Talk:The Company's founders/Archive 1

From Heroes Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive.jpg WARNING: Talk:The Company's founders/Archive 1 is an archive of past messages. New messages should be added to Talk:The Company's founders. Archive.jpg

Hooded Killer

So Isaac has painted a series of eight, most likely showing eight of the remaining nine's deaths. Kaito said "of all of them, I never expected it would be you." So wouldn't the hooded killer be a member?--Bob 13:03, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

  • I forgot that one....should we start off with it as a note, since we know so little about the Hooded killer so far? --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 10/4/2007 13:11 (EST)
  • This would make a great Note, but we can't confirm that the hooded killer is the unkilled 9th member. He or she could simply be working for the unkilled 9th member, or a manifestation of the unkilled 9th member's power, or something.--Hardvice (talk) 14:43, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

Bob

How do we know that Bob is part of this group of twelve? Did I over look something? --Pinkkeith 13:09, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

  • Joe Pokaski and Aron Coleite in this CBR Q&A discussion, state that Bob is a member of The Group of Twelve.--HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 10/4/2007 13:11 (EST)
    • Is that canon if it comes from interviews? I thought we are only taking it from what we as the viewer watches from the show. --Pinkkeith 13:14, 4 October 2007 (EDT)
      • That's why it's in the notes section.--Bob 13:39, 4 October 2007 (EDT)
        • He does need to be removed from the infobox, the image, and the gallery, though.--Hardvice (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2007 (EDT)
          • Argh! I removed him from the infobox and then undid my remove when I saw the Notes. Now should I undo my undo? My thoughts: if the pictures aren't in, his name shouldn't be in the infobox. -- FissionChips 13:46, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
            • If there is so much info about Bob being one of the six, and Joe and aron continually talking about him shouldn't we just add him in the photos. I don't see how it'll hurt.Or we could write that he is a "possible" member. Jason Garrick 20:01, 14 October 2007 (EDT)
              • It's not in any canon source that he's a member. That's why it's in the "notes". Based on canon sources (aired episodes, GN's), there is no indication whatsoever that he was a member. So putting "possible" member is speculation, which should go on a theory page. However, since we know from the writers that he will be in the photo, it makes sense to make it a note.--Bob 20:08, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

Infobox Image

I imagine that at some point we'll be able to use the complete version of the photo of which the death threats sent to Kaito and Angela seem to be a part. -- FissionChips 16:27, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

Linderman as leader

  • Do we know that Linderman was the leader of the original group, and not merely a leader in The Company (which, after all, wasn't necessarily started by the entire group)?--Hardvice (talk) 17:41, 4 October 2007 (EDT)
    • No, we don't. It's only implied, I believe, because of Linderman's great power. If the 12 are the ones who started the Company (which, yeah, okay, they are), then Bob says that they were a group of "likeminded individuals". Sure, there may have been a leader, but I have a feeling they were peers and equals more than anything else. Nobody ever said Linderman was the leader. Technically, he's not even the leader of the Company, he's just the purse. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 21:28, 4 October 2007 (EDT)
      • From Cristine Rose's comments about imagining them meeting at Woodstock, I can't help but get the impression that they all started off as equals, and only as things soured and power struggles started did they polarize into camps with defined leaders. I mean, Angela (and presumably Dallas) definitely appear to have followed Linderman's lead, but that doesn't mean he was the leader of the group at inception.--Hardvice (talk) 21:31, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

Deceased Members

For now, can we italicize members presumed deceased? We know Charles, Linderman and Kaito are deceased. We believe Mr. Petrelli to be deceased. It might help us keep track of who's left.--NissanVersaDootDoot 17:57, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

  • P.S. I'm stating it this way because I'm only marginally sure of Mr. Petrelli's death. For the time being, I have a 0% trust in a word Angela says. ;) -- NissanVersaDootDoot
    • Good call. I've done so in the infobox. I thought about greying out (or Xing out) the dead in the image, but there's a lot going on in that image already.--Hardvice (talk) 18:28, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

...o_O?

