Talk:The Company's founders

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)

• That would definitely be my #1 choice as well. It'll be an image from the show showing (hopefully) all twelve members.--Hardvice (talk) 17:29, 4 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Well, we've got a shot of it now, I believe. I put in a request at Heroes Wiki:Requested Screen Captures‎, but I think you (Hardvice) are already on it. -- FissionChips 00:11, 16 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)

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)

• Anybody recognize any of the other actors? -Lөvөl 12:25, 17 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)