Talk:Theories:Events

The Explosion

A theory states:

This explains why in the preview for the next episode, there are seemingly fire trucks spraying water on buildings. This view is the same that Hiro had in the future, except in the future, the buildings past that (including the one he was standing in) were also destroyed.

I'm guessing this is in reference to Godsend, since the theory is about Peter's vision of the explosion from Fallout. Such a scene didn't happen, did it? Are they referring to the Primatech raid? Should this line be removed?--Hardvice (talk) 00:29, 11 February 2007 (EST)

Cleanup Notes

In case anybody has any questions about why information was moved out of the "Evidence" column: the evidence column is for evidence from canon sources only. Non-canon evidence, as well as base reasoning, belongs in the comment column. Basically, if you can't cite an episode or a graphic novel, it belongs in Comments, not Evidence. See Help:Theories and Spoilers.

If you feel information which was moved is supported by a canon source, please be sure to cite the specific example from a graphic novel or episode if you move the information back to the Evidence column. Also, "None" in the evidence column isn't a value judgment. Many theories which will probably end up true don't have specific information from episodes or graphic novels which can be cited at present. Please don't take it as a slight on your theory -- it's merely to make the tables consistent.--Hardvice (talk) 01:36, 11 February 2007 (EST)

IceVision, what the hell?

Should I just go through every possible theory for every single character on the show? This is getting reeeeallly old.--Bob 01:04, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

• Nobody is forcing you.--WolvenSpectre 03:58, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
  • I think you missed the edit to which this refers.--Hardvice (talk) 04:09, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
    • You are right my apologies, I thought this was about something else... IMHO Ice Vision causes the explosion of frustration, although I would argue that if he had added at least evidence for half of them they should stay. Otherwise he should have just asked the community to make their arguments for each character in the discussion area and put a checklist with it.--WolvenSpectre 19:59, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
      • I think the best way to handle "silly" theories is just to take them off if they're unsupported, or ignore them. Unfortunately, some people just look for attention, and barely fly under the radar of vandalism. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 20:05, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
        • Yeah, I'm glad people are realizing what this kid does. Though someone removed his theory that Austin was an alien, then he reverted the edit saying it was a valid theory since it can't be disproved. But if y'all don't mind, I'll knock out those from now on, because it just gets a little frustrating when I go through and clean out a theory page, only to find someone adding 30 unfounded theories for kicks.--Bob 20:36, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't get it

• This edit doesn't make any sense. The theory says that the paintings are fated to occur. Peter saving Claire at Homecoming isn't relevant to this theory because Isaac never painted a picture of Claire being murdered by Sylar. Yes, the timeline changed, but that's not the theory. In other words, whether or not the future visited by a time-traveler can be changed is a different question from whether Isaac's paintings are fated to come true.--Hardvice (talk) 02:19, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
• We learned it WASN'T Claire that the painting depicted... it was Jackie... just because we see a cheerleader doesn't mean it's Claire, and the fact Jackie dies in the same way it's painted just proves it. This minus has no relevancy to the paintings theory...--Riddler 06:54, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
  • The point is that the event depicted in the painting must come true in some fashion, even if it's not what was originally feared. Sylar didn't murder Claire, but he still murdered a cheerleader in such a way that her death fulfilled the painting's prophecy. --Ted C 12:04, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
    • Yes, but the way the item is worded right now, it's listed as a minus, and doesn't even mention the painting. It suggests that Peter saving Claire is evidence against the paintings always coming true, without ever mentioning a painting. If it did mention the painting, it would be incorrect (because the painting was of Jackie), but since it doesn't mention the painting, it's just irrelevant (because the theory is about the paintings coming true, not about changing the future).--Hardvice (talk) 13:10, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
      • When I thought about it, I confused myself even more... I think you should just change it back...--Ice Vision 15:48, 21 May 2007 (EDT)