Talk:Peter Petrelli/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.



Contents

Box image

This needs a better photo.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Transcendentalstate (talk • contribs) at 21:06, July 13, 2006

Power(s)

We are currently unaware if Peter can actually fly, or if he can somehow absorb the powers of those around him. We need to stop the back-and-forth interpretation of his falling to the rooftop after walking on air and embracing his brother until we know more.—Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ Chair (talk • contribs) at 19:54, October 3, 2006

First, please learn to sign your comments, and avoid deleting the comments of others. Second, please be realistic. Just like the "psychic connection" and various other abilities Peter may have, your absorption theory is not relevant at this time. The episode clearly shows him levitating. The implication is that he flies. It's completely sound to assert this in article. Power absorption? If that were even the case Peter would also have Isaac's precognition. Come on, seriously. If he's shown flying, that's what will be written. Wikipedia does not withhold information, especially for reasons like yours. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 21:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Peter does seem to show a bit of precognition when he sketches that crude stick figure picture of two people on a rooftop; one is floating and the other is facing him, a la the end scene a top the hospital. --DJ Chair 13:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
The photo that Peter drew seemed to leave the power absorption theory on the table. I feel that his powers should be mentioned as "Flight/ potential unknown others" but that is just my opinion. If this were to occur it would brings up other problems as we really do not know the full potential of any of the "Heroes." Right now it should be left as it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by zippedpinhead (talk • contribs) at 23:24, October 3, 2006
If you read the newest TV Guide, Peter's powers is like Rogue in Xmen. He can absorb others' powers. -- 65.61.193.31 16:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Well if you have place a reference on the page, then we can include it. Merely stating that you have found something is not good enough for an encyclopedia. You must reference your facts.Zippedpinhead 18:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
If the TV Guide thing is accurate -- how can his power be called mimicry? I recall in the episode where he flies up to his brother that his brother falls. It does seem likely that he absorbs others' powers, albeit temporarily. --Mr Vain 00:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Forgive me, I'm dumb. I can't tell one brother apart from the other. That's what happens when one doesn't pay much attention to their story arc. Sorry for the inconvenience --Mr Vain 01:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

So, as of Episode 4, Collisions, Peter makes the statement that he belives that for his powers to kick into action, he needs to be within a close proximity of someone who already has a power. Is that good enough evidence to mark his power as mimicry and be done with it? --DJ Chair 12:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

His powers are still shady and are subject to change as we still don't know the full details. Nothing has been confirmed, all this is is a theory. --75.8.107.178 10:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
We have all written up. The program seens to quite clearly back up our findings. Theory? I think not. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 18:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


Well, it looks like he can mimic precognition, now, too. -- NinjaYaddaYaddaYadda 22:00, 23 October 2006

Well, it looks like he mimicked precognition in the second episode when he was recovering in the hospital and drew himself hovering. Not a big surprise that he can STILL mimic it. Rihk 00:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

What about in the first episode when Peter tells his mother that when Nathan was injured and far away that he "knew" he was hurt? Was he absorbing a psychic's ability? Maybe his mother is a precog? --Frenkmelk 06:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Now that's really farfetched fishing. Like Peter said, he purportedly knew before being told. This would seem to imply knowing before coming into contact with anyone. Thusly, more of a psychic connection, if anything. Still, whatever the comment meant or was supposed to mean, Mimicry is what we have. I imagine they might have just disgarded it. Ace Class Shadow; My talk.
There was a mysterious statement in the first episode that he made that led me to believe that Peter was an empath, who forged a sort of emotional bond with people, and that was what he had with Simone's father and his own brother. They haven't paid any more attention to it, though. Rihk 00:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I have added, since it's important, the fact that he can't mimic powers at will (by now). Other's habilities just come through him without control. --KesheR 21:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems that he doesnt keep the powers he mimics, he must remain near the powered individual he is mimicking. 144.15.255.227 02:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
It would be interesting to see if Peter actually absorbed powers from other heroes temporarily, leaving the other person powerless. very interesting indeed. Rihk 00:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Remember that this is not a forum. And as far as the show has indicated, Peter has little to no effect on the "supplier". How long he can remain "charged" might be the one thing in question. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 01:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe out of logic, He maybe a precog before meeting Issac or first meeting him before the series. He may absorb memories and physical feelings from miles away by absorbing them so much. Tgunn2 02:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The episode "Six Months Ago" showed the beginnings of many of the heroes' powers, with one of those powers being Peter knowing what was going on with Nathan. This has to indicate that he has some sort of empathic gift. This was also hinted at when he shared the dream with Simone's father. There's more to Peter than simple power mimcry, so keep the idea open. Until we have a name for this power, it should simply be labeled "Empathic ability," unless Mohinder's little buddy is influencing these dreams. Blingstonhughes 10:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrocognition. People mistakenly thought Mohinder had it, but this seems like a clearer case. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Plain and simple, he is like Sylar (notice he absorbed Sylar's abilities right away) only he doesn;t need to kill the people he absorbs the power from. His current precognition is a lingering sign of Isaac's abilities, leading me to believe the other powers will linger as well. (remember the guy that was radioactive?) No sources to cite, yet.

