Talk:Nathan Petrelli

I find it MIGHTY interesting that Nate's daughter (Claire Bennet) supposedly died in a fire 14 years before in Texas, and then Nate saves somebody's else's daughter from burning in the graphic novel in New York City. There are no coincidences in this show. You'd think Nate would have felt guilty about not being able to save Claire or something, and wanted to kind of atone for that. Or maybe he tried and failed to save her...or thought he had...

...Or maybe he caused the fire in an attempt to hide the fact that he had an illegitimate daughter. Or perhaps he doesn't know squat about the fire. Now I don't really think those ideas are true, but there's still a lot of speculation regarding a very interesting past incident about which we have yet to learn a lot... And he certainly has a long list of things about which he should be feeling guilty, imho. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 12:01, 8 February 2007 (EST)

I'd have to concur that it is a curious coincidence that the graphic novel revealed Nathan quietly using his flight ability to save people from a fire about the same time he saved Peter from falling, early in the first season. However, since we don't know if all of the graphic novels are being treated canonically by the television writing staff, we have no choice but to assume it was a coincidence. Surely Claire's mother didn't cause the fire in New York as she's been in Kermit the past two months. Thematically however, it is clear that we the audience are to envision Nathan repeatedly in the eye of a firestorm. -- ZachsMind 17:07, 11 February 2007 (EST)

Somebody will Die

I really think Nathan will be the somebody to die. I think he'll be killed by Jessica. I also think that Peter will get Jessica's power, and he'll see Nathan in mirrors and be able to talk to him after death. --Xmuskrat 09:21, 14 February 2007 (EST)

• See, I think it's actually "Someone flies, someone dyes", meaning Simone will "fly" when she takes up Isaac's drug habit, and will get so high she'll dye her hair purple. :) — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 09:29, 14 February 2007 (EST)
  • Hehe. Perhaps Syler Kills Nathan. Nathan Dies, and then immediately, Syler flies. --Xmuskrat 09:31, 14 February 2007 (EST)
  • That's just silly, Ryan. You know Simone isn't allowed to appear in an episode for more than 30 seconds!--Hardvice (talk) 12:59, 14 February 2007 (EST)
    • Yes, I know, but I read a spoiler that they're going to break tradition and have an entirely Simone-centric episode. Granted, most of it is just her brushing her hair and wearing black & white with red accents ... :) — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 13:34, 14 February 2007 (EST)
• I heard a rumor that, now that Natalie has won every possible Grammy under the sun, Adrian's going to retire and be a kept man.--Hardvice (talk) 13:41, 14 February 2007 (EST)

Military

Could someone remind me why Nathan apears in the Military cat ? Thanks a lot. --FrenchFlo(talk)(contribs) 16:31, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

• It was mentioned that he had served in the Military in one of his campaigns, see notes . -Lөvөl 16:38, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
  • His campaign video was also included as an Easter Egg on Trial By Fire. Watch it here. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 19:56, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
    • Ok, I'm pretty sure the video didn't say he fought in Bosnia, Serbia, and Rwanda. Heroe(talk) 20:24, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
      • You're right--it says "served his country" in those places. I'll fix it up now. — RyanGibsonStewart ([[User

talk:Ryangibsonstewart|talk]]) 20:28, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

couldn't it mean he served as a diplomat? since no US troops ever served in Rwanda JD 20:48, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

• Well, this is a piece a fiction, remember? Heroe(talk) 20:49, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, but that a bit pedantic since theres been no other evidence that its not set in our reality and timeline, in which case maybe Britain fought in Vietnam which makes the war buddies theories about Linderman pausible, so unless you are saying its an alternative history piece of fiction, its either a goof, or its misintepretation of the Ad. JD 22:28, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

• It says "soldier" on the screen. I think being in the army is a pretty fair assumption to make. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 21:06, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

It also says "Fighter" "Leader" and "Visionary" couldn't it be used in the sense of police officers being soldiers in the war on crime.JD 22:28, 24 March 2007 (EDT)