan's pursuit, however, is a long attempt to make up for the previous pushes away and show how much he really does love Peter (and even that he can take of Peter, as in The Fix). And both roles, I think, still largely have Peter as the beloved. It's just at first that he's the spurned beloved who is being discarded and doesn't accept that.

[londonkds.livejournal.com]

Note that not merely are the censored episodes put on at the end, but the episodes that were actually transmitted were broadcast in a grossly incorrect order, which is repeated on the DVDs.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

You could argue that behavior increases when Bobbi is around (maybe, I don't know if it actually correlates), because he is never in charge when she is there, and that positioning himself as an object in other women's affections allows him to take back the power that Bobbi doesn't let him have, while safely avoiding his abuser.

That makes sense to me.

Simone: *compliments cute new nurse*
Peter: Death is ~*~beautiful~*~!
Simone: ... I'm gonna be over there now.

*g* Yes, that, too, but I haven't gotten to the finale yet. I just watched the unaired pilot with Tim Kring's commentary. ("...and that was the beginning of noticing that Adrian likes to put his hands on Milo when he talks. A thing that continues to this day.") Anyway, yes, the dialogue between Simone and Peter really really makes you wonder that she didn't run in the opposite direction every time he showed up. Milo sells it, but still. (Though then again, Simone fell for Isaac. Incidentally, I knew there was the cut scene from ep2 with Simone and Peter having sex there one episode early, but what I didn't know was that there was a corresponding scene from the pilot cut where Isaac in order to make Simone go away tells her he never loved her and only used her for the drugs. Put together, the original intention probably was to have Simone have sex with Peter initially because she's that hurt and pissed off at Isaac, which totally works, but otoh does not jell with her later being all concerned for Peter, which is probably why it was cut.)

I really think their problem lays in writing romances as plots, though

True enough. Every time the romantic and/or sex aspect is just a part of the characters' storylines or their characterisation, instead of being the main deal, it does work.

It is, although Peter's pursuit of Nathan isn't at all through proving his own love for Nathan. It's multiple attempts to get Nathan to admit he loves Peter while Nathan tries to push him away. Nathan's pursuit, however, is a long attempt to make up for the previous pushes away and show how much he really does love Peter (and even that he can take of Peter, as in The Fix). And both roles, I think, still largely have Peter as the beloved. It's just at first that he's the spurned beloved who is being discarded and doesn't accept that.

I see your point, though I'd put it a bit more active than that, because Peter doesn't just try to get Nathan to admit he loves him, he tries to get him back to the state their relationship was in pre-Dad's death, AND he tries to make him commit to the special powers thing against Nathan's own professional agenda. What I mean is: there is some active wooing (back) on Peter's part there.

[wee-warrior.livejournal.com]

I never understand why they do it this way, you would think someone pays attention to the production order at least. Eureka was exactly the same, the episode order was really all over the place.

[cadesama.livejournal.com]

("...and that was the beginning of noticing that Adrian likes to put his hands on Milo when he talks. A thing that continues to this day.")

Apparently they were very handsy at the Jules Verne thing. :D

Put together, the original intention probably was to have Simone have sex with Peter initially because she's that hurt and pissed off at Isaac, which totally works, but otoh does not jell with her later being all concerned for Peter, which is probably why it was cut.

Yep. I've even heard that it was intended as a revenge scenario, because the sex scene from Ep 2 takes place in Isaac's loft. Which would have made Peter into a pawn between Isaac and Simone during their conflict. If they felt like devoting screen time to it, they then could have complicated things by having Simone fall for Peter while using him against Isaac -- but that makes things into far too much of a soap opera, makes Simone incredibly unsympathetic, and turns Peter into a patsy (rather than just hapless rebound guy).

AND he tries to make him commit to the special powers thing against Nathan's own professional agenda. What I mean is: there is some active wooing (back) on Peter's part there.

There is, and some of it even kind of correlates with West's wooing tactics (scarily enough). They both attempted to bond with a shared secret. Of course, Peter isn't all that interested in the "secret" aspect. He pretty much tells everyone he meets that he thinks he can fly; whereas West is all about the secret, to the point of not being interested in Claire if it's not a secret only he knows.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Apparently they were very handsy at the Jules Verne thing. :D

No rly?!? she exclaimed in shocked surprise. :) Did some community-conscious fellow fan make photos?

but that makes things into far too much of a soap opera, makes Simone incredibly unsympathetic, and turns Peter into a patsy (rather than just hapless rebound guy).

Quite, and I can see why, wanting us to like Simone, they cut that out, but it would have made better emotional sense than what we got on screen. (Though I arranged it to work in my head as a part of Simon's general emotional make-up, as you know from my story about her.*g*)

There is, and some of it even kind of correlates with West's wooing tactics (scarily enough).

I told you.*g*

Of course, Peter isn't all that interested in the "secret" aspect. He pretty much tells everyone he meets that he thinks he can fly; whereas West is all about the secret, to the point of not being interested in Claire if it's not a secret only he knows.

