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.

Spoiler talk:Heroes/Archive 1

From Heroes Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive.jpg WARNING: Spoiler talk:Heroes/Archive 1 is an archive of past messages. New messages should be added to Spoiler talk:Heroes/Archive 1. Archive.jpg

Really big spoilers

  • I don't think we should post spoilers like that. It's really hard for people NOT to look at them especially people that are so excited like me. I think it would be a good idea to take them down. Could you guys please consider this? Jason Garrick 21:48, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
    • What about those who use this as a source to read those kind of spoilers? Serojay 07:11, 18 February 2009
    • Spoilers belong on spoiler pages, no matter how large or small. If anybody wants to avoid "big" spoilers, they should avoid the spoiler pages. :) -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 07:43, 18 February 2009 (EST)

The Haitian

He's back. He said so himself at Collectormania. Micah's back also, obviously. They have no idea what's gonna be in season three, though, since they haven't had the scripts. All they know is that they are back for the early episodes. Of which there are 24. --DocM 12:50, 8 March 2008 (EST)

Inside the writers' room

Inside the writers' room.jpg

Here's a couple of pictures from inside the writers' room. It'd be interesting to know what's on those boards! -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 21:58, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

yh it looks like it says sylar on the third subtitled line. :)--Gabriel Bishop 15:25, 14 November 2008 (EST)Gabriel Bishop

Evsdropr's spoilers

If you go through Evsdropr's comments on 9th wonders, you can find some interesting spoilers. -Lөvөl 00:48, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Season Three episode titles

  • I got a message from Craig at He posted the titles of the first four episodes of the third season which he got from an inside source. About an hour later, he was asked to take down the titles. During that time, spoilertv saw the titles and added them on their site. Craig asked me if we could take the titles off Heroes Wiki. Thoughts? -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 00:54, 13 April 2008 (EDT)
    • Who exactly asked him to take them down? I wouldn't see the harm of them, they don't tell you anything about the plot. They just serve for speculation. Heroes Television also still has them up, which is the source we've posted.--  Seclusion  talk / contribs 09:13, 13 April 2008 (EDT)
      • I'd leave them up. The "inside source" is probably fearing some trouble, but since the information is already out there and the titles normally get released in advance anyways, I don't see our taking them down doing much good.--MiamiVolts (talk) 14:59, 13 April 2008 (EDT)
        • Take down the titles, but keep the heroestelevision link. It's a win-win situation. :) --Looky 18:35, 13 April 2008 (EDT)
          • The person who asked Craig to take them down is the same person who mistakenly gave Craig the information. My concerns with leaving the information up is straining a relationship with another site (that often gets very good inside information) and with getting people in trouble for something they shouldn't have done. Plus, it's just nice and respectful to honor the wishes of the creative staff, period....I've emailed Craig for more detailed information on the situation and to let him know that it's relatively public information now. Looky's idea is basically what I've suggested to Craig. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 18:53, 13 April 2008 (EDT)
            • I'll take it down. If someone wants the link, they can look at the history.--Bob (talk) 19:17, 13 April 2008 (EDT)
              • Thanks, Bob. Of course, once I hear something back, I'll let y'all know. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 21:19, 13 April 2008 (EDT)
  • I'm seeing the episode titles all over the internet now, so I think it's safe to replace the links and go full force with the information now. I think we did our kind service, and now we're just looking like we're outdated. I'll fix it all up now. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 19:27, 8 May 2008 (EDT)


Would it be possible to move the theories on this page, so they have their own seperate page? --Thetobiasempire 20:17, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

  • They are spoiler theories so they don't really fit on a theory page, and my thought is that there's not enough to warrant a separate page.--MiamiVolts (talk) 20:51, 18 April 2008 (EDT)


Odd, but Jesse Alexander just updated his Facebook status with "Jesse Alexander is gonna still be breaking 7 tomorrow. PARKMAN!!!!!". Does this mean that Matt or Maury will be in episode seven? Only time will tell. --DocM 21:09, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Unknown Assassin Revealed?

In the latest trailer for the preview of Heroes, we see a man in black coat and a cap leaving the Odessa Police Department. And it's future Peter. Chrisyu357 06:19, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

  • Future Peter and Peter are gonna meet, they're gonna absorb each others' powers, and then the entire world will be destroyed. That's the catastrophe they're meant to prevent - but it's too late. First minute of season three? The end of Earth. --DocM 06:46, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

5/21 Sylar spoiler

Did I miss something? To me, the link for 5/21 spoiler doesn't match the description.--MiamiVolts (talk) 01:31, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

  • Fixed link. I read that beforehand and was going to post it, so I didn't check it when I reworded it. --  Seclusion  talk / contribs 03:18, 22 May 2008 (EDT)
    • I've wanted a time travelling Sylar since Fallout. --DocM 08:18, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

About Adrian's Comment

I think he just meant Claire being Angela's granddaughter as the third child. It's probably just the internet exploding into theories. Then again, being a Lost fan, I'm a freak for theories no matter how bad they sound, so maybe Adrian really did screw up and Hiro is the bastardization of her and Kaito's relationship or Matt is from her and Maury. Angela is the Heroes bicycle, it seems. :P --NellaBishop 19:53, 28 May 2008 (EDT)

