Talk:Arthur Petrelli

From Heroes Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Archives Archived Topics
Dec 2007-Nov 2008
Nov 2008-Dec 2009

Mrs. Petrelli?

Who's that? Green.gif AltesUTC CH 08:26, 25 December 2009 (EST)

  • I think it was put because of the "It was your mothers recipe" bit in Villans. I don't think her surname was ever confirmed though. - Jenx222 | U / T / C | <inlcudeonly>08:00, 7 January 2012 (EST) 08:30, 25 December 2009 (EST)

Template for Arthur?

I'm just wondering, since Peter (and his future selves) and Sylar (future selves as well) have templates for the abilities that they have absorbed/replicated, should one be made for Arthur? I'd be willing to make it. --Leckie -- Talk 07:05, 11 January 2010 (EST)

Powers?

Alot of powers he could have, are not listed? We should add them to the list. -- (WaterRatj) 13:38, 2 February 2010 (EST)

  • Nope. Not unless he manifests them, meaning not unless he actually used any of them. --mc_hammark 13:39, 2 February 2010 (EST)
    • We did it for Peter -- (WaterRatj) 13:42, 2 February 2010 (EST)
      • We don't list many of Arthur's potential abilities because we don't know that Peter even had those abilities in the first place. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 14:01, 2 February 2010 (EST)
        • Thats what I said, if we do it for peter why not Arthur. Some of Sylar's abilities arn't listed either -- (WaterRatj) 14:36, 2 February 2010 (EST)

His power

Is permanent? This has been proven incorrect trough Matt jr? -- (WaterRatj) 17:52, 2 February 2010 (EST)

  • I can't find where it says this. --mc_hammark 17:55, 2 February 2010 (EST)
    • Never mind the page said 'Arthur claimed that the effects of his ability are permanent.', din't saw Arthur claimed this :p But should we put it, that in some cases people can get their abilities back? -- (WaterRatj) 17:57, 2 February 2010 (EST)
      • Not on his page, and it's already noted on the Power absorption page. --mc_hammark 18:00, 2 February 2010 (EST)
      • It's a sort of complicated issue, really. I believe what happened is that Arthur truly removed Hiro's power, not just deactivated it. When Hiro came in contact with Matt Jr., it "jump started" his ability from his core DNA. It didn't just make his power work again, he had to work very hard to make it do anything at all. Over the course of a year or so, he was finally able to use his full ability again. So I would say that the power does remove it permanently (because the alternative would be a temporary removal, or burying it, neither of which are true). --Ricard Desi (t,c) 18:03, 2 February 2010 (EST)
        • Yeah its a but complicated, to bad they don't gave full explanation of his ability :D -- (WaterRatj) 18:05, 2 February 2010 (EST)
          • Maybe Arthur meant that there was no known way to restore abilities, or at least no natural ways to do so, without intervention. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 21:17, 2 February 2010 (EST)

The way he takes powers

I think their was mentioned somewhere after he took Peter's ability he could choose how to take powers? Isn't this Technecally incorrect? Since EM is passive and from the moment he has is, auto mimics others their ability? -- (WaterRatj) 14:09, 3 February 2010 (EST)

  • I believe it was a BTE interview. Who knows? Maybe he was good enough with powers to the point he could turn EM on and off. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 14:33, 3 February 2010 (EST)
    • Maybe :D, thanks for the input, thought I read it somewhere. -- (WaterRatj) 14:34, 3 February 2010 (EST)

Empathic mimicry (2)

Why is EM now on Arthur's pane? Wasn't the rule that he had to demonstrate the ability for it to be shown?--Evil Maldini 17:53, 3 April 2010 (EDT)

