I guess I just don't understand why Claire couldn't have shot peter. Why couldn't he have lived? I mean Claire went through an autopsy.... And both have them have been killed and come back to life. Maybe when he woke back up he wouldn't have been about to explode. Maybe I just sound really dumb in saying this and if I do I'm open for the criticism. Have at it
No, you're not being dumb at all. I agree, and that situation is what I would like to call "character stupidity." The writers weren't allowing Claire or Peter to think straight - well, Claire at least, because she was the one acting as if Peter would be dead forever if she shot him in the head. If they opened up Peter's head and removed the bullet, then there's a good chance that he would have been revived.
However, if Hiro chopped off Peter's head... now that would be a different story.
I guess I just don't understand why Claire couldn't have shot peter. Why couldn't he have lived? I mean Claire went through an autopsy.... And both have them have been killed and come back to life. Maybe when he woke back up he wouldn't have been about to explode. Maybe I just sound really dumb in saying this and if I do I'm open for the criticism. Have at it
No, you're not being dumb at all. I agree, and that situation is what I would like to call "character stupidity." The writers weren't allowing Claire or Peter to think straight - well, Claire at least, because she was the one acting as if Peter would be dead forever if she shot him in the head. If they opened up Peter's head and removed the bullet, then there's a good chance that he would have been revived.
However, if Hiro chopped off Peter's head... now that would be a different story.
If you shoot someone in the head though, there's no guarantee at all that the bullet will stop. If the bullet goes right the way through and creates some massive horrible exit wound on the other side of your skull there isn't likely to be much brain left.
As much as I have enjoyed both characters, it is time to face the facts.
Peter and Nathan are dead.
Yes, both of them.
That explosion is far too much for either of them to survive. Both Peter and Claire were temporarily killed by relatively small objects being lodged in their brain, so they are obviously not 100% impervious, and right now, Peter's brain has been vaporized, not just poked with something sharp. No coming back from that.
To have Nathan survive would totally invalidate the heroism in his final act. He knew that last flight was a one way trip, and he was ok with that, because he was finally ready to do what he KNEW was the right thing, not what everyone else was telling him was right.
As far as the actors returning next season, we have all seen how heavily this show relies on flashbacks and time travel. After all, Simone and Charles Devereaux are both 100% dead, and they both returned for this episode. The fact that the actors are still on the payroll means little, from a story perspective.
The episode "Five Years Gone" indicated that Peter would survive if he exploded.
Nathan lived long enough into the future shown in, "Five Years Gone," that he would lie about the explosion to protect Peter. That suggests that he didn't fly Peter out of New York City in that timeline. Altering the timeline all came down to Nathan, not Peter or Hiro. Hiro influenced Nathan to make a different decision.
I guess I just don't understand why Claire couldn't have shot peter. Why couldn't he have lived? I mean Claire went through an autopsy.... And both have them have been killed and come back to life. Maybe when he woke back up he wouldn't have been about to explode. Maybe I just sound really dumb in saying this and if I do I'm open for the criticism. Have at it
No, you're not being dumb at all. I agree, and that situation is what I would like to call "character stupidity." The writers weren't allowing Claire or Peter to think straight - well, Claire at least, because she was the one acting as if Peter would be dead forever if she shot him in the head. If they opened up Peter's head and removed the bullet, then there's a good chance that he would have been revived.
However, if Hiro chopped off Peter's head... now that would be a different story.
You're both missing the point.
Peter wanted Claire to put him down FOR GOOD.
In a way that he could NEVER regenerate, and thus NEVER explode.
Well...come on guys when peter exploded in the Five years Gone future timeline...he survived, so we'll be seeing him again. And i'd love for nathan to come back. You don't have to die for your sacrifice to be meaningful. But I'm fine with him dying too. But something to think about....Nathan can fly ridiculously fast....if he wanted to he could have let peter go and then flew away. Upon peter's request of course.
Peter is absolutely not dead....um, did Ted die when he was blowing up the Bennet home...I think not.....he isn't affected by his own power...did Claire's mom burn herself every time she controlled fire in her hand...um, no.....so why would peter be any different. Nathan however is absolutely toast. There is no way the writers would be that crazy/stupid to make such a big deal about his sacrifice and then bring him back from the dead...Although I did read on the 9thwonders board that Kring said that one character is coming back with amnesia and another is coming back with a major drinking problem....?
Probably peter with amnesia.....or sylar, that would be sweet. Drinking problem I would have to attribute to matt....if the spoilers are true. maybe after everything, he lives, and his wife leaves him because he is dangerous or something. I guess....I just see matt as being someone who would come back with a drinking problem. And that would kind of explain why he's so mean in FYG
There are a couple of things from "Behind the Eclipse" that point towards an answer:
1) First of all Alucard referred to Peter surviving in "FYG". So that's a done deal.
2) Peter and the scar....there is something to that...
3) Nathan, may have dropped Peter -- but why? Because, after he explodes, he wants to go get him and bring him back down to regenerate. Peter at this point is still not completely capable of controlling himself and his powers. If he fell from that height, he would probably die anyway. So if you save Peter, you better save him ALL THE WAY, right?
I guess I just don't understand why Claire couldn't have shot peter. Why couldn't he have lived? I mean Claire went through an autopsy.... And both have them have been killed and come back to life. Maybe when he woke back up he wouldn't have been about to explode. Maybe I just sound really dumb in saying this and if I do I'm open for the criticism. Have at it
Remember what happened to Ted after Thompson shot him. He almost nuked Odessa. Claire had to shoot Peter in the head, which is the source of our heroes' powers. It would have stopped the nuclear power as well as Peter's regenerative powers.
Anyway, there is a reason that what happened to Pete & Nate was not shown. I am inclined to believe that Nathan slingshot Peter into the stratosphere before the explosion. They are both alive.
I also think Nathan is gone. Sure, you don't have to die to make a sacrifice meaningful, but a sacrifice of that magnitude makes him a martyr, and martyrs do die. I think he knew this.
as for Peter staying alive, I think he is, but they better make a good explanation on how this can be.
This website is an unofficial fan site dedicated to promoting the NBC show "Heroes" and is in no way affiliated with NBC or the actors. We claim no copyright to images, graphics, videos or photos which were created by the makers of "Heroes." No copyright infringement intended. THIS SITE HOSTS "ORIGINAL" CONTENT. If a video or image from an offsite provider like YouTube or ImageShack is linked in a post on this website and violates your copyright, contact us and we'll remove the link to your content immediately. HOWEVER YOU WILL STILL NEED TO CONTACT THE OFFSITE PROVIDER TO HAVE YOUR VIDEO OR IMAGE REMOVED FROM THE INTERNETS.
CONTACT US Privacy Policy
