Talk:Exposed future

The Butterfly Effect

• It was agreed that it is too speculative to claim it is a new ability Peter absorbed, so this summary needs to be edited.--MiamiVolts (talk) 00:23, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
  • Much better now. Thanks Bob.--MiamiVolts (talk) 00:52, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

Name

Why is this called "exposed future"? The name doesn't really make much sense. I would think it would have something to do with all the powers people have, like "public abilities future" or simply "abilities future". I mean, the name is never even explained in the article, so far as I can tell. It's very confusing. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 16:26, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

• Well something came up earlier like a "Formula Future" i agree on that. But i also agree with one "Villains Future". -- Futurepeter 16:30, 7 October 2008 (EDT)
  • It's the exposed future cause the timeline Future Peter originally experienced was one where the secret of people having abilities was exposed. Even if both Mohinder's and the Company's formulas were contained, if the secret of abilities is exposed people with abilities become hunted. Such a future is where Future Peter came from. Future Peter stopped the exposure from becoming negative by shooting Nathan, but he didn't stop the secret's exposure or the release of the formula, and he let out some villians from Level 5 by triggering Sylar's taking Claire's ability.--MiamiVolts (talk) 16:58, 7 October 2008 (EDT)
    • But "exposed future"? That's just a silly name! Can't we come up with something better? -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 22:07, 7 October 2008 (EDT)
      • I admit I found it confusing at first, too. Even after figuring it out I didn't object to it per se, but if it's confusing to people at first glance then it doesn't really serve us too well. I'd also advocate discussing a better name for it. (Admin 22:27, 7 October 2008 (EDT))
        • I don't have any good suggestions. I think I need to hear a few first... -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 22:53, 7 October 2008 (EDT)
          • But "exposed" is such a sexy name ;)... Anyways, the only suggestion I have is calling it the "tell-all future". That essentially means the same thing, and is a little less corny.--MiamiVolts (talk) 23:12, 7 October 2008 (EDT)
            • 'Exposed' is far better than any other suggestion here, in my opinion. I agree with MiamiVolts that it's a 'sexy' name (if we overlook what I think is sarcasm in that statement ;)), and it makes more sense than 'abilities' or 'public abilities' future; after all, any future in this show is going to be an 'abilities' future. 'Tell-all' future, meanwhile... I don't know. Seems to me like it's referring to a gossip-y future. Haha. Anyways, that's just my two cents. Sorry to poke holes without any new suggestion, but I honestly think that 'exposed' works well. --Conspiracy Unit 23:18, 7 October 2008 (EDT)
          • Even though I changed it from villains to exposed, I agree it's not the best name (not even better than villains...it was just easier for the move), but I don't hate it either. It should probably be something to do with the world being split in half, since the other two seasons were named after the actual catastrophes (Explosion and Outbreak), not the catalysts thereof (Radiation, Shanti Virus). The Future Divided? The Fission Future? The Disjoint Future? The Future Severed? The Bifurcated Future? The Cleavage Future (to keep the sexiness  ;))? I can't say I really like any of these better than the Exposed Future (or even at all, really), but maybe it'll inspire something... Stevehim 16:55, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

Not up to standards

This article is not up to standards. All episode histories should be grouped together under one "About" section. Helpful narratives should be separated and may break the rules of tense, but not the rules of perspective. Notes and Trivia sections may break the rules of perspective. I could go on, but let's start with that. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 17:25, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

• When I was moving it I tried to include About sections, but I couldn't get the line and edit option to appear with it, since it's already broke up into the four rifts (one of which, Angela's dreams, I'm not sure even is one). Stevehim 18:20, 13 October 2008 (EDT)
  • Right, precognitive dreams have never been exact representations of the future, so it should really not be included on this page, except maybe as a note. As for the rest, let's get it all back into one section and move on from there. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 18:41, 13 October 2008 (EDT)
    • BTW, I didn't understand what is meant by a "rift". I think it should be explained in the article.--Referos 19:51, 13 October 2008 (EDT)
    • I'm not sure what you mean by combining it all and where to go from there. I did a brief combination here, but it looks even worse (IMO), than the current version does now. One problem is that, since the future keeps changing, we have to keep noting that events (even within the same episode) are part of possible timelines, and not set in stone. For instance, the 'Hunted' future has no longer occurred, being replaced with the 'Marketed abilities' one, and we don't know which one the 'Preview of destruction' one coincides with. To combine it all, it really needs to be massively rewritten, and I think we should have a general idea of what we want it to look like before doing so. The main question, I think, would be how to differentiate the possible futures while keeping it under one section? Stevehim 09:40, 14 October 2008 (EDT)
      • I was using "rift" to mean the possible timelines that are created by the changes made. We've never been told exactly what is meant when they refer to rift, but that seems like the most consistent definition with what we've been shown. Stevehim 09:42, 14 October 2008 (EDT)