This wiki is a XML full dump clone of "Heroes Wiki", the main wiki about the Heroes saga that has been shut down permanently since June 1, 2020. The purpose of this wiki is to keep online an exhaustive and accurate database about the franchise.
Talk:Bob Bishop
Spoiler page?
- Shouldn't this page be 'Spoiler:Bob'?--MiamiVolts (talk) 14:03, 22 September 2007 (EDT)
Stephen Tobolowsky
I'm not too concerned because the episode airs in a little more than 48 hours, but how do we know that Stephen Tobolowsky portrays Bob? -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 14:17, 22 September 2007 (EDT)
- Did you watch the spoiler clips from Four Months Later? It's him. :) (Admin 14:21, 22 September 2007 (EDT))
- Oh, unless you're asking how we know that the guy in that scene is "Bob". That's a good point. It's based on spoiler info which may or may not be accurate, but if it turns out to be wrong we can rename it since the page itself is also just a spoiler. (Admin 14:28, 22 September 2007 (EDT))
- That makes more sense. Yes, that's very obviously Ned Ryerson, or that crazy dude from Seinfeld. My question was how you know he's confirmed as Bob, since most of the spoilers about him came from National Enquirer (not the most reliable source). Gotcha, now I understand. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 14:31, 22 September 2007 (EDT)
- I think I've said it before, but when it comes to new characters we want to try to get articles up as quickly as possible. The earlier a page gets into the search engines the more weight it gets. We don't want this speed at the expense of accuracy, of course, but it does make sense to base a spoiler article on spoiler information especially since other people read those spoilers on other sites and immediately start looking for additional information on topics they saw in that spoiler. I've seen some searches for "heroes season 2 bob" already for instance. (Admin 14:35, 22 September 2007 (EDT))
- Oh, I'm not upset it's created at all--in fact I think it's pretty great that we have it up. I was just curious if there was something released of which I wasn't aware. I've stayed pretty on top of the spoilers this summer, and I hadn't seen anything definitely linking Tobolowsky and Bob....Incidentally, I visit quite a few Heroes-related spoiler sites (about 30 daily), and we, by far, have the most complete list I've ever seen. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 15:38, 22 September 2007 (EDT)
- I think I've said it before, but when it comes to new characters we want to try to get articles up as quickly as possible. The earlier a page gets into the search engines the more weight it gets. We don't want this speed at the expense of accuracy, of course, but it does make sense to base a spoiler article on spoiler information especially since other people read those spoilers on other sites and immediately start looking for additional information on topics they saw in that spoiler. I've seen some searches for "heroes season 2 bob" already for instance. (Admin 14:35, 22 September 2007 (EDT))
- That makes more sense. Yes, that's very obviously Ned Ryerson, or that crazy dude from Seinfeld. My question was how you know he's confirmed as Bob, since most of the spoilers about him came from National Enquirer (not the most reliable source). Gotcha, now I understand. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 14:31, 22 September 2007 (EDT)
That may be the one thing I didn't catch.
Did they actually call him Bob in the show?
I do understand his power is to change somethings molecular structure and appearence (at least to Gold.).--Riddler 22:05, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
- He has the power of King Midas! FlyingMan 22:11, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
- No, they didn't call him anything in the show. We've gone back and forth on issues like this, whether we use the name or not. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 22:41, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
- Now that it's going to be despoiled, we really shouldn't go with Bob since it was only announced through a spoiler that may not even be accurate. We'll have to rename it. (Admin 22:43, 24 September 2007 (EDT))
- "The Company Representative"? ..Though it seems he's working with Bennet.--Riddler 22:44, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
- Actually, it looks to be quite the opposite. Bennet is working to bring down The Company and it looks like he's working with Mohinder and Mohinder is going to help him take it down from the inside now. (Admin 22:45, 24 September 2007 (EDT))
- "The Company Representative"? ..Though it seems he's working with Bennet.--Riddler 22:44, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
- Now that it's going to be despoiled, we really shouldn't go with Bob since it was only announced through a spoiler that may not even be accurate. We'll have to rename it. (Admin 22:43, 24 September 2007 (EDT))
Yeah, he never said his name was Bob. Was he listed in the credits as such?--Bob 09:56, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
- I'm not sure if he was listed in the credits. The original information came from a National Enquirer spoiler of questionable accuracy. However I was just reading Greg Beeman's [blog] and he says, "...like the city of Cairo out the window when Suresh and Bob have tea." So that's a good sign at least. (Admin 21:26, 25 September 2007 (EDT))
- It's one of those tricky things when names come from sources that aren't necessarily spoilers. For instance, Elisa Thayer's name has never been mentioned anywhere in any canon source, but her name came from a TV Guide description, if memory serves me correctly. Beeman's blog, in my opinion, is perfectly admissible. National Enquirer, not so much. I have no problem with leaving the name personally, but I'd understand if people felt strongly otherwise. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 22:47, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
