Well, I was rewatching the season finale episode today, and I paid closer attention to the whole Angela/Parkman parts, and you know, when I looked at it again, for some reason it just seemed to work so much better. In the excitement of watching it live, I noticed alot less things, which when added in, kind of pull the plot together.

I completly forgot the part when Angela and Claire seperated so Angela could go get Parkman and Claire could get Nathan. Claire actually says "Why not go up with me and warn him now?", and Angela says "It doesn't work like that. I can't change things, but I can give them a nudge" or somthing like that. So keeping that in mind, when she sees Nathan dead (horrible watching him die a second time btw) she freaks out. Cut to Noah, Matt, and Angela, plus an unconcious Sylar. Now I'm guessing Angela didn't just come up with the idea for fun, she realized what her dream meant, and understood that was how it had to happen. She dreamed it, so that was how it had to be. She "nudged" Parkman to make her dream come true.

Now complete opinion here, but watching it again, when Angela starts going on about how a mother would do anything to hold onto her son, we get an HRG Smirk Cut. I am thinking that Angela wasn't as "crazy desperate mother" as much as "realized her dream has to be followed, and will act all emotionally crazy to manipulate Matt into doing it". I think she is more accepting of the plan because she dreamed it, and in her dream at least, it "saved" Nathan.

but yea, after watching it again, I am alot more satisfied about what happened, though I still wish they could magicly have Nathan come back to life like they do at the start of every season

I don't think she was acting as the desperate mother who didn't want her son to die. She saw this as a necessary sacrifice to save specials. She would sacrifice a proper burial, honors, and the memory of her son to put Sylar into his place to make sure the government gets off their case. I think the sacrifice of Nathan as an idea is even worse than the loss of Nathan as a person for her so to make sure the government doesn't throw '1,000 Dankos' at the specials for killing a senator. It wasn't a cry of a desperate mother but one of a calculating schemer who saw the future and realized how everything had to happen to make it happen.

I've watched the finale a couple of times now and yeah, I'm pretty much inclined to agree. As she's holding Nathan's dead body, you can literally see her trying to make sense of it all and how it wasn't what happened in her dream. And from the way she made it out, whatever happened to Nathan in her dream wasn't clear. What was clear was Matt's part in the whole thing.

And the way she was spinning the mother being willing to do anything to save her child? Classic Angela manipulation. It's all in the voice.

Come on. Angela was being manipulating again? It's getting too repetitive for my taste. When are we ever going to know if Angela's "acting" or is really feeling something? Plus, if Angela only had Sylar become Nathan to meet with the President, did she forget Peter now has that ability? Peter could have done it. Not to mention the fact that Parkman can tell people to do what ever he wants. I think Angela really did want Nathan to live so badly that she rationalizes it with the whole "Nathan is needed for humanity" thing, because deep down she knows what she's doing is twisted, but she loves her son.

There's no doubt that she's uncomfortable about the whole thing. It's obvious from the look on her face that she can't stand to be around the thing that's masquerading as her son. But as she's said before in the past "it's a necessary evil".

not only is is a nessicary evil, it was in her prophetic dream, which to me, legitimizes her actions alot. Her dreams always come true

I completely agree with ya U_U .. nod nod

Frankly I agree with the topic starter. Angela states that her dreams always come true and that she can't change it, but that she can help push its outcomes. Had Nathan not died, her dream would not had come to fruition leading to a worse outcome then the one present in her dream. The only way she could make it better was to push the outcome her way.

I don't think that Angela was being the cold, calculating manipulator this time.

Her dreams are symbolic, not literal, and she didn't know how Matt would save Nathan, only that he would. When she found Nathan's dead body, she was devastated and dumbfounded because her dreams always come to pass and in her dream Matt saved Nathan.

The ending of this episode finally shows where the writers were going with the Volume 3 sub-plot where Angela convinces Sylar that he is her son, only for it to be revealed at the end of the volume that no, he's actually not and she was just lying to him to manipulate him for her own benefit. She gave Bridget to Sylar to feed on her ability in an utterly cold and unfeeling manner. She talked about a mother's love, but was still her usual cold, detached self. Her dream at the beginning of Volume 3 (the one re-used from the unfinished S2 episodes) showed Sylar coming to her side as she was confronted by the villains who had killed Nathan, Peter, Claire, and everyone else.

In this season finale, Angela finds Nathan's dead body and cannot accept that he is dead. She knew that he couldn't really be dead because her dream showed her that Matt Parkman would save him. Sylar had used Nathan's DNA to take on his physical form, and had taken on many of Nathan's memories through the ability that Angela herself had given him. I saw this as the desperate act of a mother who cannot face the reality that her son is truly dead. Now she is once again pretending that Sylar is her son, but this time she is trying to believe it herself because the truth is too painful. She rationalizes her actions after the fact as a necessary evil, and that "Nathan" is the only one who can fix everything, but when it comes down to it she just can't deal with the fact that he is dead.

