You definitely know I've had my problems with the show this season, and there are plenty of examples where they pissed on logic and commom-sense and continuity. It's why my first reaction was to hate The Hunger. But, in terms of last night's episode specifically, I actually kind of disagree with a lot of this.
First, with the timeline issues. Matt's right: the events of season 1 did take place "last year." Season 1 took place through October 2006 and ended on the night of November 7, 2006. This season is taking place in April 2007. Isaac didn't die a year ago, but he did die last year. As for the differences in years passed for when HRG got Claire... Yeah, that's annoying. There should only be a one year difference between what was in Company Man and what was here. But they haven't been consistent with that timeline since S1 when they couldn't decide if they wanted Claire to be 15 or 18. I took Company Man to be the final say on the issue, but the timeline in Company Man itself can be contradicted by previously existing canon as to how old Claire actually is.
I'll segue into from that into discussing Noah and Claire. Maybe it's just me, but I got the feeling Noah knew at the end of that scene that Bonnie was Claire. Just the way he looked at her and went, "Claire bear, huh?" The guy deals with powers for a living, it's not out of the realm of possibility he would assume Bonnie was his daughter from the future. But I also don't think that has to nullify what was in Company Man. There is nothing in the episode that suggests from that point on Noah was a good family man. All it suggests is that at one point, Noah made the decision to choose his family, which we know is what eventually becomes most important to him. We have no way of knowing whether the constant reminders and talks from the Company after that point that Claire was an assignment would cause him to revert back to being standoffish. From what is in canon now, we can assume he did decide that despite the moment in the apartment, staying too close was a risk. I think a good way to look at that scene isn't as a canon changer, but as an early glimpse of the man Bennet would eventually become. Though it takes him a while to get there.
And as for the apartment, I can't hate on the show for using the set to Peter's apartment. Every show reuses their sets. And they did do a very good job of changing it around. They completely re-painted it, added new furniture, gave it better lighting, totally redecorated it, made an effort to redecorate the hallway outside the front door, and took all the numbers off the doors. There is not much else they could have done besides building a new set completely.
Which leads me into Peter. I don't think it was weak or stupid for him to hesitate. Arthur was his father, and no matter what the man has done Peter cannot hate him completely. He wasn't just stopping his father, he was taking his life. Which, I know you said you don't blame him for hesitating, but I'm just reiterating I think it was completely the correct reaction for him to have. I already said in the episode discussion thread that I liked Sylar intervening, and I did. Peter pulled the trigger, there is nothing that can take that away. But I disagree that it was all drama. I think Sylar was actually doing Peter a favor. He even point blank said to Peter that Peter's not a killer, but he is. For all Peter was struggling with it, he still made the decision that he would kill his father, but at the last minute Sylar absolved him of it. I'm happy about that, for Peter's sake, because I don't think he should have to live with knowing he's his father's murderer. Even if he sort of still is. As for why they still used the bullet? I don't think that's non-sensical either. Any other way wouldn't have made sense. A bullet travels extremely quickly. Especially a bullet already so close to its target. The time between the bullet being released from the telekinetic hold and entering Arthur's head would have been less than a second. There is no way Arthur would have realized Sylar released the bullet and reacted accordingly in less than a second. Sylar chancing a powers fight with Arthur would have been more risky and less efficient. Also, the Haitian was already losing control of his neutralizing effect from just Arthur's powers. Sylar, with his billion powers, walking into to the room was probably too much and he finally lost it.
I can't even blame them for not showing Claude in that scene. For all we know they asked CE to come back and film a cameo and he was busy.
I definitely don't think the show is perfect, and I do think it is a bit like swiss cheese when it comes to plot holes and continuity issues. But... the things from last night didn't bother me. I've actually been enjoying the show the past few episodes-- mostly because of Peter, but I've been enjoying it all the same.
Sorry this got so long. *g* But I have to over-think everything.
For all Peter was struggling with it, he still made the decision that he would kill his father, but at the last minute Sylar absolved him of it. I'm happy about that, for Peter's sake, because I don't think he should have to live with knowing he's his father's murderer.