  • Isn't it possible, nay probable, that Sophie would be her third child. She is easy to write in as an extra child since there is no backstory to add to in possibly confusing ways; she speaks French, a language Angela would know with her contacts in France; and her connections to the "mysterious organization" allows her to be tied in to Nathan's assassination. Just a thought :) --Gac 19:53, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
    • 6/16 — In a video segment of E! Online's Watch with Kristin Show, Kristin dishes that Sylar's heart may actually grow a few sizes in Season Three. She elaborates that he will "do some surprising good-guy stuff and will have a surprising connection to a good-guy character [we] already know." Hmmmm Chrisyu357 07:09, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

31/5 Spoilers

Just got an email from with a bunch of new spoilers, but didn't know whether any had been added already... it says the last date spoilers were added is 28/5 so I'm guessing at least a few of them on the page are new... check them out here to see if there's any that haven't already been added. (Friskymuffin - (talk) 05:37, 2 June 2008 (EDT))

  • Looks like we already have them. Thanks for the pointer, though.--MiamiVolts (talk) 11:51, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

6/16 — Kristin of E! Online claims

... if the second adopted character turns out to be Peter, just so that they can have him hook up with Claire, I will be very, very disappointed with the show. Let the speculation begin. (Guilty pleasure: glancing at spoilers.)--Riddler 23:03, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

  • I still think it'll be Sylar. If it's Peter, it would definitely be a shock, but I don't see that happening.--MiamiVolts (talk) 23:15, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
    • What, no love for the Hiro-as-Petrelli theory? :)) But in fairness, the Sylar one makes the most sense, and fits with a lot of the info that's already been released. Him having a connection to a good-guy character we already know, Angela having three kids, and so on. --Blacklash 07:52, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
      • Matt is the third Petrelli brother. Trust me on this one. --DocM 11:53, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
        • Is it ok that I don't?  :) Action Figure 00:14, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Kristin's Mohinder Comments

More than meets the eye? "Scale" back? Anyone else remembering Chandra's Mohinder the lizard? Think he has dynamic camouflage? ---Action Figure 17:39, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

  • I think Kristin means Mohinder has a form of size transformation, similar to the effect of "Honey, I Shrunk the Kids". I'm guessing that it's related to the pyramid in the vault. He'll shrink himself in order to go inside.--MiamiVolts (talk) 18:14, 8 July 2008 (EDT)
    • Talk about out of NO WHERE. If that is the case, that'd be more outta left-field than Gina. XP -*-*Action Figure 00:19, 9 July 2008 (EDT)*-*-

Latest spoiler

"6/10 — N'Tare Mwine has joined the cast as an Aboriginal story teller named Usutu. Usutu will appear in episodes 3 and 4. This will not be the first time he has worked with Heroes. N'Tare Mwine was originally to play the terrorist Joseph Al Amir in the unaired pilot."

"7/11 — Hollywood Reporter claims that Ntare Mwine (Blood Diamond) will play an African who is artistic and close to many of the original heroes. His special abilities will be developed throughout his nine-episode arc. According to, Mwine's character will be named "Usutu", and will first appear in the third episode."

I don't see much of a difference... apart from it gives a couple of extra details. Maybe the first and second should be merged or something? -- Friskymuffin - (talk) 11:27, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

  • Good spot! I missed the earlier note, so I'll trim the info. Thanks for the heads-up!--MiamiVolts (talk) 11:37, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
    • No problem :) I thought you'd seen it and just wanted to update it, but I thought I'd point it out anyway. -- Friskymuffin - (talk) 11:44, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
      • There was also a clarification, as the earlier report claimed he would be an Aborigine (native Australian), but I trimmed off the third-episode stuff since it'd already been mentioned.--MiamiVolts (talk) 11:57, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
        • Aborigine w/o the capitalization just means someone who originates from a certain place. So he could be an aborigine of whatever part of Africa he is from. ---Action Figure 14:36, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

Mohinder Again

  • Hanging from the ceiling... injecting himself w/ a syringe... looks like I might have been right about the Mohinder the Lizard comment... ---Action Figure 23:25, 15 July 2008 (EDT)
    • Why are they giving him a power, I haaaaaate this. D: --NellaBishop 20:50, 16 July 2008 (EDT)
      • I doubt it's a permanent the fan theories for a potential explanation.--MiamiVolts (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2008 (EDT)
        • I almost thought I saw Alejandro in hanging from the ceiling, but on pause I saw Mohinder... but some of these spoilers seem to jump the gun a bit. I didn't see Claire fighting Sylar, I saw two separate scenes that COULD be placed together, but aren't necessarily. This has happened in the past, if I recall correctly, it happened with Nikki banging on a door, we thought it had to do with someone else but it turned out different. And who says Mohinder has a power? The hanging scene, it looks like he's in pain, like he was hung there by someone. Dunno. --Riddler 21:03, 16 July 2008 (EDT)
          • Kristin of E! Online said that it wouldn't be wrong to say that Mohinder has a power at some point in Season Three. My guesses are lizard mimicry or scaling (shrinking/enlarging himself and others), and since it sounds temporary, it'll probably be due to a power transference device or virus.--MiamiVolts (talk) 03:53, 17 July 2008 (EDT)
        • Also, "Sorry Peter, I always loved you." Seems to play on my worst fear about the show. The earlier spoiler that said two people aren't actually related... I feared that that was Peter and Claire, just so that they could match the two up on the show since they're together in real life. I'll be so disappointed.--Riddler 03:35, 17 July 2008 (EDT)
          • Yeah, I'm hoping that it doesn't turn out that Angela lied about Claire and Peter being related. Elle and Bob is a possibility since they were previously planning on having Elle be Claire's sister; I think, though, that the later spoilers clarify that the adoption stuff refers to Sylar.--MiamiVolts (talk) 03:53, 17 July 2008 (EDT)

