Talk:Sylar/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 →

Contents

Future

Under the future tag, I'm pretty sure the power that Peter was using was Ted Sprague's radioactivity, and not the simple flame creation of Merideth Gordon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.100.77.76 (talk) 03:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Cannibal?

I noticed that Sylar is categorized on Wikipedia as a "Fictional Cannibal". Whatever he does with brains, should that be considered cannibalism. He isn't eating people, is he? Actually we've never actually seen what he has done after he started to, um, remove their craniums. --Valley2city₪‽ 06:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

There's been no confirmation that he's actualy eating the brains. It's been left ambigious on purpose. I think that category should be removed.--Piemanmoo 19:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

In the episode .07% at the end where Sylar's painting you can see clearly that Sylar's hands are caked with blood while there's none on his face. I'd say that they've dropped that idea now. Cherries Jubilee 23:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope, I'm sad to say they haven't dropped the idea. Molly Walker confirmed that Sylar eats his victims' brains in "The Hard Part." Arwen undomiel 02:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but she confirms that the childhood monster "the boogyman" eats brains. Being a child I'm not certain she was referring to Sylar actually eating the brains or doing something she doesn't understand with them (so she calls it eating). But, I have to weigh this against my abject dislike of the corny idea of eating brains and getting powers from it. I think it's stupid and silly and am trying hard to keep from having to believing it, so I may be biased. Padillah 13:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I think it's stupid too, but Molly is definately referring to Sylar as "the boogyman."
Suresh: "Molly, I want to stop the man who hurt your family, who tried to hurt you."
Molly: "You can't stop the boogyman. He sees into your soul and then he eats your brain."
Suresh: "Well, you know who can stop the boogyman? You. I hear you have an amazing ability...the boogyman, he likes to hide, but if you can tell us where he is, we can make sure he never comes back again."
Molly and Suresh are talking about Sylar, and she is saying Sylar eats his victims' brains. Arwen undomiel 20:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Molly is talking about Sylar, but she is still a little kid and she still called him the boogeyman and said that he "sees into your soul." I wouldn't take her word at face value, especially when there is clear physical evidence to the contrary (no blood on his face after taking Isaac's power).
It's true we don't see blood on Sylar's face after he kills Isaac, but that doesn't mean he didn't eat the brain. In fact, I'm not sure we saw any blood on Sylar at all when he was painting in Isaac's apartment: his hands might have been dripping red paint, not blood. I can see why you say we shouldn't take Molly's words at face value, but it's pretty hard to misconstrue Sylar picking up her dad's brain and putting it in his mouth as something else. Arwen undomiel 22:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
It sure looked like blood on Sylar's hands. His painting didn't have all that much red in it, so there would be no reason for it to be exclusively red. Besides, Peter didn't have any red paint on his hands when he finished Isaac's painting in episode 5, and 70% of his section was a giant smear of red paint. Molly's probably imagining most of her description. What could she possibly have seen that would make her think Sylar "saw into your soul?" And I highly doubt she would have stayed long enough to see what Sylar did with the brains. I don't know about you, but if I was a little kid and a strange man burst through the door, telekinetically pinned my mom against the wall, froze my dad solid, and starting cutting off the top of his head, I wouldn't wait around to see what he did next, I'd run away as fast as I could. If she had stuck around, Sylar would have easily caught her, and she wouldn't have had a chance to hide. 24.252.87.219 22:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
This is a paragraph straight from Sylar's article:
When Sylar first meets Chandra Suresh six months prior to the series' starting point, he describes having intuitive aptitude, the ability of knowing how things work by looking at them. This ability to see and manipulate patterns within complex systems made him an expert watchmaker, as he could discern any problems with any given watch almost instantly. Upon meeting Brian Davis and learning of his telekinetic abilities, he was able to see the genetic difference in Davis. He promised to "fix" what Davis perceived as a problem and killed him.
This might explain why Molly said Sylar looks into people's souls--he is searching for their genetic difference before he kills them. Arwen undomiel 23:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but how could she possibly know that? You can't tell that he's doing that just by looking at him. Especially if you're a little kid and you're panicking and running away. 24.252.87.219 23:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
But until we get hard, complete confirmation that Sylar actualy eats the brains, rather than just being implied, we can't classify him as a cannibal.--Piemanmoo 01:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Fuller says that "[Sylar] kills people and he eats their brains and he, like, digests their power." That's your confirmation. Even if unstated in the series, the writers explain in no uncertain terms what he does. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Listen to the podcast that that quote came from. What Fuller says is that their original concept was that he ate brains, but that they found that whenever they brought up that idea in the writers room, everyone started giggling and saying "braaaaaaaaains," so they decided to leave it vague and just say that he could see how things work. I took that to mean that they had decided against the idea but hadn't thought of something to replace it at the time. And besides, that interview was conducted back in December, so it doesn't reflect the current intent of the writers. 24.252.87.219 02:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
