pretty simple explanation for peter not dying. 1. He can regenerate. 2. He's immune to his own power. We don't see ted melting himself when he was close to exploding. Or like someone else on here said: We don't see meredith burn to death when she creates fire, or sylar freeze his whole body when he makes an icy hand in FYG.
BTW...Claire made 2 sacrifices (yes she knows she can't get hurt) that were pretty meaningful and she didn't die and that only made me respect her character even more. 1. Taking the syringe from Noah Bennet to save his life and stop Ted from exploding. 2. Giving up everything she has ever wanted in order to help save the world. And I'm pretty ok with her not dying. Lol, I understand though, they made a big deal about nathan's sacrifice and they are just gonna bring him back. kinda pointless right? That's how i felt about sylar's death scene too, where they basically assure you he is dead and then they leave it open and most likely he is coming back. So, if sylar can come back, then nathan can IMO. lol
Glug! Glug! The script called for Nathan to drop Peter into the ocean after he exploded, which should explain my “swim” reference in today’s chat. We’ll see next season if that is indeed where P.P. landed.
Only problem I have with this: I'm pretty sure a moving explosion would have SOME kind of trail in the sky, not a static BOOM.
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.
THAT is why it was difficult for her.
Okay, so let's say that was the case. Claire shoots Peter. Peter dies. There's not much that he can do if Claire (or anybody else for that matter) decides they want Peter alive again and takes the bullet out of his skull. He's going to heal automatically regardless.
My other question is - why couldnt he shoot himself in the back of the head? Is it because the gun would have been too close, and the bullet would have gone through his head, thus rendering the bullet-lodged-in-the-head method useless since Peter would just heal the hole anyway?
Glug! Glug! The script called for Nathan to drop Peter into the ocean after he exploded, which should explain my “swim” reference in today’s chat. We’ll see next season if that is indeed where P.P. landed.
Only problem I have with this: I'm pretty sure a moving explosion would have SOME kind of trail in the sky, not a static BOOM.
Anything can happen in the Heroes universe
If what Kristin says is true, then they probably didn't have a trail in the sky because they didn't want to hint anything other than "Nathan took Peter into the sky and he exploded there." If there was a trail, I think that would take away from the cliffhanger-ness of the scene. Instead, we'd be saying, "So, there's a downward trail in the sky, so that probably means that Nathan dropped him, so Nathan's most likely alive."
Either way there should have been a trail. But not a downward one. If you're moving at supersonic speed for a few miles, you're not going to lose momentum for a good amount of time. There should have been an upward trail of fire, at least.
Either way there should have been a trail. But not a downward one. If you're moving at supersonic speed for a few miles, you're not going to lose momentum for a good amount of time. There should have been an upward trail of fire, at least.
True... Alternately, it might just be one of those holes in writing - the explosion happened in one spot w/o a trail because the writers thought that it would visually look better that way.
Unless, of course, Peter was so high that maybe there WAS a trail, but we just couldn't see it from standing where the Heroes were. After all, the explosion and its visual after effects didn't last too long.
I think Peter lives, Nathan dies, and that the man who Peter took care of that owned the balcony was wrong. Nathan turned out to be the one who saved the world, coming back to take Peter away. I was confused why the writers chose to have Nathan take Peter away when the Cheerleader could have killed Peter; one dead that way instead of two... but it makes sense if they want Peter to live on. They had two viable options for stopping Peter's explosion, and they chose the one that would allow Peter to live on. Anyway, Peter has already absorbed the ability to fly, and probably flew himself away. You can also bet he's going to start time traveling even more.
Actually, when they said that Nathan would be the stronger one, it was under different circumstances.
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.
Ted survived himself going radioactive without a scratch on his body. Future Peter survived exploding and lived on. The chances of Peter surviving are much greater than those of Nathan surviving. In my book, Peter is fully alive.
I agree that Nathan surviving would invalidate the heroism in the final scene. This is a show about heroes and saving the world, so there just has to be some sacrifice.
Here's something I would really like some feedback on - why, when Peter went radioactive, did his skin turn dark as if his body was burnt and deteriorating? When Ted was going radiactive, it looked to me as if he was still normal-colored Ted and that it was just his clothing that was being affected by the radiation/heat.
Here's something I would really like some feedback on - why, when Peter went radioactive, his skil turned dark as if his body was burnt and deteriorating? When Ted was going radiactive, it looked to me as if he was still normal-colored Ted and that it was just his clothing that was being affected by the radiation/heat.
Thoughts?
Yeah, I wondered about that too. The only thing that makes sense to me would be that it's his skull glowing through-- in .07% (I think... I can't check since I'm at work, but it's one of the episodes where Ted displays his power) Ted's hands are glowing and all the bones show through. Or I guess it could be that his body is deteriorating and healing itself, but that shouldn't happen.
I think I'm just going to chalk it up to 'it looks cool.'
It may be a change in how they decided to do the Special Effects for that power. I mean, they changed Candice's FX...so this may be why there is a difference.
Ted survived himself going radioactive without a scratch on his body. Future Peter survived exploding and lived on. The chances of Peter surviving are much greater than those of Nathan surviving. In my book, Peter is fully alive.
I agree that Nathan surviving would invalidate the heroism in the final scene. This is a show about heroes and saving the world, so there just has to be some sacrifice.
Here's something I would really like some feedback on - why, when Peter went radioactive, did his skin turn dark as if his body was burnt and deteriorating? When Ted was going radiactive, it looked to me as if he was still normal-colored Ted and that it was just his clothing that was being affected by the radiation/heat.
Thoughts?
Here's a thought POPKORN:
Every time we saw Ted go Nuclear, he didn't actually explode -- he just emitted LARGE doses of radiation. On the other hand, Peter actually "EXPLODES". This could account for the differences in visual effects AND whether he survives or not. What do you think?
Adrian Pasdar was like a guarantee when they said he wasnt coming back... sorry, nate is a goner...
also i think nathan just wanted to escape his mother and truly be remembered for something great. i think he knew that his congressman and presidency was not going to last.
and as far as peter goes, i think he will be fine and scarless. i think he wont have it because in 5 years gone he never met claire, then they changed the timeline a bit, and he met claire and got her power, but it didnt seem to effect his scar.
with that said... i dont think peter has much to worry about since in the 5 years gone plot he didnt have regeneration abilities when he blew up new york.
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
