Talk:Zach

Does anyone honestly think Zach is straight? I mean, there has been a clear amount of evidence that he's gay, but NBC has declared him "straight". Which I find kind of annoying. Do they think audiences aren't ready to see (gasp) a gay teenager with self-esteem on TV? Zephyrial 16:50, 26 January 2007 (EST)

I've to say that I didn't asked myself the question until now but it's true that he seems to be gay in his way of doing things! --FrenchFlo 16:54, 26 January 2007 (EST)

From Krieg's interview with Out Magazine... (I followed the link [[1]] on the page and got this)

"NBC’s upcoming fall drama Heroes, created by Crossing Jordan exec producer Tim Kring, features a diverse international cast and depicts the fallout in ordinary people’s lives when, due to an evolutionary leap, they discover they have extraordinary unexplained abilities. Heroes will feature a gay character, according to Kring and Fuller, who is now writing for the show. In the pilot a popular high school cheerleader with superhuman invulnerability selects a loner from her class to divulge her secret to—though he’s not revealed as gay in that episode. Kring admits, “I’m feeling a little odd about it, because I literally haven’t even discussed it with the actor yet.”

On the network that brought us Will & Grace, there’s still resistance even to peripheral queer characters. Fuller says, “There was a moment on the set where [Kring] was with an NBC executive, who shall remain nameless, and the exec said, ‘Hmm, you need to watch [the cheerleader’s friend] because that character could be interpreted as gay.’ And Tim said, ‘Why do we need to watch that?’ ”

Kring hints that there may be queers in the second wave of rotating characters. “I am intrigued by a gay character front and center, and we are openly discussing it in the studio and in the writers’ room now,” says Kring, undaunted by network resistance. “It doesn’t scare me at all to do that, and it’s always been a battle with networks on that sort of thing. There’s a subversiveness that you’re forced to think about these things with. You try to come in through a side door.”"

So... yeah. Stupid NBC. Zephyrial 16:56, 26 January 2007 (EST)

Hold up, found the newest info [here]. This was from [Thomas Dekkers's talk page] on the wiki. Sigh. Zephyrial 17:02, 26 January 2007 (EST)

I couldn't find the bulletin that Thomas Dekker supposedly put up on his myspace page. It'd probably be best to provide a link to the bulletin, if it hasn't been taken down. Conduit 22:44, 26 April 2007 (EST)

Changing of Notes

They need to reflect both sides of the "de-gaying issue" and not just reflect the popular opinion and leave it unclear. And, KDE is ran on only Linux to change it or say anything differently is allowing for an unclear mispresenation, also. --Gargyloveswolfy 13:57, 14 February 2007 (EST)