  • Because EM was Peter's power, which was (obviously) stolen. He didn't need to demonstrate it, simply because we knew he took it from Peter. --Ricard Desi 20:29, 3 April 2010 (EDT)
    • I think the only way to demonstrate empathic mimicry is to demonstrate other powers. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 20:38, 3 April 2010 (EDT)
  • Well, two things- why is this only being listed now, seeing as this incident happened ages ago? And what Ryan said above was right, without definitive knowledge that Arthur absorbed EM with all the other abilities attatched as Ricard suggested, as opposed to absorbing each ability Peter had as a seperate ability in one go, the only method of demonstrating EM would be for him to use an ability we know he hadn't gained through his natural power, and he never did that. So I advocate that that we either list all the powers we 'know' he stole from Peter, whether he used them or not, or only list the ones he used, which we're doing now. We never saw an example of EM.--Evil Maldini 13:18, 4 April 2010 (EDT)
    • An "absorbed but not used" version of Peter's "exposed" abilities? Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 13:38, 4 April 2010 (EDT)
      • Well we already have that right, but we list the one's he has used only on his info pane- I'm arguing that we've never seen him use EM, so it shouldn't be listed.--Evil Maldini 13:46, 4 April 2010 (EDT)
        • I agree. We haven't ever seen him use empathic mimicry. We've only seen him use the abilities that Peter mimicked. Did Arthur ever absorb empathic mimicry, or just Peter's mimicked abilities? -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 18:38, 4 April 2010 (EDT)
          • If he had absorbed only Peter's abilities, he'd still be able to mimic them again, meaning it wouldn't have made a difference, since he'd just be exposed to them again by standing next to Arthur. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 18:46, 4 April 2010 (EDT)
            • I'm saying he absorbed EM as much as he absorbed all the other powers from Peter that he never was seen using, like Flight and Induced Radioactivity- but just as we don't list those on his info pane, as we never saw him use them, nor should we list EM, even with the implication Ricard mentioned.--Evil Maldini 11:54, 5 April 2010 (EDT)
              • Ok, so the thing is, Arthur has shown use of empathic mimicry. Now, we know that EM is still only one ability, which allows the user's DNA to change to allow loads of different aspects. Arthur couldn't take "electric manipulation" because peter didn't have that, his EM only allowed him to mimic it. So any "ability" that Arthur has, isn't an ability, just an aspect of the EM he stole from Peter. This also means he displayed its use. --mc_hammark 21:10, 5 April 2010 (EDT)
                • Given the fact that Arthur has an ability that allows him to take the abilities of others, and the fact that demonstrating empathic mimicry is a pretty murky thing, just about any "evidence" for or against Arthur having demonstrated EM is really pretty theoretical. Since we really have no hard evidence one way or the other, we should probably leave EM off the list of abilities that we know he has. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 21:37, 5 April 2010 (EDT)
                  • Actually, we do have one tangentially related piece of evidence that could help this along. When Sylar was cured of the Shanti virus, he regained his IA (and TK, but that's always been a special case). He does NOT regain the rest of his powers. Why? Because Sylar lost his "sponge", and his abilities "fell out". He got IA back, but it was an "empty" IA. If we use the same logic here, Arthur could not have stolen anything from Peter EXCEPT for his "full" EM (which includes all the powers Peter replicated). Which is why all of Peter's abilities are gone. We can say without any speculation that Arthur did absorb EM. Thoughts? --Ricard Desi 22:14, 5 April 2010 (EDT)
  • If you're right mc then we would need to remove every 'ability' from Arthur's page that he gained through Peter alone, like say Telekinesis, and then remove Arthur's name from the TK page, as he never actually had that ability itself, as it was just an aspect of Peter's one power that he took when he did. That's a lot of changing, and it's based upon the nature of EM, but how do we know that nature? What if EM was simply used only in the initial mimic, and after that Peter used the abilities he gained in the same way the original holder did?--Evil Maldini 08:41, 6 April 2010 (EDT)
    • EDIT: Linked to the Talk:Empathic mimicry page.
      • In response to Richard's post, I believe the "sponge" analogy was only meant for Peter's ability in how he aquires others' through his EM. Sylar is of course much different in how he gains new powers and in his case he actually changes his own DNA to obtain the ability while Peter just mimics, if I understand it correctly. Peter's EM should be listed for Arthur's stolen abilities because that is precisely what he took.--Inblackestnight 17:47, 18 June 2010
        • Inblackestnight, you must sign any comment you add to a talk page. This is the seventh time you've been asked. Any questions can be left on my talk page.--PJDEP - Talk - Polls and Opinions 17:52, 18 June 2010 (EDT)