Coffin in Level 5 cell

  • Did anyone notice the coffin or what looked like one in the latest spoiler video? If I had to guess it would be that it is Adam Monroe. What is everyones thoughts?--Iceman 15:22, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
    • It probably is Adam's coffin. Good spot.--MiamiVolts (talk) 15:24, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

Comi-con spoilers

If the consensus is the Comi-con spoilers have too much spoilage, maybe we should have a special page in the spoiler namespace for them (e.g. Spoiler:Comi-con)? I haven't checked them out yet, myself. I'm waiting to see tomorrow's webisode first, cause I know that webisode is one of the things comi-con viewers got to see. If you do make the page, please remember to put something generic and non-spoiler in the summary tag so those of us that check the recentchanges aren't spoiled by the content of the article.--MiamiVolts (talk) 13:12, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

Spoiler:Season Three vs. Spoiler:Upcoming episodes

Can someone who has been around longer than me explain to me the difference between these two spoiler page and why we need them both. I don't think I get it... Pierre 19:01, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

  • "Upcoming episodes" is for spoiler info. that doesn't apply to a specific individual episode or where the episode the info. would apply to is unknown. For instance, if you know a character is supposed to appear in Season Three, but not when or how long, then use "Upcoming episodes". We also use the "upcoming episodes" page for graphic novel/webisodes/other spoilers since the "Season Three" page is for discussion of episodes only.--MiamiVolts (talk) 22:00, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
    • Uh... then why is Spoiler:Season Three filled of "spoiler info. that doesn't apply to a specific individual episode or where the episode the info. would apply to is unknown." ....?.... Pierre 06:41, 1 August 2008 (EDT)
      • Cause many people aren't following the guidelines. Myself, I'm currently staying away from most the spoilers since I'm trying to avoid the comi-con stuff.--MiamiVolts (talk) 09:18, 1 August 2008 (EDT)
        • Actually, general spoiler information about Season Three (like the knowledge that a character is supposed to appear in Season Three, but not knowing when or how long) should go on Spoiler:Season Three. Spoiler:Upcoming episodes should be for general information about Heroes that doesn't apply to a specific season. For instance, "Writers revealed that Peter will die before the series is over" is an example of a spoiler that belongs on the upcoming episodes spoiler page. On a related note, I've long thought we should move the upcoming episodes spoiler page to "Spoiler:Heroes" to be a more catchall page, especially since it has spoilers about graphic novel, Evolutions, and webisodes--none of which are upcoming episodes. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 11:06, 1 August 2008 (EDT)
        • Yeah, I'd agree with that move.--MiamiVolts (talk) 11:13, 1 August 2008 (EDT)
          • Why don't merge both spoilers articles into one. It will minimize the risk of users misunderstanding it, and different categories of spoilers can easily be separated by different headings. Headings that is much easier to change, than entire article names. Pierre 11:23, 1 August 2008 (EDT)
            • Cause there's too many spoilers for one article. I'm actually in favor of a third article just for the Comi-con spoilers so I don't have to read them.--MiamiVolts (talk) 12:47, 1 August 2008 (EDT)
              • Please, by all means, no! It won't be user friendly, which is the most important when maintaining a wiki. And, anyone who actually understand the difference between the different spoiler page - please write a proper introduction so that it can also be used correctly by newer contributors. As always in wiki editing - repeatedly mistakes should by considered due to lack of information, not lack of user capacity. Pierre 13:12, 1 August 2008 (EDT)
            • I don't really mind one way or the other, but I'd be fine with combining all the spoilers on one page. It's kind of an arbitrary designation, and not one I really care to maintain too much. Either way is fine with me. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 22:24, 1 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Yeah - the lack of maintenance is yet a reason to combine the spoiler pages. If we are worried that it will grow to big, I guess we could have Spoiler:Heroes, Spoiler:Graphic Novels, Spoiler:Webisodes and Spoiler:Heroes Evolutions - that way we will keep the length of the individual pages down somewhat, and it will be quite clear where to add new spoilers, and where to find spoilers regarding a specific topic. Pierre 06:12, 2 August 2008 (EDT)
    • I like that plan better than lumping everything together.--MiamiVolts (talk) 08:42, 2 August 2008 (EDT)
      • Makes sense, but I have never seen Heroes Evolutions spoilers. And since we don't know if more webisodes are coming, I think these two should be merged into Spoiler:Others or something like that. Only the episodes and Graphic Novels have a somewhat constant release.--Referos 13:43, 2 August 2008 (EDT)
        • I don't know about the others, but I hate having related information on several pages. When I search for Spoilers, I want them all in one place. --Looky 13:40, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
          • Spoiler:Season Three is currently huge, I think we can wait to merge until it gets smaller. The other spoilers are small and rare, I see no reason to split them but it could be renamed, -Lөvөl 14:46, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Umm, shouldn't Spoiler:Upcoming episodes have been renamed Spoiler:Heroes and Spoiler:Season Three been left alone? With the current rename it kind of switches their purposes. -Lөvөl 11:24, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
    • The redirections were a mess for a while, after the transition, but I think they are corrected now. Pierre 11:51, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
      • I think having Spoiler:Heroes and Spoiler:Others makes it more confusing (is this spoiler for Heroes or is it for others?), I think we should have Spoiler:Heroes and Spoiler:Season Three. -Lөvөl 12:01, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
        • Ah - now I see what you are getting at :) If you see the discussion above, the general opinion was to gather all spoilers about the series proper in one article (Spoiler:Heroes) and have one article for spoilers about GNs, webisodes, Evolutions, etc (Spoiler:Other). I've tried to explain the difference in the initial text of both articles, but I'm sure it could be done even better. Regarding the name of Spoiler:Other, I agree that the name isn't the best - please post any suggestions at Spoiler talk:Other#Name. Pierre 12:06, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