Why exactly does "Lindermans Coterie" redirect here? ...Why exactly do we even have that page?--Riddler 21:38, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

  • It is a slightly odd redirect. It's used exactly once, and I can't imagine anyone either searching for it or intentionally linking to it. That said, it isn't really hurting anything. And "coterie" is a cool word.--Hardvice (talk) 22:06, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

Age of the Picture

My Tivo ate last night's episode, so I can't check - but did Nathan mention how old that picture was?

Two other observations: First, Charles Deveaux was already in a wheelchair when this photo was taken, indicating that he either fought cancer for more than a decade, or that he was always crippled. An interesting tidbit. The second item is this - could the woman to the left of Charles Deveaux be his wife? He is not, to my knowledge, identified as a widower, so he may have been divorced - and she was not identified as dead by Kaito. Maybe I'm just reading more into it than there is - but I thought I'd mention it. ZZ 20:16, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

  • Unless Charles has a flesh-colored wedding band, he does not have a ring on his left hand in the photo.--Bob (Talk) 14:02, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

Image Map Problem

Is anyone besides me seeing a messed up image map. In my browser, the first three columns of the middle row get copied and rendered half-way over the top row. --Ted C 09:52, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

  • Same here, is how is shows up for me. I'm using IE6. --Simply Agrestic 11:15, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
    • Me too, and I'm on IE7.--  Lost Soul   talk  contribs  11:19, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
      • I reverted the article back to the static image of the group for now. I'll let Hardvice know his map is having trouble in IE. (Admin 11:36, 17 October 2007 (EDT))
      • At the same time, allow me to also personally suggest switching to Firefox, it's a nicer browser. :) Even IE7 still has problems with newer CSS. If you don't have it already there are links at the bottom of site. (Admin 11:48, 17 October 2007 (EDT))
        • Problems aside, I would personally prefer having an image of the photograph as the lead image, and use the image map somewhere in the article's body. But that's just my preference, I don't have a strong opinion one way or another. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 11:51, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
  • I'm frankly surprised sticking a template call in the image field worked at all. I'll look into it, but it's probably not fixable. No great loss. I just thought it was fun. And what Admin said: Firefox is a much better browser, and this site looks much nicer in it (as do many others).--Hardvice (talk) 14:00, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
    • Bigfoot Lover just patched the IE image map bug on BionicWiki, if you want to check it out. The bug is that IE incorporates the border width when doing absolute position, and this affects the 'top' attribute. The patch in BionicWiki's MediaWiki:Common.js allows for an extra 'ietop' style attribute which overrides the 'top' style attribute if the browser is IE.--MiamiVolts (talk) 18:36, 18 October 2007 (EDT)
      • Just to be clear, does this affect all image maps, or just those included within other templates? Either way, we should probably patch it.--Hardvice (talk) 18:47, 18 October 2007 (EDT)
        • It is usable on all image maps made using a div tag, so it doesn't matter whether the map is included in a template or not. However, you have to manually add an extra 'ietop' style attribute to correct the spacing of each div as needed.--MiamiVolts (talk) 19:10, 18 October 2007 (EDT)
          • Took me a while, but I got it. Incidentally, this bug was only throwing it off by two pixels. The rest of the problem was just bad formatting.--Hardvice (talk) 19:28, 18 October 2007 (EDT)
            • Right, it depends on the border width and it only seems to apply to images on the map that do not touch the top border. Normally the border width is only a few pixels (in the BionicWiki example, it was off by 3 pixels), but those 3 pixels can distort the image noticeably, especially if the image is small like Jaime's bionic eye.--MiamiVolts (talk) 19:37, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Joanna Cassidy as Victoria Platt

Tim Kring: "We will be seeing more of the final five people in the photo (the older generation). The photo actually had a life of its own. It was very difficult to get all the actors lined up. And yes, the photo is as accurate as we could make it. For instance, the woman in the photo who looked an awful lot like Joanna Cassidy was indeed Joanna Cassidy."[1] --SignificantNumber9 12:10, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

  • Also, at Joanna Cassidy's Welcome Page, it states in the "What's New At JoannaCassidy.com" section: "Joanna has just finished filming an episode of the NBC series HEROES. Check back for more info." If there's any more question, then you can check out this comparison using this pic from Joanna Cassidy's gallery. Seems Joanna's character has a scar on her left cheek... 'ROESian
  • Anybody recognize any of the other actors? -Lөvөl 12:25, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
    • I think the guy that is theorized to be Mr. Herrera is Richard Bradford. I just got Earth 2 on DVD and there he was. I could be wrong but if anyone wants to check it, go ahead. - Modestoddesy 17:07, 19 October 2007 (EDT)
      • It certainly looks like him.--Hardvice (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