And yet I still found it to be deus ex machinay and not in the "Claude in Peter's hallway to keep him away from his brother and Mohinder" good way (why? Because. That's why. I'm lame). Plus, and it may seem absolutely horrible of me, I think that if it was right for Peter to shoot his father, he should likewise have to deal with the fact that he killed his father. Yes, I often complain about all the hell the writers put Peter through, and how they don't let him deal with it. But once in a while, like with Claire, I would like him to really feel the consequences of his actions, even the ones that are "right". Sylar doing what he did is equivalent to me to Nathan swooping in at Kirby Plaza: just a way of keeping Peter in that role of the guy that needs to be taken care of, that he can't handle the consequences of his actions because he's a whiny little boy.
Plus, I'm still a bit confused as to why Sylar killed Arthur; because he was...pissed at him for lying? Manipulating him? I guess that would make sense; does that mean he's going to come after Angela now? And if he was able to stop the bullet Peter shot, that means Arthur's powers were (possibly) working for that whole time as well, the whole time Sylar was asking him about the family stuff. Now, I guess I can see Arthur being so sure of himself and his ability to talk Sylar down from wanting to kill him and choosing not to at least try to use his powers then. Even if Sylar had a TK hold on him (which I think was what he was doing?), he's got the mental capabilities to shut him down, though. Was he really that sure of himself? He hadn't been able to keep Peter from killing him, did he really think he had a chance with Sylar, the Sylar who had called him earlier and made it clear he wasn't buying his shit anymore? *shrugs* It doesn't make a lot of sense to me. And god knows I wouldn't want Sylar to get any more powers, so I'm glad he didn't try and take Arthur's, but...well. I'd still expect him to.
The Claude thing is really the least of it for me. I mean yes, it makes me grumpy. I wish he had been there. I wish there'd at least have been a mention. But I understand why that might have been difficult, and I'm doing my best to come around to the fact that while I think of him as the BEST CHARACTER EVER, this is not something the show, in general, believes.
And you know, I have been enjoying the past few episodes, before this one, even with the ridiculousness that was the eclipse. Again, mostly for Peter. I like him so much more than I have since early season 1. I just wish...I don't even know what I wish they'd do. *laughs* That's a bit sad, isn't it? More on my side than on theirs. And I recognize that a lot of other people liked this episode a whole lot; the return of Evil!Sylar, Baby!Claire and Young!Sandra...all that good stuff. And yet I can still not appreciate it.
This is me probably thinking too much, but I actually think Peter did show character development last night and was rewarded for it. At the end of Season 1, Nathan swooped in and flew Peter off because, you're right, at the end Peter couldn't take care of himself. He was unable to control his powers and needed either Claire to kill him or his brother to save him. But I think the correct scene to say is a repetition of that moment isn't with Peter and Sylar, it was with Peter and the Haitian. The Haitian offered to step in and kill Arthur for him, but Peter said no, it was his responsibility. And Peter followed through on that and pulled the trigger. When Sylar stepped in, he didn't do it because he thought Peter needed to be taken care of-- which is what The Haitian's offer was. Peter had already pulled the trigger and was willing to accept responsibility, control, and the consequences of his own actions. Sylar didn't even show up until after Peter had already proven himself.
As for Arthur, I don't think he had any reason to think Sylar would kill him at that point. He had no idea Sylar was back to being on a murderous rampage and he didn't know Sylar had the Lie Detector power. Again, by the time he could have started to realize that something was different-- when Sylar revealed he knew Arthur was lying about being his father-- it was mostly too late. I think Sylar killed Arthur because Arthur was using him, and he hates being used. I have every confidence he'll go after Angela next.
I do think there are a lot of things to be really pissed off about from that season, so I guess maybe your overall point still stands. But just in general, I don't think last night had many of them.
You know, I do see it as progress that Peter decided to go through with being the one to shot his father (even though I think this was basically unnecessary; it could've been anyone Angela sent in to do that, as long as they had the Haitian with them. Except that wouldn't be much of a story, so, you know...okay.) And I think it's fantastic that Peter was willing to accept the consequences of his actions, which he was clearly willing to do. I just wish he'd actually had to accept the consequences of his actions, if that makes sense. It's like...it was cathartic to see Bennet kill Thompson the way he did; it was deserved, it was well written, it was a great moment. It was Bennet's battle to fight and win. Seeing Sylar do it...well, Sylar kills a lot of people. It didn't really mean anything, that death, other than, "Oh, Sylar doesn't like to be messed with." Which we know. *sigh* I'm still not sure why it bugs me that much. Peter did good; I don't dispute that. But I would've enjoyed the moment better, honestly, if it had been entirely Peter's doing. His responsibility, as he said it was. Not Sylar swooping in and taking credit. That just sounds incredibly petty. I'm sure Peter's glad he wasn't finally responsible for it.