- The show itself has onscreen credits that only mention the actors/actresses names, and IMDb and Yahoo! TV both do not have him listed. So my feelings are that we kept Maya's and Alejandro's name a spoiler until it was confirmed on the show in FML, and so we should do the same here. No one seems opposed to this, so I'm going to rename him to Company representative now.--MiamiVolts (talk) 23:47, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
- Please allow time for discussion. I am opposed to this. The name is revealed in Greg's blog. The blog is essentially an interview with the director of the episode. I would also claim that while characters and their profiles can be considered spoilers we don't have a precedent for claiming that a character's name itself is a spoiler once the character himself/herself has actually aired. (Admin 23:55, 25 September 2007 (EDT))
- It's definitely a tricky subject, and I can understand both sides. Personally I lean much more on the "The director casually tossed about his name (twice), so I accept it" side. I mean, if Greg Beeman named him "Bob Parkman", I'd be a lot more hesitant to add the name right away. But I don't think just having a name is a spoiler in most cases. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 00:06, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
- I was thinking something very similar as well. In fact, Greg may have specifically not mentioned Bob's last name for just such a reason... that it's going to be a surprise and he's not going to spoil a surprise so casually on his blog and ruin the surprise later on when the episode airs. I think given the current information and even given the naming convention we're spot on keeping the article named Bob. (Admin 00:13, 26 September 2007 (EDT))
- Huh? Doesn't the headline on Beeman's blog WARNING – SOME SPOILERS ARE CONTAINED WITHIN!!! mean anything? LOL. We get inside info. about episodes from directors, producers, writers, etc. all the time, and that doesn't mean we can treat the material as non-spoiler as soon as we get it. We normally keep that info on the character's spoiler page until it is introduced later on screen, or at the most we put it in notes. I realize that many of us are so used to seeing spoilers, we may be be unconcerned about the small revelation of a name, but his name is a spoiler. You really think Beeman would think otherwise? As for precedence, not so recently ago we kept Maya and Angela's articles a spoiler until they were introduced on screen. If we knew the identity of the Being who might see Molly, would we rename him/her before the name is used on screen? That would not make any sense either, and I fail to see the logic here.--MiamiVolts (talk) 00:14, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
- I was thinking something very similar as well. In fact, Greg may have specifically not mentioned Bob's last name for just such a reason... that it's going to be a surprise and he's not going to spoil a surprise so casually on his blog and ruin the surprise later on when the episode airs. I think given the current information and even given the naming convention we're spot on keeping the article named Bob. (Admin 00:13, 26 September 2007 (EDT))
- It's definitely a tricky subject, and I can understand both sides. Personally I lean much more on the "The director casually tossed about his name (twice), so I accept it" side. I mean, if Greg Beeman named him "Bob Parkman", I'd be a lot more hesitant to add the name right away. But I don't think just having a name is a spoiler in most cases. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 00:06, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
- Please allow time for discussion. I am opposed to this. The name is revealed in Greg's blog. The blog is essentially an interview with the director of the episode. I would also claim that while characters and their profiles can be considered spoilers we don't have a precedent for claiming that a character's name itself is a spoiler once the character himself/herself has actually aired. (Admin 23:55, 25 September 2007 (EDT))
- The show itself has onscreen credits that only mention the actors/actresses names, and IMDb and Yahoo! TV both do not have him listed. So my feelings are that we kept Maya's and Alejandro's name a spoiler until it was confirmed on the show in FML, and so we should do the same here. No one seems opposed to this, so I'm going to rename him to Company representative now.--MiamiVolts (talk) 23:47, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
- It's one of those tricky things when names come from sources that aren't necessarily spoilers. For instance, Elisa Thayer's name has never been mentioned anywhere in any canon source, but her name came from a TV Guide description, if memory serves me correctly. Beeman's blog, in my opinion, is perfectly admissible. National Enquirer, not so much. I have no problem with leaving the name personally, but I'd understand if people felt strongly otherwise. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 22:47, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
Re: Spoiler names
That's a good point about the spoiler notice on Greg's blog, though I would have argued that Maya and Alejandro's articles should have been despoiled the moment the characters aired. I disagree with the idea of spoilering an article or assigning a substitute name to an article just because their names haven't been released (with the exception of Mr. Bennet because they made a big deal out of his name being secret and so his first name would have become a spoiler in that specific instance). The spoiler should pertain to the character themself and information about them. I don't agree that names themselves are spoilers (99% of the time). (Admin 00:20, 26 September 2007 (EDT))
- There are two reasons why I disagree with that (sorry, this is long):
1) There's a big spoiler out that Bob is the new head of the Company. I could be wrong, but next week we are probably going to see some of the agents in Ireland in next week's episode talk on the phone to a man named Bob and the history will connect to THIS Bob when we might not know for sure (except for spoilers) that they are the same person. This is not a situation like Mr. Bennet as his name was identified. It's a situation like Sylar where for the first few episodes he had no name, it's a situation like the Hooded killer where we still don't know the name.
