http://www.televisionwithoutpity.com/blogs...mption.php#more


OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!


1: Does anyone really die on Heroes? Yes. Nathan is dead, though through Sylar he can live on, after a fashion, and with tremendous complications.

2: Where does this leave HRG? Some have fretted that HRG is now doomed, complicit in a terrible act (the creation of Sylathan) and planning to reconstitute the Company, which condemns his soul to hell. But the title of this Volume is "Redemption." The Company will not look nor act as it has in the past. Many forces are at work to bring about changes in all our heroes, redemptive changes, one might suppose, and HRG will be profoundly affected.

When we pick up our story, whatever plans HRG may have had for the new Company have been rocked by upheaval in his marriage and by terrible misgivings about having created a being that is "neither fish nor flesh." But he came to it honestly.

3: Why didn't HRG kill Sylar? I see HRG's decision as a Sophie's choice. Which does he want more: Sylar dead or Nathan alive? If Sylar dies, so does Nathan. As a parent, HRG knows he would do anything to keep Claire alive and so his compassion for Angela and Nathan, Claire's biological father, wins out. He chooses to keep Nathan alive. And there's only one way to do that.

I imagine a conversation wherein Angela pleads her case to HRG before they ever broach it with Matt. Once in, HRG is, as usual, all in. He and Angela then take the idea to Matt, who traps Sylar in Nathan's body while Angela imbues him with all appropriate memories to keep him convinced he is, in fact, Nathan and not Sylar. Of course, this will go astray, and I can tell you, based on the first script, that it goes astray with extreme deliciousness prejudice.

4: Why didn't we use Claire's blood to revive Nathan? In Season 2, ep. 9, Claire had just given blood to Bob for the very purpose of healing someone. When HRG got shot, he was in the clutches of the Company, and given an immediate transfusion. This time around, there was no Bob or Suresh on the scene, there was no bag o' blood waiting to be utilized, there was no time. Nathan's throat was slit wide open and he bled out.

Trauma triage: why Nathan died and HRG lived. And, of course, HRG is so badass, no puny Moe Green retinal scratch was gonna keep him down!

Meh, doesn't add anything new that hasn't been discussed. He may be Jack "HRG" Coleman but it doesn't explain why they could get Sylar's unconscious body away from the Secret Service, sneak Nathan's dead body out of the building, but couldn't find some common medical items?

Peter is a paramedic and a nurse isn't he? I think he knows how to draw blood and hang an IV, all they needed was the equipment.

Personally I think using Claire's blood was always a bad idea, but I wish it would just be forgotten, not explained....badly.

But at least it confirmed that her blood has to be used right away to save someone from death and they didn't just play like they forgot about her blood.

EVERYTHING *HRG* writes is suspect, dude!

HUH?

Does not compute. HRG got shot in the eye at the beach (I think) not at company HQ. He had to be found first then transported. That took a lot longer than the time they had available in the Finale.

Everything HRG says is misdirection.

His other post if you don't believe that it's him but all in all we will find out sooner or later.

http://www.televisionwithoutpity.com/blogs...files/index.php

http://heroeswiki.com/Jack_Coleman

More proof that it is in fact Jack Coleman

You misunderstand. It's not that I don't believe it's him, the explanation still doesn't hold water.

Two explanations

- Nathan is dead, "they" (Tim K and co.) didn't want to use Claire's blood because they decided they just didn't want to do it again and wrote the episode that way.

- Nathan isn't dead. They did use Claire's blood and it will be a shocking revelation at some point.

Doesn't say he was at the company it says that the company helped him right away.

"When HRG got shot, he was in the clutches of the Company, and given an immediate transfusion. This time around, there was no Bob or Suresh on the scene, there was no bag o' blood waiting to be utilized, there was no time. Nathan's throat was slit wide open and he bled out."

Well, checking the wiki real quick to refresh my memory, HRG was shot in the eye by Mohinder at the beach after the Claire/Elle hostage swap. I'm not sure what "in the clutches" means, but I'm pretty sure it took longer to get HRG to wherever they gave him the transfusion than it took to walk upstairs to where Nathan's body was sitting.