The Volume 3 arc in which Sylar thinks he's Angela's son and Peter's brother that didn't seem to go anywhere finally comes full circle, in that Sylar is, for all intents and purposes, truly Angela's son and Peter's brother.

hmmm, that's a new perspective, but i dont know. it IS the president of the U.S. would they really just let matt parkman around him in order to manipulate his mind?



oh wow, nice critical thinking there. i like where you took this.

I was just bringing up the many ways they could have handled the situation with agents without Sylar being "Nathan". Trying to say that Angela wasn't putting up an act, but wanted Nathan back so badly that she was desperate to think of anything to make Matt do it.

Angela dreamed her plan before she ever considered what other options could be used. She knew Matt Parkman played a role, in fact, he was supposed to "save" Nathan. If you knew that stuff HAD to come, and were looking for alternatives, with Matt "saving" Nathan, are there any other options besides putting a syringe of claires blood in his hand?

I don't doubt she was upset, but I think that she also had an "oh ******" moment" when she realized what her dream meant, and resigned herself to following her dream, and doing all she could to save her son, and everyone else.

Not true. In fact, Cold Snap and 1961 show that her dreams can be both symbolic and literal. When Chandra asks her if her dreams are right all the time, she hesitated and said they're confusing. That to me suggests that her dreams ARE always right regardless of which way they appear, but the interpretation of what she sees is what makes things difficult.

Fully agree!

We were shown that her dreams can come exact the way she sees them like the car scene in which in her dream gets captured then wakes up saying "don't stop the car" so she can avoid it and when the car indeed stops she immediately runs away changing the outcome of her dream.

The same was when chandra were interviewing her and she knew everything that was about to happen by even finishing his lines.

However, other dreams of hers like the arthur one and the previous with the villains ones were open to interpretation.

In my opinion she tried to change the flow of her dream so a other outcome will come out and nathan will survive but it unfortunately didn't worked.

Through her angry NO she screams at first you can see her dissappointment and anger because in her eyes she failed to save her son and her dream "cheated on her" telling her otherwise (she almost jumps from anger ).

The second NO was obviously out of pain for her loss.

Anyway.. there were other options they could had take instead of the "we need to keep sylar on the show at any cost" outcome they delivered.

Really? Which option would that have been, exactly?

Nathan is the only one who could undo the damage that had been done, and Peter would be unable, emotionally, to pull it off- also, he's physically incapable of it as well. In order to pull it off, he would need flight, but he is still only able to use one power at a time, which would require him to not look like Nathan.
Matt's also out for the simple reason that, save for locking someone in a nightmare, his ability requires constant supervision.
Claire's blood might have worked, but I'm not even sure where Claire was when Nathan died- other than nowhere within easy reach. So, reworking Sylar was the best of a bad group of choices.

If you don't like my opinion then it's your problem and dropping by on each and every thread to show everyone and their grannies that you are the only one that is right even many people including me gave your explanations on other options in at least 3 other threads won't change anything to the fact that there were other viable options.

Alone Matt would have at least 2 options.

The dissappearance of claire all of sudden when she were needed the most was another flaw since she was previously with hrg and peter together and then all of sudden she dissappears.

So if you think that was "brilliant writing" and you have to defend it with your life then be my guest cause everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Just stop trying to do as if all of my and the others opinions are not valid and as if people wouldn't be even entitled to have a other than yours cause thats beyond rude.

Of course there were other options for how to resolve the ending. To think otherwise is just silly. That said, Naylar/Sythan was one of the options they had, and that was the one they chose. They could have used Claires blood, or made Matt mind melt everyone, but i guess they thought this would be the best option, maybe because Angela already dreamed it?

It was idiotic. The two problems outlined by Angela and HRG were: 1. Only Nathan could convince the President to stop Building 26 and set a new course. False. Matt Parkman, especially if Peter duplicated his power and helped, could easily convince everyone from the President on down the list of necessary government officials that they should change. If they enlisted help from the Crimson Arc, they could even do it from a hotel room. 2. If word got out that Nathan was killed by Sylar, Building 26 would expand as an operation and there'd be a hundred Danko's. NO! That's even more easily fixed than the first one! Nathan died of a slit throat. Not the top of his head gone. Not disintegrated. A slit throat. They could easily pin his murder on an ordinary secret service guy who struggled with Nathan, thinking it was Sylar. That absolves the agent of any blame, as he was just doing his duty, and makes the whole thing an unfortunate accident, something that sadly happens too often in combat. Peter and Nathan are still heroes for defeating Sylar, and Matt and Peter can then go to work on the President and his subordinates who still insisted on immorally hunting specials.
They did it this way because Tim Kring wanted the 5YG future, rather than coming up with something fresh. Simple as that.

