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:Power absorption/Archive 1

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

Validity of part of the article

In the article it states that Peter was not touching Arthur when Peter's power was stolen, however it did look like their cheeks were touching which would disprove that statement. Oct 20, 10:30 Pacific time, Machiavelli

  • I agree. I think the 'works through the shirt' part of the article is inaccurate. Seb.gwirionyn 01:33, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
  • In addition to that, something interesting I noted was that most of the white light from Peter's body came from his face. (and went into Arthur's head) Sincerely, Thrashmeister [ U | T | C ] 19:18, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
  • Didn't he absorb hiro's power and the catalyst through his shirt?Gamerelite1 23:10, 7 November 2009 (EST)

Name

Current suggestions:

  • Aura absorption
  • Ability absorption
  • Ability drain
  • Ability theft
  • Power Absorption
  • Power theft

Alas... the inevitable name debate. Personally, I think that Arthur's power is aura absorption, though he can control his ability so that he doesn't necessarily kill people with it. Sincerely, Thrashmeister [ U | T | C ] 22:31, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

  • As much I think it might be that as well, we of course won't be able to call it that without confirmation.--Aburu 22:32, 20 October 2008 (EDT)
  • It isn't aura absorption. The beings that Linda used her ability on did not turn to dust and could not live after she absorbed their aura and ability. ~~ Darmenos 21:36, 20 October 2008.
    • I said this on the episode talk page too. There do exist variations of abilities. Arthur's could be a more sophisticated and honed aura absorption. As for Adam turning to dust (I assume that's what you're referencing, but I'm not sure since I didn't catch that part), he took his ability of rapid cell regeneration, meaning that all of his 400 years caught up to him in one instant, which would cause anyone to turn to dust. Besides, Peter didn't turn to dust, did he? Sincerely, Thrashmeister [ U | T | C ] 22:41, 20 October 2008 (EDT)
  • I think it is Ability Theft, because killing the person comes with the power of aura absorption. Ability Theft involves taking the persons ability and everything that came with it, i.e. Adam Monroe's long life was taken when Arthur took his ability. With Ability Theft you wouldn't kill the person unless they benifited from the power through extensive live or other things.
    • Very true, I second Ability Theft. On a side note, it's refreshing to still have a character that's a danger for Claire...--Aburu 22:40, 20 October 2008 (EDT)
    • Do you mind signing your posts from now on, Sylarversion2? But anyway, I agree with you as well. If it's not aura absorption after all, ability theft would be my second choice. Which further supports my claim that ability theft as it is now should be moved, but that's another story. Sincerely, Thrashmeister [ U | T | C ] 22:41, 20 October 2008 (EDT)
      • While we're on the subject, shouldn't the notes for this power go in Arthur's Theories section instead? It sounds like speculation instead of an actual note on the powers--Plot Device 22:59, 20 October 2008 (EDT)
        • Someone keeps readding it. Just to avoid edit warring, I edited the note so that it resembles the note under Future Ando's ability about lightning. Sincerely, Thrashmeister [ U | T | C ] 23:09, 20 October 2008 (EDT)
      • It's not ability theft. Because he would've stolen Angela's ability to dream the future when he touched her. Its the same power as Linda but Arthur has much more control over his power.Titan3510 23:17, 20 October 2008 (EDT)
        • He didn't actually touch her, that was a dream. (Admin 23:20, 20 October 2008 (EDT))
        • Even if he did touch her and didn't steal her power, he did steal Adam's and Peter's powers. Still theft to me. Sincerely, Thrashmeister [ U | T | C ] 23:22, 20 October 2008 (EDT)
  • I, er, also support the name Ability Theft. Though I'm not quite sure how that fits what happened with Angela...--Golden Monkey 23:54, 20 October 2008 (EDT)
    • Perhaps that's another ability he absorbed some time previously. If he has absorbed telepathy, he could enter her dream and use it to paralyze her mentally. JackOfBloodyHearts 00:31, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
      • Also, what happened to her in the dream could have been Maury. While we've seen Angela block telepaths before, Maury caught her while she had her guard down and was sleeping. She's now in a similar coma to the one Molly was in. --Plot Device 00:35, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
        • Not quite the same as Molly. Molly was unconscious. Angela is wide-awake. It seems more likely to me that it would be Arthur instead of Maury. Why have a lackey deliver such a personal message to his wife in his guise if he could do it himself (that is to say he's taken on telepathy)? JackOfBloodyHearts 00:38, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
          • I hate to assume anything at this point this season as the writers are playing fast and loose with the characters, but I'd assume the first person we've seen Arthur steal a power from since his "suicide" was Adam. I can't see him needing Maury if he was that powerful a telepath himself.--Plot Device 00:53, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
      • I think it's likely going to end up being ability theft. We know he takes the powers of the other person, and that they no longer have them, and that it requires physical contact. That said, leaving it as Arthur's ability until we get more information is fine too. --Stevehim 00:49, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
        • I prefer ability absorption, which implies the ability is removed from the original holder and seperates Arthur's ability from Sylar using his ability to steal other people's. Seb.gwirionyn 01:03, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
      • First off, doesn't it seam logical to assume that this is actually the same power that Peter has?. Just like Matt inherited his powers from his father is it not safe to assume that peter has the same abilities? Possibly Peter will one day be able to 'steal' powers as well. Now what your thinking is, why didn't he just borrow the power's of regeneration from Adam?. Well honestly Arthur is a bad bad guy... He was probably going to kill Adam anyway and the actual theft of abilities may only be possible through contact. It seams that most of the abilities that actually intrude on to others abilities in a serious way involve contact. Just like Maya and Alejandro who had to make contact to actually affect each other or like the people who exhibit Aura Absorbtion. Interestingly it seams that people like Peter who borrow or steal powers can actually lose those powers during a traumatic event, like Peter getting his memory wiped. That's why when he woke up in Europe he seamed powerless. The same could be said for Arthur. He certainly looks like he as been through some serious trauma -- Sarsar