Well, I think he should have had some idea, from the phone call Sylar made, that something was up. And in stopping the bullet, but just letting it spin there...I don't know. For me, a man like Arthur Petrelli does not survive to be Arthur Petrelli without being very smart, and very ruthless, to the point of paranoia; I still think he should've reacted and at least tried to use his power. He can read minds, after all; wouldn't he have been able to do that, at least? But I suppose it's like Peter with Adam; just because he could doesn't mean he would, if he had no reason to. But again, looking at it from the outside, having seen everything Sylar had been up to in the interim, it's easy to say well he should've known X, and the internal logic of all these people is a little different from ours, since we see the big picture.
I'm sure Peter's glad he wasn't finally responsible for it.
Which is why I'm glad Sylar stepped in. I don't think Noah killing Thompson is a fair comparison. Noah is a killer. If Mohinder and Matt hadn't stopped him, he very well may have killed Molly. His killing Thompson was satisfying because it was deserved, but there was no emotional fallout for Noah at the death. He was itching to pull that trigger. Peter isn't a killer. He struggled with the decision, but ultimately he still pulled the trigger and was willing to kill Arthur. I think Sylar stepped in for a number of reasons. Firstly, He wanted answers from Arthur about whether Arthur was his father, and couldn't get that if there was a bullet in the man's skull. Secondly, He did want to kill Arthur for manipulating him. Thirdly, and this one is most interesting to me... I think Sylar actually likes Peter. A little bit. In the same twisted way he liked Mohinder. And I really think it stems back to Peter coming back for him at Pinehearst, as well as Peter understanding what it's like to have Sylar's power. Peter had already pulled the trigger, but by Sylar being the one to actually send the bullet to Arthur it lets Peter preserve a little bit of his innocence. The fact that Sylar verbalized that Peter isn't a killer makes me think that was part of his intent, and I just find that really interesting that he would give a damn.
True, Peter and Noah aren't exactly analogous, for the reasons you say; and god knows, I liked the idea of Peter keeping his innocence. It's what makes him Peter, in part. And it seems especially rich for me to be complaining about it since I was very clearly of the opinion that Peter looked wrong holding the machine gun in the last episode. But...but I still just feel it was so very calculated, the way everything went down. A very eat-your-cake-and-have-it-too kind of move, give Peter a moment of decisiveness (which I loved), and still not have him be responsible. And god, I know, TV show. If there's going to be any semblance of a plot, you've got to have these sort of coincidences. This is not the place to look for realism.
Am I mostly pissed that Sylar got an actual "good" moment? Maybe a little. I can't even tell anymore. I think it's entirely possible that Sylar sees Peter in the same way he sees Mohinder; he's got nothing he wants, he's no threat at all, he saw him as something more than The Evil Killer Sylar, so he can feel free to like him a little. But its a very condescending kind of "liking Peter".
And that's just Peter getting another person in his life who thinks he's incapable of doing what needs to be done; "You're not a killer" has that ring to me. Peter doesn't kill the way Noah or Sylar does, for sure; he's not meant to be a cold-blooded killer, and he gets no joy from it. The minute he does, he won't really be Peter anymore. I'm sure both Sylar and Peter see what Sylar did as him doing Peter a favor, and maybe it is, in a sense. I just see it as holding Peter back, again, from having any real control of his actions. Because after all, his intentions were there, but yet again, in swoops his more powerful brother, and takes the responsibility away from him.
Or maybe it's just my Sylar!hate coloring my perception. Entirely possible.
But its a very condescending kind of "liking Peter".
I definitely agree about that. But I still think it's very interesting from Sylar's perspective. Right now, I'm not sure he's capable of more, but I like the layer it adds that he is capable of forming some type of bond or having a level of compassion. Even if it's entirely fucked up and half-assed. In a way, this is what I hoped they were going to do with making Sylar a Petrelli. Because I think there is a part of him that does want someone to just acknowledge him and accept him. That won't magically heal him from being a murderer, but I think he wants it all the same. And at first I was hoping they were going to have Sylar being happy at the idea of having a family while still being completely insane. But oh well.
