Talk:Peter Petrelli

Box image

This needs a better photo.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Transcendentalstate (talk • contribs) at 21:06, July 13, 2006 (UTC)

Power(s)

We are currently unaware if Peter can actually fly, or if he can somehow absorb the powers of those around him. We need to stop the back-and-forth interpretation of his falling to the rooftop after walking on air and embracing his brother until we know more.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ Chair (talk • contribs) at 19:54, October 3, 2006 (UTC)

First, please learn to sign your comments, and avoid deleting the comments of others. Second, please be realistic. Just like the "psychic connection" and various other abilities Peter may have, your absorption theory is not relevant at this time. The episode clearly shows him levitating. The implication is that he flies. It's completely sound to assert this in article. Power absorption? If that were even the case Peter would also have Isaac's precognition. Come on, seriously. If he's shown flying, that's what will be written. Wikipedia does not withhold information, especially for reasons like yours. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 21:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Peter does seem to show a bit of precognition when he sketches that crude stick figure picture of two people on a rooftop; one is floating and the other is facing him, a la the end scene a top the hospital. --DJ Chair 13:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The photo that Peter drew seemed to leave the power absorption theory on the table. I feel that his powers should be mentioned as "Flight/ potential unknown others" but that is just my opinion. If this were to occur it would brings up other problems as we really do not know the full potential of any of the "Heroes." Right now it should be left as it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by zippedpinhead (talk • contribs) at 23:24, October 3, 2006 (UTC)

If you read the newest TV Guide, Peter's powers is like Rogue in Xmen. He can absorb others' powers. -- 65.61.193.31 16:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Well if you have place a reference on the page, then we can include it. Merely stating that you have found something is not good enough for an encyclopedia. You must reference your facts.Zippedpinhead 18:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

If the TV Guide thing is accurate -- how can his power be called mimicry? I recall in the episode where he flies up to his brother that his brother falls. It does seem likely that he absorbs others' powers, albeit temporarily. --Mr Vain 00:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me, I'm dumb. I can't tell one brother apart from the other. That's what happens when one doesn't pay much attention to their story arc. Sorry for the inconvenience --Mr Vain 01:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

So, as of Episode 4, Collisions, Peter makes the statement that he belives that for his powers to kick into action, he needs to be within a close proximity of someone who already has a power. Is that good enough evidence to mark his power as mimicry and be done with it? --DJ Chair 12:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

His powers are still shady and are subject to change as we still don't know the full details. Nothing has been confirmed, all this is is a theory. --75.8.107.178 10:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

We have all written up. The program seens to quite clearly back up our findings. Theory? I think not. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 18:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it looks like he can mimic precognition, now, too. -- NinjaYaddaYaddaYadda 22:00, 23 October 2006

Well, it looks like he mimicked precognition in the second episode when he was recovering in the hospital and drew himself hovering. Not a big surprise that he can STILL mimic it. Rihk 00:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

What about in the first episode when Peter tells his mother that when Nathan was injured and far away that he "knew" he was hurt? Was he absorbing a psychic's ability? Maybe his mother is a precog? --Frenkmelk 06:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Now that's really farfetched fishing. Like Peter said, he purportedly knew before being told. This would seem to imply knowing before coming into contact with anyone. Thusly, more of a psychic connection, if anything. Still, whatever the comment meant or was supposed to mean, Mimicry is what we have. I imagine they might have just disgarded it. Ace Class Shadow; My talk.

There was a mysterious statement in the first episode that he made that led me to believe that Peter was an empath, who forged a sort of emotional bond with people, and that was what he had with Simone's father and his own brother. They haven't paid any more attention to it, though. Rihk 00:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I have added, since it's important, the fact that he can't mimic powers at will (by now). Other's habilities just come through him without control. --KesheR 21:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems that he doesnt keep the powers he mimics, he must remain near the powered individual he is mimicking. 144.15.255.227 02:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

References

Are we recognizing tv.com as a reputable source? I remember reading somewhere (I believe it was the Main Page, talk section) that someone was reviewing the necessity of tv.com links. Any comments/thoughts on this? --DJ Chair 11:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it was a press release. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Save the cheerleader