I love this serie, seeing Arthur in action it totally suprised me! Yeah... the name... he had to hold Peter to steel his ability, now i'm not presuming he stole his "Empathic Mimicry" and i also don't think he stole his "Intuitive Aptitude". These are the names i came up with: Ability Absorption (he totally absorbed Peter's abilities). Aura Absorption (close proximity) othing r Ability Theft (using some nasty way. -- Futurepeter 06:13, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

    • Here's the thing, types of ability sometimes run in the family, i.e. Matt and Maurey, however an exception is Claire (from Nathan and whatsherface) - but as Nathan's ability was synthetic, we cannot draw any conclusion. Now looking at Sylar and Peter, both sons of Authur, I assume. They all have ways of getting more abilities. Authur steals them, Sylar finds out how they work and Peter mimics them. What do people think of this - am I on the right path d'ya think? Rob Riv 07:44, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
  • My two cents worth on the naming debate: barring any official word on the matter, I think I would go with Ability drain. This reflects the fact that when he gains an ability, the person from whom he got it loses it. Links to ability theft would certainly be relevant. Obviously, this power differs from Sylar's, since he doesn't have to kill his victim or remove his victim's brain. It's quite similar to Peter's ability -- which makes sense, given the familial relationship -- except for taking the ability instead of duplicating it. --Ted C 09:41, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
    • I vote for ability draining as the name; absorption is used elsewhere on the site and so using it here could be quite confusing and misleading. Draining also implies that it's leeched out of something as well, in a way that absorption doesn't. Photolysis 09:51, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
    • That's why there's a debate on whether what Sylar does is still ability theft. I'm volleying to have it moved and I support Ability theft for Arthur's ability. Sincerely, Thrashmeister [ U | T | C ] 12:25, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
    • As far as the genetic comparison, where do we ever learn that Sylar is Arthur's son? All we know is that Angela is his mother, he could have a different father. Or is it stated somewhere in the show that Arthur is Sylar's father?--Fortunefaded 10:33, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
      • As far as I've heard, it's only been stated in a promo ("The father of three heroes [shows Peter, Nathan, and Sylar]") JackOfBloodyHearts 10:56, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
        • "Now looking at Sylar and Peter, both sons of Authur, I assume." I said, assuming that to be the case, as my ideas would make sense then. --Rob Riv 11:13, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
        • They repeated ("The father of three heroes [shows Peter, Nathan, and Sylar]") in the opening of Dying of the Light, which I would think makes it official now. GabrielPetrelli 15:06, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
          • User:Shadowulf1 15:32, 21 October 2008 (EDT) clearly this is absorption, as it absorbs powers. Thus it is power absorption. How much closer to literal interpretation can you get?
            • Agreed. I personally feel it's speculation to assume it's not aura absorption. Also, in the novel, when Linda uses that ability, it could be that the woman who's aura she absorbed died from the shock of the process of having her aura taken away (Peter yells in pain as his father absorbs his ability). TheEvilNoob 17:50, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
            • I don't think it can be argued that it's not absorption. But theft would be a better description of his ability than absorption, imho. Sincerely, Thrashmeister [ U | T | C ] 19:16, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
  • It makes sense for it to be Ability Theft because if you combine Sylar's and Peter's abilities that's what you get. Nathan's power doesnt count, it was artificial. Also does anyone know how Arthur was communicating with Adam? It looked like Maury's ability but Maury still has his ability. Lastly sorry for not signing my last post. --Sylarversion2 18:08, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
  • We're working on getting an interview with Chuck Kim, the writer of Dying of the Light, so this is a question that could be asked. Stay tuned, it will be announced at the top of the site once it's setup. (Admin 20:07, 21 October 2008 (EDT))
  • Guys, just a question in name choices but what are the differences between Ability Theft and Ability Drain? To me ability theft seems to suggest the power to take a person's ability, but not permanently like in the case of Rogue from X-Men. Ability Drain, on the other hand, sounds more accurate of Arthur's powers because Peter is stripped clean of his abilities, as well as Adam Monroe. Should both these names be there on the list, or should one of them go from the suggestions? -- Underfate 15:16, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
    • To my thinking, Ability theft is an event occurs in which an ability possessed by one person is transferred to another person; how this occurs is irrelevant. Ability drain is an evolved human ability to specifically commit ability theft. Sylar can also commit ability theft, but the victim usually loses the power by dying, since his method is fatal to almost everyone. --Ted C 11:07, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
      • I disagree, the term "drain" seems to imply that the person "using" Ability Drain could cause another person to simply lose their power. Think of it this way: Ability Theft combines Ability Absorption (Empathic Mimicry being a form of absorption) with Ability Drain (The Haitian's Mental Manipulation is a temporary form of drain). Since Arthur performs BOTH of these actions, I submit the more accurate of Drain and Theft is Theft. Ricard Desi 14:50, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
      • We've got to get off the mentality that ability theft in the Heroes universe is always a consequence of an ability, and never an actual ability. Ability theft describes Arthur's ability perfectly, and as Ricard Desi said, it combines drain and absorption. While both descriptions are accurate, theft is the best out of all three. I even prefer ability theft to aura absorption now. Sincerely, Thrashmeister [ U | T | C ] 18:14, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
        • Actually, Ability Theft and Power Absorption are the same thing. To absorb something from somewhere, you take the something, and the something is no longer present in the somewhere. If a sponge absorbs water from off a table-top, then the water is no longer on the table-top. In the same way, Arthur absorbs abilities - the abilities are no longer there. So Ability theft is the same as Power absorption, but since Ability Theft is already used for another page, I think this page should stay as Power absorption. Furthermore, it can't be Ability Drain, since that does not cover the "taking the abilities for himself" bit, and it can't be Aura Absorption, since that would imply taking a person's aura, or life force, and rendering them dead, and that is obviously not the case. And it can't be Empathic mimicry either, since that would imply that Arthur mimics the abilities, and that the original possessors of the abilities would still have them. So, I think that Power Absorption is the best choice. Radicell 08:53, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
  • It's not like I want to add another name "recyclyng" some already existing ones, but to me it's Power theft, since that name is more explicit about what it actually does, wich is more than just absorbing, it's actually stealing, in my opinion. And the "Power" part of the name is just because I prefer calling them Powers and not Abilities, but that's just me apparently--Elchafa 17:53, 29 October 2008 (EDT)
  • So far, power absorption is the most canon name we have for Arthur's ability. Unless a name is explicitly stated on the show itself, then there's really no point in debating further. Sincerely, Thrashmeister [ U | T | C ]' 17:56, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

