This wiki is a XML full dump clone of "Heroes Wiki", the main wiki about the Heroes saga that has been shut down permanently since June 1, 2020. The purpose of this wiki is to keep online an exhaustive and accurate database about the franchise.

Talk:Empathic mimicry/Archive 1

From Heroes Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive.jpg WARNING: Talk:Empathic mimicry/Archive 1 is an archive of past messages. New messages should be added to Talk:Empathic mimicry. Archive.jpg

Great layout

I think this page looks really good. It's definitely a good layout for mimicry, and can be adapted easily if we decide to do any other pages. Fantastic move! - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 16:03, 7 December 2006 (EST)


The points made in the list of examples about Mohinder's and Claude's comments are not really examples. But they are still on-show revelations about the nature of Peter's ability. Should they be moved to notes?--E rowe 23:27, 29 January 2007 (EST)

I've tried to address Peter's visions in the article. Let me know what you guys think; we can revert if it doesn't seem appropriate. --Ted C 09:39, 31 January 2007 (EST)

Yeah, you've done a nice job mentioning the visions. However, I'm not sure they are really examples of his power usage. I would keep the vision stuff to the limits section, or the notes, but not the examples. Just my opinion. - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 10:56, 31 January 2007 (EST)

Not his power!

There is no way that Peter's power is Empathy! If he is an empath he would have felt great pain around people in pain, etc. Empathy is the ability to sense emotions on a psychic level, not mimic powers. Please consider changing it to Power Mimcry or Mimcry.--The Empath 23:53, 29 January 2007 (EST)

  • Well, where did you get that definition of the power of empathy? Because, AFAIK, super powers don't exist in the real world. So the terms and definitions heroeswiki uses for them should match the terms and definitions from the show itself as much as possible. Do you have evidence from the show that his power is not empathy?--E rowe 23:56, 29 January 2007 (EST)
    • I think Empath is more of a description of a person with Peter's power than a description of the power itself. I agree that the power should be called Power Mimicry until we know exactly how the rest of it figures in. --Fcphantom 00:02, 30 January 2007 (EST)
      • I think there's a lot more to Peter's power than just mimicking other powers. His visions indicate that he connects with other characters on other levels, as well. Power mimicry is just one consequence of Peter's empathic abilities, and I've rewritten the article to reflect what we're learning. I'm also using the only term for his power that has been used in the show (unless you'd prefer I call it "Sponging" :) --Ted C 11:57, 30 January 2007 (EST)
        • Or "mosaic". My only real concern is that it's not 100% clear that Claude was referring to Peter's power, and not to Peter's personality. That, and the fact that "empathy" already has a pretty well established non-superpower meaning (not to mention an all-together different superpower meaning ... he's not Deanna Troi!) make me think it's a less-than-complete label which tends to lead to confusion. We certainly don't have to be bound by other definitions of "empathy", but we ignore them at the peril of being confusing. Heck, I'm still not 100% comfortable with "Eidetic memory", since an eidetic memory is a very real, very non-superpowered thing. It seems to me the move is either premature or not specific enough, but I'm not sure of other options. I agree "empathic power mimicry" is too restrictive. Howabout something like "Empathic resonance"? We need something that makes enough of a distinction from plain old personality trait empathy (and traditional superhero empathy) without being too specific so as to lock us into an unexplored corner.--Hardvice (talk) 12:57, 30 January 2007 (EST)

I have done alot of research on comic book powers and the desrciption of empathy is like I said. Here is a link to a page that has all the comic book powers1. Read the one on Empathy and Power Mimicry. And yes, the evidence is that Peter himself stated that he mimics powers not that he can read emotions. FYI, Evidence of Empathy portrayed accurately on TV would be Charmed Season 3 episode "Primrose Empath" and most of Charmed Season 6.--The Empath 00:04, 30 January 2007 (EST)