You don't know the writers have changed their minds. In fact, it's quite clear they've decided to just outright state it through Molly. It's not up to us to decide whether her comment is to be taken at face value or not. The fact remains that the writers gave an explanation and she confirms it. He is a cannibal unless they specifically deny that Sylar eats brains, which they have not. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 03:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Again I ask you to listen to the podcast. The full quote is, "Well, basically, what we've always talked about in the writers staff is that he kills people, eats their brains, and digests their power...His power, we've kept a little vague because we were worried about the potential silliness of talking about someone eating someone's brains. We don't want to cross the line of absurdity, we want to dance along it without saying he eats brains. Because every time we brought that up, someone would go off on a zombie rant. So we tried to circumvent that and keep his power more mysterious. But basically, the idea is that his power is an inherent understanding of how things work, so when he first met his victim he understood, 'Oh! That's how this works, and if I-for me to absorb that power...'" It's far from specifically stating that he eats brains. And yes, it does have to be decided if something can be taken at face value, because you simply cannot take everything at face value. Otherwise we would have to state that Sylar is the boogeyman. It's clear that Molly's statement was at least partially a little girl's imagination. And why would they make a point of showing blood caked onto Sylar's hand but not onto his face if he had recently eaten a brain? Anyway, the fact is that it has not been clearly confirmed that he is a cannibal, therefore calling him one is speculation. 24.252.87.219 03:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
As you keep quoting, they simply avoid saying it because it sounds silly. The explanation is still there, and Molly's statement backs it up. Even if Molly sees him as the boogeyman, she still saw him do it. Her rationalization of the killer's identiy aside, there's no reason why she'd say such a thing unless she saw him do it. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 03:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Nobody has confirmed that Sylar does eat brains, and nobody confirms that he hasn't. It's been left ambigious on purpose for a long time. If they were going to reveal that he did eat brains, I doubt they would reveal it by some little girl's sly remark. If anything, Sylar is a possible cannibal. So until we see proof, it's ludicrous to assume anything. --Piemanmoo 07:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Like I said before, it is very unlikely that Molly stuck around long enough to see Sylar do whatever he does with the brains. And there is a reason why she would say that without having seen him do it. It's called imagination. She saw him brutally murder her parents in a supernatural way, and start to cut off her dad's head. When Matt found her the next day, she saw her dad's body with its brain removed on the way out of the house. Since no one could tell her what happened, she rationalized that the boogeyman came and ate her dad's brain. It's a perfectly normal thing for a little kid to do, especially on television. The writers had her start her statement by saying that Sylar was the boogeyman, establishing that it was at least partially her imagination. The fact that she gave Mohinder a drawing of a yellow star afterward and said that it would protect him from the boogeyman further establishes this. Thus, we should not take it as confirmation, especially when they went out of their way 2 episodes ago to show hard physical evidence that he does not eat brains. And besides, Tim Kring said in an interview a few weeks back that we wouldn't find out what Sylar did with the brains until next season. We should not categorize him as a cannibal, and we should mention the evidence from 0.07% in the article. 24.252.87.219 21:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
And you realize every bit of that is original research? My memory is kinda shakey on exactly where she was hiding, but I'm relatively sure it wasn't completely dark. In any case, I'll move on to the .07% thing. Exactly where do you get "hard evidence" from a single murder? To expand on that point, how do you get "hard evidence" when your only argument is "we didn't see blood on his mouth"? There are quite a few reasons why no blood would be there, especially over such a large gap of time. The fact remains that both a writer and a character have said "eats brains". Despite all your rationalizing, they have not ditched the concept, only vaguified it so as not to sound completely silly. There are two places where they say "eats brains". I challenge you to find one where they say "no, he doesn't", other than you making interpretations. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 23:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[Resetting indent] Let's get back to Valley2city's original question: even if he eats the brains, does that make him a cannibal? He's not consuming human flesh for nourishment, but rather as a way of "digesting powers". does that still fit the definition of cannibal? - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 23:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