I don't have the original but the Behind The Eclipse 5 summary here says it is described as "power theft" --Snow Leapord 13:07, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

  • It should be Ability absorption. every other power is called an ability. Alejandro's ability, Trevor's ability, Mohinder's ability. Why is this ability called a power.--Catalyst

Notes

Aside from the name, should we note somewhere that this power does not only steal natural abilities (Peter's empathic mimicry) , but abilities absorbed by him as well?--Fortunefaded 04:42, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

We don't know that yet, well its abit obvious if you've seen the promo. But I think we have to write on what we've seen on the show or graphic novels. (User:SamStorey 14:54, 21 October 08.

  • Actually, it's already been made clear. At the end of the episode, Arthur used lightning, which Peter absorbed from Elle. Ricard Desi 10:10, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

Lots of questions. Do we know if the "theft" of abilities is permanent? Is Arthur appearing in Angela's dream a clue here? Was that Maury in disguise, was it Arthur "borrowing" Maury's ability? Does he retain previously acquired abilities when he absorbs new ones? Does Arthur possess the lightening ability because Peter had it, or because he has Peter's ability and has also met Elle? Presumably in that case, he has access to a HUGE palette of abilities, all of the previous generation of heroes and then some --Falcomadol 15:00, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

  • Arthur did state to Peter that the theft was permanent, and his comments to Mohinder seemed to suggest the same. Don't know how the stealing of all the abilities works, though. Maybe Peter still has the abilities, but can't access them, and Arthur used empathic mimicry to copy them? Seems a bit round about... --Discar 11:40, 28 October 2008

Guys, just something I was going over but since Arthur seems able to take an ability from a person, then is he able to give it back if he wanted to? Or does he have to die in order for their ability to be restored? Just to what extent to his skills work? Does he seem able to purely rob a person of their powers so that even after his death, the abilities are lost with him? Underfate 14:40, 1 November 2008

I asked this in Talk:Ability immunity#Power absorption, but since this is the power talk page: does Arthur being able to steal Peter's powers after Peter was exposed to power absorption constitutes an example of lack of immunity? Peter "had it" in his system, and was able to have his abilities removed. I gave more examples at the other talk page. Intuitive Empath 12:01, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Power Absorption

I think it is power absorption. Ability theft has already been taken (although it, too, is accurate) Aura absorption doesn't tell what he does, because he doesn't kill anyone by doing it (except Adam Monroe, and that's just because his anti-aging faculty was stolen). It's not just power mimicry, but it is definitely a distinct power, and the most accurate-sounding name for it in my opinion would be power absorption. --Rob Riv 15:13, 21 October 2008

  • It seems pretty clear (to me, anyway) that what's happening here is strictly "Ability Theft". Unlike Sylar's ability, Arthur very clearly steals the ability. "Absorption" can imply that the person affected my still have their powers, while "Theft" clearly indicates that they no longer have their ability. Also note that "Theft" is not an appropriate name for Sylar's ability, since his victims do not necessarily lose their powers (or die) from the encounter. Ricard Desi 11:40, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
    • The only one who didn't die from her encounter was Claire and that's because she has regenerative powers --Shadowulf1 15:35, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
  • Ability theft and power theft are the same. How does he do it, though? Absorption. Thus, Power Absorption can be specified as the means of ability theft. It only seems proper that you specify, because two types (aura absorption and sylar's power theft) kill the subject on whom they are used, while two others (empathic mimicry and this---power absorption--- are not detrimental).--Metaphysician 20:31, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
    • I hate to be a nag (seeing as I am when it comes to new abilities) but clearly, the ability should be named Power Absorption. I would like to compare his ability to that of Rogue. They both absorb abilites via physical touch, and while Rogue doesn't retain them now she use to be able to recall them, just like Arthur does here.--The Empath 12:33, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
    • Well i agree with Ricard. Absorption hints toward they may be able to keep their powers, but Adam died because his power was stolen, thus it should be called Ability Theft. And with theft it was forcefully stolen, but with absorption it may not need to be forcefully taken it would be unknowingly taken like with Peter.--Sylarversion2 10:25, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
      • Also the description of the ability says that it, steals abiliies through physical contact, that doesn't sound like absorption--Sylarversion2 10:31, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Adam's Demise

