Talk:How to Stop an Exploding Man
 | This page is not a forum for general discussion about How to Stop an Exploding Man. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this redirect. You may wish to ask factual questions about How to Stop an Exploding Man at the Reference desk. |
2-hour Finale
- Does anyone have sources that state whether this episode is two hours or a continuation of the last episode? And they both run at the same night. I ask, because that means in syndication there will be 24 episodes not 23. (152.8.134.102 16:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC))
- It's a two-hour finale. I don't have any sources but I've seen the commercials. They'l;l only play the heroes logo once, so its only one episode. Redraf 01:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- I haven't found *anything* to suggest that the finale will be a two-hour episode. (In fact, Law and Order: Criminal Intent is scheduled to take over the 10 PM timeslot from Wedding Crashers on May 14th and 21st.) --Ckatzchatspy 02:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- The MediaWeek link states that "How To..." is 1 hour, but my local TV Guide says 2 hours and has it blocked for 2, while the Austin TV Guide says 1 hour and blocked for one (with L&O right after, as you've described). I suspect there was some sort of mix-up in their decision to describe the finale as being a 'three part finale'. Nb41 17:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Simone and Charles Deveaux
Other than listing Tawny Cypress and Richard Roundtree in the credits I can't find any confirmation that they will be in the finale. The preview for 'How to Stop an Exploding Man' does not show them, unless there is a preview I haven't seen, and I've looked. Steveo9009 06:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, in one of the two previews available (I want to say it's the Canadian one but I am unsure), we see them both interacting with characters (new footage, not from previous episodes). Context does not indicate if they are flashbacks or 'current timeline'. Nb41 17:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Sylar/Cockroach
- I think there should be a reference to the fact that at other times in the series [It may only be once, but I might have missed it if it has occurred more than one time] Sylar appears to be dead and then a cockroach is shown. Specifically, this happens [If I recall correctly] in the episode "The Fix." Can anyone double-check this? 71.134.234.209 05:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
In "The Fix" when he's lying on the floor of his cell there's definitly a cockroach seen walking by him, not sure if it's visible when he is apparently dead. Will check it up. Slashygood 07:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
It seems pretty obvious that we're intended to think Sylar can survive lethal wounds in the way that Mohinder describes cockroaches surviving lethal wounds in the first episode. Unfortunately, this could still be called speculation and so it probably doesn't belong in the article yet.65.40.35.52 14:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
So is Slyar like a cockroach? Temari of Wind13 00:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Sylar is like a cockroach - you can't really kill him. He fell from the top of the school with Peter and lived, when Peter died; He was shot at the Bennett house, and lived; he was stabbed in the season finale, and lived long enough to go into the sewer (we don't know if he died from his wounds). All characteristics of trying to kill a cockroach - they are very, very hard to kill. NasDestiny 15:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Hiro's final Line
Does anyone have a translation of the expletive that Hiro uses at the end of the episode? My Japanese is less than fluent, but i think the pronouciation on the word was (romanized) "tainpinchu" or something similar. i just think this would be an ammusing fact to work in if someone can discover its tranlsation. epocalypse 06:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
He said "Dai-pinchi" which he has said before if I rightly recall. Its not a swearword in Japanese, it just means "Big Pinch". No idea why they made it a "swearword" translation. 84.67.236.27 17:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Lol, Hiro cussed you didn't see the translation. Knight Whitefire 06:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- We mention Yatta!, so this might work too - in the context of the summary. ZZ 14:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, so why do you need a citation for something said in the show?
narration
Can somebody please add what Mohinder said during his Narration at the beginning and ending of this episode? Thank you. dposse 12:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Eclipse
NASA lists four solar eclipses for 1671 - all partial eclipses. There were total eclipses in 1670 and 1672, however. The link to NASA's catalog of eclipses is Here. I doubt that this is truly relevant as anything other than trivia (which we shouldn't have), but wanted to add it here, in case. ZZ 13:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Bloopers
Some articles contain some kind of "Bloopers" or "Errors" section. Here is one I saw while watching this episode:
- (Penultimate scene, in the square in New York City) Peter tells Claire to shoot him in order to stop his impending explosion. Claire says, "Tell me there is another way." Peter says that there is not. Nathan then swoops in out of the sky and tells Claire "there's another way." It's obvious that Nathan was quite a distance away before he arrived, so how did Nathan hear the first part of the conversation? — Loadmaster 14:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- It might be incidental, calling back to their conversation in the office (Future not written in stone, etc). It won't work with the article, as we're not adding trivia sections to these articles anymore, but it's an interesting point. ZZ 14:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Even if it was notable, it would probably be original research without proper sourcing. dposse 15:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps it was coincidental. Nathan could have seen Claire holding up the gun to Peter from a distance, flown in, and said "There's another way." camknows 22 May 2007
- Staying in the subject, why Peter needed Nathan to come? Why didn't Peter flew far away by himself if he already had this power? Was it just an unconsidered option by him or a huge plot hole? Ultranol 23:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- A reasonable explanation/speculation for that is that Peter was too busy trying to contain the nuclear energy to have the concentration to tap into Nathan's flying ability. ArleneElizabeth 23:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Staying in the subject, why Peter needed Nathan to come? Why didn't Peter flew far away by himself if he already had this power? Was it just an unconsidered option by him or a huge plot hole? Ultranol 23:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- It might be incidental, calling back to their conversation in the office (Future not written in stone, etc). It won't work with the article, as we're not adding trivia sections to these articles anymore, but it's an interesting point. ZZ 14:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
a question
im jsu askin, but was nathan giving hsi life up teh best wya to stop teh exploding man? i mean couldnt nathan jus shoot peter, and he woudlve regenerated, or peter couldve flew himself. also peter couldve time travelled to a place like teh nevada desert (where ted used to stay so noone woudl get hurt in hsi explosions), since peter saw hiro time travell, he must have teh power. idk why tehy woudl kill a guy off, when that guy couldve lived.