It's possible the powers will linger permenantly, however he had a clairvoyant vision before he met Isaac in "Six Months Ago". Sylar and Peter's powers may be somewhat similar in effect, but dissimilar in cause. From indications, Sylar needs to take the brain to absorb a power, Peter just needs to be within 30-50 feet. --Stabbey 16:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that the last vision
most recent was of himself exploding in downtown New York while the other heroes looked on
should be conciderd Clairvoyance since it has not happend yet or may not even happen.--65.122.101.178 18:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
That is true, it has not yet happened and may not yet happen. However, He saw Niki, Micah and D.L. in his vision, and as far as we know, he's never met them, which in my book seems to rule out a straight-up bond with characters he's already met. He also learned that the New York explosion was apparently from someone exploding, and Isaac, the precognitive painted a picture of a man exploding. Peter doesn't know about that. --Stabbey 17:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC) corrected spelling. --Stabbey 20:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
So then it should be some sort of limited Precognition not a Clairvoyance. Clairvoyance applies only to seeing current events happening in some other place at PRESENT TIME. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.122.101.178 (talk) 22:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC).
He's already done that, too. He had a dream about Nathan's car crash and Charles Deveaux's last words to Simone. --Stabbey 04:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Is "Unspecified dream-related power" vague enough, yet accurate enough for everyone's satisfaction? Probably not. --Stabbey 17:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone considered that Peter may mimic others' powers only at their own current level of control/proficiency:

  • Peter's initial flight and levitation mirror (but do not exceed) his brother's demonstrated ability.
  • Future Hiro's visit on the subway may indicate that Peter was able to exist "in between" time at future-Hiro's proficiency level, without having to have gone through the baby steps that present-Hiro had to in learning his power (there has been no indication that Hiro can bring someone else in between time with him).
  • Peter's mimicry of Isaac's precognition is identical, in that Peter complete's a painting Isaac had started (nothing new, nothing better).
  • Peter and Parkman reading each other's minds comes off sounding like caller #3 live on a request line sitting too close to his own radio.
  • Mimicry of Claire's ability is unclear, as Sylar has also demonstrated a regenerative ability, and Peter was near both of them at the same time -- the first time he's been near more than one of them...sickness related? Spareboy 07:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

References

Are we recognizing tv.com as a reputable source? I remember reading somewhere (I believe it was the Main Page, talk section) that someone was reviewing the necessity of tv.com links. Any comments/thoughts on this? --DJ Chair 11:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it was a press release. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Save the cheerleader