Season 3 Titles

  • So the first episode is called "A Second Coming" and not "The Butterfly Effect"? Does that mean that all the other titles are wrong? HiroMystery 00:10, 27 July 2008 (EDT)
    • No not really. The other titles for the episodes could remain what they are. They do this quite often with episode titles.--The Empath 17:07, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

New picture

New cast picture. I can't upload it from where I am...but we might want to wait to see if we can find a bigger version. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 10:49, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

  • One question: Who is the girl between Matt and Sylar? Chrisyu357 10:53, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
    • Could be Maya perhaps...? --Looky 14:05, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
    • Yep, that's my question, too. I was wondering if it's Molly all grown up? It's good to see Angela included in this picture, and it's interesting that Niki and Nathan are there too...MIA: Adam, Elle, Maya, Micah, Mohinder, and Monica. I don't think this is really a shot of the entire main cast, then. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 11:07, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
      • I uploaded it for you, but we can always update it with the official cast photo.--Bob (talk) 11:11, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
      • Mohinder's there, on the far right.--Paronine 11:11, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
      • Thats definately Maya. All the discusion going on about it in different places is making me laugh. This isnt the first place I saw the "grown up molly" theory... o_0 weird. Maya is the series regular after all, of course shes in the pic. Action Figure 17:48, 8 August 2008 (EDT)
        • Obviously ppl are watching to much "The 4400" :)
        • IMO it's quite off the top to say that it is "definitely" Maya or that she "of course" is in the photo. As been noted, several main characters is missing from the picture, and Angela - who wasn't a regular when the series left off - is included. So as far as I can see it can be pretty much anyone; Maya, grown up Molly, Linda Tavara risen, Sparrow Redhawke, Matt's long lost sister, Adam in disguise, Micah after a sexchange.... Personally, I wouldn't mind if its Mohinder's kissing friend (who some ppl also believe to be Maya...) Mohinder needs to get it on with someone... Pierre 05:55, 9 August 2008 (EDT)
        • That girl has brown hair and is most probably white.She may be Elle with her hair dyed, Angela from a flashback, Molly affected by the power of age manipulation, or Sylar's sister. On a more serious note, I think she's journal female 2. Chrisyu357 09:22, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

Pictures from the set and fresh spoiler video

From my bud Mr. ODI: Video of Peter falling off a building and BTS pics of Elle and Noah...and some dude. Somebody else can post this stuff on the main spoiler page, and/or upload images if they'd like. Thanks! -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 11:39, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

Season 3 Episode 2

Um.. The second episode is apparently called "The Butterfly Effect".

Here's the link:[1]

Can anyone change it? I'll also add the blurb for that.

  • IMDb lists it as The Second Coming. Obviously one is wrong, but it's hard to say which. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2008 (EDT)
    • Are we really sure that the second episode is called The Butterfly Effect? IMDb begs to differ. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 14:10, 16 August 2008 (EDT)
      • There is a little confusion, but Part 2 (second hour) of the premiere is Episode 2 and is indeed titled The Butterfly Effect. Part 1 (hour 1, which was shown at Comic Con) is titled The (A) Second Coming. Hope that clears things up? The ODI 16:44, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

Spoilers being played off like they are theories

The last two "Fan Thoeries" are actually spoilers that were shown and told about in the first episode of Season 3 that was shown at Comic-Con. Can anyone tell me whether I should delete them.--Iceman 08:52, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

  • Since it spells out the details of a page that's hotlinked, I think that it should be removed. It spoils a little bit too much, whereas most spoilers that are summarized are casting or smaller spoilers. This details something big, so I'll remove it.--Bob (talk) 09:12, 14 August 2008 (EDT)
    • Agree. Spoilers are spoilers, and theories are theories. Adding a spoiler under the guise of a theory is like making a kid drink tomato juice and telling him it's just really thick Kool-Aid. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 15:14, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

ODI sound

On that ODI site, the sound for the videos never works. Does anyone else have this problem? Watchmaker 11:41, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

  • The sound issue is with the new version of flash available. So all you have to do about fixing it is:
    • Make sure you have the latest version of flash, if you do then try closing your browser and reopening. That should do it. The ODI 14:43, 28 August 2008 (EDT)
  • Works fine for me except I always have to turn the volume way down. Shoyru1177 14:01, 14 August 2008 (EDT)
    • I'm buddies with the webmaster. I'll let him know. I had an issue with one of his links that accidentally pointed to a site filled with porn. Not good. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 15:15, 14 August 2008 (EDT)
      • Whoa porn!? That is not good, which post Ryan? The ODI 14:43, 28 August 2008 (EDT)
        • Oh, I can't remember now. It was definitely a link that went to some pictures of Hayden Panettiere. The pictures of Hayden were fine, but there were a bunch of really glaring ads for porn sites at the top. The pictures of Hayden weren't hosted at your site, they were somewhere else. Can't remember which post now, but it was probably one made around the beginning of August. Not a big deal now. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 15:22, 28 August 2008 (EDT)
          • Cool, I think I know what you are talking about. Some of the HQ pics we get are sent in from fans where they have them hosted via 3rd party sites and THOSE page will have ads. I just wanted to make sure a link to my site did not open it. It is hard to save and host all the HQ pics, so we just use what is sent to us. I will keep my eyes open about that. The ODI 16:40, 28 August 2008 (EDT)
      • Works for me now. Thanks. Watchmaker 16:44, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

