Jump to content

Talk:Heroes (American TV series)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by True Pagan Warrior (talk | contribs) at 11:30, 3 October 2008 (Article Size: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleHeroes (American TV series) has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 19, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
February 19, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
March 21, 2008Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Writen Really Well

Whoever the people who wrote this page are, nice work. Its just about featured article quality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.97.23 (talk) 02:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outbreak

Due to all of the footage and discussions on the Season 2 DVD, I feel that we should include the volume "Outbreak" under the season two section and give the information about it and the details of its removal from the storyline. Anyone else agree or disagree? Ophois (talk) 04:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even know what "Outbreak" is, but I think we should have it on the page. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 05:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean "Exodus"? –thedemonhog talkedits 05:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And all the pieces fall into place... Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 05:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that "Outbreak" is synonymous with "Exodus", which is covered in the "Synopsis" section. –thedemonhog talkedits 05:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The volume is called "Outbreak" on the Season 2 DVD. Anyways, there is still a lot more info about "Outbreak"/"Exodus" available than the mere sentence that is given on this page. Ophois (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have any objections to me adding a more detailed section about it under Season 2? Ophois (talk) 04:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. And I do not own the DVDs so I will be unable to help you.  ;) –thedemonhog talkedits 05:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 05:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The "Exodus" name needs to be included as well, given that Kring is on record as having used that name on several different occasions. --Ckatzchatspy 07:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a link or anything that has Kring giving that name? Ophois (talk) 17:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just look for the citations in this and the List of Heroes episodes pages. –thedemonhog talkedits 18:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Here are some other interviews (here and here) where Kring uses the name. --Ckatzchatspy 19:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so that leads to another question. Should the lost volume be mainly referred to on this and other pages as "Exodus" or "Outbreak"? Both have reliable sources. "Exodus" seems to be the original main naming, but now it seems that "Outbreak" is the official name. Ophois (talk) 18:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I removed OUTBREAK without noticing that it was being discussed (since thier has not been much discussion on tis page since December 2007). Anyway, I think if we are going to use the name OUTBREAK we need to provide a source/citation that is verifiable and concrete. I have not heard any references about OUTBREAK. However, some of you may, and if you have a verified source, please use it. Otherwise, it should remain Exodus, rather than saying Exodus (also rferrred to as OUTBREAK). Thoughts? Outbreak seems to be a plot point rather than a name. All interviews that I have read, including the extras from the season 2 DVD have also referred to this volume as Exodus. I have not read or heard any references to outbreak. I think we need to find a concrete source to tag to it, if we are going to use it. OUTBREAK seems like a quasi-fan creation, rather than an actual term of usage...thoughts?--ChrisisinChrist comments and complaints here! 05:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Season 2 DVD extras that I watched all referred to it as "Outbreak". I don't recall any mention of the name "Exodus" given in them. Ophois (talk) 05:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sources you provided do not verify OUTBREAK. It is a New York Times interview, where the writer refers to the volume as Outbreak, but it is not a direct quote from Tim Kring. Outbreak seems to be the main plot point of Exodus, not the name of the volume. Just because it is referred to as Outbreak, it does not mean that OUTBREAK is an encyclopedic reference. I am going to remove it until we get more concrete sources. Right now, it just looks "unsupported"; like we are added unneccesary information to the page...please find a verified source...do you have a quote from the DVD or a location within in the DVD/DVD Extras where the information on OUTBREAK can be found?--ChrisisinChrist comments and complaints here! 15:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stupid is kind of a harsh word. –thedemonhog talkedits 18:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. unsupported sounds much better. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right...my bad...unsupported.--ChrisisinChrist comments and complaints here! 00:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is a "volume"?

The use of the term "volume" in this article (as opposed to "season," "series," or other words traditionally associated with television series) is unclear. The distinction between seasons and volumes is not explained, nor is it clear whether the producers of the show actually use the term "volume" or if it is just a fan reference. The term should be defined. PCM2 (talk) 19:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the program uses the term volume in the same way that it notes each episode as a chapter, in keeping with the comic book format of the series. While we cannot say without citation, a volume tends to be a season (called, confusingly enough 'series' in the UK, with the show being called a 'programme', instead of a 'series' or 'show'). I hope that directs your research efforts into finding a citation. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So far Season 1 = Volume 1, Season 2 = Volume 2, and Season 3 is scheduled to be Volumes 3 & 4. It can be confusing, I get that. If its not explained why they refer to the seasons \ storyarcs in this way it should be explained. Particularly as there are so many references to "volume". SWatsi (talk) 14:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So long as you have a citation that explains it. Without it, we are skipping down the OR highway. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prep for the season starting tonight

