What changed to stop the bomb going off?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well, that's possible, I suppose, but it is very speculative, Because even if we assume that we remove the way that Peter met ted, we'e also removed the way Sylar met him.

So you can make up another reason Sylar finds Ted, as you have there, but then equally we could make up another reason why Peter meets Ted. It doesn't really hammer the point home.

But I think it should be a good principle to assume that as little is as changed as possible- because Future Hiro seemed to recognise just about everything about the world. He didn't even know anything had changed at all.

Still, it's not imppssible Sylar was the original bomb. If the makers end up confirming he is then, ok. I just dpon't see any reason to think there is a changhe there, as it stands.

But then what the heck was Peter doing in timeline 1? Hiro knows Peter as a scarred guy with lots of powers, just as he was in timeline 2, so most of what he did must have been the same.

See. what I think is more likely that in timeline 1, Hiro stabs Sylar, but Sylar regenerates, and so therefore Nathan cannot get to Peter, whether Natahn wanted to or not. Hence Peter explodes. That strikes me as the simplest outcome. Hiro time jumps away before the confrontation is over and doesn't see the ending- just as he does in the REAL timeline (though without getting lost in the past).

In timeline 2, Hiro stabs Sylar, this time Sylar doesn't regenerate, but lives on just as he does in the final, true outcome. The only problem with that is that Sylar is now next to the explkosion when it happens. Hmm.

Unfortunately future Hiro no longer remembers this as he is messing around with time, so he cannot fill us in, but for some reason, having done this, Nathan does not fly Peter away.

Also for some reason, despite so many things being similar, Hiro does not end up in feudal Japan. That's VERY weird, as it happened before the bang and should have gone down the same way.

I'll tell you what I thought it was going to be- it was that in timeline 2 Sylar kills Nathan first (and can then escape the bomb by flying away). But no reason to think that, unfortunately. Seems more likely Sylar kills Nathan after the bomb.

(Abother reason that would have worked well, btw, is that Peter does not know Nathan is dead, and hence would have thought Syalar died when he (Peter) blew. Which fits with him not knowing Sylar is around in FYG).

-is responsible for Peters knowledge of Hiro
-she pulls the glass out of Peters head
-She changes Nathans opinion to help
-She takes away Sylars ability to regenerate
-She causes Bennet to leave the company
-She stops ted from going Nuclear.

pick your poison, its hard to really tell how her story came into play.

Indeed, but again, that had all happened in Five Years Gone anyway, and yet still New York was bombed. So none of that was it.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Indeed, but again, that had all happened in Five Years Gone anyway, and yet still New York was bombed. So none of that was it.

That combined with what Claire said and did when she jumped outta the building changed Nathan.

I still think the second timeline came to be because Hiro wasn't there.

I mean, while he was in the future, the timeline progresses without Hiro stopping Sylar, and the bomb goes off...

Claire is the biggest reason from the change between the 1st timeline and the one that actually came to happen (the third), but without Hiro in the present, the 2nd timeline was created... IMO

I know it creates a rather ridiculous loop hole, but that's all I can think happened

The bomb was just a McGuffin.

Good Lord, no it wasn't, it was far too important to the story- and besides which, even if it was it would still be vialble to analyse like this.

Hiro has to have been there, SDJ, because of the memories of other people about his actions at the time. Like Ando dying. He can't have died if he was not there.

I guess if 'Villain!' is all we can think of then that's all there is... but it is unsatisfying.

Nah, McGuffin.

It's Heroes, it doesn't operate on that many levels, but I admire your effort.

Sorry, simply wrong- not the definition of a MacGuffin. It's far too important to the plot. The whole point of a Macguffin is that it is a. functionally irrelevant and b. no-one really cares about it.

This is manifestly not true of the destruction of New York, which is a central plot element.

And they are making it work on that level everywhere else.

Nah, as I said, it's a McGuffin. It's dressed up nicely though.

Let's just repeat ourselves, shall we?

The death toll of the bombing going off in New York City is rather important...

Yes, frankly, calling that a Macguffin is rather clueless.

They've made the audience care about it. They have dedicated entire episodes into exploring it. Everything in the first season leads up to it. This isn't dressing up, this makes it fundamentally different from a Macguffin- which has to be something of no relevance, that no-one cares about, and that it doesn;'t matter that we don't even know what it is, like the contents of the microfilm in North by Northwest. THAT was irrelevant, and hence a Macguffin.

This... simply is not. How you can try and define the explosion as unimportant to the story mystifies me. It is seen and referred to all the way through, and it has a direct bearing on the plot and emotional development of characters within the story- all things a Macguffin never does. It's so far from being a Macguffin as to make the claim ludicrous.