Multiple Photo Variations

I started a new page involving the multiple photo variations of the group of 12, then was asked by Admin to start a discussion of it in here, to see what everyone thought in regards to it being only a production snafu, or a true plotline arc being introduced.
Here is the link to my userpage showing and documenting several variations. I am pretty sure there are more variations as well, and if anyone is aware of others, please feel welcomed to add more to the page. Perhaps at some point it merit replacing back somewhere in the main namespace. --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 10/18/2007 12:18 (EST)

  • I don't think it will ever stand up as an independent article, however the question is whether the content on it should be merged into Group of twelve. If it turns out the differences were intentional and part of the plot then the answer will definitely be yes. Until then we can't be positive whether it's hinting at something suspicious or whether it was just a production oversight. So the question is if we assume it's a production oversight would it be worthwhile to go into that level of detail including a gallery of the picture differences or does that digress from the point of the article? The answer to that essentially determines what level of detail we go into prior to finding out whether or not there's some plot involving variations of the photo. (Admin 12:23, 18 October 2007 (EDT))
    • I agree completely if it is a production snafu, then it shouldn't even be mentioned. I believe, however, because of the number of differences, and the mystery surrounding the photo and its members to begin with, that it surely can't be that many production snafus. You know they would be expecting the Fans to pic these pictures apart with fine-tooth combs. I really can't see them being that careless in regards to that many photos and photo differences. --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 10/18/2007 12:27 (EST)
      • And I believe that in a production as big as Heroes, mistakes are made often, especially when trying to schedule 12 "bigwig" actors to pose for a picture on the same day. Shortcuts are indubitably made, and inconsistencies are the result. I'm not in the business of pointing out production errors. But it's true, there may be Something To It. I would put, at most, a note that reads something along the lines of "It appears that more than one version of Nathan's photograph exists. Whether this is a production error or intentional is unknown." -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 12:47, 18 October 2007 (EDT)
        • Just made your suggestion change above. Is it completely off-limits to add a url-link in that note to the page with the picture differences? I would think that others would like to see what these differences may or maynot be, and wouldn't want to have to go and dig-out the photos of the differences themselves, since I already have them grouped onto a single page. --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 10/18/2007 12:54 (EST)
          • The pictures are already uploaded here, right? It sounds reasonable to include internal links directly to the images in question. (Admin 12:56, 18 October 2007 (EDT))
            • The image links are a terrific idea. That way it still reads nicely, but anybody interested in doing some sleuthing can click on the links to see the images. It's nice that they don't clutter up the page for those who just want to read about the group of twelve, and not about possible continuity errors. Yet it's all there for those that so desire. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 13:15, 18 October 2007 (EDT)
              • No one's HDS has mentioned (did he get that from my post?) that the first time you see Nathan picking up the photo, you can see that the prop photo used also has a person in Bob's position with a lighter-colored suit. And yet, just a few seconds later, we see the front of Nathan's photo with Matt's miraculously-changed Kaito pic in a bag for comparison. It's all (probably) a deliberate error, because Matt has the sealed evidence bag with the Kaito's photo (you can read, when he first gets the evidence, that the bag has the box for "sealed" marked), and you can see where, unless Matt's gained a new ability, the color of the suit of the person to the left of Kaito has changed color. You can log in to 9thWonders to see this post explaining it. My previous two posts in that thread also are relevant. 'ROESian
                • Isn't this already in the notes section? (Admin 18:53, 19 October 2007 (EDT))
                  • So I got around to reading HDS's stuff and edited my previous entry accordingly. I know credit doesn't matter, but elsewhere I noted about that tan suit in Nathan's full photo of the 12, and I was wondering if he added that tan suit observation 'cuz of what I shared... At least no one at 9thW had noted that, and HDS posts there asking about screenshots, so I was just curious. 'ROESian
                    • I don't have a clue. You're welcome to ask him. :) (Admin 19:16, 19 October 2007 (EDT))
    • I agree with Admin that it should definitely be included if it's part of the plot. However, I'd say we should at least mention the variation in a Note even if it's just a prop inconsistency. We've done the same for other errors, like Mohinder's apartment number, Niki's registration vs. Nii's house number, the reversed symbol on the Kensei sword, etc. Usually, the goal isn't to point out that the producers messed up, it's just to note an inconsistency so that readers won't be confused by it. For example, if Mohinder's apartment just said the number was 613, a reader watching Genesis might think we were smoking crack. The note we have explains that it was changed in later episodes. And I personally don't think there's any harm in including a gallery of images, even if it is just a production error--again, we're just noting the inconsistency, not blaming anyone or theorizing that it Means Something. I for one went "WHAT THE HECK HAPPENED TO THE TAN GUY?" when they showed the picture, so in any case it merits an explanation. But if people really object to the gallery, then links to the pictures in the Notes section are probably sufficient (that's how we did the reversed Symbol on the Kensei sword). All that having been said, I think the shots of the back of the picture are stretching it a bit. The props guys tend not to be too careful with shots like that, because nobody in their right mind (which rules all of us out) is likely to care, and which is why you can still see Turbaned Chandra (briefly) when Nathan sets down Activating Evolution.--Hardvice (talk) 15:50, 18 October 2007 (EDT)
  • For what it's worth, Tim Kring said, "I just have to tell you, the photo has got a life of its own, because, logistically, it was so difficult to actually come up with this photograph that's used now and refers to things that are shot well in the future here. It was very difficult to get that all lined up. But, yes, the photo is as accurate as we can make it." [2] -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 22:18, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