  • That wikipedia article on comic book powers and the Charmed episode both have nothing to do with Heroes. And we don't just have the label Claude used, we also have comments from people associated with the show off screen. I don't see anything wrong with using either label for now and having a redirect from the other one. But letting non-Heroes sources trump Heroes sources for defining elements of Heroes won't work.--E rowe 10:04, 30 January 2007 (EST)
    • And you're the official word on this because why? As a more "real world" definition, try the Webster's Dictionary: "meta" = beyond, ie "metahuman" = beyond human. --Yoshie 17:24, 30 January 2007 (EST)
      • I get the impression E rowe wasn't referring to the WP article on "metahuman", but the WP article that's a list of superpowers. Let's try to keep it civil.--Hardvice (talk) 17:29, 30 January 2007 (EST)
      • No need to be harsh, here... Metahuman is not a real word (though it makes a lot of sense). Here at Heroes Wiki, we've been using "evolved humans". It's all made up by fans, anyway. And we need to remember that Tim Kring has made it very public that he is not a "comic book guy", and purposely stays away from the genre so he remains unaffected by popular comic book themes and ideas. - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 17:35, 30 January 2007 (EST)
        • Well, the show's fiction, so the "real word" argument doesn't really apply. I'm all for going with the majority on what we're going to call the abilities since that's who should be making the overall decision. So if it's "evolved humans", then cool!--Yoshie 20:16, 30 January 2007 (EST)
          • Sorry. I was late noticing this comment. I wasn't referring to "metahuman" here. But we did have a brief exchange about that word at another location in heroeswiki. In that other discussion I wasn't dogmatically objecting to the term "metahuman," just asking where it comes from and if it was being used properly. If DC comics is already using the term, then I can't complain if someone else follows suit. But, I must admit that I'm glad we aren't officially using it here because I really don't think the prefix "meta-" works in this case. When "meta-" takes the meaning of "beyond" is when it is prefixed to a word referring to a discipline or subject so as to describe another level of discussion about underlying issues of the subject itself. A much better word than "metahuman" would be the old standby of "superhuman," which is a real word and uses the prefix properly since "super" in the sense of "beyond" is used to describe things that go beyond in scope or quality or rank and the like.--E rowe 17:08, 25 February 2007 (EST)
    • I have a real problem calling Peter's power "empathy". Empathy is a character trait, not a superpower. If we want to include empathy in the title of his power, that's fine (maybe something like "emapathetic power mimicry"), but just calling it "empathy" is really misusing the term, in my opinion. - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 11:03, 30 January 2007 (EST)
  • Is there a reson why we can't assume that Claude was refering to Peter's wanting to save everyone as his "empathy" rather than his ability, of which Claude knows almost nothing (and thus would likely not try to define just yet)?- Yoshie (talk) 11:08, 30 January 2007 (EST)
    • I gathered that Claude already knows more about Peter's power than Peter does. His empath line wasn't the only clue to that. I agree that the word "empathy" by itself has a normal meaning that does not connote any kind of super power. But I think the normal canons of data should dictate how each of the powers is defined. One of the ways his power resembles the character trait of empathy is that, thus far it has been passively stimulated by those around him. This is something that the word "empathy" entails and the word "mimicry" does not. I do think a more precise term like "empathetic power mimicry" is a really good way to cover the bases too.
      • Good ideas for names ... but I think we should just go back to "Power mimicry" until we find out more about how empathy plays into his power. Claude is bound to teach him, and we're bound to learn more about it - let's just wait. In the meantime, let's go back to micicry - that's still, technically, what it is. - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 13:02, 30 January 2007 (EST)

Ok, I know that Charmed has nothing do to with Heroes but those episodes are acurrate portayals of Empathy. Also, the power in this show are based on comic book type powers. Claude was probably refering to the regualar meaning of Empathy not the super powered meaning. I suggest that, let's have a vote to change the name back to Mimicry or to keep it the same.--The Empath 15:47, 30 January 2007 (EST)