• KDE can run on any 'Nix operating system, including Linux, Unix, and even Mac OS X.--Hardvice (talk) 14:05, 14 February 2007 (EST)
  • Changed it to reflect that KDE is the most commonly used on Linux. --Gargyloveswolfy 14:18, 14 February 2007 (EST)
• There's no such thing as "sides" here. The notes as I edited them were factual. Kring mentioned he was going to have a gay character, but hadn't discussed that with the Dekker. Zach has never explicitly stated his sexuality. There's no sides, just facts. Now the notes as they stand, besides having some awkward wording and unnecessary references to help pages, are convoluted with speculation. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 14:10, 14 February 2007 (EST)
  • Um, to edit out the so called cuvolted and speculations as you like to call them (all of which can be backed up with facts as seen on the show, thus canon-thus the imperrative to have that link up) are the opposite point of view and make the statement more clear. --Gargyloveswolfy 14:17, 14 February 2007 (EST)
    • Right now, the article says "Zach may have implied his homosexuality". That's speculation. Putting a link about what is canon and what is not canon is not necessary on the page. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 14:20, 14 February 2007 (EST)
    • But, it is important to make very very clear that he never explicitly states his sexual orientation in the show. And it's also important to reference Jackie. --Gargyloveswolfy 14:22, 14 February 2007 (EST)
      • Listen, if it were up to me, I'd say take out the whole gay/not gay thing anyway, especially since Zach has never explicitly stated his sexual orientation. All the speculation and pre-production changes belong on Thomas Dekker or Tim Kring's page, not here. I don't mind if they're here, but they certainly have to be worded well, and should not contain speculation. I have no agenda other than putting factual information on each page. This is not a fan creation page, and there is no place for "sides" or speculation here. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 14:34, 14 February 2007 (EST)
        • Um, I've been told that all articles are not to be biased and should have both sides of the story and remain factual. --Gargyloveswolfy 14:42, 14 February 2007 (EST)
          • Correct. But articles outside Fan Creations, Theories, and Spoilers should not contain speculation. That's what those categories are for. "Tim Kring stated he meant Zach to be gay" is a fact, because that's what Tim Kring said. "Zach implies he is gay" is speculation, since it requires interpretation of what Zach said.--Hardvice (talk) 14:51, 14 February 2007 (EST)
      • Ryan's version does explicitly stated that he never comes out on the show. I can't imagine why it's important to mention Jackie; it's already covered that comments in the show implied he was gay. You seem to always be accusing somebody on this site of bias when they make changes to your edits. Perhaps you should consider that the one constant in all of these accusations is you.--Hardvice (talk) 14:26, 14 February 2007 (EST)
        • • I feel it's important to mention Jackie because of clarity that Zach wasn't the only one making comments. Besides, most would agree that Zach's comments were very very ambigourous to say the least. And, to reflect both sides of the issue is to show non-biasness. And as far as my arguments, as you and others see them, are not of the "they made an edit to my edit, and now I am pissed off" it's more of a "I like to see fairness" and from what I saw and the edits I made were based on the both sides of the same coin issue. --Gargyloveswolfy 14:30, 14 February 2007 (EST)
            • Jackie's comments are not a canonical source as to whether Zach is gay or not. They were teasing remarks, whether fact-based or not. They certainly have nothing to do with Thomas Dekker, Tim Kring, and production changes. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 14:34, 14 February 2007 (EST)
              • Neither is Zach's Myspace profile not canonical, it's real world speculation. --Gargyloveswolfy 14:52, 14 February 2007 (EST)
                • I agree with removing it, but there's no such thing as "real-world speculation". Zach's MySpace is an in-world, non-canon source. There's no canon source for real-world information; see Help:Sources yet again. If there's no canon source, then there's no such thing as "real-world speculation". An article is an article, and an interview is an interview. There's no meaningful way for us to distinguish a "good" article or interview from a "bad" article or interview.--Hardvice (talk) 15:00, 14 February 2007 (EST)
                  • • I used the wrong termnology, sorry. --Gargyloveswolfy 15:02, 14 February 2007 (EST)
                      • Just noting it in case the issue arises again.--Hardvice (talk) 15:04, 14 February 2007 (EST)

Fine. I'll remove the Jackie comments thing, even though it totally makes the whole thing un-clear again. --Gargyloveswolfy 14:37, 14 February 2007 (EST)

Terminology

Gay vs. homosexuality. Since, Zach has never explicitily state his orientation. And, Tim Kring and others' have refered to Zach as being Claire's gay friend. I feel it's imperrative to use the term "gay" since it can imply both homosexuality and/or bi-sexuality. And since Clach-ers don't admantly disagree with Zach being "gay" as it could also being bi-sexual and still allow him to be with Claire. Whereas "his homosexuality is implied" says that he's 100% for being with men only and it's almost implying that Zach is canonically homosexual, and that's not being established. Thus, the changes to reflect the proper terminology.--Gargyloveswolfy 17:26, 14 February 2007 (EST)