There appears to be some dispute over whether Arthur caused Adam's death or he simply aged rapidly once his regenerative power was gone. I went with the latter because Peter did not die a similarly horrible death when his own powers were removed. I think this is a safe conclusion until the show proves otherwise. --Ted C 16:46, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

  • I think the effect speaks for itself, too. As his power was being taken from him Adam got weaker and began to rapidly age (versus say disintegrating). The rapid aging culminated in his turning to ash once his ability was removed since it was only his ability keeping him from aging. Rapid aging doesn't really make sense as a consequence of Arthur's ability without realizing that it was Adam's ability keeping him looking young. (Admin 16:50, 21 October 2008 (EDT))
    • Of course, if any circumstance can cause Arthur Petrelli's power theft to reverse, then theoretically, we may still see more of Adam Munroe. . .

( hey, regenerators have recovered from worse trauma than that before )--Metaphysician 16:57, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

  • Uhh, no? When have any "regenerators" healed after being turned completely to dust? GabrielPetrelli 17:08, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
    • Yeah, there's probably nothing organic left of him, and his brain is most definitely gone too, the only other thing that I think would kill a regenerator is someone with Bob's ability. Intuitive Empath 17:23, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
      • Costa Verde, a couple episodes back. Peter Petrelli and Future-Claire were both ground zero when Sylar nuked the place. Both regenerated from it.
        • While that would probably turn a normal human to dust, we did not actually see what happened to Peter and Future Claire's bodies in that scene. GabrielPetrelli 09:20, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
          • Though I'm skeptical, I think what happened to Claire and Peter was what happened to Nathan at the end of season one. Severe burns. Nathan's no regenerator, but even he survived Peter's explosion. Of course, Nathan was much farther from Peter when he exploded than Peter and Claire were to Gabriel... hence my own skepticism at my theory. But it seems to be the most plausible. Also, remember Adam Monroe/Takezo Kensei's charred skeleton was in the ruins of Whitebeard's camp when it exploded? I have no explanation for that at all, except that all of this regeneration business might just have some inconsistencies. Sincerely, Thrashmeister [ U | T | C ] 19:15, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
            • Nathan, as you said was much further away. Peter regenerated in season one because the explosion was a release of energy, like Elle's outburst against Sylar. Peter was literally about to grab Sylar when he went off. That is instant incineration, there bodies would be more than dust. No brain. But as Sylar said, they can never died. Therefore if the powers absorbed by Arthur are all given back to their owners, Adam should heal. His body was charred and he survived. As long as his ashes get his power back, he will heal. The writers wouldn't bring him back to get turned to dust. the end. good-bye. Angela brought him back for a reason. And she dreamed about him. It hasn't come true yet, he can't be gone.--BlueRavenBoy 22:33, 29 October 2008 (EDT)
  • It makes no sense for Adam's 400 years to "catch up" to him. Adam's power wasn't just holding his age back; it outright stopped the aging factor by having his cells constantly regenerate. So by having Adam's new cells die all of a sudden instead of just making Adam mortal as a consequence of his de-powering really doesn't make sense. We have no evidence besides the ambiguous "effect" that his rapid decay wasn't a consequence of Arthur draining his aura completely (versus Peter, who Arthur might have intentionally kept alive) or that his age caught up to him, so I say until we hve confirmation either way we remove the whole "age catching up to him" part of the article.D. Rucker 18:08, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
    • Well keep in mind that in Peter's case, he's only had Claire's ability for what... a year? Hardly any amount of time to age him to the point of death. Also keep in mind that we still don't know very much about the aging aspect of rapid cellular regeneration. I don't recall anywhere where it says that what it actually does is constantly regenerating a person's cells... all we know is that it keeps them immortal, but not how it does it exactly. For all we know, the ability COULD have just been holding his age back. Sincerely, Thrashmeister [ U | T | C ] 18:32, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
  • We're working on getting an interview with Chuck Kim, the writer of Dying of the Light, so this is a question that could be asked. Stay tuned, it will be announced at the top of the site once it's setup. (Admin 20:07, 21 October 2008 (EDT))
  • What if Arthur Petrelli simply has an advanced version of Aura Absorption so that he can prevent the people he absorb from dying? The only instance when somebody did die was Adam but that is because of the nature of his ability and the fact that he was 400 + years old. Horrorman 11:01, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
    • Occam's razor :) Possible, of course, but not that likely. We'll have an answer soon enough, though, I'm sure. (Admin 11:04, 22 October 2008 (EDT))
      • I believe the lady only died from aura absorption because she was old. You saw the pain Peter went through when his powers were taken away, I don't think an old lady could handle that. Also, does anyone have an idea as to why blue light was coming out of Peter when his powers were taken away, but not from Adam? TheEvilNoob 16:48, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
        • Yeah i believe you ar right TheEvilNoob, looking at Adam he was old too, so he died. Arthur probably got his Telepathy from Maury who isn't very old either just like Peter. About the glowing lights, probably because Peter is an empath and has multiple abilities that's why it showed up that way. -- Futurepeter ( U - T - C ) 16:53, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
          • Who says Arthur has the power of telepathy? -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 17:11, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
            • We've already been through this... camera angles/effects and sound effects during the scene with Arthur/Adam... plus confirmation by the writers in the commentary. Sincerely, Thrashmeister [ U | T | C ] 17:39, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