Whoa - we need to realize that there's no such thing as an accurate portayals of a power, since, well, they don't exist in real life. Plus, we need to remember that Tim Kring has stated he's never really read comic books, and doesn't know much about the world of comics. Referencing other comics and shows about the supernatural is really quite a pointless argument. ... Okay, sorry for the rant, I just want to keep us grounded. That said, I vote to change it back to power mimicry until we find out more about how empathy factors in. - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 15:51, 30 January 2007 (EST)
  • I tend to agree. We're not bound by how any show or source but Heroes does things (look at Matt's telepathy versus most other depictions of telepathy). That said, I also think that while it's clear that empathy factors in to Peter's power, it's not a very good name for his power.--Hardvice (talk) 15:57, 30 January 2007 (EST)
I won't fight to keep it right now, but I seriously think that mimicry is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg, here. --Ted C 15:55, 30 January 2007 (EST)
  • I totally agree: more is going on. But more is going on than "normal" empathy. Too soon to say with any certainty.--Hardvice (talk) 15:57, 30 January 2007 (EST)
  • Empathy covers part of it and mimicry covers part of it, but neither covers it all. At least one definition of telepathy would cover both, but then Matt and Peter would have the same power, which they defiantly don't. Matt's could be telepathic communication and Peter's telepathic connection, but that would be confusing. -Level 16:35, 30 January 2007 (EST)
    • I wasn't suggesting we change his power to telepathy. I was pointing out an example of where Heroes powers deviate significantly from other source's powers.--Hardvice (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2007 (EST)
      • I know you weren't, I kind of was, but not really. I meant Peter's powers fit some definitions of telepathy, and Matt's fits the current most common definition, but not the original (we probably don't want to change his power though, unless it was something like Telecommunication ;) -joke). I was also trying to come up with a better name. Maybe "Remote adaptation" or something like that? -Level 17:14, 30 January 2007 (EST)
        • I don't really think that would work either. That would imply that he can change himself physically, like Darwin from Marvel. I say just keep it Empathic mimicry. Heroe 17:19, 25 February 2007 (EST)


Anyone catch how far Peter was from Claude when he reappeared? Seems we now know the "range" of Peter's sponging ability (at least the automatic side).--Yoshie 12:54, 30 January 2007 (EST)

  • Also note the use of the word "sponge". It makes me think that Peter's power is a power-storage mechanism that charges up the longer he stays in contact with someone else w/ powers. Which makes me wonder if he got sick because he "charged up" being too close to Sylar, Claire, Nathan (and Mr. Bennet) in Odessa. And with a charge, there is a storage and discharge. One of the theories is he still retains pieces of the powers of everyone he has ever been in contact with... --Orne 17:30, 30 January 2007 (EST)


Change to Mimicry

  1. The Empath 15:58, 30 January 2007 (EST)
  2. Hardvice (talk) 16:14, 30 January 2007 (EST)
  3. - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 17:39, 30 January 2007 (EST)