I think the thing that makes me okay with Sylar finishing Arthur off is the intent behind it. I don't get the sense he did it because he didn't think Peter was capable. Clearly, Peter was. But just because Peter is willing and capable of killing Arthur doesn't mean he should have to. Letting the Haitian do it would have been a total cop-out. When Nathan stepped in at the end of S1 it was to save a helpless Peter. Here, that wasn't the case. I'm sure Peter still carries enough guilt in his own mind over the whole thing anyway. At the end of the day, he still pulled the trigger and it was still the bullet fired from his gun that ultimately killed Arthur-- even if Sylar is the one who finished the job. It allowed Peter to show growth while still maintaining some of his innocence, so I'm happy about that.
Perhaps the idea of him being completely insane but loyal, a la Elle and her way of dealing with family (well, her father, and the Company, and pre Syelle) would've been nice. I could've bought that. And if you look back at his relationship with Mohinder, I think that is the only kind of affection Sylar (original flavor Sylar, anyway) can feel for people. If they don't have anything he wants (or help him get what he wants in other ways), and if they aren't a threat to him. I think in a way he even genuinely liked Noah a bit, for the same reason.
True. Peter can feel guilty about just about anything. He'll probably end up somehow blaming himself for letting Sylar kill his father.
Poor Peter's probably going to have bigger issues with Nathan and won't have time to angst.
I thought the contrast between the two was very nice last night. With Nathan working to try and improve the world by giving "the right people" powers and Peter musing to the Haitian that the world would be a better place if powers didn't exist at all.
Oh god yeah. What has he actually said about Nathan, lately? I've been too focused on finding things to complain about to even remember. Man, poor Petrellicest shippers, that is not a good thing.
God, Nathan, what a...dink. Because seriously, look at all the trouble the world seems to get into with just one family having powers; I mean, others have them too, but really, it's the Petrelli's who seem to cause everything to go bad. Giving them to more people just seems ridiculous. And the idea that Mr. Junior Senator from NYC can...apparently run a pharmecutical company in his spare time? Ooo-kay. And also be preparing for a presidential run? I'd really love to see him go up against just about anyone in that debate. Especially when the topic of health care came up. But these are all issues of Nathan's ambition and severely misguided attempts at...benevolence, so...I still find them believable.
And can I say just how thrilled I am that Peter doesn't seem to want his powers back at all? Even with how much easier they would make some things? That's my boy.
He didn't say much about Nathan last night, but Angela did use Arthur's trying to kill Nathan as part of how to convince Peter to kill Arthur.
It's very much playing God. The whole language about giving the "right" people powers is troubling. Who is Nathan to judge who does and doesn't deserve to have powers? Furthermore, who is he to implement it on a militaristic and political level? Though it is very much in character that he doesn't see a problem with those things because Nathan does think he knows best. And since this is 2007 does that mean Nathan would run in 2008? Obama v. Petrelli? *snorts* Nathan, we've seen Barack take on the Junior Senator from NY and... the Junior Senator lost.
True. And he also looked very pained when Angela was talking about Nathan going over to the other side.
Oh Nathan, you idiot. I really had thought he'd be a bit more savvy about things like Tracy and his father's machinations, but nope. Just goes along with it. Hee. I think Nathan should really be rushing down to DC to get some exposure as a senator if he's going to run in 2008. Nathan is a much less qualified Junior Senator from New York than the other one. And I would so love to see Jon Stewart snark on the fact that he's running with no experience. I just...would.
The previews for next week did not look hopeful either.
I think part of Nathan's problem is that he doesn't have a strong sense of his own morality like Peter does. Nathan is very much a puppet and easily manipulated because it allows people to play on his ambitions and god-complex without having to worry about dealing with Nathan's perceptions of right and wrong. I would love to see Jon Stewart snark on him too.
...oh man. Well. They're not going to kill Peter. Everything else I can really live with. I think.
I think another of Nathan's problem is that his strongest influence was his father, and while he's come to realize that his dad was a horrible guy, he still clings to a lot of what he idealized in him.
I'm picturing Nathan as very much the John McCain type at this moment, actually. Republican. War hero. Shot several times. Ex-wife who his divorce from was kind of...um, odd. New wife who is blonde and wears very expensive outfits. I think I'm just missing the campaign right now. It's very sad.
Seriously. That's pretty much my outlook on it. Though I hope they don't kill the person I think they're going to kill next week.