I don't really see how it is that Angela's dreams "always" come true. Just last volume, she had a dream in which Nathan and Tracy were lying brutally murdered on the floor, Peter had his hands covered in blood and a pipe rammed into the back of his head, and Arthur had apparently killed them all- in what sense did this come to fruition?! Moreover, in Season I, we saw Peter (using Angela's power) have a dream in which his explosion happens in the middle of New York and kills everyone, including graphically incinerating Nathan, which is obviously not how things turned out.

Sir, you do realize there is a whole thread, a *long* thread debating this very fact? One which you participated in? Your argument here is the same as the argument there, and it has been thoroughly debunked in that thread. If you wish to continue to argue this point, it would be decent and reasonable of you to continue to argue it in that thread.

Reasserting your argument here, after you abandoned the other thread is not helpful in any way.

On one hand we just got through watching a whole episode dedicated to what Angela's lies and manipulation had cost her. Now obviously in the dream she had Nathan didn't die, she seemed surprised that he did so I'm assuming that his death wasn't in the dream. Yet she knew she need Matt to "save" Nathan. Her shock has me kinda scratching my head wondering why she would need Nathan to be saved if she didnt dream about him dying in the first place. Then we have Claire suggest that she simply tell Nathan what she saw and Angela says she can't change what happens in her dream, yet she didnt dream that Nathan died? So she's not going to even try to warn him, which could either be regarded as stupid or heartless depending on which side of the debate you fall on. And we know that her dreams do come true in some context but that doesnt mean the peices can't be moved around.

If she knew she needed Matt could she have possibly knew what she needed him for and therefore sent her son to his death willingly? He reaction suggest no but her knowing exactly what to do and coming up with the plan so fast suggest she is pretty cold hearted.

Maybe I'm not thinkning about it the right way but that's how it plays out for me.

A Literal dream would be... Angela sleeping in the backseat of the limo. Limo stopped. Driver pulled out and then Angela captured.

Angela's reaction... Angela wakes up and tells the driver not to stop. Driver needed to stop because of construction. Driver pulled out of the car and Angela slipps away and escaped.

A Figurative Dream would be... Peter dreamed he was in New York that was empty of people. The regular cast appears, even some that were dead or others that he had not met. Claire is in her cheerleading outfit. Nathan comes to Peter as Peter blowes up. Nathan is insenerated.

How it could be explained figuratively... Peter felt like he was alone in trying to stop New York from exploding.
The other cast members were people that somehow related to wether or not New York would blow up. Peter saw Claire as the Highschooler who was a cheerleader. Nathan comes to help Peter. Nathan's dreams of doing the right thing (by letting New York blow up) are distroyed.

Figureative dream... Angela saw Nathan and Tracy dead inside of "The Company"'s walls. Next she sees Peter with blood on his hands and a pipe in his neck.

How this could be explained figuratively... Nathan and Tracy joined Authur at Pinehurst, so in a way they were dead to the company. Peter's Abilities we wiped out or dead to him when Arthur took them. When Peter's empathy left him it was like Peter was dead.

There are others, but I'm sure people get the idea. The big issue is really, what type of dream was Angela (or Peter) having. Literal or figurative.

And since we didn't actually see the dream, we dont know what it was like. I still hold to the opinion that she did what she did because she thought she "had" to, because she dreamed it. She said it herself, her dreams always come true. Just because she didnt understand it doesnt mean it still isn't meant to be.

I think that was also mainly the reason why they didn't show it, because it could go both ways.

Otherwise they would have to explain what and why while now they can use open interpretation leaving the fans making their assumptions based on their knowledge around the show.

Not quite bad but not quite good either in my opinion. :/

Yeah but what about the time she had a dream showing Maurey, and Adam etc together with Claires head chopped out.

That one would fall under the symbolic/figurative category.

Maury and Adam were both alive at the time. Maury was working for Authur and Adam was burried in a coffin. Adam was killed by Authur.

Claire died in the hospital (even though it didn't stick.)

Ya but the exact scene didn't happen. And besides adam really didn't become a evil force again and he never worked with Maury. The scene made it look like the villains were working hand in hand.

yeah i agree on this. you're speaking for the majority here.

Hence why it was symbolic and not literal. The villains were working hand in hand, albeit not exactly as it was depicted in the dream. Adam was taken to Arthur and served his purpose, i.e. healing him. Maury was Arthur's right hand man. Knox was also working for Arthur and Tracy eventually ended up siding with Arthur as well.