Keep it Empathy

  1. Ted C 16:04, 30 January 2007 (EST)


  • unless we can come up with a better option ... both are underinclusive--Hardvice (talk) 16:14, 30 January 2007 (EST)
  • You could always go with option "C", which would fit the narrow POV I'm reading above. Until each power is specifically named in canon, why not call them "power to copy other powers" or "power to control fire". It's pretty lame BUT goes along with what was stated a half-dozen times above. If you plan to only go by what is stated in canon, then you should go in 100%.--Yoshie 17:29, 30 January 2007 (EST)
    • I think you're missing the point they're trying to make (and please keep in mind that I agree with you): it's not that we should ignore other sources, it's that we're not bound by them. I agree with that completely -- some powers in Heroes are quite different from similar powers in other works. I don't think anybody's suggesting that we should flat-out refuse to label powers until they're labeled in canon (and if you honestly think anyone is saying that, then you're being deliberately obtuse). I think they're suggesting that canon sources should outweigh non-canon sources, which is true. I think "induced radioactivity" sounds pretty stupid, but we're stuck with it. That said, I don't think we've heard Peter's power referred to as empathy in the show, so the argument, while valid, is in my opinion not relevant. In the absence of a canon name for it, we should call it something that covers what we've seen without implying too much that we don't know. In my opinion, neither "Power mimicry" nor "empathy" really cuts it, but "power mimicry" is at least underinclusive, while "empathy" is downright misleading—yes, based on non-canon sources.--Hardvice (talk) 17:42, 30 January 2007 (EST)
  • I say change it to mimicry until we receive more info. - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 17:39, 30 January 2007 (EST)
    • And soon. It bothers me on so many levels that grown adults are getting worked up to the point of sniping at each other over the fictional name of a fictional character's fictional superpower. Can't we all just get along?--Hardvice (talk) 17:47, 30 January 2007 (EST)
      • LOL thats why I started this vote and i'm a teenager not an adult. But you can call me a "young adult" (sound better). :-)--The Empath 18:11, 30 January 2007 (EST)
      • We'd all get along if only we all had more power mimicry empathy for each other. :) - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 18:28, 30 January 2007 (EST)
        • I vote for power mimicry! Heroe 18:57, 30 January 2007 (EST)
    • I really have no preference for how we should name the ability, as I think both of the above names fit well. It might do well to leave it at least until next week however, when it looks like Claude will be giving Peter's ability a thorough test-drive.. and us a better insight into what exactly it's capable of.--Yoshie 20:18, 30 January 2007 (EST)
  • I pretty much agree that it stretches the ordinary meaning of "empathy" too much to use it as the name of a super power. But I think it could be used with a modifier (Eg. It's not enough to call Spleen's power "flatulence" in Mystery Men; but "superordinary flatulence" just might cover it). Tim Kring said Peter's power was based on his empathy here. And I can't see Claude's comment as a reference to anything other than Peter's ability (apparently I'm in the minority on that). So, if the power name doesn't account for these points, at least something in the description should. And there should probably be a redirect from "empathy" to whatever his power is.--E rowe 22:08, 30 January 2007 (EST)
    • I'm with you on both accounts, that it's based on empathy, and that a form of the word "empathy" should probably qualify the power. I don't think anybody is saying that Claude was referring to something completely different, but (speaking for myself now) he never did say it was the name of the power. In the end, it's a character trait. It's a trait that Peter uses to access his power, or augment it, or whatever. ... And a redirect will be automatic when the page is moved. - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2007 (EST)
    • Just rewatched the episode, and to add fuel to the fire, Mohinder calls it mimicking. So we have Claude calling him an empath and Mohinder calling him a mimic. Maybe we should just go with "Empathic mimicry"? :) --Hardvice (talk) 00:21, 31 January 2007 (EST)
      • Yes, yes. Just change it and be done with it :) ... (or we could have another vote? hehehe.) - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 00:25, 31 January 2007 (EST)
        • We should change it to something really awful, like "Loretta Lynn manipulation", and see if we can get people's heads to explode.--Hardvice (talk) 00:27, 31 January 2007 (EST)
          • Loretta Lynn — man, you are like the king of non sequiturs. - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 01:17, 31 January 2007 (EST)
            • I can see it now: "Peter Petrelli possesses the superhuman ability to control fluffy-haired old-school female country-and-western singers. The exact limits of his power are unknown; to date, he has only been able to affect Loretta Lynn, but it's possible he may also be able to affect Tammy Wynette."--Hardvice (talk) 01:21, 31 January 2007 (EST)
  • Does anybody else think "mimicry" implies a deliberate action on Peter's part? Wouldn't something like "power conformity" reflect the passive aspect better? It would also incorporate the aspect of his empathy more smoothly.
    • I kind of prefer "power absorption", but that's what we were originally calling Sylar's power theft - changing it would require a bunch of manual edits. Ugh. - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2007 (EST)

