I assumed the same as ita. She was water the last time we saw her, and she's killing the agents who hunted her. Sister #3 has no reason to seek revenge that we know of.
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 think the Sylar!Nathan is going to be very interesting because Sylar has convinced himself that he is evil in his very nature, and that he just can't be good for very long. While Nathan always thinks he is on the side of righteousness, even when he is doing bad things. I'm interested to see which of these two natures will win out in the end. I think it would be interesting for Nathan to look in the mirror and see Sylar there instead when things begin to really unravel (and you know they will).
What ita said wrt Larter's character. It seemed very much like a character figuring out that there was another aspect to their ability than a whole new persona. Do we know who she was killing, or is that part of the mystery for next season? ETA: Nevermind Jessica's post just answered my question.
The last we saw of Larter she'd turned herself to ice. Which is too much like turning yourself to water for me to think it's a whole new sister, as opposed to new tricks of an old one.
And to continue the X-Men analogies, as Lord knows the show begs us to (And, hey. It works best when they're being a little X-rip-offy, so who's to judge) Iceman started with the ability to reduce things' temperatures, and to create ice. Over time, and if I recall due in no small part to trauma, that became the ability to actually transmute himself and other things into ice. As ice and water are the same thing in different states, I'd say it's a plausible leap. Or, at the very least, precedented.
Or, at the very least, precedented.
And since Larter²'s power wasn't related to Larter¹'s, there's no reason to assume a third would be that close.
OK, OK, I give in. You guys are probably right.
Sister #3 has no reason to seek revenge that we know of.
However, "you killed my sister!" seems like a reasonable motive to me.
they don't know they are sisters though.
Though I do recall an article saying she was most sincerely dead, which I hate HATE hate, just as I hated it in BSG. Lying to me is different from keeping me unspoiled--just in this case I chose to ignore them.
Wasn't that about Nicki though?
Also, on a tangential note, am I the only one who's ecstatic they didn't leap to Claire's magic blood to save Nathan? Seriously. We can pretend it never happened. I'll be fine with that. I'm not one of those people who feel a TV show should be forever bound by their earlier bad decisions.
I'm willing to extent this courtesy to movie franchises as well. Midichlorians need never have been.
Wasn't that about Nicki though?
No, Fuller said that once he came back, he was going to kill off two characters, and the deaths would stick. Daphne and Tracy were offed in the same episode.
No, Fuller said that once he came back, he was going to kill off two characters, and the deaths would stick. Daphne and Tracy were offed in the same episode.
Couldn't that now be interpreted as Daphne and Nathan? or did he specifically say he was killing them immediately and in the same episode?