"Cannibalism (from Spanish caníbal, in connection with alleged cannibalism among the Caribs), also called anthropophagy (from Greek anthropos "man" and phagein "to consume") is the act or practice of humans consuming other humans."Doesn't have to be for nourishment. See Ravenous. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 23:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Implied brain-eating and confirmed brain-eating are two very different things. Molly's statement wasn't "Sylar stares into your soul, and then I saw him eat my dad's brain." Molly was hiding in a small playroom hidden behind a door that looked like the wall. On top of that, she was in the very back of that room hiding behind a table, as far away from the strange man as possible. Besides, eating brains would turn them into poop for Sylar, not another new power for himself. HRG said that he had been infusing himself with DNA, and eating the brain of another person doesn't change your DNA. Sylar obviously has some other unknown mechanism for absorbing powers. Also, if Sylar did eat brains what are the odds that he would wash the blood off his face but not his hands? I'm just saying there's to much eveidence to the contrary and we shouldn't jump to the conclusion that he he pan sears it and enjoys it with a nice glass of chianti or whatever. Even Zachary Quinto doesnt know how it works, and has even been quoted saying "They haven't told me. The impression I was operating under was he actually ingested them, but I don't know." Burden of proof is on the beliver, so I challenge someone to find a proof (beyond Molly's metaphorical statement or Fuller's out-of-context quote) that cofirms that Sylar eats the brains. Until then, he doesn't belong. --Piemanmoo 23:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Fuller confirms it in the interview, they just don't say it because it's silly when said seriously. As for the rest of your statement, see WP:NOR. It's not original research to say he eats brains, because Molly says so. It is original research to say Molly just made it up, because no one has said that's the case. Proof exists for brain-eating. All you have is conjecture. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Fuller just said that the writers had talked about Sylar eating brains. Tim Kring got asked about it an interview here: [1] The quote:
Does Sylar (Zachary Quinto) get his power by eating brains?
"That's the popular speculation," laughs Kring. "There is a connection between the powers and the brain — and Sylar has found [it]. Early in season 2, you'll find out what he's been doing with the brains."
That sure doesn't sound like a yes to me. And why would he say that we would find out about it in the second season if we were going to find out about it in episode 21? 24.252.87.219 00:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. This is the kind of response I was looking for. This does show some inconsistency between creator and writers, but it doesn't show a retraction. It only shows that they'll stop beating around the bush and get to it in season 2. It doesn't mean the brain-eating isn't true, nor does it cast sufficient doubt to deny the fact. Fact is, the writers do make up many of the details. You should add that into the article, though, as it is important. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I added that quote to the article. Feel free to change its format or placing to make it read better. 24.252.87.219 00:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
So the fact remains that we dont have 100% proof that he does eat the brains. Personaly, I believe that there's a good chance he does, but we still dont know for sure. As long as there is some doubt about it, you'll see why it's simply not a good idea to classify him as such. --Piemanmoo 00:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
But we have enough to classify him as such, as both writers and characters have overtly stated it. There is nothing wrong with calling him a cannibal, because we've been told that's basically how his skills work. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 01:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, basicaly. But both the characters and the writers haven't said "Sylar eats brains". Obviously, it's heavily implied by a lot of sources, both within the show and outside it, but unfortunatley we still dont know for sure. If the next episode actualy shows him eating brains and confirms everything, then that's awesome and we can add it for sure. But keep in mind a lot of people had different theories that changed rapidly as the show progressed. Many people though Sylar didnt have ice powers until they were confirmed in the graphic novels. So let's just wait until we have proof that is undeniable first. Play it safe and such. --Piemanmoo 02:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Even if there's more to it, he still eats brains, as confirmed by Fuller and Molly. That they chose not to state it directly out of foolishness concerns is not an issue, because they agreed on the concept. He's a cannibal, plain and simple. That you are unsatisfied by a lack of visual proof is of no concern, as the written proof is more than adequate. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 04:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
How can he be a confirmed cannibal when its been revealed by Kring that it won't be revealed what he does with the brains until season 2? Kring's statement completely undermines Molly's announcement and implies that Molly's vision of the boogeyman is a childs interpretation of what happened. Irrelevent of the lack of physical on screen brain eating even the written stuff has been completely ambigous, not once has it been said "yes he eats brains", only "that's the speculation" or "that was the original idea but...". It cannot be argued from these he is definitely a cannibal and all the double talk implications do not make it so. –– Lid(Talk) 08:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Someguy0830, do you also believe that the crayon star on the piece of paper will protect Suresh from Sylar? I'm just trying to establish what statements Molly makes are irrevocable truth and which are the ramblings of a 6 year old. Please explain to me, other than your need for her statement to provide proof of your point, how do we tell the difference between those two statements? Padillah 12:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
While I would normally think the piece of paper a child's imagination, this is Heroes. It might very well hold some special power. While you wouldn't expect such a thing to be helpful, you never know. However, that's a moot point, because it's not made an issue of. The brain-eating is. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 23:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Well? Aren't you going to add the category back? --Piemanmoo 05:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Fighting two or more people is pointless, especially when the issue is something so mundane and arguable. Matters of policy are one thing, this is just tiny details. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 07:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is this talk section so long? We already have known for a long time that he eats his victims brains. Knight Whitefire 22:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually we've speculated that he might, but as yet there isn't a verifiable reference from the actual episodes or published interviews with the producers that backs it up. And as far as why the thread is so long, it's because the exact mechanism of how he absorbs powers is a critical and enigmatic part of the article. Dugwiki 23:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Identity of the Bomb