Making the move

(sorry, I had to start a new thread) Okay, well, I the majority of the comments I read were in support of changing the power to something other than empathy. I haven't seen a conclusive yes or no on the actual name. I'm going to change it to "empathic mimicry". I don't like it very much, but it's better than plain "empathy". It also combines the two factions, so it's a win-win for everybody (here's hoping!). - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 12:43, 31 January 2007 (EST)

  • I have to say, I really like this solution. It doesn't even feel like a compromise since it seems much better than either option alone--it covers both the how and the what. But I was really hoping for "Loretta Lynn manipulation".--Hardvice (talk) 13:36, 31 January 2007 (EST)
    • I'm glad you like the solution. If I recall, um, it was yours. And, for the record, "LLM" better describes Sylar's power than Peter's. :) - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 14:39, 31 January 2007 (EST)
      • Well, yes, it was mine, but, uh, I was kidding.--Hardvice (talk) 14:54, 31 January 2007 (EST)
    • Should've just gone with "Dolly Parton mimicry" to settle it once and for all. --Ted C 14:04, 31 January 2007 (EST)
      • Dolly Parton mimicry? Did I miss somthing? I had school. I concur with the name Empathic Mimicry. Tell me what you think of the desriciption of the power I added.--The Empath 15:59, 31 January 2007 (EST)

Range: Claire vs. Claude

The limits for this power mention that Peter was much further away from Claire when he healed than when he became invisible around Claude. (convoluted sentence, sorry) I'm not really buying that - I don't think Peter started to heal until Claire was right there. It's also hard to tell the difference between the distances because of angles and off-screen action. I say we stike the specifics about the distance, and leave it a bit more vague until we find out something more concrete. (The reference to his precognition is a bit more concrete, though.) Thoughts? — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 03:03, 1 February 2007 (EST)

  • I think it's sufficient to say that the range and duration seems to vary from power to power. He duped Isaac the next day, but has stopped duping Claude almost immediately. His range with Claude is very, very limited, but if he did dupe Future Hiro then he started quite a bit before FH arrived. It's all very confusing ATM.--Hardvice (talk) 03:07, 1 February 2007 (EST)
  • I was thinking the same thing. I think part of Peter's healing came from the fact that Claire was near him immediately before he fell to the ground (watched Homecoming again tonight; it was literally seconds) and then she came back. Peter's "absorption" is still very unclear, especially in the sense that he may be using the power without even realizing it (back to the passive vs. active argument, I know). Peter didn't realize Claude was invisible, and I don't think he even realized he himself was initially. I think it's a distance vs. time sort of thing. --ZyberGoat 03:11, 1 February 2007 (EST)
    • Again with the sponges... it's like Peter's power meter "fills up" when he's near other evolved humans, and when it hits a certain level, the power activates. Likewise, Peter retains the other person's power once he's come in contact with it... There is a spoiler pic out there that seems to confirm this. In a way, he really is an Evil Sylar. --Orne 09:51, 1 February 2007 (EST)
      • That makes a great deal of sense. Since Claude's power seems to be always on, Peter would be wringing out the sponge just as fast as he was filling it. With Isaac, he doesn't have a precognitive episode until he's relaxed and has a pencil in his hand, so there's still enough juice left the next day for a subpar prophetic drawing. With Claire, he doesn't need to heal until he's hurt, so he has enough juice to survive the fall, and then soaks up enough when she returns to finish the job.--Hardvice (talk) 13:04, 1 February 2007 (EST)
        • Something you said reminded me of a thought I had earlier today (during class, but who needs to think that deeply about literary criticism?) until he's relaxed ... I think there's a reason the show, and especially Claude, identifies him as an Empath, and why we can't just call his power mimicry. Peter's powers seem to be very connected to his emotions (though this seems to be a general statement about all the specials - their powers tend to emerge/function/respond most when at an emotional point). Peter flew out of fear when Nathan saved him, then out of anger when Nathan confronted him on the roof of the hospital. Claude was walking away from Peter, he felt defeated, so to speak, in his attempt to convince him to help; therefore, his invisibility faded. It seems reasonable to assume Claude's met an Empath before, and knows more about their ability than Peter does. It's not so much that Claude will help Peter train himself, but to control his emotional link to his ability. --ZyberGoat 13:12, 1 February 2007 (EST)
          • Spot on assessment! Heroes borrows from all that is great about Lost: it's a character-driven show, with lots of fun ancillary action and mystery. The powers we see are very connected to who these people are. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 17:34, 1 February 2007 (EST)