"Save the cheerleader" does not necessarily mean "Save Claire Bennet", especially since the picture that Peter completed seems to show two cheerleaders (one dead and one alive but in peril). One likely possibility for the dead one on the floor could be Jackie, since she took credit for the rescue Claire performed in Genesis. Since Sylar appears to use news articles as a source of information, he may have taken note of this, and may initially (try to?) kill her first, which is the way the painting looks to me at the end of Hiros. Isaac's precog paintings always seem to be about the actual significant event as/after they occur (the bomb, the kiss under the umbrella, etc...), not to events before they occur (such as the implied threat to Claire as she flees into the bleachers). -- 63.226.38.165 04:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you paying attention? Ads, various implications, et cetera. It's Claire. Why on earth would they need to save Jackie? While you make a good point about Jackie's possible death, it's Claire they must save. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 05:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Why would you say the edit was "near vandalous"? I explained myself here on the talk page, and my edit is consistant with every other location I can currently find the term on Wikipedia articles -- nowhere else is there currently a link in the term "Save the cheerleader" on cheerleader pointing to Claire Bennet. Assumptions being making that Claire is the one that needs to be saved are just that, assumptions. Neither you nor I know for certian at this point. Writers love to through in curves, where you think one thing is going to happen (or is actually happpening) when there is something entirely else going on (clasic example: 6th Sense).
This is most definatly a disagreement on content, and not anywhere near vandalism. I've looked through your edit history & seen where you disagree with other people for including assumptions of future content; why is this any diffrent? -- 63.226.38.165 05:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC) -- FishUtah 05:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I've seen users sign as GIPUs before. It's always a bad sign. Why is this any different? Besides, I was referring to the way things were left, not the unlinking. Dewikification is hardly vandalism under most circumstances. Removing content so the end result is unsightly is a different story. Whether intentional or not, it was near. I never said it there. Just...near. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 06:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't see that I had missed taking out the closing braces in the wiki-link -- you're absolutly right that doing that was a mistake. If you want to review my contribs as 63.226.38.165 (talk · contribs) for more mistakes, please feel free. I'm sure I've probibly made more, even thought I'd previously thought I'd also made a lot of good contribs to Heros related articles. This whole situation has given me more reason to primarily contrib as an anon IP (if nothing else that to demonstrate that people using anon IP's can make useful contribs), and also to try to stay away from popular media articles and talk pages. I really like Heros, and wanted to help out, but I'll not exactly feeling very welcome here now. -- FishUtah 07:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
The ads did (somewhat) mislead us before, with Peter's own power, so it could very well be that the writers are trying to make us think the phrase means one thing when it will later be revealed to mean something different. Not that I personally think it's likely in this case, but it's possible. --Psiphiorg 05:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
It's not just the ads. Journalist articles, various mediums and sources all lead to Claire. And Peter can fly, it's just not an inherent power. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 05:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Also if you want some top-of-the-head theories about why Jackie might needs to be saved, how about:
  1. This is the best point in the timeline to actually stop Sylar
  2. This is the first major point of convergence where several/many of the "good" charactors start directly working together
  3. The attempt (and possible failure to) save Jackie could be the (Uncle Ben) turning point to really make some of the major charactors start taking things serious (especially Hiro & Claire)
  4. The attempt (and possible failure to) save Jackie changes the subplot with Claire's father, especially since he would later know that Sylar was really after Claire
None of these possibilities involve Jackie being anything other than a plot device, and that is common for foil charactors like her. I'm also not personally convinced that Sylar can/would really be able to kill Claire, especailly with the whole subplot with her father. I think that the branch in the back of the head and the attempted vivisection are just there to alow us to know she's not immortal, and that her death might be possible, but it looks like too good of a chance to setup a redirect suprise. A consistant message in all medium/comunications before the episode where we know for sure is the best way to ensure the suprise/twist (if there is indeed on coming up) so a unified voice ahead of time does not seem to be all that significant.
I won't remove the link to Claire on the word cheerleader again, but I hope someone else does, at least until we know for certain. -- FishUtah 06:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
If you give up whenever people disagree with you, you'll never get far in this world. Now, I'm not disregarding your theory, but you can't go acting as if something is automatically wrong based on it. I'll give your ideas some more thought as I'm editting today. I hope you don't get down like this over every little misunderstanding. I mean, gees, this isn't the end of the world. (for us outside of the fiction, anyway.) Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 17:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
There's nothing concrete to indicate that Claire was the cheerleader to be saved. If all of Isaac's paintings are events that are yet to pass, then there's still the picture of Hiro and Ando under the banner, Claire running up the steps alone, etc. All of these take place sequentially after the picture of a mutilated Peter, which stands to reason that all of those pictures are still likely to occur, because the cheerleader, ie. Jackie, was not saved. Blingstonhughes 13:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
That's relying on the assumption that Peter put the paintings in the right order the first time, even though he was missing one. That's not a safe bet. Stabbey 22:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd go further than that and say that Peter DEFINITELY got the pictures in the wrong order - he puts the empty space (which is later shown to be his mutilated body) at the beginning of the sequence, before the painting of him and the locker doors, but these events occurred the other way round in the end. Also, re: the painting of the mutilated cheerleader, whether it is Claire, Jackie, or someone else entirely, I believe it did not come to pass - (I think) the cheerleader in the painting has the top of her skull removed, a la Sylar's other victims, whereas Jackie only had a cut all the way round her head before Sylar was interrupted. Branfish 05:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
The writers confirm that Peter put the paintings in the wrong order. --Stabbey 18:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Rewriting Peter's bio

I've rewritten Peter's bio, just like I did Niki's. It's much shorter now, and I tried to encapsulate everything that is important to the character in fewer paragraphs.