• I took a crack at this whole "terminology" thing on the Clach page. It'll be easy to switch back if needed. --Ted C 17:28, 14 February 2007 (EST)
  • It's appreciated and I removed you leaving the original format from Clach because it can be found via the historyif need be. I've also took the liberty to change grammar and syntax a little and copy it over here also. --Gargyloveswolfy 17:44, 14 February 2007 (EST)
• I don't think I'll be using the word "gay", "homosexual" or "bisexual" since it's already in the notes, and since it's been made public that Zach is not gay. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 19:06, 14 February 2007 (EST)
  • I sure will! When I have my affair with Tawny Cypress, I'll be sure to tell my partner that I only ever told him I was "gay", which now includes bisexual somehow, and not "homosexual".--Hardvice (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2007 (EST)
    • As a lesbian I find that totally offensive. When I came out I told my mother I was gay. --Gargyloveswolfy 19:34, 14 February 2007 (EST)
      • Gay to include lesbian, yes. Gay to include bisexual ... well, I've never heard it used that way. Queer, maybe, but not gay.--Hardvice (talk) 20:08, 14 February 2007 (EST)
        • gay means the following homosexual or arousing homosexual desires which could very well include bisexuality. --Gargyloveswolfy 20:12, 14 February 2007 (EST)
          • So let's see: you object to the use of the word "homosexual" because it precludes the possibility of bisexuality, but when the same exact word is used in the definition of "gay", it somehow includes bisexuality? I am confused.--Hardvice (talk) 20:15, 14 February 2007 (EST)
            • Gay is considered to be a generic term to all in the GLBT Community, because if you were to actually use the proper and original definition of gay than you'd have to say gay means happy; which is what the GLBT Community uses Gay as a word for to say we are happy with who we are and that nothing can stop that. Where as homosexual is clearly defined as nothing more that one whose attracted to another of the same-sex. --Gargyloveswolfy 20:18, 14 February 2007 (EST)
              • In the 12 years I've been part of the GLBT community, including 10 years volunteering at the GLBT community center, I've never heard anyone use "gay" to include bisexuals or the transgendered. That's why we're stuck with the Gay-Lesbian-Bisexual-Transgendered mouthful. And etymologically, the use of "gay" to describe homosexuals has nothing to do with "being happy about who we are". It's adopted from the nineteenth century underworld use of the word to describe an immoral person (a "gay fellow" was a thief or scoundrel) and is thus originally an insult.--Hardvice (talk) 20:23, 14 February 2007 (EST)
                • I guess lesbians have a different POV on the matter. And, by that assesment than Lesbians can not be considered gay neither. Since apparently we are just as seperated as bi-sexual and Trans. So, if you can clump us Lesbians in with Gays than one would assume you could clump the bi's and trans in with us, also.--Gargyloveswolfy 20:29, 14 February 2007 (EST)
                  • That logic does not work. Gay men and lesbians are both homosexual, and can be called "gay". Bisexuals and transgendereds are not homosexual (and every tranny I know takes major offense at being called "gay").--Hardvice (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2007 (EST)
          • All the 'straight' tranny's of course, but their are plenty of M-to-F tranny's that are lesbians and F-to-M's that are gay that wouldn't take offense to it. But, I'll tell you what we will stick to the generic sexual orientation if it'll make you feel better-and that way no one can really cry foul when it's not canonical to say to say otherwise. --Gargyloveswolfy 20:39, 14 February 2007 (EST)
            • Actually, I have no issue with "gay" since that's what Tim said. I just don't think it includes bisexuality.--Hardvice (talk) 20:42, 14 February 2007 (EST)
        • So, we are basically arguing lignustics and opinion. Either way I learned somethings about history and the GLBT community. --Gargyloveswolfy 20:49, 14 February 2007 (EST)
          • If you can find a copy, I highly recommend Wicked Words by Hugh Rawson. It's got the etymology of pretty much every insult and dirty word, and is hands down one of the best books I've ever read. It's frequently out of print, though.  :( --Hardvice (talk) 21:07, 14 February 2007 (EST)
    • Wait, wait, wait ... I thought the article said Zach was "gay", like happy. Oh, this makes a huge difference. Oh my ... — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 19:25, 14 February 2007 (EST)

• Gay is a generic term for all who represent the GLBT Community. --Gargyloveswolfy 19:32, 14 February 2007 (EST)

Could have possibly died?