Yeah, and Nathan still doesn't clearly think his father was that horrible of a person. Maybe distasteful at the most, but he was still willing to work with and have some kind of relationship with him. It says a lot about both brothers and their relationship with their parents which parent Peter and Nathan were willing to forgive. Nathan seemed to only be on team Angela for Peter's sake, not because he had particularly forgiven his mother for anything.
Ha. Did you see that episode of South Park about the election? And yes, except Nathan would be better than McCain because he's young and more appealing.
You definitely know I've had my problems with the show this season, and there are plenty of examples where they pissed on logic and commom-sense and continuity. It's why my first reaction was to hate The Hunger. But, in terms of last night's episode specifically, I actually kind of disagree with a lot of this.
First, with the timeline issues. Matt's right: the events of season 1 did take place "last year." Season 1 took place through October 2006 and ended on the night of November 7, 2006. This season is taking place in April 2007. Isaac didn't die a year ago, but he did die last year. As for the differences in years passed for when HRG got Claire... Yeah, that's annoying. There should only be a one year difference between what was in Company Man and what was here. But they haven't been consistent with that timeline since S1 when they couldn't decide if they wanted Claire to be 15 or 18. I took Company Man to be the final say on the issue, but the timeline in Company Man itself can be contradicted by previously existing canon as to how old Claire actually is.
I'll segue into from that into discussing Noah and Claire. Maybe it's just me, but I got the feeling Noah knew at the end of that scene that Bonnie was Claire. Just the way he looked at her and went, "Claire bear, huh?" The guy deals with powers for a living, it's not out of the realm of possibility he would assume Bonnie was his daughter from the future. But I also don't think that has to nullify what was in Company Man. There is nothing in the episode that suggests from that point on Noah was a good family man. All it suggests is that at one point, Noah made the decision to choose his family, which we know is what eventually becomes most important to him. We have no way of knowing whether the constant reminders and talks from the Company after that point that Claire was an assignment would cause him to revert back to being standoffish. From what is in canon now, we can assume he did decide that despite the moment in the apartment, staying too close was a risk. I think a good way to look at that scene isn't as a canon changer, but as an early glimpse of the man Bennet would eventually become. Though it takes him a while to get there.
And as for the apartment, I can't hate on the show for using the set to Peter's apartment. Every show reuses their sets. And they did do a very good job of changing it around. They completely re-painted it, added new furniture, gave it better lighting, totally redecorated it, made an effort to redecorate the hallway outside the front door, and took all the numbers off the doors. There is not much else they could have done besides building a new set completely.
Reply
I can't even blame them for not showing Claude in that scene. For all we know they asked CE to come back and film a cameo and he was busy.
I definitely don't think the show is perfect, and I do think it is a bit like swiss cheese when it comes to plot holes and continuity issues. But... the things from last night didn't bother me. I've actually been enjoying the show the past few episodes-- mostly because of Peter, but I've been enjoying it all the same.
Sorry this got so long. *g* But I have to over-think everything.
Reply
And yet I still found it to be deus ex machinay and not in the "Claude in Peter's hallway to keep him away from his brother and Mohinder" good way (why? Because. That's why. I'm lame). Plus, and it may seem absolutely horrible of me, I think that if it was right for Peter to shoot his father, he should likewise have to deal with the fact that he killed his father. Yes, I often complain about all the hell the writers put Peter through, and how they don't let him deal with it. But once in a while, like with Claire, I would like him to really feel the consequences of his actions, even the ones that are "right". Sylar doing what he did is equivalent to me to Nathan swooping in at Kirby Plaza: just a way of keeping Peter in that role of the guy that needs to be taken care of, that he can't handle the consequences of his actions because he's a whiny little boy.
Plus, I'm still a bit confused as to why Sylar killed Arthur; because he was...pissed at him for lying? Manipulating him? I guess that would make sense; does that mean he's going to come after Angela now? And if he was able to stop the bullet Peter shot, that means Arthur's powers were (possibly) working for that whole time as well, the whole time Sylar was asking him about the family stuff. Now, I guess I can see Arthur being so sure of himself and his ability to talk Sylar down from wanting to kill him and choosing not to at least try to use his powers then. Even if Sylar had a TK hold on him (which I think was what he was doing?), he's got the mental capabilities to shut him down, though. Was he really that sure of himself? He hadn't been able to keep Peter from killing him, did he really think he had a chance with Sylar, the Sylar who had called him earlier and made it clear he wasn't buying his shit anymore? *shrugs* It doesn't make a lot of sense to me. And god knows I wouldn't want Sylar to get any more powers, so I'm glad he didn't try and take Arthur's, but...well. I'd still expect him to.