I wish people to go through it and edit it (Primogen?). Particularly, I was trying to squeeze in the bits about Peter's family history, how his father commited suicide, etc. but am unsure of where to better put it. Renenarciso 20:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I did some clean-up on it and added back in some more information about his father and mother. I think there's too much detail about interactions between Peter and Nathan, but nothing about Peter and Mohinder. This well need several passes by various people to get the right information in. Primogen 21:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I think Peter's interactions with Nathan have been, so far, more character-shaping than his aborted attempt to connect to Mohinder, but I agree that it would be nice to add somewhere how Chandra's book led Peter to seek out Mohinder. Renenarciso 22:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Empathetic Powers

I'm getting a sense that Peter does have some sort of "Empathetic" power. Someone mentioned above about him "sensing" something was wrong with his brother far away. Now the dream about Simone's father that he seemed to experience also. I wouldn't be certain how to describe it. It is almost as if he is able to sense something significant happening in another's life. Something to keep an eye on, though too early to add it. Novastarj 03:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

i mentioned that based on a comment in "genesis", he might be empathic. definitely too early to add it though Rihk 05:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
The latest episode ("Six Months Ago") also indicated that Peter has some kind of empathic ability. It seems like he dreamed the thoughts of his brother. It's too early to be specific, but is it too early to add "Unspecified empathic power"? Stabbey 19:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Also in "Six Months Ago" when Nathan and his wife are driving home before the crash, the wife says that Peter is "selfless and empathic". It is an interesting and potentially purposeful choice of words by the writers. Jclandree 00:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
They (the writers) could just be alluding to the sibling bond that often happens between superpowered beings in comics. Lots of characters have powers and abilities that interact with those of their siblings. Fenris, Wonder Twins, cyclops and havok (the sibling immunity thing) Even the Wonder Twins :) WookMuff 19:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
"Wonder Petrellis"? I doubt it. Still, that would sort of explain Niki and Jessica. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I said alluding to, I wasn't implying thats its a brother power :) Hell, maybe peter bonds with those who he copies, and maybe he was mimicing nathan's burgeoning powers even then. But hey, i still think its just an allusion. WookMuff

no no no no no you got it all wrong. he does not just take powers he takes memeories aswell alot like rogue from x men except for without the side effects. He health being bad is because of the haitian when he was there peter got soem of his powers and that resulted in the preiction —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.61.76.75 (talk • contribs) on 19:58, December 5, 2006 (UTC); Please sign your posts!

As Dekabreak would say, nonsense! Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
if he takes memories... why does he dream the things BEFORE THEY HAPPEN? /agree with ACS. Rihk 05:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't feel there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Peter has empathic abilities. It could simply be that somebody with empathic abilities lives in Peter's apartment block, and he's been leeching off them. I know that is also speculation, but it is an alternative explanation. Since Peter's empathic ability has not been mentioned in any official materials, and can potentially be explained in terms of his mimicry (which has), I don't feel the empathy should be mentioned as a power. Branfish 05:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

small rewrite, please

"Sylar survives the fall, but it seems as if Peter hasn't. When Claire shows up, however, Peter absorbs her powers and quickly recovers."


He absorbed her powers before he fell off the school. If he was dead, his power to mimic her wouldn't have worked. So, he absorbed her power when he told her to run. dposse 18:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I changed "absorbs" to "mimics" to avoid the question of when he actually absorbed her powers. Anyway, what matters is that he began to heal his injuries. Primogen 18:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