If I recall correctly Claire and Peter left so they wouldn't have got to him in time. We only saw them after Matt did his mojo and everyone was convinced Sylar was dead but over all we don't know how long they were gone since in tv time we see stuff quicker. But in HRG case he was saved right away because they had just gotten the blood from claire and bob was doing a trade Claire for Elle.

You recall correctly but that actually just opens a bunch of other questions. Peter stuck Sylar with the horse sedative in the presidential limo, and then just split when they carried Sylar back upstairs? Where did they go and why? They could have, you know, called Peter to tell him to get some needles, an IV bag and a Claire and come back upstairs. Not to mention the fact that they should have at least discussed it -

HRG - "We only have 30 minutes to inject Claire's blood" (looks at watch) "Less than 5 minutes left, we'll never make it in time"

Besides, HRG was not saved "right away". They didn't give him the bag of blood in the back of the van at the beach. They're supposed to be in SoCal, so given standard traffic it would have taken them at least an hour or so to get back to company headquarters .

But none of this is new and was discussed right after the finale. I don't really care if the correct explanation is "Using Claire's blood was a mistake that should have never happened".

I believe Matt mentions, when him, Angela, and HRG are in the room with Sedated Sylar, that they/he sent Claire and Peter off to find Nathan.

I don't think there is a time limit, I think maybe it depends on how much blood was lost? When HRG was shot Mohinder was there and he could have stopped the bleeding and there could have been sufficient amount of blood in order for Claire's blood to heal him. With Nathan he could have simply bled out within minutes because of the gash in his throat and since there was no one there to save him and because he lost so much blood Claire's blood wouldn't have done squat to save him.
So there they had a dead Nathan and a very much alive, although pretty much out of it Sylar and to them the only way to rid the world of a man who can't die is to make him believe he's someone else.

Not to mention Sylar has the same power as Claire, meaning his blood could have been used as well. Didn't even need Claire.

Not really because a few people on here already pointed out in different places that both Peter and Sylar were unable to use their blood to heal, it needed to come from someone who naturally had the ability.

EXCEPT.......

HRG knew Claire was in the lobby!! Bogus!!!

Better explanation is to "clarify" season two's ending:
Q: When was JFK shot? A: 12:15pm Central. Q: When did he stop breathing? 2:10. <<Not actual times, but approximations. Heart and lungs kept going despite massive brain injury, for somewhere between 1-2 hrs.>> Now apply that to HRG.....

You do know I didn't write this right? Just making sure but according to Jack Coleman that's how it played out so thats good enough for me for now but we all know it's because with the blood thing no one really can die so they just made it so you have to have it on hand by a certain amount of time if someone is dying.

Overall if people read this they will probably stop ******** about it so thats why they had HRG do crowd control.

Jack Coleman didn't write it either (that episode that is).

For me it doesn't matter that much who says it. Sure I would give Tim K. or Jack C. a lot more credibility than say.....someone like.....Benology. But if what they say doesn't make sense, it doesn't make sense. I think this is just a Jedi mind trick.

I don't know, to me it makes perfect sense in that when HRG was shot Mohinder was right there and so was the company so Mohinder was probably able to stop him from bleeding out and was then able to infuse his blood with Claires and heal him.
With Nathan we have no long how he was in the chair or how long it took him to bleed out and this as I said before could have been why he wasn't able to be saved. There wasn't enough time to save him because there was not enough blood in him to take Claire's blood and infuse it with his. They couldn't save him because you just can't go and take blood from different people and give it to him. So knowing this and then deciding to do the whole Sylarathan thing they couldn't go get Peter and Claire because they had to keep this between as little amount of people as possible.

Well, if we analyze both situations, HRG was shot on the beach. Mohinder was right there, but he didn't have an IV full of Claire blood with him, they had to go back to whatever company facility they were using. This is in SoCal, so all joking aside, it is unlikely to be closer than 30 minutes away (probably longer). Throw in however long it took them to pick him up, put him on a gurney, get him inside wherever they were going and you have 45 min to an hour easy.

In Nathan's case, we know that horse tranquilizer isn't going to work for very long on Sylar, plus he was just downstairs. Total time elapsed from Nathan getting killed to the get-together in the room would seem to be around 15 min or so. There is the rather big question of how they got Sylar's unconcous body away from the Secret Service agents, but that's another problem.