Spoilers from Zachary

  • Sylar has a son named Noah!
  • He uses Isaac's Future Painting Powers
  • They are living in he Bennet home
  • Noah is "gifted"
    • My thoughts? Sylar proposes to Claire, he moves in, and they live happily ever after. Chrisyu357 05:46, 16 August 2008 (EDT)
      • I agree with Chrisyu357. From what I've heard, I think that Noah's mother will most likely be Claire. At first, I thought it would be Elle [along with many other people], but now it make more sense if it were Claire. Kristin Dos Santos from E! Online said that Noah's mother would be a shock, then with them living in the Bennet home and pictures on the ODI of Sylar & Claire hugging, and then on top of that their son is named Noah, probably after Claire's father.
        • Isn't Sylar about the same age as Peter? Like 10+ years older than her? I thought they were against Paire because of the age difference, even before they were related. Would they really go this way again? Besides, that would be a horrible storyline. --Yamawhata? 14:47, 27 August 2008 (EDT)
          • Well the Sylar/Claire storyline would be set in the future, and by that stage the age difference probably wouldn't seem as big as it had whenever Claire was still a teenager. Although, honestly, I think I'd still prefer Claire with Peter than Sylar. I just can't really see them together properly.

IMDb new pictures

IMDb has some new pictures from Episode 1 of Season 3. If anyone would like to add them, be my guest. --Looky 19:37, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

New Official Sneak Peek

Did anyone else notice what looked like Future Peter using Illusion to look like Present Peter? Obviously with knowing that Future Peter poses as Present Peter you would figure that he couldn't be walking around with the scar without people noticing it.--Iceman 09:39, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

  • As far as I can remember from the premiere shown at Comic Con, Future Peter actually jumps into Present Peter. The ODI 14:45, 28 August 2008 (EDT)
  • What do you mean by jumps into? Watch the new sneak peek and when Peter is walking down what looks like a Company hallway he drops an illusion. It's a very slight change but if you watch his face and clothes you can tell that something is happened.--Iceman 07:11, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
    • Well as far as I remember from the premiere I got the impression that Future Peter somehow warps into or "jumps" in to present Peter. Maybe it is just an illusion, but Angela knows Future Peter did something to Present Peter and asks FP several times where PP is?? FP says something like that he is ok in a safe place. The scene then jumps to the bald villain in Level 5 that is yelling "I am Peter Petrelli" indicating FP trapped PP inside the villain. I hope that all makes sense? lol The ODI 17:55, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Untold Stories

Is there any evidence that the Untold Stories will, or will not, be in season 3? Some of them have already began to show up here as spoilers, they probably shouldn't, unless there is evidence that they are going to be used in season 3. -Lөvөl 17:06, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

  • No confirmation yet, but some of the scenes had shown up in various promos. Also, the new Sylar clip we posted actually confirms how he has a couple of powers when he encounters Claire in the Season Premiere. So I think they might be valid. The ODI 19:45, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
  • The way that I am looking at these Untold Stories are as of right now they are just like deleted scenes until they actually are shown in an episode. If Sylar already had Chameleon girls power and the impenetreble skin then he would not need surgery and/or Hiro would not have been able to stab him and he would not have said that he can't wait to try Peter's invisibility power. Also I really believe that these scenes were possibly meant to be in Season 1 but for some reason they didn't put them in. The reason for that is like a lot of people have been saying these powers could explain a lot of odd situations in Season 1.--Iceman 08:56, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
    • I think these were actually meant to be from the second part of Season 2 (Exodus). They'd mentioned at the time that before the writer's strike interfered with things, that they'd already been pre-filming a few of Sylar's scenes from that Volume because Quinto would have to be off-set for a while to film the new Star Trek movie. So instead of writing the character out for the season while Quinto was away, they just filmed some of his material ahead of time, to insert into episodes where needed and show him growing over the volume (and presumably, ready to come back at full force in Villians once Star Trek had wrapped filming). Now that Exodus was skipped and we're going straight into Villians, and Quinto's back on set full time, I assume that they won't bother using that footage anymore (they wouldn't have released it on the DVD if they were going to). --Maelwys 09:37, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
  • I completely agree I guess I was trying to explain to myself how some of the things happened in Season 1(besides with tk) but I do remember the thing about Quinto being offset so it makes sense. Am I correct though when I say that these scenes should be treated as deleted scenes are treated and that they are not canon?--Iceman 09:47, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
    • Basically I would say anything unaired or "Deleted scenes" is NOT canon. So yes you are right. I was just making an observation in this case it seems like these scenes explain his abilities in this season's premiere. They also have used some of these "Missing Episode" scenes in some of the promos, so how do we look at those then?? The ODI 05:36, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
      • They're just promos. Marketing has nothing to do with content of the show, it's all run by NBC. Marketing online has shown DL to be Jimmy Jean Louis and that DL is a shape-shifter. Don't trust marketing, they may not use anything in promos on the show. I still don't know what you're referring to about Sylar using some abilities in the season premiere. Are you referring to the knife in the chest? If so, Claire wouldn't have been able to cut into Sylar's skin. After all, Sylar couldn't cut into the man's forehead.--Bob (talk) 14:12, 6 September 2008 (EDT)
        • In the season premiere, when Sylar attacks Claire, she can not see him, like he is invisible. Same power as "Chameleon Girl" in unaired scene. Similarly, the other unaired scene shows Sylar gain a power from some one with some thing like Super Skin or unbreakable skin. That is why he reached in through the mouth. This could then also explain why Claire could not stab Sylar. However, I guess it is all a moot point if the scenes are NOT canon. The ODI 01:52, 12 September 2008 (EDT)
          • Until it airs, it's a spoiler. You asked about scenes in the promos, and I was addressing the promos. --Bob (talk) 02:02, 12 September 2008 (EDT)
            • I agree with something being a spoiler until it airs. I never asked a question about the promos, but was making an observation that some of the earlier promos showed the villains with the unaired/deleted Season 2 episodes. Then, we have the above mentioned deleted scenes of Sylar, that if aired would explain his abilities in the premiere. So I was just wondering about the writers/producers thought process. That's all. Usually the rule of thumb is, a deleted scene or anything that does not air on the network is not canon and a potential spoiler. However, in this case because of the strike things changed for Season 2 leaving us with those deleted scenes. I guess when I watched the premiere I assumed Sylar met Claude and got his ability to be invisible. Of course we won't know until they show us how, but when I saw those deleted scenes, I was like OH, that is what they planned. :) The ODI 06:42, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