"Save the cheerleader" does not necessarily mean "Save Claire Bennet", especially since the picture that Peter completed seems to show two cheerleaders (one dead and one alive but in peril). One likely possibility for the dead one on the floor could be Jackie, since she took credit for the rescue Claire performed in Genesis. Since Sylar appears to use news articles as a source of information, he may have taken note of this, and may initially (try to?) kill her first, which is the way the painting looks to me at the end of Hiros. Isaac's precog paintings always seem to be about the actual significant event as/after they occur (the bomb, the kiss under the umbrella, etc...), not to events before they occur (such as the implied threat to Claire as she flees into the bleachers). -- 63.226.38.165 04:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you paying attention? Ads, various implications, et cetera. It's Claire. Why on earth would they need to save Jackie? While you make a good point about Jackie's possible death, it's Claire they must save. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 05:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Why would you say the edit was "near vandalous"? I explained myself here on the talk page, and my edit is consistant with every other location I can currently find the term on Wikipedia articles -- nowhere else is there currently a link in the term "Save the cheerleader" on cheerleader pointing to Claire Bennet. Assumptions being making that Claire is the one that needs to be saved are just that, assumptions. Neither you nor I know for certian at this point. Writers love to through in curves, where you think one thing is going to happen (or is actually happpening) when there is something entirely else going on (clasic example: 6th Sense).

This is most definatly a disagreement on content, and not anywhere near vandalism. I've looked through your edit history & seen where you disagree with other people for including assumptions of future content; why is this any diffrent? -- 63.226.38.165 05:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC) -- FishUtah 05:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I've seen users sign as GIPUs before. It's always a bad sign. Why is this any different? Besides, I was referring to the way things were left, not the unlinking. Dewikification is hardly vandalism under most circumstances. Removing content so the end result is unsightly is a different story. Whether intentional or not, it was near. I never said it there. Just...near. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 06:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see that I had missed taking out the closing braces in the wiki-link -- you're absolutly right that doing that was a mistake. If you want to review my contribs as 63.226.38.165 (talk · contribs) for more mistakes, please feel free. I'm sure I've probibly made more, even thought I'd previously thought I'd also made a lot of good contribs to Heros related articles. This whole situation has given me more reason to primarily contrib as an anon IP (if nothing else that to demonstrate that people using anon IP's can make useful contribs), and also to try to stay away from popular media articles and talk pages. I really like Heros, and wanted to help out, but I'll not exactly feeling very welcome here now. -- FishUtah 07:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The ads did (somewhat) mislead us before, with Peter's own power, so it could very well be that the writers are trying to make us think the phrase means one thing when it will later be revealed to mean something different. Not that I personally think it's likely in this case, but it's possible. --Psiphiorg 05:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not just the ads. Journalist articles, various mediums and sources all lead to Claire. And Peter can fly, it's just not an inherent power. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 05:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Also if you want some top-of-the-head theories about why Jackie might needs to be saved, how about:

1. This is the best point in the timeline to actually stop Sylar
2. This is the first major point of convergence where several/many of the "good" charactors start directly working together
3. The attempt (and possible failure to) save Jackie could be the (Uncle Ben) turning point to really make some of the major charactors start taking things serious (especially Hiro & Claire)
4. The attempt (and possible failure to) save Jackie changes the subplot with Claire's father, especially since he would later know that Sylar was really after Claire

None of these possibilities involve Jackie being anything other than a plot device, and that is common for foil charactors like her. I'm also not personally convinced that Sylar can/would really be able to kill Claire, especailly with the whole subplot with her father. I think that the branch in the back of the head and the attempted vivisection are just there to alow us to know she's not immortal, and that her death might be possible, but it looks like too good of a chance to setup a redirect suprise. A consistant message in all medium/comunications before the episode where we know for sure is the best way to ensure the suprise/twist (if there is indeed on coming up) so a unified voice ahead of time does not seem to be all that significant.

I won't remove the link to Claire on the word cheerleader again, but I hope someone else does, at least until we know for certain. -- FishUtah 06:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

If you give up whenever people disagree with you, you'll never get far in this world. Now, I'm not disregarding your theory, but you can't go acting as if something is automatically wrong based on it. I'll give your ideas some more thought as I'm editting today. I hope you don't get down like this over every little misunderstanding. I mean, gees, this isn't the end of the world. (for us outside of the fiction, anyway.) Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 17:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)