True, though it should be noted Peter at no point tells other people Nathan can fly. (The closest he comes is telling Mohinder he can fly if Nathan is with him, I think.) Just as he comes to the rescue when the reporter brings up Las Vegas. (And Just as Claire hands over his file to West, one could say.) He wants Nathan to come out with him (in a metaphorical way, of course!), but he doesn't do what West did to make Claire confess her mutantdom to him. (Which would have been possible, if instead of going for Petrelli power games at the brunch he'd been all revelatory.)

[wee-warrior.livejournal.com]

Did some community-conscious fellow fan make photos?

Pictures (http://canadian-turtle.livejournal.com/151324.html#cutid1). Although I'm afraid the only ones getting a little handsy with Adrian are Jack and Zachary (who is sporting the Spockbrows, waah.).

The post should be trailerspoiler free, safe for one small - non-Petrelli related - snippet about a character, which probably will delight you as little as it delighted me.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

That's what you think. (http://www.flickr.com/photos/anna29/2114977253/)!

Re: footage, since Kring said in the most recent interview they shot ZQ's stuff first pre-strike because they had assumed he wouldn't be available due to ST, I'm not surprised there's lots of him in said footage.

[wee-warrior.livejournal.com]

That's what you think.!

Hee. Oh, Milo.

Re: footage: Part of it has actually been leaked now, and yeah, there is lots of Sylar. And it seems like the Heroes equivalent of Arkham Asylum is doing a breakout because of him - thus the title "Villains," I suppose. Not a development I'm looking forward to, but they'll probably have enough time to fine-tune it. (I don't know when I became so horrendously pessimistic about stuff! I really think it must be the strike.)

[cadesama.livejournal.com]

Did some community-conscious fellow fan make photos?

I haven't seen any photos of actual hugging crop up yet. There are more general cast photos here (http://www.heroes-france.com/forum/dossier_526.htm?sort_method=pic_time&sort_order=DESC).

True, though it should be noted Peter at no point tells other people Nathan can fly. (The closest he comes is telling Mohinder he can fly if Nathan is with him, I think.)

Well, going to Mohinder and admitting that he found out where Mohinder was from the Petrelli campaign pretty much confirms that Nathan has an ability anyway. Or it would, if Mohinder didn't spend most of that encounter thinking Peter is insane. (And really, characters need to learn that just because Peter is insane, that's doesn't mean what he's saying at the moment is wrong.)

He wants Nathan to come out with him (in a metaphorical way, of course!), but he doesn't do what West did to make Claire confess her mutantdom to him.

*snickers* No, not at all. While West badgers Claire and eventually gets her to jump off of something to trust him, Peter badgers Nathan, actually jumps off something himself, and then threatens suicide. Which really goes to show how important chemistry and charisma are to making us like storylines. (Of course, it also helps that Peter and Nathan are brothers as opposed to strangers who just met).

(Which would have been possible, if instead of going for Petrelli power games at the brunch he'd been all revelatory.)

At that point, though, Peter already has the admission he wants from Nathan. While secrecy isn't a big deal to Peter, making sure th e world knows just how special he is isn't exactly a priority. He's much more interested in using his powers -- which would parallel more with West convincing Claire to go along with the prank on Debbie, although Claire wasn't nearly as resistant as Nathan was, since she wanted to use her powers all along.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

*uses a Sydney icon as well*

Actually, I'm optimistic on that storyline, because it means Noah & Bob will genuinenly be forced to work together (they're probably not going to be the Jack 'n Arvin of Heroes, but one can hope), in addition to the less morally grey gang having to work with them in order to fight the Arkham Asylum outbreaks. That, and given that Bob and Elle are so interesting, I'm hoping for more interesting villains who'll share the spot light with Sylar. (I know he's central in the footage, but given that this was filmed in the expectation of not having Quinto available for months, I doubt that means he'll also be central in the actual storyline.) The show hasn't done badly in the villains department so far; even Sylar himself wasn't bad, he just outlived his use (I'm absolutely okay with season 1 Sylar's existence).

[wee-warrior.livejournal.com]

*uses a Sydney icon as well*

Alias icons, unite! (I have to find that one Jack with Glasses icon again. It was marvellous.)

Actually, I'm optimistic on that storyline, because it means Noah & Bob will genuinenly be forced to work together (they're probably not going to be the Jack 'n Arvin of Heroes, but one can hope), in addition to the less morally grey gang having to work with them in order to fight the Arkham Asylum outbreaks. That, and given that Bob and Elle are so interesting, I'm hoping for more interesting villains who'll share the spot light with Sylar.

You're likely right, I'm just excessively grumpy about Heroes at the moment. It should pass after a while.

[spectralbovine.livejournal.com]

Ooh, very interesting. I never considered comparing these two shows, even though I watched them (http://spectralbovine.livejournal.com/83632.html) both (http://spectralbovine.livejournal.com/98632.html) last year (well, AG was a rewatch, of course). Maybe because I didn't really consider Lucas Buck the central character the way Dexter and Profit are. We don't really see the show from their perspective in that way. But your points are valid all the same.

And, ha, I didn't notice the two Gails. That's amusing. Are there other Gails on TV besides them?