Oh, I think Linderman works really well in the part from a narrative POV, I'm just not sure I understand the logic of the guy who put him there :)
I think they've been a bit abrupt with the 'transformation' of some characters from good to evil and vice-versa. Mohinder is particularly unconvincing.
Yeah, it's both unconvincing and much less interesting than it could have been. Characters are much more interesting when the audience isn't sure whether to barrack for or against them or which direction they're headed in (Season 1 Nathan was good for this)
As for your point (**), remember that the guy paints the future, not the present. Fifteen years ago, he'd be like "In fifteen years, Parkman's life is really going to suck and then the world will explode."
no subject
I think they've been a bit abrupt with the 'transformation' of some characters from good to evil and vice-versa. Mohinder is particularly unconvincing.
Yeah, it's both unconvincing and much less interesting than it could have been. Characters are much more interesting when the audience isn't sure whether to barrack for or against them or which direction they're headed in (Season 1 Nathan was good for this)
As for your point (**), remember that the guy paints the future, not the present. Fifteen years ago, he'd be like "In fifteen years, Parkman's life is really going to suck and then the world will explode."
Yeah, maybe :)