Estimating elapsed time is always a little sketchy on TV shows, and Heroes is worse than average, so it is certainly possible that my "feel" of elapsed time is totally off, but it sure seemed like it took longer for HRG than it would have with Nathan.

The other explanations offered (that Nathan just had no blood left to circulate or that HRG was only "mostly" dead but maybe still had a pulse) are more plausible IMO, but all suffer from the fact that there was no passing discussion of the subject even though Claire was just downstairs.

I would have expected something along the lines of

HRG - We could have used Claire's blood to heal him if only a. he had any blood left, b. he still had a pulse c. we got here 5 minutes earlier

it probably did take longer for HRG, but don't forget that when HRG was shot Mohinder and the company was there and they were no doubt able to stop his bleeding and stabilize him and prep him for what they needed to do. With Nathan it could have been fifteen minutes, but in that time he could have easily bled out and been beyond saving.
So all I'm saying is that it wasn't that HRG got Claires blood within a time limit but that they were able to stop him from bleeding out in time. Remember also that Nathan laid in the hospital bed for some time before Adam was able to give him his blood and heal him. So the thought that someone needs to have the blood within a certain amount of time doesn't make sense to me, but the fact that they weren't able to get to Nathan in time does.

The point people here are missing is that Nathan bled out, meaning he could not be revived. When his throat was slit, blood was gushing out and he died moments later. It's not the fact that he was dead that you should be looking at, it's the fact that he bled out. This is something I suspected from the beginning, but I'm glad that it was confirmed.



What is your point? Claire could have been standing on top of Nathan with an incredibly large sign reading "my blood heals!!" and it still would have not made a difference. Nathan was dead, gone, non-existent. He was no longer alive, no longer able to be revived. It would have been like giving CPR to a person who drowned an hour before you arrived.



Some fans really need to give the writers more credit, specifically Tim Kring. This comment is not directed at you, but people need to pay attention to the details. When Nathan was shot at the beginning of the season, Claire called Future Peter and was about to tell him that her blood can heal. Does this very act tell you that the writers were trying to get away from Claire's blood having healing abilities? Does it tell you that they would just simply forget about Claire's blood when someone as important as Nathan dies? Nathan was revived in the very first episode because he was either injected with Adam's blood not too long ago, or Future Peter healed him when he kissed him on the emergency room table, I'm leaning more towards Adam's blood.



You're missing the point here. If Claire was on hand at the time of Nathan's throat being slit, then something could have possibly been done, if it were done immediately. His throat was slit, he was in the chair bleeding out for God knows how long, he lost entirely too much blood to be revived. As I said before, it would have been like trying to give CPR to someone who had drowned an hour before you arrived, it's not happening.

In HRG's case, it was different. He was not bleeding anywhere near as much as Nathan. Nathan was pretty much drained of his blood. Claire's blood has regenerative abilities, it can heal arteries, it can heal a bad heart, it can heal a gun shot wound to the head, but as we seen in the Finale, it cannot heal a person who has bled out and died. If someone was drained of their blood in its entirety, do you really think injecting this person with a pint of blood is really going to do anything?



This was explained in the episode. Noah sent Peter and Claire to look for Nathan.



quote from the blog



He could have called Claire, Adam, Linderman, Hiro's mom, a Peter who just mimicked Claire's ability and Hiro's mother and it still would have not made a difference. Nathan was dead. No amount of IV, needles and people with healing abilities would have made a difference. Nathan was gone.




He did have the bag of Claire's blood with him. I'm sure he went straight to the drop-off after he took Claire's blood. It wouldn't have made sense to do otherwise. But again, the point is being missed completely. Nathan died because he bled out. The operative word being 'bled'. Bled is relative to blood. He lost too much blood to be revived. HRG didn't. It's as simple as that.




This isn't a big question at all. What do you think happened to Peter and Claire after they were confronted by the secret agents in the hotel lobby? How do you think Peter even shape shifted into the President? What I gathered from the episode is that Peter and Claire explained the situation to the agents and they cooked up a scheme to neutralize Sylar knowing full and well that he would try to shake the Presidents hand. This is how Peter was able to shape shift into the President, this is why the real President was nowhere in sight and this is why they were able to carry Sylar's body upstairs and into the room.