"Good Look at villain portraying Peter"?

9/11 - Includes a few new scenes with a good look at the villain who claims to be Peter using his powers

When watching the video linked in that spoiler, all I see is a bald man smiling with blue flames, while looking at Peter.

From the Episode 3.02 description, we learn of the actors starring in that episode.

David H. Lawrence XVII

Blake Shields

The first actor seems to resemble extremely well, the "I'm Peter Petrelli!" guy in Level 5, while Blake Shields is literally confirmed to be the pyro-guy.

So, unless there's a part of the video I missed where we see David H. Lawrence XVII, then I think the spoiler is wrongly "confirming" a good look at the villain pretending to be Peter, when it is clearly another villain using fire.

Is there something I'm missing? --IDannPK 21:47, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

    • I see the same bald man and it looks like the exact same Villain in Level 5 and the same one claiming to be Peter. However, if they are two different actors then maybe I am mistaken. My post was based on what seems to be exactly the same two characters and the fact that they use blue flames also made me feel that way. The ODI 02:01, 12 September 2008 (EDT)
      • I mean I can see how they might look similar from the lack of clear shots of either actors in previews, but I mean, if you look up both of those actors I put in bold up there, the first seems very much like "I'm Peter Petrelli!" and the second one looks exactly like the fire guy, not to mention Blake Shields has confirmed that he plays a pyro character.
      • Also; here's a link to the video where we can best see Mr. "I'm Peter Petrelli!". --IDannPK 17:14, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

USA Today spoilers

  • I was just wondering if anyone has seen this. It gives details into the new Villians and their abilities. [2]--The Empath 00:21, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
    • Dead link: "Requested photo not found". -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 01:01, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
      • Link to Villains powers was posted on main Season 3 spoilers page.
        • That's werid. I got the link from 9th Wonders and it works over there. Anyways, the link ODI posted has exactly whats on that page.--The Empath 11:22, 19 September 2008 (EDT)


Is it possible that it says "Samedi is equal to god" or "Samedi is divine"? --Sylar149 12:21, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Deleting Spoilers

  • I got a question.... If a spoiler has happened, do we delete it off the spoilers page? Or does it stay there? HiroMystery 03:13, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
    • It goes here. Chrisyu357 04:37, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
      • OK. Can you give me an example? Like:
  • 9/20 -- NEW! Tim Kring Interview reveals some new details about Season 3 and the changes with both Sylar and Mohinder

Where would that go? HiroMystery 05:32, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

  • What we've done in the past is delete the spoilers which "came true" (for lack of a better phrase) off the page outright. At the end of the season, the remaining spoilers stay on the page, and the whole page gets archived ({{spoilermain}} gets changed to {{archivedspoiler}}). See Spoiler:Season Two for an example.

    However, now this page is not really season-specific, but rather general spoilers about Heroes. I would prefer to see old spoilers which have come true deleted from the page and replaced by new spoilers, and the page would never be archived. It would just be a constantly revolving list of spoilers about Heroes. If we deemed it necessary, we could always make an archive page for any remaining spoilers after Season Three is over so that the page stays fresh...but we could talk about that at the end of Season Three. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 07:19, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Season 3 Interviews

Ok I am coming clean, I've been starting early this year on the old interviews, and so far so good. Erik Betts, Jamie Hector and Robert Forster have all said yes! --Skywalkerrbf 13:24, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Someone will be back

Someone who died this season so far will be back in some form, i can't say who or when though ;)--Skywalkerrbf 18:13, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

Aw c'mon, dude! Cancha give us an initial or sumpin? - Jasonbres 18:39, 30 September 2008 (EDT)
sorry thats it.--Skywalkerrbf 18:42, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

Photos from 3x04

    • If you think it is Daphne, then yes. If you think it is Audrey, then no. :) --Action Figure 11:05, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

Chad Faust

According to IMDB, Chad Faust will play a character named Scott in upcoming episodes, he should be added. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 10:03, 25 November 2008 (EST)

December 29th Spoilers

Yay, Monica's back!!! Double yay, Claude might be back!!!!! Death of character introduced in season two: Maya or West, and I don't think West's coming back. The "mother of all deaths"? Claire, Hiro, Peter or HRG, only this time permanent. Mohinder and Tracy trying to crack another formula?!?! WHY?!?! Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 18:35, 29 December 2008 (EST)