              • I don't know when you and I have been through this before, but camera angles are not a confirmation of somebody having a power. And I believe that in the commentary it was said that they were having a telepathic conversation. That doesn't mean Arthur has telepathy, but that Maury does. If they both had telepathy, why would Maury be speaking out loud? Further, if Arthur stole the power from Maury, then Maury wouldn't have the ability anymore. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 18:01, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
                • Sorry, not the camera angles. The camera effects. The camera effects were the same as whenever a telepath uses their ability (specifically to read minds); it goes in and out of focus and shifts left and right erratically. The sound effects were also the same as the telepathy sound effects. And I wasn't referring to the scene with Arthur and Maury. (so many people seem to misinterpret that!) I'm talking about with Adam and Arthur, right before Adam got killed. Furthermore, Adam was not afraid until after these sound effects/camera effects (as evident by the use of the sound effects for the fear-detecting aspect of Knox's ability). Sincerely, Thrashmeister [ U | T | C ] 18:04, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
                  • And I didn't mean we specifically have been through it, but it's been discussed on other talk pages. Sincerely, Thrashmeister [ U | T | C ] 18:06, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
                    • That's a different story. What exactly did the commentary say about that scene? I'm still a bit skeptical--that camera effect has been used other times, too--scenes with Mohinder had it, as did scenes with the curandera. And since this is a new power we have not seen onscreen yet, it may be a similar power effect. Just because it uses the same or similar effect as another power does not mean that that other power is being used. Also, I read the scene that Adam got scared because he was aware of Arthur's ability and knew what was about to happen to him, not because of anything telepathic. Besides, Adam wouldn't have been able to read Arthur's mind, Arthur would have read Adam's mind. And wouldn't Arthur have been able to simply command Adam to grab his hand? Plus, I'm still confused about where Arthur would have gotten this ability--it certainly wasn't from Maury. And if he got it from Maury, why would Maury be speaking out loud to him at the end of Angels and Monsters? ... What exactly did the commentary say? -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 18:53, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
                      • This is funny. I just watched the commentary for that scene and Chuck Kim actually goes on at length about how Arthur was having a telepathic conversation with Adam and went on to talk about how they often use camera angles to show an ability is being used. (Admin 19:02, 22 October 2008 (EDT))
                      • Even if camera effects aren't exclusive or aren't indicative of abilities... the telepathy sound effects were still being used. Sincerely, Thrashmeister [ U | T | C ] 19:05, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
                        • I agree. This reminds me of the discussion in the past as to whether Peter stopped the taser darts using telekinesis or space time manipulation. The effects, to me, clearly demonstrated space time manipulation, but there were disagreements until it was later confirmed. This is another case where I thought the effect was pretty clear-cut, however the explicit commentary from Chuck should seal it. (Admin 19:08, 22 October 2008 (EDT))
                          • I don't think we should be relying on sound effects and camera effects from other powers to identify a new power...but if the commentary is that clear about this being a telepathic conversation, then this is a telepathic conversation. I still wonder where Arthur got the power from--Matt and Maury still have their abilities. Also, if he had the power, when Maury spoke with him in Angels and Monsters, why did Maury speak out loud? Was that for our (the audience's) benefit? They've never done that before--they've had long conversations in the "telepathic echo" effect before (.07%). -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 19:12, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
                            • I don't really agree with that as a blanket statement. I think if the scene, the effects, and the angle indicate an ability is being used then it's sufficient. Since it wouldn't be appropriate for them to explicitly say through dialogue when the less visual abilities are being used, they're going to be showing these abilities through familiar effects. Now if the effects were used in a context where there was no reason to believe communication had taken place, then I'd agree, but it all comes together in scenes like this. I think to ignore this type of demonstration of abilities isn't a good idea. (Admin 19:18, 22 October 2008 (EDT))
                            • Most likely they didn't want us to hear Arthur's voice before he actually talked. --Aburu 19:16, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
                              • I agree. "Feels good to breathe again" would be less dramatic if they had him talking earlier in the episode. Other than Angela's dream. Sincerely, Thrashmeister [ U | T | C ] 19:23, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
                            • It's possible, in fact, it's most likely true, that there are other telepaths in the world that Arthur could have gotten telepathy from. Sincerely, Thrashmeister [ U | T | C ] 19:21, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

Small question

Little problem with the description of Arthur's ability on the Abilities directory.
"The ability to steal another's ability, causing them to lose it." Not to be a bother, but that's horribly redundant, no? If I stole something from you, of course you would lose it. You can't retain something after it's been stolen unless they broke it in half and stole half of it.
I'd suggest something like this: "The ability to gain another's ability, while taking it away from the original posessor." Or... "The ability to steal another's ability through touch."
I dunno. Anyone else wanna throw in an opinion on that? Kortu 18:58, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, I agree. How is it now? I changed it to match the description on the actual ability page. Sincerely, Thrashmeister [ U | T | C ] 19:02, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