Is everybody ready for the onslaught of vandals and deluge of OR? Is there some way we can proactively protect at least this page and the character pages? We know were going to need it. It'll probably be a big enough job even if we do protect them. Any strategies? padillaH (review me)(help me) 12:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We need to watch Heroes tonight and watch this page at the same time. Now that the season is kicking off tonight, unseasoned users are going to tear this BEAUTIFUL article up with OR and POV and all kind of BS. We need to watch, copyedit and revert things as soon as they are added to the page. I am in US Pacific Time, so I will be seeing heroes later than those on the east coast...so, I cant take the first shift...but I can come during the end and help clean things up! Is thier a way we can get a temporary block on this page?--ChrisisinChrist comments and complaints here! 14:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no gravity - the earth sucks. Get a helmet, two lollipops and stand by. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will be bringing the Request for Protection request (waving it in my hot widdle hand). - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I made the mistake of trying to add the following bit about Dr. Suresh tonight: "He gains super strength, the ability to climb walls, and other myriad physical abilities through an injection of Maya's adrenaline and certain enzymes during "The Second Coming"/"The Butterfly Effect." You guys seem to be swamped, so I'll just post that here for myself so maybe I can add it back after it's over. Sorry if I made more work for you guys.CallidoraBlack (talk) 02:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or, you could just NOT add anything abotu Suresh's powers until we know more, like in the next few eipsodes. There's no obligation for us to guess about where the writers are going, get citations and add. ThuranX (talk) 11:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suresh says in the episode that he has the ability of hightened senses. Lets just leave it at that for now until we get more details.--ChrisisinChrist comments and complaints here! 14:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was just trying to go with what Suresh said. He said he had heightened senses and was stronger, faster, etc. Also, we see him doing some of those things. I see your point though, it seems from the preview for the next episode that he will be undergoing more changes. It may not be worth listing them on this page now as at least some of them may only be temporary (his method of gaining them was fairly reckless and the possible end results are endless). I'll stick to correcting spelling errors and the like for now.CallidoraBlack (talk) 19:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Important quote to remember: "I'm saying, I'm an insect who dreamt he was a man and loved it. But now the dream is over ... and the insect is awake." That's all I'm saying. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 13:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Artwork

Doesnt the "Artwork of Isaac Mendez" page seem a little IN-UNIVERSE? We should change the title of that page to the Artwork of Heroes (TV Series) or something along those lines to make it more encyclopedic. Also, Sylar, Peter and Utusu from tonights premiere also paint the future. Should not thier artwork be included? (I would have discussed this on the Artwork of Isaac page, but a lot of the discussion boards in the Heroes project have been dead for months)--ChrisisinChrist comments and complaints here! 14:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That entire page should be folded into Isaac's page. ThuranX (talk) 21:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would tend to agree with ThuranX. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 13:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I actually think Chris has a point. If the artwork is going to continue to be pivotal (and with the emergence of Usutu, it may) then we should bunch all of it together and talk about it all. What makes Isaac the owner of the artwork? Why would we merge Usutu's art on Isaac's page? Padillah (talk) 13:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now there is a point of comparison, as more than just two or three people paint (and not just Isaac's ability being absorbed by Peter and acquired by Sylar). Maybe a sub article entitled "Artwork of Heroes"? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How to handle Nikki and Tracy?

What do we do about these two? The only argument for them being the same is their appearance (and the actress but don't make me bring up Eddie Murphy). I think that, for the time being, unless we can come up with a better reason they should be separate since we can establish that they have distinct powers and as far as we've seen it's easier to think they are twins than Nikki somehow got from a blown-up building in New Orleans to upstate New York (while acquiring a new power) while her son was outside the building. The writers could do it but it'd be one heck of a stretch. Padillah (talk) 19:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then again, two Peters exist in the same time and place during the premiere... point being, unless we have something to prove it is a different character altogether, we should keep them together. (This also gives "real-world priority to the listing, as it groups by actor rather than by character.) --Ckatzchatspy 19:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, She is different because she has ice which niki didnt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raggonix (talkcontribs) 00:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Go Along With This Suggestion