Ugh...turns out the original source was celebrating the Spanish equivalent of April Fools Day. - Josh (talk/contribs) 18:53, 29 December 2008 (EST)
¬¬... I'm ennui now... Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 19:04, 29 December 2008 (EST)

Wendy and Angela

FINALLY!!! Flashback on Company founder (at least one of them), and WOW, Angela has (or had) a younger sister??? I'm really excited about this episode. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 11:42, 16 January 2009 (EST)

  • I know, very interesting, and exciting! :D Super-Hiro

Heroes Fanatic

Just check out this website it has some nice and interesting photo spoilers: --Manwithnoname 12:30, 25 January 2009 (EST)

I Am Sylar/1961

Ep 3-23 (vol 4 ch 10) is listed as 1961 according to an interview, while I Am Sylar is listed as ep 3-24 (vol 4 ch 11) so why have the two merged?--Skullman1392 20:47, 17 February 2009 (EST)

  • I noticed this too, but when i went to change it, there was an edit conflict and something screwed up.. Please someone fix my mistake because ive ruined the page. :) --Action Figure 21:59, 17 February 2009 (EST)

Baby Matt & The Catalyst

I saw somewhere on the site that baby Matt might be able to "activate powers", and it got me thinking. What if the Catalyst HAS to exist. When Arthur died, someone else had it transferred into them. Now, I don't want to argue specifics about how baby Matt ended up with it, but really, it does seem feasible. Angielynne - talk dirty to me... 12:58, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

  • The writers said the catalyst is dead. - Josh (talk/contribs) 13:33, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
    • I'd say his ability is more like a manifestation of the catalyst in power form. But I doubt he got it from arthur due to him being able to turn on things besides powers.
    • I think Matt Jr.'s ability is like the catalyst. Mohinder called Hiro's newfound ability like a virus. I think it's more like the imperfect formula = giving people abilities with side effects. --Peter 19:25, 29 April 2009 (EDT)

Ravi Kapoor

I know it says that Mr. Kapoor will be in the episode 1961 but do we know that he will be playing a young Chandra? It definitely seems plausible but is it true or just speculative? --Peter 20:18, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

april foools! aaaaahhhhhhhhh

what is up with april fools! i knew it! the spoilers are to good to be true! i was tricked ! i bet many were tricked , haha very funny alice has weather manipulation--Zoga78 04:21, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

  • Actually, that one is real. The others are not. -- Tristan0709 talk 04:31, 1 April 2009 (EDT)
    • Yeah. You should've checked the page history. Ryan says it's real. --Elemental Manipulator [ U | T | C ] - When in doubt, ask BTE 04:40, 1 April 2009 (EDT)
      • Yeah, I hated posting that one on April Fools' Day, but it's true. It doesn't help that my source asked to remain anonymous--it looks totally bogus. Oh well! :) -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 07:53, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

Sylar marrying Claire!?!?!

How creepy is that??? but i suppose he thinks that should since they'll live forever. but still it is rather, well very creepy... *shudder* --Scorvi12 00:24, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

  • If that happens I will never watch the show ever again. i mean i know they have had some poor storylines before but this has to take the cake.... i mean isnt she like 17? dunno, maybe sylar is in to that kind of thing ;P --Lolwut 05:11, 16 April 2009 (EDT)
    • He's proposing! That doesn't mean she'll marry him! --Peter 07:42, 16 April 2009 (EDT)
      • Yeah, he could propose any number of things, though the glass of champagne/wine suggests it is marriage they're talking about. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 14:58, 16 April 2009 (EDT)


I think it's time we had a policy on what goes on this page. Many spoiler sites are using this to advertise their site rather than represent facts, which is the purpose of a wiki. I propose that we start by setting the following rules.

  1. No Unnecessary Capital Letters For Every Single Word In The Sentence. We only use capitals for proper nouns like Ali Larter or Season Four.
    • I agree. I'll also add that we need better patrolling of grammar here in general. Nothing specific, we just need to tighten up our English on this page, especially since it's one of our most popular pages. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 11:03, 6 May 2009 (EDT)
    • Noted and I agree. The ODI 15:18, 7 May 2009 (EDT)
  2. No! Excited! Exclamation! Marks!
    • I agree. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 11:03, 6 May 2009 (EDT)
    • Ah man, what if there is some HUGE exciting news!? ;) The ODI 15:18, 7 May 2009 (EDT)
  3. No links to a site with a "summary" of an interview. Link directly to the interview and keep a summary of spoilers in the description. Prime example: The ODI posts a link to "Summary Of Behind The Eclipse With New Details And Spoilers!". This breaks the three rules shown so far. Something more suitable would be, with a link to Comic Book Resources, "The latest Behind the Eclipse reveals that (insert spoiler here)."
    • I agree. This page is for spoilers. So if there's a spoiler contained in a BTE, that's what should be listed. I don't mind when people link to their own sites, but if it's just to promote their blog, I'm not sure that's the best use of this page. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 11:03, 6 May 2009 (EDT)
  4. Choose whether to refer to the upcoming volume as Volume Five or Redemption. Currently, I have changed all to Volume Five but that can be open to debate. Perhaps not.
    • I don't think that's as necessary. For instance, with episodes, we don't always know the title, so we sometimes refer to them as numbers, like 325. I don't think there's anything wrong with saying "Vol. 5" or other variants since people on blogs and message boards often refer to them that way. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 11:03, 6 May 2009 (EDT)
  5. A summary of the spoiler in the description. Only people willing to read spoilers come here, so nothing needs to be hidden. No "..... Reveals Spoilers About Volume Five!!". Write "...says that Tracy will be a major protaganist of Volume Five."
  6. Nothing that hasn't already been revealed or doesn't belong. Today I removed a 'spoiler' informing people that Flint Gordon, Jr., Sparrow Redhouse, and Nana Dawson were refernced in the most recent graphic novel. This has been confirmed, and if it was revealed beforehand, belonged on Spoiler:Other.
  7. No double spoilers. I understand websites want hits, but read through to see that the spoiler is not already there. We don't need three spoilers all telling us that Tracy is alive.
    • I agree. Perhaps we could just add two or three links to one spoiler, rather than adding a new line for every link. It seems much more logical to put a couple of links (which usually go back to one source anyway) than to make a new line of text with the same information, just to accommodate somebody who wants their link to be on the top. Let me also amend this by saying that where possible, we should be linking to firsthand sources. So rather than linking to a blog that mentions a BTE spoiler, let's link to the BTE page itself. Or rather than linking to a spoiler site that mentions a Twitter feed, can't we just link directly to the tweet itself? -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 11:03, 6 May 2009 (EDT)