Name of the Group: NUMERATI

Somewhere last season (or between seasons), I came across an interview or clip of Kring referring to the Group by name. It wasn't Illuminati, but it was something similar. Did anyone else see this?

Found it! It was an interview with Christine Rose (Angela Petrelli): "There are still a lot of questions that I hope might be answered in the second volume, called 'Generations,'" Rose said. "As the title might intimate, there will be more news about what's gone on before, what might go on in the future. I've been wondering if, if indeed Linderman and Angela and others of the Numerati (as Tim Kring refers to us), if these plans have been going on for decades, if Angela might not have born her children to be part of this whole plan."

I think this name should be reflected on the article's front page.

  • This could be a production nickname for the group rather than anything the group calls themselves. Interesting as a note, say, but I don't think the article should change unless we see "numerati" used in canon. --FissionChips 14:38, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

Gallery

  • Since we have the image map in the info box (awesome that it works btw), I think that maybe we should have headshots of everyone from the picture versus their character portrait in the gallery (like having Linderman from the picture in the gallery versus the character portrait of Linderman in the gallery). Just my thought on it.--Bob (Talk) 01:56, 19 October 2007 (EDT)
    • Not a bad idea. So we need Angela, Charles, Linderman, Kaito, and Bob from the picture at 200x250 for this, right? Would it be worth updating the image map to use the pictures from the picture as well? Does that sentence make as little sense to you as it does to me?--Hardvice (talk) 03:10, 19 October 2007 (EDT)
      • Haha I think the template should have their character portraits since it's identifying them outside of their existence in the photo, but as a group in general. I dunno, I like how it looks right now. Very nice.--Bob (Talk) 04:17, 19 October 2007 (EDT)
        • Yeah, now that I see it, I agree. In fact, we should replace the other folks with portraits in the image map as we meet them ... unless we get a nice, clear, complete shot of the photo to use instead.--Hardvice (talk) 04:20, 19 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Why'd the picture of Maury Parkman switch to a screenshot from Fight or Flight? All the other pictures are taken from the group photo, so why'd his change? -- Paronine 13:59, 24 October 2007 (EDT)
    • Fixing it now. The file used for Maury's infobox was that picture, and someone updated it with the screenshot.--Bob (talk) 14:32, 24 October 2007 (EDT)
      • I fixed it to use the original photo from yesterday. Please delete the duplicate photo. BTW, I think it might be good to show both photos (how they looked then versus now). We could have a new gallery called 2007 Gallery and rename the original to Yesteryear Gallery, since we don't know exactly when the photo was taken but we can assume it was many years ago.--MiamiVolts (talk) 14:56, 24 October 2007 (EDT)
        • That's why we have the image map as the lead image for the article. Thanks for the heads up, I deleted the duplicate.--Bob (talk) 15:25, 24 October 2007 (EDT)
        • I wouldn't mind having a side-by-side comparison, but I'd rather wait until we find out a bit more about the members of the group. FYI, template:prophecyrow3 is pretty versatile now and can handle different sized pictures pretty easily. However, the image map does the job nicely, though I think it'd be really cool to have a side-by-side imagemap to compare. Dunno, I'm just kicking around ideas. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 15:46, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

