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:Claire Bennet

From Heroes Wiki
Revision as of 20:08, 9 May 2007 by imported>Zenithdoom
Jump to navigation Jump to search

"This would be fatal for most humans, even other instant self-healers or otherwise durable characters." i found this phrase in the "Powers" section. i don't get what it's real purpose is and what it refers to. No kidding getting your neck twisted off can be fatal, and who are these "instant self-healers or otherwise durable characters" that are refered to? Cuardin 12:14, 14 January 2007 (EST)

Agree. Weird. I guess it's referring to characters from other comic books? I dunno. Shouldn't be there, in any case. - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 12:33, 14 January 2007 (EST)

Claire & the Cat

  • The panels from the GN version showed up over "9th Wonders". Maybe we should add a page referencing them, seeing as it was Claire's first appearance (back in June 2006). I'm still trying to track down someone who was lucky enough to snatch a copy of the flash animation that goes with it.
    • Hiro's first appearance was also in "Claire & the Cat". Might want to add one for him as well.
      • I created the page to Claire & the Cat, but it's being treated like a Redirect. I put the "real" info into Claire and the Cat. Can someone look into this? --Orne 17:24, 14 December 2006 (EST)
        • MediaWiki doesn't really support "&" in article names right now. Just use the Claire and the Cat article and use pipes when referring to it so it appears properly in articles. We had to do this with "Gray & Sons" as well. (Admin 17:27, 14 December 2006 (EST))
          • I didn't notice a title anywhere on the panels. Does the actual title have an ampersand? - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 20:03, 14 December 2006 (EST)

The punching of Jackie

Is this a case of heroism in defence of Zach, or is it just a dubious case of breaking the rules? Cuardin 15:48, 14 January 2007 (EST)

Personally, I think it a truly loyal thing to do. I don't think Jackie would agree. I go with moral ambiguity on that one. (I think of heroism as rescuing, saving, truly "superhero" things that are undeniably heroic — it's everything Hiro and Peter want to be.) - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 16:02, 14 January 2007 (EST)

Pain resistance

  • Had a thought earlier tonight while watching the mini-marathon on Sci-Fi. In Godsend, Claire pokes her collarbone back into place with what appears to be only minor pain. I've known people to break their collarbones, and they've said it's pretty painful. Does anyone think that part of Claire's power is a resistance to pain? Or maybe she's just injured herself -purposely or not- so many times that she's just built up a tolerance? --ZyberGoat 02:35, 1 February 2007 (EST)
    • I've thought the same. The few times she's shown much of a reaction, it was either a shock (getting stapled) or otherwise unpleasant (burning flesh smell with the muffins). I'm guessing she doesn't feel pain like most people do, but she feels something.--Hardvice (talk) 02:39, 1 February 2007 (EST)
      • It's mentioned in the power page, and it's a great observation. Her pain level is somewhat inconsistent, but I'll accept it in the name of good storytelling. - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 02:44, 1 February 2007 (EST)

Age

The notes claim that she says she's almost 16. In what episode is that? Also, it should be remembered that the timeline of the series still has not gotten beyond early November, 2006, at which point the explosion is supposed to occur. I think the chronology seems to work ok, minus her myspace page, which shouldn't count. She was born some time in the fall of 1990 and turns 16 some time in the fall of 2006. Her 16th b-day may or may not have passed in the show timeline so far; but it probably has passed, since November seems a little too late to fit the 18 month reference.--E rowe 23:15, 26 February 2007 (EST)

  • In The Fix, before the shot of the windchime. She tells Bennet the bears need to go. "I'm almost 16 dad".
  • Even if she were 20 or 21 months old, it's still reasonable that a reporter would say she's 18 months old. But we also need to remember that the Odessa Register reported her, um, dead. Roxana Castillo leaves something to be desired in her factual representation--her word can't be trusted. I would say Claire's word can. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 06:37, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
    • Even if the "eighteen months" thing is correct, isn't this an easy fix? Who is to say that HRG gave Claire her real birthdate? She might very well be a few months older than she thinks she is. (Ulicus 22:06, 27 April 2007 (EDT))

Misnomer

Does it annoy any one else that Claire is referred as being indestructible when she is in fact very capable of being harmed she is just able to heal for said harm. Not saying the healing isn't awesome, the misnomer is annoy is all, to me any way. -- Benoni 13:25, 22 March 2007 (EST)

  • No, you're not. Heroe(talk) 16:46, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
    • What really gets me is when D.L. is called a "shape-shifter". Or a Haitian. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 17:21, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
      • Feels good to not be alone. Thats something I really don't understand, why D.L. is called a "shape-shifter" that is. User:Benoni 14:50, 22 March 2007 (EST)
        • You have stupid NBC to blame for that.