Feel free to add to this list, or debate the presence of some things already on it. I'd really like to see a proper format used in editing this page compared to what has been popping up as of late. Thankyou. -- Tristan0709 talk 06:56, 5 May 2009 (EDT)

    • No unnecessary capital letters. Check
    • No exclamation marks "!". Check
    • No summary of interviews. First of all, interesting that you use me as an example about BTE when I am not the only one that does this. Plus, I did not even post the BTE on my own site the last several weeks so why would I post a linkback here? I was posting summaries for the fans a "service" to summarize the answers and to make it EASIER for fans to read so they can save time. Also, not all the BTE answers are spoilers, sometimes there are only a few valid spoilers. But if you think people have issues with summaries then I won't post links to them here. Maybe a solution is we can post two links, summary and full? BTW if you feel I am breaking the rules, how about a message or a note to inform me and not accuse me in an open talk about spoilers??
      • I'm not sure Tristan was saying that you've broken any rules that we have set up--you've always been a terrific team player, ODI, and one who definitely abides by policies and regulations. I think words are just getting mixed up here. If I read it correctly, Tristan was just using an example of one of your posts in the past to say that it doesn't follow proposed rules. It probably wasn't fair to single out an individual, but I don't think he meant any harm. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 11:03, 6 May 2009 (EDT)
    • Vol 5 v Redemption?? Does it matter? I think either should be fine, but not a big deal.
    • Sometimes there are several spoilers in a single post, so there is no way to post full details. I think a small summary of the link back is good enough. Also, this can save people who do not want to know MAJOR spoilers.
      • I'd rather see multiple rows of text for each spoiler than one link that summarizes a bunch of spoilers. The point of this page is to archive spoilers about Heroes, so I'm not worried about people who want to avoid major spoilers. If they want to avoid major spoilers, I'd refer them to the red warning at the top of the page. :) But seriously, the issue for me is less about summarizing blog entries, and more about linking to firsthand sources. Blogs are terrific resources for compiling information, but just like the wiki, they rarely contain firsthand information (unless the blog is conducting interviews or posting magazine scans and things like that). So I'd rather see more links to the interview where Bryan Fuller said that Micah is gay, or the NBC announcement that Claude is returning, or the picture of Claire's disembodied head. (Those are all made-up spoilers, for people who think I'm dropping hints of something...) There's nothing wrong with linking to a blog or a spoiler site, but we should use firsthand sources where ever possible. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 11:03, 6 May 2009 (EDT)
        • Noted. I just thought it would get really messy, but I understand what you mean. Check the new spoiler I posted as an example. The ODI 15:18, 7 May 2009 (EDT)
    • I agree about the last two points. The ODI 05:05, 6 May 2009 (EDT)
      • ODI, I wasn't criticizing, merely using you as an example. And yeah, the Volume Five vs. Redemption one probably doesn't matter that much. I agree Ryan, I'd much prefer we write a lengthy summary or, with permission, even quote the site. Right now, it just seems as if people are trying to get people to go to their website with flashy advertising rather than reporting spoilers, which is what this page is for (this is not directed at anyone in specific). -- Tristan0709 talk 02:37, 7 May 2009 (EDT)
        • No worries Tristan, but I work VERY hard for the Heroes community and want to promote the show, not my site and that is what I feel I was being accused of. Especially for something I had not done in over at least a month. I am not gaining anything from really promoting my site and have just wanted to spread the love to the Heroes community. I know you are not accusing any one specific, but please do NOT generalize and put me into a group of people that are not reporting spoilers, but trying direct views to my site because of ads. That is not my intention at all and you can see I do not have any pop-up "flashy" ads. Yes I have Google ADs, but they generate pennies. No way near worth the time and effort I put into the site to promote the show for the fans. BTW, Heroeswiki has these same ADs. I just want to promote the show via my site and will do the same here. I will of course follow all of the rules of the site. The ODI 15:18, 7 May 2009 (EDT)
          • I'll vouch for you, ODI, that you're here just because spoilers are your niche, and it's purely for the Heroes community. You were the same way with the Lost community (for which there is quite a bit of overlap), and you always do a terrific job. Just a note, though--part of the purpose of this page is to discuss rules, policies, etc. Please don't feel like you are a guest here at Heroes Wiki--you are a fully contributing member! :) -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2009 (EDT)
            • By the way, I was referring to the advertising used in descriptions here, not actual advertisements. -- Tristan0709 talk 03:50, 8 May 2009 (EDT)