Assignment Tracker map

Given as power absorption. Best we have for now. Therequiembellishere 22:58, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

  • Well, I suppose that settles it then. Ricard Desi 00:44, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
    • Though now the question is: If he has Power Absorption, does that mean he absored a Power Drain ability from someone? Or are the writers using that term to describe both the absorbing and the removal? Ricard Desi 00:57, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
      • Looking too much into it. =P--Riddler 01:12, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
        • Touché, good sir. :P Ricard Desi 01:19, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
  • Yep, that confirms it - It's Power Absorption. Unless another name is given on tomorrows episode, I say change it to PA. Just add to the notes that it removes the abilities. --Powermimic 02:41, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
  • Do you have a link of the Assignment tracker? NiveKJ13 12:31, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
    • There's a link on this page: Assignment tracker map GabrielPetrelli 12:34, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
      • I don't think that's a valid place to take informations. Anyone can create infos in there, just like wikipedia. --User:NiveKJ13 14:26, October 27, 2008
        • No, not all of them. And you do realise you're on a wiki, right? Therequiembellishere 17:43, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
          • Despite being a wiki we still take our information from valid sources... though you're right, I believe the confirmed ones are ones that were created officially whereas the other ones may be user contributed. (Admin 18:05, 27 October 2008 (EDT))
            • Any chance we can move it to Ability absorption or is everyone willing to play the canon game?--Citizen 18:20, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

I was thinking that but judging out current policy, we have to play the canon game. Therequiembellishere 18:39, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

  • It's definitely not as controversial as puppet master that there has to be a debate over its name. I'd prefer ability absorption as well but I have no qualms about power absorption. Sincerely, Thrashmeister [ U | T | C ] 18:54, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
    • Other than directly quoting an in-world source (so of course there's no reason to change it from "power absorption"), I don't see too big a difference between using the term "power" and "ability". Sure, I personally prefer "ability", but both are acceptable and interchangeable, really. For standardization, we should use (and already have implemented) one term throughout the site, and for that we use "ability". Ability immunity, list of abilities, Category:Abilities, etc. But we don't need to impose our fan-created standardization on a power name (oops, ability name) that is given to from an in-world source. "Power absorption" is fine. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 19:22, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
      • Not all the abilities Arthur absorbs are going to be powerful. But all of them are abilities.--Citizen 21:38, 29 October 2008 (EDT)
        • Doesn't really change the fact that it was explicitly named. Also, not all "Superpowers" are powerful but are "Superpowers" nonetheless. Food for thought.--Riddler 21:43, 29 October 2008 (EDT)
        • It can be argued that any evolved human ability is inherently more powerful that the abilities of a plain ol' Joe the plumber. Sincerely, Thrashmeister [ U | T | C ] 21:45, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

Skin-to-skin Contact with Maya?

  • I thought Arthur touched Maya's hands/arms while she was restrained on the hospital "bed". Anyone have a screen of if he did or did not make skin/skin contact? GabrielPetrelli 11:34, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
    • Arthur took her hand when he first approached the hospital bed, but then he held her by the shoulders, through the hospital gown, when he was actually absorbing her ability, so rather iffy. --Ted C 14:20, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
      • It could be argued that the gown was thin enough for it to work, or maybe he was still touching her skin with part of his hands. Keep in mind that the writers sometimes misrepresent abilities; just look at the Haitian. Discar 11:54, 28 October 2008
        • My theory is that since Arthur is so wrinkly, the tiniest fold of his skin could have slipped through the tiniest hole in Maya's gown, due to his wrinkliness. Sincerely, Thrashmeister [ U | T | C ] 18:53, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
          • Didn't he touch her ankle or her shoulder at some moment? I remember him making physical contact with her before she woke up, perhaps he's like Linderman, he needs to touch only to initiate the process, remember how Linderman only touched the plant and then just waved his hand over it while it healed? Intuitive Empath 10:58, 30 October 2008 (EDT)
            • He touched her had for a moment when he approached the bed, but he was holding both shoulders when his ability actually manifested. This is consistent with previous incidents; he has always had a firm hold on someone, even if it was through clothing as in Maya's case, when taking their abilities. --Ted C 12:19, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Secondary Source For Name

  • I'm aware that this isn't as good as the source used right now, but I thought I'd point out that in behind the eclipse for this week they called it 'power theft' specifically when asked. look for my name. --PeterDawson 21:25, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
It's below the near-canon source and is outranked. Therequiembellishere 22:31, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
However, it can be noted what it was called in the interview and by whom.--MiamiVolts (talk) 23:22, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
Plus they were baited with a term rather than naming it explicitly. We've thrown baited answers out in the past, too, because they're not reliable. If I ask if a tennis ball is round or square, the answer will usually be round because the one responding is trying to answer the question in the specific context I provided it. If I just ask what shape a tennis ball is, the answer I'd probably get is "spherical" which is actually the correct answer. Whenever we're trying to get accurate answers it's important not to bait them with the alternatives. (Admin 23:30, 28 October 2008 (EDT))
That's a good point, Admin. For another recent example of that, you can read the discussion related to Susan Amman's name. In that case, we used the answer from a BTE question despite baiting because we had no other source available for verification. However, the confusion could possibly have been averted by not baiting.--MiamiVolts (talk) 23:47, 28 October 2008 (EDT)