that seems better now. thanks.dposse 14:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
This is based entirely on a flawed assumption, ie. that peter's powers only work while he is alive. Claire's powers work when she is so dead as to be laying on an examination table with her chest sliced open and she came back, so who is to say that peter couldn't do the same thing? The program certainly seems to imply that peter was dead and came back to life when claire came near. WookMuff 09:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, but Claire was closer to him before he jumped. After he jumped, she was scared and a good distance from him. Also, if he was dead, his power to mimic Claries power wouldn't have worked after he jumped. I'm sure that if Clarie jumped, she would have been fine because her power would have kicked in. However, Peters powers is the power to mimic and not the power to survive a fall off a school. He only survived because he mimiced Claire's power before he fell. Saying that "Peter fell off the school, and then copied Claire's power" is wrong. dposse 19:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
By saying "it appears that Peter hasn't [survived the fall]", the article is conveying the show's implication that Peter is dead without taking a stand about whether or not he actually died, since he was not verified to have survived or died from the fall; we just saw him lying motionless with pool of blood forming around his head and his body horribly twisted. We have no idea what the limits of Peter's mimicry powers are (can he mimic Clair's abilities to their full extent?) or for that matter, the limits of Claire's healing powers (was she really "dead" when she was brought into the coroner's office, or was she in a state that just made her appear dead, even to medical professionals?), so we shouldn't make assumptions or conjectures about these powers in the article. Primogen 19:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
"Also, if he was dead, his power to mimic Claries power wouldn't have worked after he jumped." FLAWED ASSUMPTION AGAIN. Did you even read what i said? WookMuff 19:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
We don't know if Peter's ability to mimic Claire's power wouldn't have worked after he died. We do not know at what point he acquired Claire's healing abilities or how long he retained the abilities to use them. We do not know how either the mimicry or healing abilities work with regards to Peter or Claire being dead. We should not be making any assumptions or doing any kind of analysis of the scenes when writing about them. Primogen 19:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Mm hmm, i am not saying peter's powers work after death, i am just saying that saying "peter is dead so his powers don't work" is wrong. the first part of my last comment was quoting Dposse, in case that wasn't obvious, so i went back and put quotation marks in there. WookMuff 20:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
One thing we might know, however, is that Peter retains those powers for at least a few seconds after claire leaves, because he fixes his leg and is able to walk when claire has already run off. WookMuff 20:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

We already know that Peter keeps the powers for at least sometime after contact with the person. Evidence: Isaac was probably not in the hospital with Peter when he drew the prophetic stick figures. Rihk 01:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

in "Fallout", Peter says he died. apparently his body does keep absorbing powers post-mortem; he absorbed Claire's healing factor for a few moments and regenerated. Of course, that may be the ONLY power that he absorbs after death, we will likely never know. Rihk 05:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

He says he would have died if it wasn't for Claire. It's still unclear whether or not he mimicked her power before or after his fall, although since he mimicked Sylar in the hallway after a few seconds (the writers confirm he used Sylar's telekinesis to deflect the lockers on Comic Book Resoures), I think it's safe to say that he was still mimicking Claire before he fell. --Stabbey 22:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Whereas it isn't stated directly, Peter does lie there mangled for some time without healing, but begins to heal almost immediately as soon as Claire arrives. I know this isn't proof, but I personally see this as sufficient evidence that he mimicked her power AFTER he fell. Whether or not he was dead is by-the-by - if he had already absorbed her power, why wouldn't he have started healing as soon as he landed? Branfish 05:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Even so, Peter should have been mimicking Claire before he fell, he was close to her seconds before he fell. The writers essentially confirmed that Peter mimicked Sylar's telekinesis in the hall to fend off the lockers, and he was only around Sylar for a few seconds. --Stabbey 18:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Number of apperances

Guys, Peter appeared in 9 episodes (all of them, except for "Seven Minutes to Midnight"). Please, don't revert the change. Renenarciso 20:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I am on your side, i was just discussing this with User:Ace Class Shadow on his talk page, but i didn't realize he wasn't in 7-minutes to midnight. WookMuff 21:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

As of the episode airing 12/4/06, though, the number would be 10. Samer 04:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
The appearance count for several characters (Peter, Nathan, Matt, Mohinder, Niki, Mr. Bennet, and Simone) was wrong even before episode 11, coming short 1 or 2 episodes. But I'm trying to avoid visiting these pages until I'm able to see Episode 11. :) Don't want to acidentaly read some spoiler. Renenarciso 14:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Deceased?

I think it's too early to have him listed as deceased above his picture. At the end of Fallout, he had collapsed and stopped breathing. A police officer in the scene was shown radioing (presumably for medical help). Until episodes start up again January 22nd, it should probably be left at that he collapsed at the end of Fallout, and his current health/status is unknown. CeladusThrace 03:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, saying he's dead contradicts reports in TV Guide that state that Peter ends up in a coma. Samer 03:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
and the previews at the end of the show —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.165.36.81 (talk) 03:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC).
and next weeks previews —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.165.36.81 (talk) 03:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC).
And other sources that say Peter will be around and learning more when the break returns. He's not dead, Jim. --Stabbey 06:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The graphic novel pages show him in a coma. Does anybody know if they are canon? Branfish 05:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The comics are produced in concert with the program. While it is certainly possible that some small detail mentioned in a comic might end up being contradicted by the show, it seems that at the very least, the plots are assigned/approved by the producers of the show. --ΨΦorg 08:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Too many powers mimicked are dangerous