2) It's not even an in-character source. Heck, we are hesitating to rename Mr. Linderman to Daniel Linderman even though the producers put the name out there in a recent Heroes 360 video. It went into the notes, instead.--MiamiVolts (talk) 00:42, 26 September 2007 (EDT)- Lots of people put a spoiler warning even if no spoilers are contained, almost as a courtesy for those avoiding anything and everything about the new season. The spoilers warning on Beeman's page is to warn of the information that Mohinder and Bob went to Cairo, or the fact that West has a power, or that Kaito is killed--those are plot points. A name is not a plot point, at least not in this case. I'm not sure how calling him "Bob" is any different than trying to place a title for him within the Company. If somebody is going to connect "Bob" with another spoiler out there, that's not really our concern in this case--calling him "Bob" doesn't spoil any plot points from any aired content. If we called his name "Doctor Bob" or "Bob Bennet", then I can understand a plot point being spoiled. But this is the first time the name "Bob" has been mentioned anywhere in canon, as far as I know, and nothing is spoiled....Linderman's name is another issue about the canonicity of the Heroes 360 content, and the choice to reveal such a long-kept secret in a little-seen video on a little-known website. Different issue. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 01:04, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
Name of his Power
I think it sounds more "Heroes-y" if his power is listed as Aurification rather than The Midas Touch. Am I wrong in thinking this? Just my opinion. --Pred 0212 00:04, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
- Of the suggestions I've seen tossed around so far, I think you're right... aurification's the best I've seen so far. (Admin 00:09, 25 September 2007 (EDT))
- It's way to early to say with any certainty exactly what his power is. We've had one example and no explanation. Can he turn anything into gold? Anything into anything? Any metal into any other metal? Only affect flatware? We just don't know, and almost any name we can give it at this point is likely to prove wrong, so we need something very, very generic. Neither "The Midas Touch" nor "Aurification" meets that criteria.--Hardvice (talk) 00:09, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
- Actually, I'd say the two best options are to go with what we've seen exactly... which could generically be defined as aurification... or nothing at all (possibly listed as "indeterminate" or something). While we may find that aurification, for example, is too specific of a name, we run into the same problem on the other end of the spectrum going with a name that is too generic and implying that the power can do more than it really can (which is what I dislike about the plant manipulation power we have). If we want to specifically avoid erring on one side, we need to not err on the other side of the spectrum as well. Of course Ryan might be able to use his power to determine a good name for it. :) (Admin 00:56, 25 September 2007 (EDT))
- Heh, I got nothin' at the moment. :) As for the name, I don't like Alchemy very much. I see where Hardvice is coming from in not wanting to be speculative, but we gotta put something for the name. I don't see many very good (read: non-speculative) suggestions. "Our own private Fort Knox" works, but I'm sure it'd be shot down (by me as well). I'd say "aurification" sounds best to me at the moment, since it's at least going with the concept of turning things into gold. True, we don't know the exact nature of the power, but because Bob referred to Fort Knox, I think it's okay to (at least for now) assume he can turn some things into gold. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 05:52, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
- Actually, I'd say the two best options are to go with what we've seen exactly... which could generically be defined as aurification... or nothing at all (possibly listed as "indeterminate" or something). While we may find that aurification, for example, is too specific of a name, we run into the same problem on the other end of the spectrum going with a name that is too generic and implying that the power can do more than it really can (which is what I dislike about the plant manipulation power we have). If we want to specifically avoid erring on one side, we need to not err on the other side of the spectrum as well. Of course Ryan might be able to use his power to determine a good name for it. :) (Admin 00:56, 25 September 2007 (EDT))
- I was looking around for the scientific name, but I just put Midas Touch when I couldn't find it. But I think Aurification is fine, and if it's wrong change it when we find out. I don't think there is anything "very, very generic" enough pertaining to turning things into gold that we can put either.--IMax 00:40, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
- I was thinking it was more like alchemy during the show (ie turning lead into gold). Disney42 01:05, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
- I prefer aurification (it literally means transmuting into gold). I think we need to go with what we do know, and that's that he changed a metal spoon into gold. Alchemy is connotated with making gold, but that's not what it means. Also, I think we need to re-name the character if his name was not given, as I don't recall him saying it.--MiamiVolts (talk) 02:12, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
- I agree with Miami. Alchemy is a more commonly known word, but it doesn't specificaly relate to turning things into gold. Aurification does sound more "Heroes-y". --Piemanmoo 02:22, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
- I was thinking it was more like alchemy during the show (ie turning lead into gold). Disney42 01:05, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
- I've renamed this to "aurification" for now based on a few suggestions that it's a better term for his power. The change isn't necessarily final, it's just how we'll leave the power named for now if we want to discuss alternatives. (Admin 08:27, 25 September 2007 (EDT))