"The graphic novel "String Theory" revealed that, in the original timeline of the series, before Hiro attempted to alter it, Sylar was originally the "exploding man" who would decimate New York." I disagree with this sentence. The novel is from Hiro's view; all it shows is that Hiro believes that Sylar was the bomb. In the altered timeline where Claire is alive, this is shown to be a common but incorrect view. It's quite possible that the bomb in both the original and altered timeline was Peter.--Trystan 15:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hiro stabbed Sylar, but because Sylar had Claires regeneration he survived. This no longer happened. However, Peter did become the bomb. Hiro was there when Sylar exploded, so I'd say it's safe to believe him. Jacobshaven3 20:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The way I interpreted it is the same as Jacobshaven3. Since Claire is still alive and Peter, not Sylar is the bomb, this would indicate that the timeline future-Hiro returns to is no longer his "original" timeline but rather the "real" timeline of the show. One thing I'm wondering about is why Hiro still needs to kill Sylar, as shown in the 9th Wonders issue from the future, given that future-Hiro's actions caused Peter and not Sylar to become the bomb. --Pentasyllabic 22:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm wondering this myself. But there's also the effect of having Sylar to blame and having Sylar (as Nathan) stir up hatred and bigotry. I don't think Sylar needs to be killed because he's the bomb but rather because his powers and influence caused the situation we see in Five Years Gone. Padillah 12:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be easier if Hiro just went back and killed Ted before all this began, then no-one could explode... Just an idea. --Crazypete101 09:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
What did Ted do wrong? Yeah it's easier but he's innocent regarding all of this, the only reason Peter became radioactive is because they were in New York. He should have left. Jacobshaven3 11:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Not to be a jerk, but this is for discussing the article and we're starting to wander off point. Padillah 12:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Candice Wilmer: Spelling

Several occurrences of "Candice Wilmer" in the article have been changed to Candace Willmer, breaking a couple of links. Is there a source we could use to determine the correct spelling?--Trystan 15:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

According to NBC'c official recap, "Claire pays a surprise visit to Mr. Bennett's prison cell at Primatech Paper, though he's quick to recognize that it's really Candice, the illusion caster." Is that good enough? Several other recaps: [2], [3], [4], [5], and [6] all spell her name 'Candice". - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 16:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Cryokinesis in "Five Years Gone"

A survey regarding the verifiability of these powers has begun here. --Ckatzchatspy 23:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed that people keep removing any mention that it is cryrokinesis Sylar is using in the fight with Peter. In the weekly Q&A (Behind the Eclipse) with writers/producers Joe Pokaski and Aron Coleite, they confirm that we see Sylar use this power at some point in this episode. It's fairly obvious that this is the scene they are referring to.

Jason Fleiss has also been enjoying the online graphic novels and asks, "Early in the season, we saw at least one of Sylar's victims had been frozen, and we've seen Sylar use this ability in the online graphic novels. Will we ever get to see Sylar use his freezing ability onscreen?"

We'll see a little tease of Sylar's freezing power in episode 20, "Five Years Gone," but it ain't nothing compared to what we see him do with it in episode 21, "The Hard Part."