Stub

Woah. Never thought that would happen. Heroe!(talk) 15:44, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

  • I took it off. An article as in-depth and complete as Claire Bennet definitely isn't a stub even if it's missing info for an episode. (Admin 16:46, 6 April 2007 (EDT))
    • But it still is incomplete. I added the section stub so it would still be marked, but isn't so obtrusive. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 16:57, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
      • In general missing information on an article should be noted on the talk page rather than using the stub template. Missing information equates to an enhancement requerst. Just because an article is missing info for an episode doesn't make it a stub and definitely doesn't warrant a big banner at the top saying so. Every article is a work in progress and reflects a varying level of completeness and a stub is just that: a very basic page designed to get the bare essentials down before being expanded. Tagging any page with such a high degree of completeness as a stub isn't accurate. However there's probably a benefit to knowing which articles are missing episode-specific information, so I think a simple new category (not called stub) would take care of that nicely. (Admin 17:47, 6 April 2007 (EDT))
      • Actually, checking out the {{sectstub}} you added, that does look appropriate since it's at the section level and a blank section is essentially a stub. (Admin 17:50, 6 April 2007 (EDT))
        • When you put it into the perspective of "every article is a work in progress", that makes a bit more sense. I agree, the sectionstub is more appropriate here than the big ol' stub. Do you think the sectionstub should point to a different category? It really is quite nice to just check Category:Stubs to see what needs to be completed, but there's no reason we couldn't have another category for "more complete" articles. I'm not really opposed or in favor, just curious. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 18:13, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
          • Eh, I'm not really convinced that it needs its own category. As you say, it's convenient to just be able to go to once place. To me it's just about what a stub is. An article missing a single section isn't necessary a stub, however a section with no info or only very basic info would be a stub (at the section level, of course). (Admin 18:26, 6 April 2007 (EDT))

Brunette!

  • Oh my goodness! Who saw the comerical for String Theory/ a glimpse of it with Claire as a brunette! I barely recognized her. Jason Garrick 15:45, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
    • Now if she went red, that'd be something to sing about. (Yes, I have a thing for redheads, what can I say?) — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 15:53, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
      • Heh, maybe it's Claire's natural haircolour... it certainly seems like the Nathan Petrelli eyebrows have come to the fore(head) :P (Ulicus 22:07, 27 April 2007 (EDT))
        • Mmmmmm. :) (don't worry I'm younger than her) Heroe!(talk) 23:08, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

reference to bible?

"The Odessa Register calls Claire a "Mysterious Good Samaritan". This is a reference to the parable of the Good Samaritan from the Bible (Luke 10:25-37). Jesus told the parable to demonstrate that mankind should show compassion for all people. "

i don't think this line is needed. It's true the phrase good samaritan derives from the bible but i think this is commonly and generally used in newspapers and media to describe ppl who helped others they don't know. There's even a good samaritan law in American and Canada that protects ppl helping others. So i guess this is kinda adding something that doesnt matter.--Zenithdoom 9 May 2007 (EDT)

  • Well, the term "Good Samaritan" has purely Biblical origins, as far as I can tell, even though the term has become quite secular. True, Heroes might not be directly referencing the Bible or even anything religious when they printed that, but it still (in my opinion) counts as part of the theme. When Sylar's mom thanks God for bringing her son home safely, the same argument can be made that she's just sort of using a common term rather than actually thanking God. There are other similar examples. It's kind of a fuzzy line, isn't it? I don't mind taking the reference out, but I kind of lean towards putting it in and letting people make their own judgments about it. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 13:33, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
    • well in my opinion it looked a little out of place u see.

the line was kind of pushing it because from what i see, it appeared out of nowhere and doesn't quite fit in. but that might just be me.--Zenithdoom 15:51, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Retrieved from "https://heroeswiki.ddns.net/index.php?title=Talk:Claire_Bennet&oldid=285604"