The Claude thing is really the least of it for me. I mean yes, it makes me grumpy. I wish he had been there. I wish there'd at least have been a mention. But I understand why that might have been difficult, and I'm doing my best to come around to the fact that while I think of him as the BEST CHARACTER EVER, this is not something the show, in general, believes.
And you know, I have been enjoying the past few episodes, before this one, even with the ridiculousness that was the eclipse. Again, mostly for Peter. I like him so much more than I have since early season 1. I just wish...I don't even know what I wish they'd do. *laughs* That's a bit sad, isn't it? More on my side than on theirs. And I recognize that a lot of other people liked this episode a whole lot; the return of Evil!Sylar, Baby!Claire and Young!Sandra...all that good stuff. And yet I can still not appreciate it.
Reply
As for Arthur, I don't think he had any reason to think Sylar would kill him at that point. He had no idea Sylar was back to being on a murderous rampage and he didn't know Sylar had the Lie Detector power. Again, by the time he could have started to realize that something was different-- when Sylar revealed he knew Arthur was lying about being his father-- it was mostly too late. I think Sylar killed Arthur because Arthur was using him, and he hates being used. I have every confidence he'll go after Angela next.
I do think there are a lot of things to be really pissed off about from that season, so I guess maybe your overall point still stands. But just in general, I don't think last night had many of them.
Reply
Well, I think he should have had some idea, from the phone call Sylar made, that something was up. And in stopping the bullet, but just letting it spin there...I don't know. For me, a man like Arthur Petrelli does not survive to be Arthur Petrelli without being very smart, and very ruthless, to the point of paranoia; I still think he should've reacted and at least tried to use his power. He can read minds, after all; wouldn't he have been able to do that, at least? But I suppose it's like Peter with Adam; just because he could doesn't mean he would, if he had no reason to. But again, looking at it from the outside, having seen everything Sylar had been up to in the interim, it's easy to say well he should've known X, and the internal logic of all these people is a little different from ours, since we see the big picture.
Reply
Which is why I'm glad Sylar stepped in. I don't think Noah killing Thompson is a fair comparison. Noah is a killer. If Mohinder and Matt hadn't stopped him, he very well may have killed Molly. His killing Thompson was satisfying because it was deserved, but there was no emotional fallout for Noah at the death. He was itching to pull that trigger. Peter isn't a killer. He struggled with the decision, but ultimately he still pulled the trigger and was willing to kill Arthur. I think Sylar stepped in for a number of reasons. Firstly, He wanted answers from Arthur about whether Arthur was his father, and couldn't get that if there was a bullet in the man's skull. Secondly, He did want to kill Arthur for manipulating him. Thirdly, and this one is most interesting to me... I think Sylar actually likes Peter. A little bit. In the same twisted way he liked Mohinder. And I really think it stems back to Peter coming back for him at Pinehearst, as well as Peter understanding what it's like to have Sylar's power. Peter had already pulled the trigger, but by Sylar being the one to actually send the bullet to Arthur it lets Peter preserve a little bit of his innocence. The fact that Sylar verbalized that Peter isn't a killer makes me think that was part of his intent, and I just find that really interesting that he would give a damn.
Reply
Am I mostly pissed that Sylar got an actual "good" moment? Maybe a little. I can't even tell anymore. I think it's entirely possible that Sylar sees Peter in the same way he sees Mohinder; he's got nothing he wants, he's no threat at all, he saw him as something more than The Evil Killer Sylar, so he can feel free to like him a little. But its a very condescending kind of "liking Peter".
And that's just Peter getting another person in his life who thinks he's incapable of doing what needs to be done; "You're not a killer" has that ring to me. Peter doesn't kill the way Noah or Sylar does, for sure; he's not meant to be a cold-blooded killer, and he gets no joy from it. The minute he does, he won't really be Peter anymore. I'm sure both Sylar and Peter see what Sylar did as him doing Peter a favor, and maybe it is, in a sense. I just see it as holding Peter back, again, from having any real control of his actions. Because after all, his intentions were there, but yet again, in swoops his more powerful brother, and takes the responsibility away from him.
Or maybe it's just my Sylar!hate coloring my perception. Entirely possible.
