Talk:Our Father (Heroes)

Clean up

Did some basic copyediting, cleaned up the last few paragraphs 67.96.20.158 (talk) 14:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Do we have proof Arthur is dead?

Perhaps we should simply say that Arthur was hit and fell to the ground, unless someone has proof that he died. He does have Peter's powers, after all, like healing, and with the Haitian gone... 68.183.110.79 (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• Angela said that a bullet through the head would kill him and in Powerless or Cautionary Tales she said that catastrophic brain damage would kill someone with that power and Adam said a shot to the head would be the end of it for anyone with that power so I'd go with yes, Peter did kill him (I say Peter killed him as all Sylar did was release the bullet from where he was holding it in the air and didn't guide or propel it or anything if you watch his hands, Peter was the one who fired, Sylar just stopped it and then let Peter's attack resume). The Haitian had nothing to do with it: all he did was hold Arthur back so Peter could shoot him. And by the time Peter fired, Arthur had his powers back as he telekineticly slashed Peter when Peter fired and missed the bullet due to being so fixated on slashing Peter (reminds of the time in Stargate SG-1 where they faced an evolved human that made Sylar at his evilist look like an angel. He could heal himself, had telekinesis, had super hearing, was indicated to have telepathy and probably hadn't even summoned his full powers yet. He taunted the archeologist who was part of the team who discovered him saying that one of them was going to kill the other before it was over and he was right: while he was fixated on telekineticly stopping being shot from one guy, the archologist shot him from another angle and weakening him badly. The two then unloaded their pistols into him, killing him.) Also the catalyst was shown dying with his death and Mohinder I think said that that would happen if the host was killed. I hope they don't pull a Michael from Stargate Atlantis with him though cause that's seriously annoying. Oh and in the graphic novel Truths, it was indicated he was dead and revealed his motivations: he did it all for his family. Probably lost his way along the way, but he did it for them. It was Angela who suggested giving Nathan the formula not Arthur too. Also at the end of his life he was finally proud of Peter: he was proud in a way that Peter fired as Peter in the past couldn't even shoot a deer as a kid and Nathan had to do it and Arthur saw him as useless. His last thought was that his sons were now ready to do whatever was nessacary. --155.43.203.65 (talk) 18:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• • I disagree. Slyer stopped the bullet and therefore was in control of Arthurs fate at that time. He could have deflected it or destoryed the bullet entirely. The fact that he allowed the bullet to contiune on its present course means that he killed Arthur, Peter just provided the bullet.194.81.189.20 (talk) 12:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Television programmes are fluid, and it's quite possible that they will bring back Arthur in the future, but for all intents and purposes he is (as I write this) dead - in the same manner that future Peter was killed by a bullet while in proximity to the Haitian. I'm not sure why there is an argument over who killed him. There is no reason why it would have to be only one person who made the kill, many characters played a part in his death. The motivations may be different, there's an argument that Peter fired in self defence, whilst Sylar allowed the bullet to hit with malice, but it's mostly semantics -- WORMMЯOW  13:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It's even more pointless now, as the 'recap' at the start of the next episode clearly shows Sylar's hand gesture, indicating that it was a telekinetic push. He just used the convenient bullet rather than any other method.67.96.20.158 (talk) 15:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• • • Clair has been dead too. But she came back... twice. For now I think dead is a pretty good description.--Puppy Zwolle (Puppy) (talk) 01:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• • • • I'm still finding The Haitian's power usage in this scene muddled. He 'runs out' of power stopping Arthur, so Sylar can use his powers, yet Arthur can't use his! Perhaps Arthur can, but doesn't? JaffaCakeLover (talk) 15:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

How do we know the catalyst died with Arthur?

Was it really confirmed that the catalyst died with him? We only saw it light up and seemingly rise out of his body...while Peter was standing over him. Could it have gone into Peter? Wanderer32 (talk) 01:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Heroes is generally pretty explicit with its visual effects, and I'm sure that you'd have seen the catalyst go into Peter if that was what happened. However, it didn't die with him, some was used to make the formula - which may be possible to replicate now it's in a usable form. -- WORMMЯOW  13:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Fact is you did not see anything except the flash over his body. All options are still open. Maybe the building now holds 'the light'.--Puppy Zwolle (Puppy) (talk) 01:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

We know the catalyst died with Arthur because Joe Pokaski and Aron Coliete confirmed it in this Q&A session[1]. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 01:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

"Flaw"

Would not call it a plot hole but it is a beauty flaw. Elle was on her back when Sylar starts cutting her head. When we see her dead on the beach she still is more or less in the same position...... Then how come blood seems to have run down her face as if she was standing up when she was bleeding?--Puppy Zwolle (Puppy) (talk) 00:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Now that I think of it; maybe Sylar (being Sylar and all) was doing a certain act with her head. She is gorgeous and all so I don't really blame him!!! If you still don't see what I mean, I'll say one thing: Necrofellatio!!! mÆniac ^Ask! 22:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Time travel anomaly

I'm not sure if something like this is worth mentioning in the article, but Claire's nickname "Clair Bear" is an example of a time travel anomaly or paradox. She tells Noah (in the past) about the nickname, yet she heard it from Noah (in present time), who in turn heard it from Claire (in the past), and so on. So where did the nickname come from? | Loadmaster (talk) 22:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and added a mention of it in the Predestination paradoxes in fiction article, since that seems to be the logical place for it. | Loadmaster (talk) 22:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)