  • There is now strong evidence that Peter's ability is more spongelike (As Suresh said) than previously known. When he was thrown off a building in a test to try and fly again, he was unable to harness the ability~ but when he fell on a taxi cab and was presumeably dead from the force, he easily pulled his impaled body out of the car's wreckage, and begins healing quickly. Knowing that Claire is still in Texas, this implies that his comment of "remembering how he felt about her" helped him grasp the power and made it active again.

    Upon realizing this amazing collection of abilities he had gained, (Painter, flying, healing, invisibility, mind-reading, Time-space manipulation, possibly others [he was near Sylar @ Homecoming, and possibly The Haitian, when in jail, speaking to Claire]), he suddenly relapses into what appears to be a simultaneous activation of several of them. Before this overload becomes what he fears the most (that it could be the preordained explosion), Clyde punches him in the face, knocking him out, citing satisfaction, "It's a start". This brings up the distinct possibility that he is the polar opposite of Sylar, although they both can collect powers, Sylar's method is ridiculously more violent. --Duuude007

    • Duuude007 - What you've written is more of a synopsis of events than an analysis of the power. I brought it hear to discussion so it won't get lost. It probably belongs under the episode synopsis, since it's as much a narrative of events as anything else. --Ted C 11:51, 6 February 2007 (EST)
  • So.... that pretty much was the best example of Peter's true capabilities so far. So how does that change our naming controversy? In a way, Peter also has power absorbtion, but he manifests the powers through an "empathic" connection with the people he has met, while Sylar has no empathy and feels he must "analyze" his prey to activate the powers he has absorbed. Of course, even "absorbtion" may not be the correct word, since I seem to recall that Mohinder made a reference that Peter already had all of the DNA for all of the powers in him, and it was just a matter of him learning how to activate them. --Orne 12:53, 6 February 2007 (EST) (Note: didn't see the other section when I wrote this)
    • Oooh, I really don't want to start that whole conversation about the power name again. :) I think empathic memory still fits the bill better than anything else we've seen — Peter mimics powers, and he can use empathy to access them. I do, however, think that the Limits section needs to be updated with some of Claude's words from the first 5 minutes (calling Ted C, our resident powers man!) — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 18:27, 6 February 2007 (EST)
      • Gah! I don't have TIVO! I don't remember exactly what Claude said! *panic* --Ted C 19:45, 6 February 2007 (EST)
        • I'll see what I can work on for you, Ted. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 20:58, 6 February 2007 (EST)
          • Characters in the show tend to describe Peter as "absorbing" powers rather than "mimicking" them. We are now using both terms in the article, but we may want to shift toward "absorb" if that's what we keep hearing in the show. --Ted C 15:02, 7 February 2007 (EST)
            • I agree. I don't think we need to go through and make any site-wide changes, but just sort of start using the word absorb in favor of mimic (though I still would rather use the link mimic to pipe, just because it's short and easy to remember). — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 15:10, 7 February 2007 (EST)
    • If anything, I think this episode shows we made the right choice. He uses his empathy with others to mimic their powers. Hooray us.--Hardvice (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2007 (EST)
      • Don't pull a muscle patting yourself on the back, there, Hardvice! :) — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 20:58, 6 February 2007 (EST)

Does mimicry equal acquisition?

