Is it so much to ask that when my show requires giant leaps of logic to justify itself those leaps of logic actually be discussed in the show?
For example--this base of the skull thing makes sense, but there was nothing in the show to state explicitly that's what they mean, and if there was I'd call bullshit cause how would they know without testing it on Claire or Peter? At the time Peter said something about that spot in his skull Claire should shoot for, the only thing I could think he was referring to was his recent death experience. Both Peter and Claire have "died" from having something lodged in their brain, but in both cases, removing that item revived them. So, based on what we've seen in the show, if Claire shot Peter in the head, he'd "die" until they dug the bullet out. Or at least he'd lose conciousness, and as we've seen before when Claude punched out Peter, losing conciousness stops Peter from using his abilities.
So in conclusion, I call bull on point number 1.
I'll concede you point number 2, though I could have imagined a more dramatic portrayal of Peter losing control than him standing there looking like a slightly worried glowy Jesus.
3 and 4 I again call the utter lack of any attempt at rationalisation in the show. Isaac's visions show a mushroom cloud, so until they say otherwise, there should be fallout. As for Matt not dying--Ted can turn his abilities off and on, so that still makes perfect sense. He killed his wife before he learned to control it. But yes, at the very least Matt should not be having any more children.
no subject
For example--this base of the skull thing makes sense, but there was nothing in the show to state explicitly that's what they mean, and if there was I'd call bullshit cause how would they know without testing it on Claire or Peter? At the time Peter said something about that spot in his skull Claire should shoot for, the only thing I could think he was referring to was his recent death experience. Both Peter and Claire have "died" from having something lodged in their brain, but in both cases, removing that item revived them. So, based on what we've seen in the show, if Claire shot Peter in the head, he'd "die" until they dug the bullet out. Or at least he'd lose conciousness, and as we've seen before when Claude punched out Peter, losing conciousness stops Peter from using his abilities.
So in conclusion, I call bull on point number 1.
I'll concede you point number 2, though I could have imagined a more dramatic portrayal of Peter losing control than him standing there looking like a slightly worried glowy Jesus.
3 and 4 I again call the utter lack of any attempt at rationalisation in the show. Isaac's visions show a mushroom cloud, so until they say otherwise, there should be fallout. As for Matt not dying--Ted can turn his abilities off and on, so that still makes perfect sense. He killed his wife before he learned to control it. But yes, at the very least Matt should not be having any more children.