Reply
I definitely agree about that. But I still think it's very interesting from Sylar's perspective. Right now, I'm not sure he's capable of more, but I like the layer it adds that he is capable of forming some type of bond or having a level of compassion. Even if it's entirely fucked up and half-assed. In a way, this is what I hoped they were going to do with making Sylar a Petrelli. Because I think there is a part of him that does want someone to just acknowledge him and accept him. That won't magically heal him from being a murderer, but I think he wants it all the same. And at first I was hoping they were going to have Sylar being happy at the idea of having a family while still being completely insane. But oh well.
I think the thing that makes me okay with Sylar finishing Arthur off is the intent behind it. I don't get the sense he did it because he didn't think Peter was capable. Clearly, Peter was. But just because Peter is willing and capable of killing Arthur doesn't mean he should have to. Letting the Haitian do it would have been a total cop-out. When Nathan stepped in at the end of S1 it was to save a helpless Peter. Here, that wasn't the case. I'm sure Peter still carries enough guilt in his own mind over the whole thing anyway. At the end of the day, he still pulled the trigger and it was still the bullet fired from his gun that ultimately killed Arthur-- even if Sylar is the one who finished the job. It allowed Peter to show growth while still maintaining some of his innocence, so I'm happy about that.
Reply
True. Peter can feel guilty about just about anything. He'll probably end up somehow blaming himself for letting Sylar kill his father.
Reply
I thought the contrast between the two was very nice last night. With Nathan working to try and improve the world by giving "the right people" powers and Peter musing to the Haitian that the world would be a better place if powers didn't exist at all.
Reply
God, Nathan, what a...dink. Because seriously, look at all the trouble the world seems to get into with just one family having powers; I mean, others have them too, but really, it's the Petrelli's who seem to cause everything to go bad. Giving them to more people just seems ridiculous. And the idea that Mr. Junior Senator from NYC can...apparently run a pharmecutical company in his spare time? Ooo-kay. And also be preparing for a presidential run? I'd really love to see him go up against just about anyone in that debate. Especially when the topic of health care came up. But these are all issues of Nathan's ambition and severely misguided attempts at...benevolence, so...I still find them believable.
And can I say just how thrilled I am that Peter doesn't seem to want his powers back at all? Even with how much easier they would make some things? That's my boy.
Reply
It's very much playing God. The whole language about giving the "right" people powers is troubling. Who is Nathan to judge who does and doesn't deserve to have powers? Furthermore, who is he to implement it on a militaristic and political level? Though it is very much in character that he doesn't see a problem with those things because Nathan does think he knows best. And since this is 2007 does that mean Nathan would run in 2008? Obama v. Petrelli? *snorts* Nathan, we've seen Barack take on the Junior Senator from NY and... the Junior Senator lost.
I know! I'm very proud of him.
Reply
Oh Nathan, you idiot. I really had thought he'd be a bit more savvy about things like Tracy and his father's machinations, but nope. Just goes along with it. Hee. I think Nathan should really be rushing down to DC to get some exposure as a senator if he's going to run in 2008. Nathan is a much less qualified Junior Senator from New York than the other one. And I would so love to see Jon Stewart snark on the fact that he's running with no experience. I just...would.
Reply
I think part of Nathan's problem is that he doesn't have a strong sense of his own morality like Peter does. Nathan is very much a puppet and easily manipulated because it allows people to play on his ambitions and god-complex without having to worry about dealing with Nathan's perceptions of right and wrong. I would love to see Jon Stewart snark on him too.
Reply
I think another of Nathan's problem is that his strongest influence was his father, and while he's come to realize that his dad was a horrible guy, he still clings to a lot of what he idealized in him.
I'm picturing Nathan as very much the John McCain type at this moment, actually. Republican. War hero. Shot several times. Ex-wife who his divorce from was kind of...um, odd. New wife who is blonde and wears very expensive outfits. I think I'm just missing the campaign right now. It's very sad.
Reply
Yeah, and Nathan still doesn't clearly think his father was that horrible of a person. Maybe distasteful at the most, but he was still willing to work with and have some kind of relationship with him. It says a lot about both brothers and their relationship with their parents which parent Peter and Nathan were willing to forgive. Nathan seemed to only be on team Angela for Peter's sake, not because he had particularly forgiven his mother for anything.
Ha. Did you see that episode of South Park about the election? And yes, except Nathan would be better than McCain because he's young and more appealing.
Reply
Leave a comment