Because it wouldnt have had the same effect on their relationship. Its meant to show sacrifice on Nathans part. Besides, Peter has demonstrated difficulty in controlling his powers. So during the "going nuclear" thing, he may not have been able to "access" the flying power with ease, he was trying to focus on not blowing up. Shooting Peter also is not really a fix for the problem, as theres no saying he wouldnt blow anyway. But accessing any of the other powers when he was so focused on trying not to kill everyone in the city, didnt really seem like an option.
- At this time (prior to the start of the second season), it's speculation that both Peter and Nathan are dead. We saw an explosion, which was pretty obviously Peter blowing up, but we did not see if he survived (due to his regeneration ability), nor if Nathan got away safely before Peter blew up. It's implied by the scene that they both died, but that might not be the case. — Loadmaster 21:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Implied? I think its pretty clear that at least Peter was supposed to survive, given that Claire's grandmother blatantly stated that "Peter will survive". This explains her lack of reluctance in letting her son explode. (Jackmjenkins 17:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC))
- It almost seems a given, because when Hiro traveled to the future and met post-apocalyptic Peter, he had already survived exploding. It isn't clear that Peter or Claire are even capable of permanent death. I think that this is a better position to argue from then the words of a sociopath. People lie after all.
- Except that in the original timeline, it was Sylar who exploded, not Peter. Hiro went back in time to warn Peter to save the cheerleader, and in that altered timeline Peter almost exploded. This is apparently what the graphic novel portrays; see the talk page for Five Years Gone. At any rate, at least one viewer (me) got the impression that Nathan and Peter both died; so the fate of Peter and Nathan is speculation at this point in time, until more is revealed to us in the next season. — Loadmaster 21:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Incorrect - re-watch Five Years Gone - Peter admits it was him, and that it was a lie by Nathan that had Sylar blamed (in that timeline). In Hiro's original timeline (which is not the one we saw in Five Years Gone, nor the current time line) it might have actually been Sylar - but that time line is long cut off so we have no way to check. Indeed, it's possible that Sylar was never the one who exploded - that it was always Peter and always Nathan who covered it up and thus Future Hiro was unaware. The difference with our current timeline is that instead of covering it up, Nathan flies into the sky and - perhaps - sacrifices himself instead of millions of New Yorkers. However yes - it remains speculation at this time whether Nathan and Peter still live. Berym 01:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thx to naybody who answered my question. watever happened to claude, coudl tehre be a chance he coudl have been invisible and witness teh figth thing? idk im jsu being curious
- Please remember that the talk page is for discussing the article and not the show itself. Thanks! Pnkrockr 16:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Theory page
Someone wrote (Anyone want to start a theory page on wiki?) on the article. It goes here. — Daniel 22:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Incorrect. Wikipedia is not a forum or a fansite. If someone wants to post theories, i suggest they check out http://www.9thwonders.com/boards/ and http://heroeswiki.com/Main_Page. dposse 22:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think he meant that the comment/question itself would go here, where it may quickly and efficiently be shot down. Regardless, I concur - there's no place for Original Research here, which Theories - by definition - would be. ZZ 12:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, theories can be included on wiki, such as the theory of general relativity. It just has to be a theory that is published and widely accepted. --Pinkkeith 14:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- ...and which theories about Heroes would not be. I should've been more specific. ZZ 19:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, theories can be included on wiki, such as the theory of general relativity. It just has to be a theory that is published and widely accepted. --Pinkkeith 14:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think he meant that the comment/question itself would go here, where it may quickly and efficiently be shot down. Regardless, I concur - there's no place for Original Research here, which Theories - by definition - would be. ZZ 12:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)