"Stolen" vs "Inert"

  • Is there any particular reason we're describing powers taken by Arthur as "Inert" on their description pages? If Arthur's description of his own ability is accurate, such powers are, in fact, completely gone, not merely deactivated. --Ted C 13:16, 29 October 2008 (EDT)
    • Some specials are voluntary giving up their abilty, like Elle. So we can't call it stolen then. Besides Arthur doesn't "steal" abilities, he absorbs them. So i would go for "stolen" or even better "absorbed". -- Futurepeter ( U - T - C ) 14:25, 29 October 2008 (EDT)
      • My real point is that I don't think that "inert" is an accurate description of the state of the ability. The ability is gone. If we want to stick a modifier in there, it should either be "stolen" (which is what Arthur does; he takes the ability away from the person who had it, whether they cooperate or not) or "lost" (linking to the Ability loss page). --Ted C 15:21, 29 October 2008 (EDT)
        • Yeah, you got a point there, since the ability is gone, it should be considered "lost". -- Futurepeter ( U - T - C ) 03:30, 30 October 2008 (EDT)
          • User:Shadowulf1 21:21, 1 November 2008 (EDT) I agree. They're gone, not suppressed like with the Haitian

Look at the bottom of the page. We have evidence that he doesn't STEAL abilities, but merely copies them and deactivates the original ability.--ERROR 21:59, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

Parallelism?

As far as Parallelism goes, shouldn't his ability be "Ability Absorption" as apposed to "Power Absorption"... cause we use the word "ability" throughout the site to categorize the supernatural. I just think its more professional to keep everything in parallel. Any takers? (btw i dont mean for this to start as another big argument just a slight suggestion, both mean exactly the same thing) --Pbmarcano 22:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)

Telepathy, Lv.3?

Anyone else notice Arthur neither used, nor showed any control of, his power absorption in Villains? Major speculation, but I wonder if his power is an extremely advanced form of telepathy, having been unable to do much else while paralyzed for 14 months. To support this claim, we see him place Angela in a VERY powerful prison (which was capable of holding not one, but FOUR people at once), apparently stronger than any Maury had created. Ricard Desi 10:34, 20 November 2008 (EST)

Nope. And what do you mean, he showed no control over it? If he had no control over it, then he would have stolen Angela's ability when she kissed him.

Other than that, though, it's a well thought-out theory. However, yes, it's major speculation, and there's no evidence that telepathy can do that. It's least speculative to say that his ability extraction is a separate ability, as there is plenty of evidence for that.--ERROR 22:02, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

A proposition: See Talk:Mimicry

Due to recent events in the series, I have brought up a proposal (relating to this page) at Talk:Mimicry, if folks could take a look at that. Ricard Desi 16:19, 25 November 2008 (EST)

How is your proposition related to this page? Your proposition makes no mention to this page.--ERROR 21:50, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

Image Request

I personally think the picture of Maya in the abilities page is a little creepy. I feel that this picture is a hole lot better. Plus you can actually see the ability's user using the ability. Not gust a white Maya face coming from her. Catalyst 19:14, 14 February 2009

  • I agree with you. I don't think the one we have now is bad (creepy can be good), but I do think the one of Peter's power being stolen is better. It shows that it has to be done through physical contact, it show Arthur actually stealing something rather than just his victim, and another power (i.e. Maya's ability) isn't getting mixed up in the image. Anybody opposed to changing the lead image from Image:Ability Absorption.jpg to Image:Dad steals powers.jpg? -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 20:45, 14 February 2009 (EST)
    • I have to agree with Catalyst on this one. -Whizzles 21:52, 14 February 2009 (EST)
      • I agree. Go for it. -- Psilaq R.- \m/ -_- \m/- 22:44, 14 February 2009
        • I don't oppose. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 12:08, 16 February 2009 (EST)
        • I agree. Good thinking. --Darmenos 21:40, 17 February 2009 (EST)
          • I agree, but we could change it to the picture of Arthur's hand on Hiro's chest because it shows the physical contact required.--Connorbb (Connor ROCKS !!!!) 13:07, 16 February 2009 (EST)
            • The current one also has physical contact, you can see Arthur's hand on Maya's shoulder. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 14:04, 16 February 2009 (EST)
              • I like the Peter one because you can see Arthur as well. --IronyUTC CH 14:12, 16 February 2009 (EST)

Just A Question

I was just wondering, but why is this called Power Absorption when the other abilities that have to do with abilities are called. Ability Replication or Ability Supercharging. Just wondering... --Scorvi12 06:46, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

  • This is because Arthur absorbs the evolved humans ability when he touches them, Peters replication ability replicates an evolved humans ability and ability supercharging supercharges an evolved humans ability. --posted by Laughingdevilboy

Talk 10:54, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

    • He means why is the term "power" used and not "ability" as "Ability" is used in all the other ability names, as was using ability replicatio and ability supercharging as examples. --Da carnivore 13:27, 8 April 2009 (EDT)--Da carnivore 13:27, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
      • Oh my mistake, If I am honest I don't know, but you raise a very good point. --posted by Laughingdevilboy

Talk 13:30, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

        • It was named as such in his Assignment Tracker profile. Even though we generally use "ability" instead of "power", power was the name given and so it was used. Hope that helped :)--Steely McBeam - (talk) 13:52, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
          • Thanks :)

You forgot to sign your post, whoever you are. I'm assuming you are "Scorvi12."--ERROR 21:51, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

Does He Really Steal the Ability?