There are video interviews (found by clicking links on the Interviews Page at NBC.com. When the video player loads, click the Fallout one which talks about Peter's dream. Milo Ventimiglia says that the reason he collapsed was because he was overwhelmed after being close to three supers in close sucession (Matt, Claire, Nathan). I would put this on the page, but that claim would require a source or else it'll get edited out, and I'm not sure what the URL to that video is. --Stabbey 13:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

He may also have still been mimicking Sylar's power (of which he has several), I'm not sure how long it takes to wear off. --Stabbey 22:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Also what about the hatian, dont forget the haitian was there as well Totallycharged

Which may also be what happens in the future where he apparently catches on fire. He's not the only person who could do that. The radiation-emitting man could do that; Peter and Sylar could do it, if they gain his power.--Syd Henderson 05:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


Powers

It doesn't seems to say that he loses his powers when the other person leaves, just that he gain powers when he is near. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fre k (talk • contribs) 09:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

Yes, that should be added. How about this: "An article from the October 9-14 TV Guide explains that Peter actually mimics the powers of other nearby heroes. The mimicked power fades away as time passes, but it takes several hours for it to completely wear off". (the sources for the "several hours to completely wear off" are Peter's future-predicting sketch in the hospital several hours after last seeing Isaac, and the fact that he fell ill when Nathan came for him, even though that was hours after he last saw Matt and Claire. --Stabbey 18:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Still speculation. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 21:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Really? I gave my reasoning - direct from the show, with additional information based on the NBC.com interview Milo Venimiglia gave. The show indicated that's what happened in "Don't Look Back" and an actor also indicated that's what happened in "Fallout". I'm not starting an edit war, but how is it speculation to say that he retains powers for a few or several hours? Is there some other evidence that I'm missing? --Stabbey 05:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I know this place isn't a democracy, but I'm with Stabbey. However, I think that what ACS was doubting was not that he kept the powers for a few hours, but that he lost them after a few hours. Branfish 05:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
He couldn't mimic Nathan's flying the day after the roof incident, and he was trying hard to do that. --Stabbey 18:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Relevance of alliteration in name