Abilities

  • I believe the whole idea behind the group of twelve is that they all possess special abilities (or else they wouldn't have even come together in the first place). If this is true then presence in the picture is proof of a special ability which, for the characters yet unseen, has some repercussions on some other articles. I don't remember the exact scenes involving the picture or the group of twelve, but if anyone could post evidence that the group of twelve has powers thehn it would be helpful. (Admin 00:49, 27 October 2007 (EDT))
    • Well, the only ones who are actually confirmed to have an ability are Linderman, Bob, and Maury. There's a lot of well-founded speculation around the others.
      • Linderman tells Nathan that Mr. Petrelli was "someone with great power" (Landslide). But I should point out that back during the Vietnam War, he was quite surprised to learn of the existence of evolved humans.
      • When Claire asks Angela "So you're like me?" Angela doesn't answer one way or another (.07%).
      • Charles Deveaux had that weird dream thing (How to Stop an Exploding Man).
      • The closest thing I could find for Kaito was when he tells Hiro, "I have waited a long time for a Nakamura to ascend...You have proven yourself worthy of our legacy." However, George Takei and Tim Kring have both confirmed him as an EH in external interviews: Takei told Howard Stern that Kaito's powers will be exhibited in Season Two, and Kring told SHH! that Kaito is an EH.
      • Regarding the group as a whole, Cristine Rose told TV Guide, "I like to think we all met up at Woodstock in the '60s and it was there that we found out about our powers." Food for thought. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 01:10, 27 October 2007 (EDT)
      • I thought the training scene with Hiro and Kaito, Kaito makes some comment, and Hiro asks if he's special too, and Kaito nods or something like that. But yeah, there's heavy insinuation about Kaito, Angela and Dallas being EHs, but no evidence so far. And the Charles thing, who knows about that until it's explained a bit.--Bob (talk) 01:56, 27 October 2007 (EDT)
    • Part of the problem is that we've got two statements that don't connect perfectly. Bob says the Company was founded by a group of "special" people. And then Nathan shows a picture of the group of twelve, with Bob in it. They're almost certainly the same group (and Aron and Joe have said as much), but the characters haven't made the connection between the group and the company yet. And there's no way of knowing for sure that everybody was evolved. (Was Angela involved because her husband was evolved, or vice versa, or were they both evolved, or was neither, and they were merely there because of Linderman and Arthur's Vietnam connection?) In addition to the stuff Ryan summed up above, there's also Angela warning Matt to let it go or "they will find out about all of us and what we can do". In sum, it's almost certainly the case that the group was either all or primarily evolved and that they founded the company; however, neither is really confirmed. The original group of twelve could have broken up and a small remainder could have founded the company (they'd have plenty of time to have done so; Linderman and Petrelli were in Vietnam in '68; the Company wasn't founded until '77) on their own, for example.--Hardvice (talk) 12:15, 27 October 2007 (EDT)
      • Great points. Though there is still a lot to learn about the group, I'd feel uncomfortable making the jump to group founder=evolved human. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 12:43, 27 October 2007 (EDT)
  • In my opinion, it wouldn't make sense for only some of them to have powers. I believe they all have powers, but they just haven't been revealed. --Hornrimmedglasses123 22:08, 31 October 2007 (EDT)
  • I feel that there has been more than enough evidence to confirm that the Group of Twelve were all evolved humans. I understand the need for caution in such matters, but the resistance to accepting the blatantly obvious is bordering on ridiculous. --Joser Kyind 00:57, 20 November 2007 (EST)

12 disciples?