As seen thus far in Fugitives Hiros ability is still there, its just "turned off". So Maybe Aruthr doesn't actually remove anything, he just copies it and in the process of copying it the ability in the orginial owner is turned off? Maybe I'm crazy--Da carnivore 12:25, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

  • If you think so add it to the theory page. Personally this has been my reasoning for some time now. I've found it hard to believe that he could actually remove the part of the DNA responsible for the ability, chromosome, gene, genome, whatever. --Steely McBeam - (talk) 13:56, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
    • I've added a couple theories a while back about him turning off the DNA responsible for the ability. The removal not being permanent is already mentioned in the article because Matt Jr turned part of Hiro's power on. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 17:19, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

You're not crazy. You just pay attention, which is different. I believe that, too. Believing that doesn't make you crazy. And Steelymcbeam, nothing suggests that he removes the gene responsible for abilities (And if he removed the entire genome, Peter would be dead, because your genome is your entire set of DNA. Remove it, and you remove all traces of DNA.). I'm not criticizing you, I'm just saying.--ERROR 21:47, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

  • Thanks for the correction there, ERROR. Wow just came back from holidays and I'm already on the verge of defending myself. Ha. Anyway, I'm never completely sure of myself regarding biology hence the multiple names. Besides as we've seen on the show it seems he simply nullifies the ability.--Steely McBeam - (talk) 03:09, 20 June 2009 (EDT)

Deactivation--Mimicry

I know that power absorption is a cannon name so the name is set but Deactivation--Mimicry could be a name that the writers could use, because he deactivating the abilities first then he could be mimicring them and Matt Jr is like the trip switch.--50000JH 17:43, 4 October 2009

  • He doesn't deactivate them. He steals them. If he deactivated abilities, he would simply turn them off, not take them.--Catalyst · Talk · HL 13:53, 4 October 2009 (EDT)
    • Matt Jr turn Hiro's time manipulation turn on, if you steal something of mine then I have to get it back off you. How can Matt return Hiro's time manipulation without going to Authur and getting it back. To me the trip switch idea is like a bulb going out."--" is to represent two different action going on.--50000JH 20:14, 4 October 2009
      • It is because of Matt's ability. It is like saying The Haitian hides memories and with rapid cell regeneration, you can find them. It is not like that. In some cases, one power can counteract another (despite the effects it may have).--Catalyst · Talk · HL 16:24, 4 October 2009 (EDT)
        • Arthur could switch off his genes that could give him the ability, it confuses me how Matt is able to turn Hiro back on, without nothing happening to Arthur, after he was shot dead which didn't return any abilities to the person he return him off.User:50000JH/signature

How exactly does this work?

From the way I understand it, Peter doesn't actually have he abilities he uses, he just mimics them. That's why he couldn't absorb any of the abilities demonstrated by his future self (just exposing EM to EM) and why only Adam's blood could regenerate Nathan's wounds, once Peter's blood leaves his body it doesn't mimic RCR anymore. Because of this, I'm confused as to how Arthur was able to use all of the abilities Peter mimicked by stealing his ability. It seems like it contradicts everything said about his power. Why would PA be so much more potent the EM in this case? Also, even if Arthur's ability negated all apparently preconceived notions of EM (which, inexplicably, it does), Peter needed to have some sort of emotional connection in order to use his abilities. The power is empathic mimicry, not just mimicry. Given that Arthur wasn't able to make the same emotional connections Peter could, shouldn't he have been unable to call back any of the abilities Peter could?--PJDEP 17:42, 14 November 2009 (EST)

  • My guess is that it involves genentic memory. Peter's cells or DNA is able to remember the sequences it becomes when he mimicked an ability, so when Arthur stole it, he also stole that memory. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 19:01, 14 November 2009 (EST)
    • So he was able to use Peter's acquired abilities without accessing EM? Otherwise I don't understand how he was able to use them without the emotional connections Peter used to recall them.--PJDEP 19:43, 14 November 2009 (EST)
      • Maybe he put that memory in his own DNA, withot needing to access EM. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 19:46, 14 November 2009 (EST)
        • It seems like the abilities are harcoded into peter's dna. Sylar stated that he could take all of peter's abilities.Gamerelite1 20:24, 7 December 2009 (EST)

Consider this...

...If this ability obeyed the rule of ted, then Peter would have had it after his father took his EM. Then, when he injected himself with the formula it tried to give him one ability. However, since he already had an ability to take powers, the two were mixed together and this gave him a similar ability as his father, but he could only take one because that's how many the formula allows. A valid theory? --mc_hammark 16:54, 7 December 2009 (EST)

Power absorption is an evolution from aura absorption?

Since we know that power absorption is a more advanced form of empathic mimicry (which makes no sense, because it is limited by touch), it is possible that it is a more powerful form of aura absorption? They both involve draining of a person's power only aura absorption kills the person doing so. Or is it the other way around, that power absorption cannot kill the other person but aura absorption can? Maybe power absorption can do both, so it's the more powerful version. Maybe Adam died as a result of the toxins inside him and his life being drained. If power absorption is more evolved, then can a person use it empathically like Peter? How else would he have known to teach Sylar unless he himself could do it or Samson was his brother/brother-in-law? User:Blood69 14:15, 1 February 2010 (AEST)