Geez. Sylar's mom, Mrs. Petrelli. What is it with these women? If I had a kid who was brilliant at repairing watches, I would be soooooooooo proud, because that is an extremely cool skill. How would he have turned out differently with someone telling him he was awesome and amazingly special just as he is? and as for the Petrelli's, having a kid who would willingly sacrifice his life to save others over being POTUS - well, look what kind of sumbitches have been President over the years - that would break my heart with how great a man he had turned out to be, even while my heart was breaking with loosing him. What IS it with these women!? Oh, right. They are fictional.
Fred ,'A Hole in the World'
Heroes 1: We Could Be Heroes
[NAFDA]. This is where we talk about the show and ancillary materials such as web comics! Anything that's aired in the US (including promos) is fair game. No spoilers though -- if you post one by accident, an admin will delete it. Chuffa, Chuffa!
I hope we find that Mama Petrelli's certainty has been shaken up a little next season. I figure if Noah can be as redeemed as much as he has (two to the head is still a bit in the gray range, though I applauded the act all the same), than maybe there's hope for Mater.
I wanna see a guilt-off between Mama Petrelli and Hiro.
Hmm. Having to target each other would definitely give the advantage to Mrs. Petrelli, because I get the feeling she's got a Teflon coating around her conscience. UNLESS she was silly enough to take Hiro up on a topic on which he was very sure of what the right thing was. In which case, his cast iron with actual rightness conscience would trump the cheap non-stick, much like real life skillets.
But then again, I can definitely see Hiro's tender heart taking some deep hits of false guilt for doing the right thing even when it hurt... someone else. But it is a precious, precious quality that he is always trying to not only do the right thing, but also to do the right thing in the right way.
There was also the shoot-Peter-in-the-base-of-the-head solution, remember? And if Nathan wanted to spare his daughter from the mental torment of shooting Peter, he could have done that himself. It's not like Claire was the only one who could get near him.
Like it's not traumatic to watch your dad shoot your brother in the head? Plus, Nathan didn't know the special spot. I also think that this was something that Nathan felt like he needed to do, to make that choice to put someone else ahead of himself. I don't know that Nathan could have brought himself to shoot Peter anyway.
And really, if your super power is to fly and you've been denying this, it is MUCH more dramatically satisfying to woosh him away in your loving brotherly embrace than to cap him.
Windsparrow, for Mama Petrelli, it is a bit more problematic than even that.
She really thought it would "save the world" if all of NYC went down. So it wasn't even appropriate for her to try to save her son Peter from decades of guilt. She could have stopped all this crap from coming about in the first place if she had just put Peter under anesthesia for a week or two.
>I'm hope we find that Mama Petrelli's certainty has been shaken up a little next season.
I should hope so, given that she was certain NYC would go boom. I don't think she wanted the explosion to happen; but she thought it was inevitable and wanted to make the best of it.
I think the Salon article above makes a good argument for Nathan's actions, in Nathan's rejection of killing as a solution mirroring his rejection of letting people die for a hypothetical greater good -- it's ultimately a rejection of doing evil for allegedly good ends.
I did like the Salon article. It still posits really a narrative- or plot-driven reason for Nathan's actions, but as I said, I think his actions *were* driven by plot/narrative needs, not logical ones.
What I like about the Salon article is the contrast it draws between 24 and Heroes as responses to 9/11. I do like the way Heroes addresses the ethical problem of bad actions for good reasons as a misapplication of utilitarian ethics.
Like it's not traumatic to watch your dad shoot your brother in the head? Plus, Nathan didn't know the special spot.
Yes he did. He saw Peter dead and then alive again after the glass shard was removed, so he knew that an object, whether a bullet or some other materiel, inserted at that point would render Peter dead.
I think you're asking a bit much of Nathan. His brother is about to explode any second. He goes with what he knows, which is flying.