Alliteration is a common factor in the naming of many prominent western comic book characters I won't name any of them because the alliteration article covers just about all of them. Heroes is heavily inspired by comic books, western comic books especially where naming alliteration is at it's gratest concentration. Peter Petrelli is the only example of alliteration in the series and he is one of the main most characters in the series. Bringing this up here in the discussion page is really just a formality. Ace Class Shadow seems to have some kind of fixation on flexing his editorial might and removed my short mention of alliteration from the main article, so i figured I would bring it up here to see what the conscensus is and avoid an edit war. --Bushido Brown 00:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly that a mention should be made of the alliterative nature of his name, even if only in trivia. It is a very common occurance, though i think thats largely because stan lee was lazy, but still. WookMuff 04:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
If all or most of the main characters had alliterative names, I'd say it might be worth mentioning. However, only one out of the eleven main characters has an alliterative name (unless Mr. Bennet's first name is something like Bob, Bill, or Beauregard). At a bare minimum, the odds of a single character having the double initials is only 1 in 26; that's assuming all letters are equally likely as first and last names, but it's really more, since certain letters are much more common than others. Assuming that the odds are closer to 1 in 19, the odds that out of eleven characters, none of them would have a double letter, is around half. It's nothing out of the ordinary. --Psiphiorg 04:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Flexes* I'm going to pahmp- *Stretch* you ahp! Heh. Seriously, though, I reverted a poorly written, irrelevant addition to the intro. It's highly trivial and possibly unintentional. To claim intent is OR and to state the obvious—believe it or not, others might have come to alliter conclusion upon seeing his name.—is just pointless. My first feeling when I saw the addition was "observant and informed." My second was "innappropriate." Micah Manders, Hiro Hakamura and Peter Petrelli would be significant. One "Peter" in a family of Petrellis and sea of differently named characters looks more like pure chance. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 05:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
"Lies, damn lies, and statistics" to Psiphiorg. Thats a false assumption, because in order to say "blah blah blah statistics say" you would have to go and take every single current given name that exists on earth, maybe throw in a few older names that might come into fashion again, then compare them to every single surname on earth. One would assume that Peter Petrelli has less chance of occuring than, say, John Jones but more chance than Constantine Corleone or Leonardo Lichtenstein, to make up some alliterative names. To ACS, i say that i think it would be neither irresponsible nor irrelevant to add a trivia section mentioning this allusion, as it has long been pointed to in comics that first last name alliteration is very common. John Jones, Reed Richards, Sue Storm, Matt Murdock, Peter Parker and of course Clark Kent WookMuff 06:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
See below. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 06:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Where did I say that Ace? Did I say "Tim Krang purposely named this Petrelli, Peter as an alliterative Easter Egg for comic book fans?" did I say anything even remotely similar to that? NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! I never claimed intent. I said "Peter Petrelli is an example of aliteration" Where's the intent in that sentence? It was no more than an observation, an observation you and others seem apt to remove on every instance even when i went out of my way to put it in the gone, but soon to be recreated trivia section. I'll add it again, stop removing it, this is getting ridiculous. To Psi if all or most of the characters had alliterative names it would be worth mentioning in the show"s article not the individual articles. This being something rare that only Peter has and is popular in the genre the show is inspired by, I would have to say that it is worth mentioning in a trivia section--Bushido Brown 05:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It's random and insulting to the reader. A person can figure out something like this themselves, as I stated above. You're just trying to force unwanted, unnecessary data into the article. No offense. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 06:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Random and Insulting? That's one of the most absurd reasons I have ever heard given by upidity, busy body editors to justify their removal of info from articles. --Bushido Brown 16:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Ha, ha! "Upidity"? You mean "uppity"? Or was that an attempt to say "uppity" and "stupiity" at the same time? Heh. Anyway, I'd be careful with those words if I were you. If removing your addition makes me a "busy body", I dare not imagine your perception of vandalism revertions. Seriously. dude, try decaf or something. This ain't the end of the world and naming calling is like...so elementary school. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Will you please give it a rest. I am sick and tired of the editors on the heroes pages with their sense of superiority. Remember "heroin-induced"? Remember being anti "spontaneous regeneration"? You are hardly infallible. What you are doing is implying that Bushido is childish and stupid, and thats hardly in line with wikipedia policy. Oh, and i just changed "there" to "their" so you wouldn't tar me with the same brush. I don't know if this counts as a personal attack, but i consider it more of a personal defense. Lay off the belittling people. WookMuff 23:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Also, if you wanna be picky, "Or was that an attempt to say "uppity" and "stupiity" at the same thing?" is hardly a work of grammatic art. WookMuff 23:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Chill out. It's not a matter of superiority. The content just isn't suitable. I really don't see why you two are getting so worked up. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 23:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I think i was fairly clear why i am getting worked up. Maybe this is your baby, hell maybe you created all the heroes articles, but you don't own wikipedia yet you constantly act like it, judging what is and isn't fit for the pages. It is a fact that the alliterative qualities of Peter Petrelli mirror those of real comic characters, and whether this is on purpose or not it is still trivia worthy, because it DOES mirror them. WookMuff 00:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
At the risk of getting embroiled in all this, I checked many of articles for the characters listed in the Alliteration, and I couldn't find any character articles that bothered to mention the alliteration. It seems to me (and others, apparently) that the observation is more interesting to someone reading about alliterations in general than it is to someone reading about the character having an alliteration. Maybe the alliteration would be marginally interesting if Peter were the main character, or if any other character names in the twelve-person cast were alliterations, or if there was evidence that the writers purposefully made his name an alliteration to mirror comic book tradition, or even if Peter also had the same number of syllables or letters in his first and last names (like Clark Kent, Peter Parker, or Lois Lane). But as it is, it's a big so what?, and I'm concerned that the inclusion of trivial observations like this brings down the quality of the article. Primogen 01:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Comparison

How about adding a comparison to Synch (comics) then, rather than rogue, who is a much better example considering how peter's powers appear to work. WookMuff 04:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

As stated throughout the Heroes talk pages and in my edit summary, the consensus is against almost any comparisons. For starters, Wikipedia is not a journal or a publisher of some sort. We try not to add original research or otherwuse unsourced opinions/statements to articles. Aside from various differences between Everett and Peter, we should be able to explain Peter's powers to a certain extant by eleventh episode. Furthermore. Synch is arguably an obscure character. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 04:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't see it as original research. If one of the characters could fly, had heat x-ray and tele/microscopic vision, superbreath, superstrength, superresilience, etc, a superman comparison would be likely. Ditto if someone could stretch there would probably be a reed richards or plastic/elongated man comparison. Everett, may he rest in peace, needed proximity but not touch, and could often use the powers he synched with instinctive skill outshining the owner of the powers. But i agree that if thats the way the pages lean then so be it. Damnit, he should be less obscure also, but thats neither here nor there, poor dead deus ex machina. WookMuff 05:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Precognitive episode, literal or symbolic?