So the question is, does Peter hold the powers he mimics? He certainly absorbs them, and is now learning to recall them even when others are not around. They are not his original powers. However, since we're saying Sylar holds the powers he steals, I personally think the same should apply for the powers that Peter absorbs. Other thoughts? — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 04:30, 20 February 2007 (EST)

  • One of the easier things to do would be to change the powers infobox to "originally held by" and "acquired by". — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 04:33, 20 February 2007 (EST)
  • I think there is a distinction between Sylar acquiring powers and Peter mimicking them. It appears that when Sylar acquires the powers, he has access to them as if they were in-born. Peter has the extra step of "calling up" the power. The example I used on the other talk page illustrates the importance of this distinction: Peter needs to be able to think of Claire to regenerate. If he was unexpectedly shot in the back of the head, he might not be able to access regeneration. If Sylar killed Claire and took her power, presumably he would automatically regenerate just like she does. To me, it just feels wrong to say Peter has acquired the power. He's acquired the ability to mimic it, but that's not really the same thing.--Hardvice (talk) 04:41, 20 February 2007 (EST)
    • But that's just it -- it's presumed that Sylar would automatically regenerate. I think the only difference between the two is time and experience. Who knows what extra steps Sylar has to take -- or if Peter is becoming more independent in his "calling up" ability. I say if he can access the power without somebody else there, he has acquired that power. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 04:53, 20 February 2007 (EST)
      • See here for the discussion.

The dreams and visions... my new theory.

Well we know both Petrelli brothers have powers... Peters specifically being Empathic Mimicry and Nathans flight, but these dreams are coming from something. Micah has a power because of his parents, as does Claire. ...Maybe Peter is getting this power from his "deceased" father, or possibly even his mother? Maybe he mimicked the ability to have these precognitive dreams? Like his newfound powers, maybe he was just passively re-calling the ability each time he had the dreams?--Riddler 13:03, 20 February 2007 (EST)

  • We now know Peter's dreams aren't particularly accurate predictions. He sees Simone alive and well in his dreams (until he explodes, of course), so there's already at least one major variation from reality in them. --Ted C 09:32, 21 February 2007 (EST)

Paint Cans

Umm... is there any confirmation that Peter, while invisible, threw paint cans at Isaac with telekinesis? How can you tell when you can't see Peter to know if he's using TK or just his hands? --Ted C 09:31, 21 February 2007 (EST)

  • I don't know of any proof that he threw them telekinetically. I remember when I was writing the synopsis I left out any mention of telekinesis because since he was invisible I had no way of knowing for certain. I dont think it's going to be possible to prove reliably that he did it using telekinesis unless they come out and say so in an interview or something. Any references to him throwing the cans telekinetically should probably be taken out for now. (Admin 09:35, 21 February 2007 (EST))

Eden's Power

I feel that it was very obvious that Peter used Eden's power. His demonic voice quality, though slightly different, did persuade Isaac to tell the truth.

