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)

I think formula future is the best name. Future Peter says the formula gets out and destroys everything, and Hiro goes to the future to see what happens with the formula stolen. Abilities were exposed in the explosion future as well. - Josh (talk/contribs) 14:32, 8 April 2009 (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)

I can't remember if I've already asked this?

Can we make two headings on the page; one for the first future we see where the evolved humans are hunted, then the other where the formula is available to give anyone powers. --mc_hammark 13:44, 27 August 2009 (EDT)

• Aron Coleite and Joe Pokaski confirmed that these are the same future. If they were different futures, they would be separated into different articles (which is what the case was, until the writers confirmed that they were the same). -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 16:08, 27 August 2009 (EDT)
  • Even though it was confirmed that they were the same, they aren't. In one, people with powers were hunted and experimented on; the other everyone had powers and no-one was hunted. It doesn't make sense. Besides, even Future Peter said something changed.--mc_hammark 12:46, 28 August 2009 (EDT)
    • It fits. We saw Peter hunted in the new timeline. You can't really give everyone abilities without experiments. Future Peter told us about his own future that the formula gets out. Only relatively minor things changed, such as the Level 5 escape, and Sylar's status, until Peter came from the past and got Costa Verde blown up. - Josh (talk/contribs) 14:40, 28 August 2009 (EDT)
    • In what future was everybody hunted? The only person I remember being hunted was Peter. He was considered a terrorist, so he was hunted. I don't know remember any future from Season Three where everyone was hunted. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 16:40, 28 August 2009 (EDT)
    • At the very beginning of season 3 when future peter and future claire are in that underground place he says:

"Think about it Claire. It wouldn't be like this if they'd never known about us. Huh? No camps. No experiments. No hiding underground; hunted like this. All these powers. They're gonna destroy everything." Now, from this I took it to mean that the natural evolved humans were hunted down and experimented on to create the artificial powers, and in the other future, they weren't as the formula was made available with Nathan's shooting which made things fall into place. In this conversation Future Peter implies that Future Claire was also being hunted and had to hide underground, but then she wasn't and was above ground when Future Peter took Peter to the future. --mc_hammark 16:53, 28 August 2009 (EDT)

• Perhaps some evolved humans were hunted down, but we've only seen Peter hunted and chased, if memory serves correctly. But I'm not sure Claire was being hunted--I believe she was the one doing the hunting (since she was working for Pinehearst at the time). I think it was much like it's always been, even with The Company--some evolved humans were hunted and bagged & tagged, and they had experiments and were injected with a pneumatic needle. Others lived normal lives. Regardless, your original question was whether or not we should have two separate articles, or at least two separate sections for these two futures. I'm not convinced there were two futures shown in Season Three. There's certainly very good evidence to support the idea that there was only one future. More importantly, there was confirmation from writer-producers that there was only one future. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 17:10, 28 August 2009 (EDT)