Ryan 19:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

According to WP:V, an external source has to verify that that scene was in fact the cryokinesis. It is also still unknown that cryokinesis cam from Walker. It may seem obvious, but WP:V insists that an external source verify it, rather than drawing conclusions (even "obvious" ones, unless it is explicitly stated in the show, such as Nathan flying) ourselves. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 01:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC) - Retracted - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 03:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Cryokinesis is a neologism. Cold Manipulation is the correct term. Regardless, Walker was killed by being frozen, thus he can't possibly have had the power, unless his head was chopped off whilst he ate, then he was frozen. Jacobshaven3 01:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Um, why is being new regarded as "bad"? We can't use reletivly new words to describe things in Wikipedia? Just because it's the new term doesn't mean it's incorrect. Cryokinesis is just as correct as Pyrokinesis. Padillah 12:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I am pro neologisms, however wikipedia policy, WP:NEO, is against them. We had a lengthy debate a while back at List of comic book superpowers and had to change all our powers to non neologisms. Jacobshaven3 17:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how the ice and fog effects which are used to depict the cryokinesis power are any less obvious than Nathan's flying power.--Trystan 04:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not referring to the debate about who the power came from. My concern is the the fact that it is indeed this particular power used in the scene where Sylar faces off with Peter. There seems to be an ongoing battle about whether or not it is a freezing power or simply "an energy based power" as it says now. Ryan 05:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Sylar's hands simply turned blue. Sprague's EMP effect looked similar. Peter's hand glowed orange, which looked like Sprague's normal radiation effect. Maybe it was two types of radiation, or may it was fire and ice. Until an outside source verifies one, we can't put it in the article. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 06:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC) - Retracted - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 03:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

People need to open their eyes. Gabriel's hands did not simply "turn blue". He also lowered the temperature of the surrounding air. And Peter's hands were engulfed in flame a la the Human Torch. I have your proof. Look at the damn photo for 5 years gone. It clearly shows Peter's hands on fire and Gabriel's hands chilling the surrounding air. Common sense is not outlawed on Wikipedia, though many people like to pretend it is. Did you see the episode in HD? It becomes even more clear. Should we write that we're unsure how Gabriel pulled Peter through the door? Are we sure it was phasing? What if he created a wormhole on each side of the door and used that? Can you prove he phased? --Billywhack 02:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Also Ted's EMP looks NOTHING like what Gabriel's hands do in the episode. Billywhack 02:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
*sigh* Fine. Upon further review, it does indeed appear that your description is accurate. Just don't attribute the cryokinesis to James Walker. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 03:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that nobody can say where he got the cryo power from yet. Billywhack 03:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah but James walker is shown Frozen and Davis is the second Super human (first is Brain) on the death list, so it has to be Davis... Right?- 24.13.146.47 01:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

First, you mean David. Brain Davis was Sylar's first victim. Second, there were several victims between Davis and Walker, any one of whom may have given Sylar cold manipulation powers. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 02:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Second "Power Box"

It seems unnecessary to me for this article to have a second box showing the powers he has in the alternate time-line, as there is a paragraph above it that states the same thing. It just appears redundant. Similar to this, I've noticed that the other skills sections is a shorter, less detailed version of Names and Aliases. Briememory 02:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I merged "other skills" with "Names and aliases". - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 03:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


Occupation: Serial Killer?

I made the change, taking it off, and it was already put back. No desire to get into a revert war. "Occupation" as used a person's template on Wikipedia means their employment. For any example, look at a famous killer's page (such as Charles Manson, David Berkowitz, Harold Shipman, etc.), the occupation listed, where one is, is always a person's employment status. Yes, a dictionary definition of the word will include both "a person's usual or principal work or business" and "any activity in which a person is engaged." But there are also many more definitions. In the context of these articles, occupation equals employment. 160.39.30.190 04:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know whether it's semantically correct or not, but it does offer useful information about the character, which seems like the most important thing.--Trystan 04:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, it does say that he's a serial killer in the first line of the article. This isn't that important to me, so if the consensus is to keep it I won't bring it up again. Just pointing out that stylistically in Wikipedia that spot is used for a person's employment. 160.39.30.190 04:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm with 160.39.30.190, "serial killer" is not an occupation. It may be what occupies his time but it is not an occupation by any streach. Padillah 12:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
"Eventually, Sylar became a notorious serial killer" How do we know he became notorious?--Raymm 06:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I would say it's fair in the future he became considered (erroneously) a notorious mass murderer. Billywhack 04:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Simultaneous use of powers

Should it be noted that Sylar was above to use multiple powers simultaneously? (For example, he flew while maintaining the illusion of Nathan's appearance.) - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 23:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