  • He may have used persuasion, but it's not obvious. Listen carefully to Eden's voice and Peter's yell -- they do sound different. However, even if Peter did use Eden's power, we also have no evidence that Isaac ever followed Peter's order. It's mentioned in the notes, and since it's speculation, that's where it belongs. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 10:35, 21 February 2007 (EST)
    • Yeah, the voice effect is totally different plus when Eden uses her power it has always in the past induced a type of hypnotic compliance. When Peter tells him not to lie to him it's because of Isaac's comment about the mark on his neck not meaning anything. Subsequently they argue over Simone. The scene and dialogue is driven by their fight for Simone. The change in Peter's voice was more likely for dramatic effect much like the scene where they slowed down Sylar and his voice was deeper (which also had people thinking it was Eden's power originally). (Admin 10:38, 21 February 2007 (EST))
      • I think that is clearly MORE obvious than saying that Peter slowed or stopped time. It seemed that Peter more likely used Telekinesis to stop the darts, but y'all say that space-time manipulation is a definite when I would say it is in fact a theory. Guy 10:54, 21 February 2007 (EST)
        • Well, if the issue is Peter stopping time now, the bulk of that discussion is [[Talk:Episode:Unexpected#Peter_stopping_time|here]]. The long and short of it: the same sound and visual effects are employed when Peter stops the tasers as when Hiro stops time. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 11:02, 21 February 2007 (EST)
        • Edens listen portion is when she is whispering and Peter is shouting, plus Eden has a more feminine tone than Peter (for obvious reasons) But when she tells Sylar to kill himself she uses a much different tone that sounds more similar to Peter's distortion in the last episode. Guy 11:00, 21 February 2007 (EST)
          • There's still no evidence Peter used persuasion. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 11:02, 21 February 2007 (EST)
            • The Fans at 9thWonders have already concluded this already. ( 11:09, 21 February 2007 (EST)
              • That link isn't working for me. However, with all due respect to the fans at 9thWonders, they're not a canonical source. Even if Milo Ventimiglia said something like, "Oh, I think I use Eden's power at this point" in a commentary, it still wouldn't be canon. It'd be more noteworthy, but not proof. In the end, there's no proof. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 11:13, 21 February 2007 (EST)
                • I think he's referring to Peter stopping time. That appears to be what the posting there is about. They came to the same conclusion we did for, that Peter did indeed stop time. Though there is some discussion there as to whether people believe Peter used Eden's power, but nothing conclusive. (Admin 11:15, 21 February 2007 (EST))
                  • No, because during that shot, Claude continued to squirm at a normal speed, not stop, therefore Peter did not stop or manipulate time, he used telekinesis to stop the darts, slash tazer, I just watched it again, and I thought I was wrong about this, because the coils of the tazers are steady in the air, so I was just about to consent until I saw Claude quivering and squirming at normal speed while they were suspended in the air. Also if he would have stopped time, he would have to move the darts by hand because they would still have momentum. Also there were no air ripples like that of the bullets that Hiro have stopped. I hold to the fact that Peter did not stop time. Why are you guys canonical sources and Milo Ventimiglia wouldn't be? I guess I would ask that space time manipulation be entered into speculation as a compromise. Please, I think it is less intuitive than Eden's power, but if both were speculation since neither completely, absolutely, happened. Guy 19:39, 21 February 2007 (EST)
                    • Only the episodes are canon. Which is a little odd, because you're right: the level of debate itself seems enough to say that the episode itself wasn't particularly clear as to whether Peter used S-T M. I'm not sure why we aren't treating this as unconfirmed, especially when we are treating things that are a lot clearer (like Simone's death) as unconfirmed.--Hardvice (talk) 19:46, 21 February 2007 (EST)
                    • I don't think it can be clearly inferred that Claude is moving at "normal" speed, even. It appears as though he's moaning, and it doesn't look much like he's moving at regular speed. He's hardly even in the shot as it is, and even if he is, it could be due to the fact that Peter's touching him (or so it appears). So everything appears... --ZyberGoat 20:44, 21 February 2007 (EST)
                    • OK. There's already a discussion elsewhere about Peter stopping time. But since this one has gotten to this point, I guess it's worth responding here. I see what you mean about Claude moving. But I want to make a couple observations. When Peter first stops time (as I see it) Claude doesn't noticeably move; but it might appear that he does, since Peter's arm is holding him and Peter keeps moving, so at this point it is either a perspectival thing or Peter is causing Claude's motion. After a couple seconds, time starts back up (as I see it) and we see Claude clearly start to move independently along with the darts and wires moving without progressing forward because (as I see it) at this point it is his TK that is keeping them there until he lets them fall. But I'm still compeletely convinced that those first few seconds of the sound stopping and the wires becoming completely motionless while the camera moves around them is S-T M, not TK. And I think it's worth remembering that Peter already acquired and used S-T M when he met future Hiro. We haven't seen him show evidence of acquiring Eden's power or even being around it in use.--E rowe 21:28, 21 February 2007 (EST)