To add to my previous post.




For all we know, this conversation may have very well taken place. Lets look at the facts. A lot of dialogue was cut out of this episode. We don't know the exact conversation that took place between the President, the Secret Service, Claire and Peter that lead to Peter being in a position to shape shift into the President and for the Secret Service to be in on it, but we do know that it happened and it happened right after Claire walked up the Agents that were pointing their guns at them.

Another scene that was left out of the episode was the conversation between Noah, Angela and Matt that lead Matt to using his mojo on Sylar. We know this conversation happened, but it was never shown.

You get my point? The conversation didn't really have to happen on screen. They only have so much time each episode. But to me, it wasn't necessary for them to include it in the episode, but after seeing the confusion amongst viewers after the episode aired, I almost wish they had.

You give them too much credit. OBTW, that was really long, so I have been rather selective in quotes.

Why? Where exactly has there been any indication that there is a time limit? Not saying there isn't, simply that there has been no indication that there is one. In S1 Claire was dead overnight. It is quite reasonable to assume that Claire's blood transfers the same healing power temporarily.

Why not?

This seems to be the crux of your argument. Since magical healing blood has no well defined properties that I can look up in a medical dictionary you are making many assumptions. If you duct-taped Nathan's neck to keep most of the blood in, why couldn't you just pump Claire's blood in as required? Sure Nathan was dead, but so was HRG. HRG was stick a fork in him dead for at least as long or longer. Claire heals, and therefore has a never-ending supply of blood. No need to stop at a pint, they could have just kept pumping it into him until it did the trick. It is nothing like doing CPR to someone long dead, since they didn't really know how long it had been and heck, didn't even do a cursory exam of the body.

If your assumption was correct, wouldn't it have made sense for HRG to at least say something about it and avoid all this discussion? A quick line like "Damn, if only he had some blood left we could have used Claire's blood to revive him." But alas, they didn't include such a line did they?

Simple? How do you figure? We don't know the medical properties of magical healing blood. HRG was DEAD DEAD DEAD with a .45 ACP round through the noggin. He was not unconscious, he was dead (or that was certainly the impression they gave). Even if he had it, Moh did not administer the blood in the back of the van, they did it back at the company facility. They had to get there from the beach. I suppose SoCal Company HQ could have been beachfront property, but that seems awfully convenient.

I am all for the fact that Nathan bled out and this is why he was unable to be saved and that Angela and HRG could know this due to the fact that they were a part of the company and probably did some testing on people in order to see exactly what would happen. So who knows, maybe they dealt with a situation where someone bled out and they tried to revive the person with Adams blood and nothing worked. Maybe in order for their blood to work there needs to be blood in the body and that too much of their blood would be like someone getting an infusion of the wrong blood that could be fatal.
Of course they never said this and they should have stopped and gave us an explanation with something like this, or possibly anything else.

Yep, I'm not saying that isn't a perfectly viable explanation, but they could have done a better job by just inserting one line of dialogue. And before someone jumps on the "You want everything spoon fed" bandwagon let me close with a couple of thoughts. This is not a case of needing to be spoon fed, it is a case of needing to drop a little hint of explanation. If you are watching a conventional horror movie and the protagonist DRIVES to the log cabin, you expect him to try to DRIVE away when he gets chased by the monsters/demons (or whatever). If he doesn't at least try to drive away you are left wondering why now and how stupid he is. That's why they usually leave some indication of why the car won't work. Zombies ate the battery cable, drank the gas, bridge washed out, tires are flat, or something. It takes a few seconds and is critical to continuity.

When the creative forces (director, writers, etc.) don't take the 5-10 seconds to explain why some obvious course of action is not possible it becomes a plot hole. Using Claire's blood was an obvious course of action. Why they didn't remains unexplained (unless they did....).

not really because sometimes inserting that 5-10 seconds of dialogue in there ruins the over all flow and feel of the scene. The way that scene played out I don't see how they could have put that in there without ruining it, but later on there can always be a scene where someone discovers Nathan is not Nathan and confront one of them and their answer could simply be something like; we didn't get to him in time, he bled out and there was no hope. So we took the only logical course of action at the time and there was no time to discuss it.

