Talk:How to Stop an Exploding Man

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.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 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 Yes, there is, Claire." 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

Except that, on second viewing, Nathan says "Yes, there is, Claire," indicating rather unambiguously that he was part of the conversation. So it's a blooper. — Loadmaster 00:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Not quite. A blooper is something that comes out that us (the audience) picks up that the director overlooked in the final editing. A blooper may be something like seeing a clock on the wall, and when it turns back to teh character, the time is 3 hours ahead all the sudden (continuity error). In this case, Nathan's words, while highily unlikely that he heard the earlier conversation before arriving, were meant to happen. His words were chosen and acted by the director to be part of the plot, and to drive the story, build character relations, and to have a classic "come at teh last minute to save the day" cliché that you see in so many other films. If it was meant to happen by the director, then it is not a blooper, no matter how impossible it may seem to happen in real life. Remember that this show is FICTION...which means that sometimes FICTIONOUS plot twists and events happen. :) imrumpf 206.191.69.149 12:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually this thread is misnamed. See "Blooper" and "Continuity error". --ToobMug 14:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Ooh! Ooh! I know! Sylar crawled away, killed Candice, killed Nathan, disguised himself as Nathan, projected a Sylar corpse onto the ground, and used his superhuman hearing. It's so obvious! It's consistent with Five Years Gone and everything. --ToobMug 14:42, 28 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)

Sylar also failed to kill Claire in that future, and so he wouldn't have had the power to survive it with. That said, Ted didn't seem to be harmed when he destroyed the Bennetts' house, so perhaps regeneration is immaterial. Claude and the Haitian also show some immunity to the effects of their own powers. Also; most powers seem to have some kind of area effect (if not, then many of them would end up naked all the time). It may be that Nathan could be healed by proximity to Peter in the same way as Hiro takes Ando through time and space and D.L. takes Nikki through walls. Nathan may even have gone through the same explosive effect as Peter and have been left unharmed like Ted. Really it's hopeless to speculate. It is a work of fiction and any outcome can be rationalised by any number of arbitrary plot devices because there is no clear and definite rule-set in place. --ToobMug 17:16, 26 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)

oh srry, im kinda new to this stuff

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)

Kirby Plaza

What or where is Kirby Plaza? Is it a movie set, or a cleared-out piece of some city? As I recall, the bomb was described as having gone off somewhere like "the heart of New York", so why is it so quiet there? And quiet outside Nathan's office, too. Is that what New York's like at night, or does it relate to the election or something? --ToobMug 08:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The real Kirby Plaza is Arco Plaza in Los Angeles. I'm guessing it's subbing for NYC's Rockefeller Center. IIRC, we're not told what time they all meet up in the plaza, so who knows if it's 7 PM or Midnight. Ttenchantr 21:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

"Generations"- possible references

There are a couple of possible references in the "Generations" section- firstly, Hiro landing with a thud on a grassy hill just after the title is shown, possibly referring to Star Trek: Generations. The other is the number of mounted samurai- although it's quite difficult to count, I think there are Seven Samurai... MorkaisChosen (talk) 16:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on How to Stop an Exploding Man. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?category=0&id=40615
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070822032609/http://goldderbyforums.latimes.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/1106078764/m/53610293 to http://goldderbyforums.latimes.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/1106078764/m/53610293

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)