5 years gone powers?

if eden prevented sylar getting her powers by severe, direct brain trauma how does he have the power to persuade? also if DL was alive in "5 years gone", how did sylar walk through a wall?

thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.225.71.163 (talk) 05:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

I don't think he does have the power to persuade, and I don't see anywhere claiming that D.L. was alive in this episode. -- Chuq (talk) 05:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I am going to set my reminder for tonight and rewatch "5 years gone" I am not quite convinced he got the "phasing" abilities from D.L. I see nothing that says only one person in the world has a given power. In fact that seems counter-intuitive (but I want to prove it first). Padillah 13:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
When Future Hiro and Ando were talking to Bennet, Future Hiro said he wanted Candace, DL and Molly Walker. Thats another point, if Candace is alive, how can Sylar create illusions... Thanks—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.71.163 (talk • contribs) 13:20, May 4, 2007
Bennet simply didn't know that those people died. Peter specifically stated that DL had died. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 22:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Point taken, but also Hiro specifically said he helped protect them to Bennet. Regardless, Peter said he died in the explosion, not by murder. Hopefully they explain this soon.
Hiro said he brought them to be protected, but Bennett later stated that he turns over the "dangerous" ones to Homeland Security. If that's what he did to Candice and D.L. then they likely were killed while being held. Jshatch 05:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Hiro didn't know that Candice, DL and Molly had been eliminated by Sylar. He'd just come back from the past after telling Peter to "save the cheerleader etc..." - from his point of view the future was different also, hence his confusion when present Hiro and Ando rocked up. 59.100.102.55 11:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Future Hiro didn't know that he altered the future even more when he went back 5 years because in the beganing of % years in the future he asked the present Hiro why he's there, so the time line is altered more-RREDD13 00:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Survey re: powers in "Five Years Gone"

A survey regarding the verifiability of these powers has begun here. --Ckatzchatspy 23:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

And it has been settled, whether you and Matthew want to admit it or not. Billywhack 02:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

In " The Hardest Part" the scene where Sylar kills his mother during a scuffle by stabbing her with a pair of scissors is very similar to the story of alleged serial killer Henry Lee Lucas. Lucas stabbed and killed his mother with a pocket knife during a scuffle in which he was trying to convince his mother to go back home and leave him alone(as opposed to Sylar who just wanted to come home and be accepted by his mother)also, Sylar kills people and eats their brains while Lucas claimed to have killed hundreds of women and then having sex with them.Rbreli 02:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Grammar skills when writing about books and movies/shows

You have to put everything in the present tense, because if I was to re-watch the show, it would be happening in the present, not past tense. It's something you should have learned in elementary school that when you write a book/show summary, it is in present tense.

The only time you write a past tense statement in a summary is when someone talks about something that happens and you don't actually experience it/read the even happening. Ikeray 15:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

edited by Ikeray 22:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC) (happy now??)

Speaking of grammar, you should also capitalize the first word in a sentence, capitalize "I", use an apostrophe in "It's", and spell "don't" and "should have" correctly. These are all things you should have learned "in elementary school". I'm not claiming to be perfect, nor is this intended as a personal attack, but please fix you own grammar before criticizing the grammar in this article. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 15:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Grammar is syntax and morphology, not orthography. None of the things you highlight are grammatical errors. Ilkali 05:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
OK. Anyway, you're right. WP:WAF states that articles about fiction should be written in a "continuous present" tense. Again, no offense intended. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ

personality

It's been strongly established that Sylar is a Narcissist in the extreme, believing that it is his destiny to be more than a Watchmaker's son. Also, he states that he kills other Heroes because it is only "natural selection" to him and that killing the innocent who hold no value for him is not what he wants to do. This is shown in both The Hard Part and Six Months Ago. This, in my opinion, must be added to the article because it is what makes Sylar tick. I'm just not sure how to do it. Any opinions would be appreciated. dposse 01:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Artwork

Should Sylar get his own artwork section like Issac even though he's only made a few paintings? Darkhero31 01:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

By this reasoning, should Peter? Short answer I'd go with - no. --75.2.57.228 10:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Definitely wouldn't deserve it's own page. It might work to put his (and Peter's) stuff on the Artwork of Isaac Mendez page and re-title it something like "Artwork of Heroes." Novastarj 16:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Top-of-page formatting

Technically, the TOC isn't a spoiler, and I hate when the horizontal lines run into other image- and info-boxes. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 19:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)