Hmm... Accepting that premise would require subscribing to the belief that the "art" of the individual scene is more important than the "art" of storytelling and overall continuity.

IF (big if) the "not enough blood" or "too late" theory is true and not an afterthought I don't think it would have disrupted the scene at all to add something like this-

HRG - "Damn, we could have used Claire's blood if only a. he had any blood left, b. we got here 5 minutes earlier, c. he had the right blood type, d. xxx"

Please don't pick it apart for how exactly that line would have been inserted. It would have had to be "worked" in, not just added as I propose above. But they are professional writers, that's what they do. Yes, it would have changed the scene, potentially making it BETTER. If as you suggest they just decided that the emotion or flow of the scene was more important than trying to maintain continuity, then bad on them.

Here's the root of it. The writers correctly realized that the whole "healing blood" thing was a bad idea in the first place. Like so many of their "good ideas" it was not well thought through and led to the dilemma that there is not justifiable reason for anyone to stay dead. Therefore the writers decided to forget about it and pretend it never happened.

Even if they came up with a reason "why" Claire's blood would not work on Nathan in this particular instance they would still have the specter of Claire's blood hanging over any other death that occurred on the show...forever. Every time a good guy died they would have to concoct a reason why Claire's blood wouldn't work "in this case". Rather than have to deal with that forever they correctly decided to forget about it. I must clarify that I have no problem with that decision. The decision to use "magical healing blood" in the first place was stupid squared.

Uh, putting limitations on what Claires blood can heal is sorta like saying her magic blood makes distinctions. And thats what doesn't compute. We've seen Claire regrow a toe, and it regenerated HG eye, therefore it is reasonable to assume and expect that Claires blood would regenerate Nathan blood. Blood loss shouldn't make a difference as it's already been demonstrated Claires blood heals and it regenerates.

Totally agree. That's why I think they just decided they never wanted to use it again and the best way to do that is forget it ever happened. The other logical possibility is the "two Nathans" theory.

Totally agree

I think there might be the possibility that the real Nathan will return at some point this season. They have said that some old characters may return. They could always have Nathans body on ice just waiting for the right time to bring him back. It wouldn't be difficult to do, and Angela and HRG may have been planning this all along. The Nathan/Sylar idea might have just been a quick fix at the time. This plot twist could be fun to watch play out. And as always, they never learn their lesson, you can't manipulate Sylar, he always comes out on top.

I know this is hell of a late reply but seen Benology post they are in no way close to this thats like compairing a person word who is on the show with a person whose in a straight jacket aka Benology.

You know even if Nathan did die (which he did) hypothetically, her blood should still work on him. Remember the beginning of volume 3, i think, is when the eclipse started happening and they all lost their powers. Claire had gotten shot, infected, and died on the operating table. But, when the eclipse was over BAM she's alive again! Perhaps the reason why they didn't get claire to give them her blood for nathan was if it didn't work it would have tramatized her. So they opted out.
Where is Nathan's body anyways? Maybe they said and I didn't catch it..

Yeah, and since the shows been known to change directions mid stream in the past... I'm just saying it's kinda late in the game to "put limitations on Claires blood" after we've already seen it used "in the field" so to speak. Her blood heals, and it regenerates. So the amount of blood loss is irrelevant, because Claires blood would regenerate what needed.

Hg eye was shot, in order for claires blood to work on him, it not only had to heal the wound, but regenerated the eye (after death). So if the eye can regenerate, surely Nathans blood should of been able to regenerate.

Clair's blood should have never had the power to resurrect the dead. Heal people? Sure, but resurrecting the dead should be a separate ability all together. Your heart isn't pumping blood when you're dead so injecting someone while their dead makes no sense at all.

However, hrg could have not been dead when he was given the blood. If the bullet was shot from an angle at his eye it could have just missed his brain or hit part of his brain putting him in a coma. Or you could use the JFK / Lincoln explanation.

It's still pretty lame.