I remember reading in an interview somewhere that Tim Kring has intentionally incorporated Biblical stuff into Heroes, especially with the names of the characters. Should the fact that there are 12 in this group be noted on the Faith and religion page? Jesus had 12 disciples. Is this too speculative?--Ice Vision 22:36, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

  • I don't have the interviews in front of me, but it's been mentioned by more than one person that the names chosen for characters are often Biblically based. I don't know anything about the amount of people in the group being a reference to the Twelve Disciples. Though I wouldn't be surprised if it is an intentional connection (why else choose 12?), I wouldn't put that on the God page. As it is, some of the names already listed there are either based on speculation or are just plain wrong. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 22:48, 28 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Plus, one can't be a disciple in a vacuum. One is a disciple of someone else. There's no Heroes Jesus figure yet, so it's really just two groups of twelve people.--Hardvice (talk) 23:08, 28 October 2007 (EDT)
    • Well, this turned out to be interestingly prophetic. Adam is indeed the "13th" member of the group, and Linderman was his "disciple". The 12 apostles analogy is looking a lot better now. David Anders as a pre-Renaissance Wapanese evolved human Jesus ... who'd have thunk it?--Hardvice (talk) 13:09, 6 November 2007 (EST)
      • And then we have the still-not-confirmed suggestion that the last name of the current Company leader is Bishop... Pierre 15:32, 11 November 2007 (EST)
  • But my understanding of it was they were in the pursuit of an ultimate goal of a perfect evolved human from which to build off of. Hence all of the breeding EH-EH to create the next generation, Peter, Hiro, etc. This is all too speculative though. -Zeckalpha 00:33, 30 October 2007 (EDT)
  • The breeding angle kinda works. It looks to me like none of the original 12 weren't nearly as powerful as the new group. --Mish 22:23, 13 November 2007 (EST)
  • It is possible that the Group of Twelve was formed by Adam Monroe to be his disciples, as he saw himself as a Christ-figure of sorts. He's certainly shown signs of having a God complex. --Joser Kyind 00:59, 20 November 2007 (EST)
      • OH DEAR - I could see it now Adam=Jesus? Random guy 01:51, 21 November 2007 (EST)
  • In his own mind, anyway. --Joser Kyind 16:07, 21 November 2007 (EST)

Unidentified Woman 3 as Paulette Hawkins

While it's possible that the vaguely dark-skinned woman is Paulette, it's not confirmed in any way. And it's definitely not Tina Lifford in the photo. In any case, this is already on the theory page (along with theories that she's Nana Dawson or Simone's mom or the future speed agent or any other black female character, because apparently there are only four of five black women in the whole world), where it belongs.--Hardvice (talk) 12:53, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

  • She kind of looks like Maya Rudolph of SNL to me, only a bit older. --PeterDawson 00:58, 6 November 2007 (EST)

Twelve?

I've been on a Heroes binge with my dad, and I just realized something... I haven't heard them call it the Group of 12 anywhere... nor have I heard them refer to twelve members. Kaito DID say "Charles, Linderman, Petrelli, all of them... there are nine left" or something to that effect, but he never said there were exactly twelve. He named three and said nine were left - that adds up to twelve, but he also said "all of them" inferring that there are more. Sure, the picture only shows 12, but someone could be behind the camera/people could be absent. I could be wrong though. Anything I missed?--Riddler 20:29, 11 November 2007 (EST)

Here is a more exact quote for those who want to ponder [3]: "Charles Deveaux. Linderman. Your husband. All of them. Dead. Now there are nine."--Ice Vision 20:50, 11 November 2007 (EST)

  • Thank you. He named at least three, but there are more according to "all of them." 9+3+x=y. What could X and Y be?--Riddler 20:59, 11 November 2007 (EST)
    • Then again, he could have been saying "All of them" in the sense of "Charles, Linderman, and Petrelli are all dead", but the way he said it sounded to me like he was shortening a list of other people. Anyone?--Riddler 00:54, 12 November 2007 (EST)
      • I'm really not sure on what to say. There are a lot of ways to look at what Kaito said. But I see what you're saying. He made it seem that there more than just 12. I'm still kind of confused...--Ice Vision 08:17, 12 November 2007 (EST)
        • How many of them are there in the photo? Then again, saying that, maybe there were group members not involved in the picture (Adam springs to mind). Maybe there were more. I'm inclined to think no - Linderman gave the impression of it being an exclusive group, of like-minded individuals or whatever. Maybe it is slightly more than twelve, but I don't think it can be much more.--  Lost Soul   talk  contribs  08:53, 12 November 2007 (EST)