In the section where it talks about the characters, it talks about Isaac Mendez who had died in either season 1 or 2. (I can't remember which.) Which brings me to this question. How can we "re-word" the Niki section? Here is why I ask... If I'm not mistaken it was Jessica who had the super strength not Niki. Now maybe I'm wrong about that, but I still think that Jessica should at least be mentioned in that section. Even though Isaac and she had died, he was talked about in that section. Now maybe I have no clue what I'm talking about, and if so please inform me; but that is what I feel. Thanks and Happy Editing! ⊥m93 (TALK) 19:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now. I do believe/agree with Padillah. They, even though the possible relation, have different powers. Therefore, I agree that they should be separate. Maybe in the same cell, but with separate descriptions/summaries. Thanks and Happy Editing! ⊥m93 (TALK) 19:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suugest we represent it as it is. 'In the third season, 'actress' portrays Tracy Strauss, a character presented as unconnected to Niki/Jessica. When confronted by a reporter's suspicions, and Nathan's suggestions, that she is Niki Saunders, she denies it. She demonstrates a freezing power by accidentally freezing and killing the reporter pursuing the connection. When it comes out that she's Niki and Jessica's lost triplet, separated by the company, we can explain it then, just like once Lady Petrelli admits Sylar and Peter are fraternal twins, we can include that. This is a season of siblings on opposite sides, LOL. ThuranX (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see what your saying. But how do we mention Jessica? Even if she isn't related or even the same person, she still was the one who had the super strength if I'm not mistaken. Even if Tracy and Niki are two different people that look alike, Jessica was still a half of Niki (sort of, but you get what I mean). How do you suppose we mention Jessica. Thanks and Happy Editing! ⊥m93 (TALK) 20:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What? Who cares about jessica? She's part of Niki's write-up. ALi Larter has played one schizoid character, Niki Saunders, AKA Jesica Saunders, and now plays a new character, Tracy Strauss, who has no apparent connection to the other two. Write it up that way. Keep the Niki/Jessica thing compartmentalized away from Tracy, until, like I said ,the 'lost triplet' thing is established. ThuranX (talk) 21:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was only asking the opinion of others and what they thought about mentioning her. I understand what you are saying anout Tracy and I agree with you. I was only asking what others had thought. And the "Who cares about Jessica?" comment... For one I do. And I'm sure I'm not the only one, leaving you out of that group seeing as how you don't. But that is beside the point. I don't care if Jessica is dead. So is Issac M., but he was mentioned. And even if she is dead, she was a hero/villain for a little bit. Thanks and Happy Editing! ⊥m93 (TALK) 21:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think what ThuranX means by "Who cares about Jessica" is that Jessica was never a real person. Speculation regarding the powers aside Jessica was shown, beyond doubt, to be an alternate personality of Nikki. She is mentioned as such in Nikki's article - done. It is hard enough proving the notability of these characters and the fact that they deserve their own articles, to try and justify an article about a personality splinter would be a strech even for an inclusionist like me. Padillah (talk)

And it looks like Tracy and Nikki are related somehow. Awesome. 66.151.6.243 (talk) 05:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, after this last episode (Season 3 Ep. 3 counting the premiere night as 2 episodes) it really seems that Tracy is NOT the same person as Nikki. Zimmerman seemed to know several people who looked like her/them. Applejuicefool (talk) 16:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is probably safe if we wait until next week when we get more details on the Nikki/Tracy connection. Lets not waste time speculating. Any unverified info on the topic will be removed...so the best bet is to wait until Monday! Also, please remember that this is not an idle forum for Heroes chat and gossip. Thier are plenty of fan sites that offer services and programs for heroes fans who wish to chat with other heroes fans about the events within the series. Happy hunting! I hope you find a fan forum that meets your chatting needs. Lets just not do it here.--ChrisisinChrist comments and complaints here! 03:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are clones. Yay! I was wondering when they would send in the clones. ;) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I agree to wait and see about Tracy vs. Niki but I must object to Jessica being treated as a person. She was indisputably a psychological manifestation and was in no way real. She should not be regarded nor represented as real. Just because Niki's personality didn't have the rage to access the super-strength doesn't mean she didn't have that power. In fact, they demonstrated that she did near the end. Mention of Jessica as anything other than a personality splinter needs to go. Padillah (talk) 19:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International Season Premiere dates

What is the policy concerning this? Are we going to list every country where Heroes air and list the premiere date and channel? I do not think this is encyclopedic, but I dont want to remain within the scope of wikipedia policy. It seems really insignificant to continue to list countries where Heroes air, especially when it isnt attracting a significant amount of viewers in those venues. Thoughts? I remember someone once told me that the focus of television articles should be based on its country of origin. Heroes is an American Television show that has an international appeal, but I do not know if it is significant enough to continue to list countries, air dates and network channels. thoughts?--ChrisisinChrist comments and complaints here! 18:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Heroes showing new episodes on G-4 network

I do not see this commented in the wikipedia article that new episodes are being broadcasted on the G-4 network. I also don't understand how new episodes are being shown on the G-4 network while it is clearly a NBC show, I know about show syndications but usually it is episodes that were already broadcasted. I think someone should research this more and talk about this, I think it is very important.--72.202.148.237 (talk) 07:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can find information on G4 under the Multimedia/TV section of the article, which is towards the bottom on the article. If you encyclopedic and verifiable information about the relationship between G4, NBC and Heroes, please feel free to add to the section and add citations. G4 is advertising new episodes of HEROES because it is a new episode to the netwoprk. Even though it is not new to those of us who watch it on NBC, Global or BBC it is new to those watching it for the first time on G4. Also, some cable and dish providers do not broadcast NBC in America, so some people have to watch Heroes eps for the first time on G4 is thier provider does not carry local network. I hope this helps you. Happy editing!--ChrisisinChrist comments and complaints here! 03:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does the table under "Cast and characters" section repeat things from other articles?

If yes, i think we have to remove it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Lots of things are repeated on Wikipedia. Take the lead section of every article for example. If you mean directly repeat, then it ahould probably be reworded. –thedemonhog talkedits 23:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because this article is too large, for one thing. Paring down redundant information into sleek summaries is one good way to do that. --otherlleft (talk) 19:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article Size

This is certainly a good article, but at 124 kilobytes it's quite long. Much of the length comes from overly-long summaries of other articles, so it looks like splitting it up has already been done; this really needs a lot more summary. I took at stab at summarizing the opening to the list of episodes.--otherlleft (talk) 11:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]