I know this is probably OR, but does anyone else think that Peter's vision is more of a symbolic representation rather than a straightforward vision of the future? I mean woud Matt and Claire really be in uniform on an empty New York Street? Would the characters all turn away from Peter as he is seemingly is about to burst into flames? WookMuff 07:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't this be best addressed on one of the forums relating to the show? (I found several while looking for the music they played.) I've gathered the impression that Talk pages aren't supposed to be forums, but a look at WP:TPG shows no such direct statement. --GargoyleMT 14:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
This sounds direct to me: "Talk pages are not for general conversation. Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." Primogen 19:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
To clarify, the article makes not direct assertion that what Peter saw will happen, or assumes much in the way of its meaning. Thus, there's not reall Wikipedia issue. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 17:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
It calls it a vision twice, and generally in heroes articles visions mean precog eps like Isaac's. Noone else sees it that way? Wouldn't dream be more accurate? WookMuff 21:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Then that is the fault of "heroes articles". In fiction in general, "vision" covers a multitude of sins. Branfish 05:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

This may have been mentioned elsewhere, but I couldn't find it. If you examine the "vision" at the end of the last episode Peter is wearing Sylar's watch and a trenchcoat very similar to what Sylar wears. I believe that indicates that despite what Peter believes he is not the one who is about to explode, but he is seeing the event through the eyes of Sylar, putting himself in his shoes. This is similar to how Peter initially believed he had the power of flight based on his dreams when he was really dreaming of Nathan flying and seeing himself in Nathan's place. Doesn't really clarify the what his power really is, but just an observation about the last "vision." 24.95.35.159 07:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC) Izanhoe

Perhaps we should put a more detailed version of the vision in one of these articles? Things that are important, such as the coat and watch, and the fact that as more superheroes approach him he becomes brighter. E.g.

Peter falls and the scene changes. He is lying on some pavement, it is daytime and he is wearing a coat similar to Sylar's, as well as a watch with the time pointing to 8:36. The only sound is the wind and the city appears to be deserted. A nearby advertisement suggests it to be New York, NY. He moves out into a road full of tightly packed, empty cars with their doors left open. A radio is heard in the background. As he continues through the cars, a yellow taxi's driver door opens and a smiling Mohinder emerges. His expression soon changes and he begins to run away from Peter. Suddenly, Matt Parkman appears to be ordering him to stop, though he is inaudible. D.L. Hawkins, Niki and Micah Sanders are seen moving away from Peter, Matt urging them to go. Claire is running through the cars in the opposite direction, towards Peter. She is wearing her cheerleader's uniform. Nathan appears, exiting a building to the right. Claire reaches Peter, shakes her head, then Peter turns to see Simone moving towards him, only to be tackled and dragged away by Isaac (apparently for her safety). Nathan is slowly moving towards the street. Hiro and Ando look on from a distance. The camera turns back to Peter, as Claire, shaking her head, backs away. He looks down at his hands, shocked. They begin to glow and he is shocked. As the rest of the characters run away, Nathan approaches Peter at walking pace. When both Nathan and Peter can be seen in the shot, there is a close up of Peter's face, showing his eyes flash. Then he screams as his entire body glows and the air rushes upward as he supposedly explodes.

The approach of Claire and Nathan seems to suggest that taking on too many powers causes him to explode. It doesn't necessarily mean he's Peter or Sylar or whatever, but that is definitely the implied trigger for the event. 202.72.187.152 15:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia tries to avoid excessive detailing of fictional events. The article should not attempt to be a substitute for the show. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 20:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, this should be part of the episode desc. talk in a cut down format. I wonder what the point of the wiki episode description is if the foreshadowing elements are left out? 202.72.187.152 16:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Peter isn't wearing Sylar's watch, they're clearly different watches - Peter's is square, Sylar's is circular. And I don't think the vision should be taken as what is literally going to happen. But it is a good point that Peter's vision could be seeing through the eyes of another like he did in his flying dreams. I don't think we need many details from the vision on this page, not even on the episode page. --Stabbey 18:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I take it back about Peter possibly seeing the vision through the eyes of someone else. The other characters, Simone, Claire, and Nathan seem to react as if it's Peter they're seeing. --Stabbey 13:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)