Disappointment

This is more of a vent, but am I the only one who is disappointed that all the previously "unnamed" members of the 12 are dead besides Victoria Pratt? Also, on a different note, the handwriting on every screencap I have seen is so blurry, that I could have sworn that Harry Fletcher was Henry Fletcher and that Carlos Mendez was Carlos Maarten, but I could be blind. Random guy 01:37, 21 November 2007 (EST)

  • I'm pretty pissed about it too. I'm just hoping that they'll eventually have some sorta flashback episode where we can actually meet the other four members. DanMan22 01:58, 21 November 2007 (EST)
    • Well I am glad someone agrees. and I checked into the Harry Fletcher, I understand why that has been confirmed. Random guy 04:34, 21 November 2007 (EST)

Thirteen members?

  • There are twelve people in the photo... but what about Adam? Where does he fit in? They said he founded it (I think) but does that not make it a group of thirteen?--  Lost Soul   talk  contribs  03:08, 21 November 2007 (EST)
    • THey knew he was 400 years old and likley didn't count him as one of the 12. Especially after they imprisoned him. Likely he didnt play an active role other than "father figure" or just acted as a catalyst for those folks.--Mish(Talk) 11:52, 21 November 2007 (EST)
    • Bob said that Adam brought them together, not that he founded them. There have been parallels made to Jesus (Adam) bringing together his twelve disciples (group of twelve). He's very much associated with them, but not really part of the strict group. Some also say that Adam might be the one taking the photograph. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 15:06, 21 November 2007 (EST)

Rename to founders?

So with the Heroes:Mobile Game info along with Adam's statement about the founding of the Company, should we rename this to the Founders or something like that, and include Adam somewhere?--Bob (talk) 00:14, 27 November 2007 (EST)

  • Yeah, this should probably be renamed to "the Company's founders", adding Adam as a member. Also, we need to add al of the people in the group of twelve to the Company.--MiamiVolts (talk) 01:07, 27 November 2007 (EST)
    • Don't see why we shouldn't rename it to "The Company's founders." --AnotherNella 17:01, 27 November 2007 (EST)
      • Fairly moot, since MediaWiki ignores the capitalization of the first letter of links and auto-caps the first letter of article titles. There's no way to rename it to little-t "the Company's founders".--Hardvice (talk) 17:13, 27 November 2007 (EST)
        • I'm agree with this rename. We should only uses same words as in the show, and they now use founders -- Frenchflo.gif (talk) 17:17, 27 November 2007 (EST)
          • If we're going to move group of twelve to Company founders, that's fine. But we should move the page, not create a new one. That way we preserve the history. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 08:56, 30 November 2007 (EST)
          • I'll do the move right now, but somebody else will have to update the article and the navbars. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 09:00, 30 November 2007 (EST)
            • Will do.--Bob (talk) 10:26, 30 November 2007 (EST)

Adam's copy of the photo

So the photo was clearly taken some time after the Company locked up Adam in '77, considering the appearances of Kaito and Victoria compared to their '77 selves. How the heck did Adam end up with a copy of it in his Montreal warehouse?--Hardvice (talk) 14:58, 27 November 2007 (EST)

  • There seems to be plenty of copies since Hiro and Nathan both have one. Who's to say that when Adam killed someone he didn't take the picture from them (like one of the people we didn't know about before).--Bob (talk) 14:59, 27 November 2007 (EST)
    • Adam has been travelling around a bit in the week since Peter's absense. I'm sure Maury gave him a couple of copies of the photo, for death threats and such.--Tim Thomason 18:25, 27 November 2007 (EST)
      • Right, Linderman and Maury were Adam's followers. I'm sure either one of the two could have easily given a copy of the photo to Adam.--Ice Vision 20:52, 28 November 2007 (EST)
        • Well, actually, Linderman died before Adam escaped, but I guess he could've had one of his cronies (hmm... Candice?) do the deed in some sort of contingency plan.--Tim Thomason 22:16, 28 November 2007 (EST)
          • Oh yeah, I forgot about that.--Ice Vision 22:34, 28 November 2007 (EST)