I was watching the season 2 DVD extras and they had this feature on the alternate ending of season 2 and how the next few episodes would have went if it weren't for the strike. So basically they had this storyline where after seeing Nathan pass out from the virus at the press conference, Claire was going to journey back to her old high school to help him, because all the citizens of Odessa were going to be quarantined at there. I was interested to see what would have been the fate of Claire's old buddy Zach, especially since the actor isn't on the show anymore. Would the writers just of had him perish due to the virus, would they even of mentioned him? It would have been interesting to know.--Cairoi 15:44, 30 November 2008 (EST)

• They probably wouldn't have mentioned him. He hadn't even been mentioned on the show since the end of Season One, and even then, he didn't appear for the last ten or so episodes. I don't think they would have been concerned with him. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 16:03, 30 November 2008 (EST)
  • Plus, Thomas has his schedule full with Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles. But I can see them killing the character, they did it with Candice after Missy went to Reaper, they were going to make an arc with her and Sylar, but that was changed. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 16:30, 30 November 2008 (EST)
    • Yeah but wouldn't that be cheap writing if he was just not mentioned? I mean if my old best friend who I shared my biggest secrets with lived in the town that was being plagued with a deadly virus I would at least ask about him. I would hope Claire would do the same...--Cairoi 16:47, 30 November 2008 (EST)
      • They left Caitlin's story without a proper ending due to the writer's strike, they were originally going to retake that story in what would've been episode 14 or 15 of the second season, and then Kring thought it would be really pointless to tie that up after a nine month pause, so they just ditched the whole story. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 17:07, 30 November 2008 (EST)
        • Yeah I personally despise the fact that they just didn't explain what happened to her at all, even though I didn't like her character much it fells really cheap and detached.--Cairoi 17:17, 30 November 2008 (EST)
          • Same here. Even if she'll never appear again, I wish they'd just at least mention her. Anything that'll tie up her storyline... I'm not sure why it would be so pointless to do so. Sincerely, Thrashmeister [ U | T | C ] 17:18, 30 November 2008 (EST)
            • My own little theory on her is that since the virus time line has been erased with her in it, then maybe she has been erased from time itself, whipping all memory of her from peter and everyone else. But I highly doubt that's the case.--Cairoi 17:28, 30 November 2008 (EST)

If He Had Powers

if Zach was to return to the show and possibly gain an ability, what do you think it would/should be? Please humour the topic and give a legitimet ability, not something stupid like, for instince, turing in to jam, or something sureal, but also try to be creative about it, make one up thaat hasen't been on the show yet if you want to.

• I think that his power if the got a hand on an injection of the fourmula, I think he would be able to project force feilds, kind of like the girl from the movie Babalon A.D. Halfbreed1426

• Enhanced Gaydar. No, seriously. It would be awesome. Especially if supercharged. \o/ --AmbroBaby 19:24, 21 January 2009 (EST)

Spelling correction, to correct the spelling of your posts, guys. Seriously, you guys have the spelling of a fish.

To be serious, I think it'd be... Gosh, I dunno. Telepathy?--ERROR 17:07, 17 June 2009 (EDT)

Return?

Now that TSCC has been Terminated, do you think they could get Zach back for at least a couple episodes next season?--Gibbeynator 17:27, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

• I think too many bridges have been burned. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 01:52, 20 May 2009 (EDT)
  • Well that sucks. Seems like a stupid way for him to go out, just sort of... disappeared into nothing. You'd think Claire'd at least bring him up now and then, but it seems like her ability causes some kind of memory loss. --Gibbeynator 09:32, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

Actually, her ability reverses memory loss. But you'd think it'd grow her a brain or something, ya know?--ERROR 17:10, 17 June 2009 (EDT)

Strange Attractors

In this episode Claire tells Gretchen that she is the first real friend that she had since she left Texas. I'm positive that this was supposed to be a nod to Zach, because she often told him in season one that he was her only real friend. I think we should mention this on Zach's page as character history for Strange Attractors. Not only does it make seance it also ties the series together a bit tighter. --Cairoi 20:01, 11 November 2009 (EST)

• I'm not positive it was a nod to Zach. It's entirely possible, but it's also completely logical that she may not have been referring to Zach. I think it's fine to mention in the notes, but putting it in Zach's character history is a bit much. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 00:35, 12 November 2009 (EST)
  • Let's put in the notes then, since we can't tell for sure. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 10:54, 12 November 2009 (EST)
    • Fair enough. I still feel like it was most likely Zach, because even in interviews Hayden talked about Gretchen as the first time Claire has had a real friend since Zach in season one. Also I doubt she was referring to Jackie or anything. But still, you are right, Claire never actually said his name. Thanks for putting it in the notes section!--Cairoi 15:46, 12 November 2009 (EST)