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

From Heroes Wiki
(Redirected from Talk:Bob)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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)

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))

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, " 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)

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)
    • I don't think the name of a character in and of itself is necessarily a spoiler (again, given the caveat that it's not "Bob Linderman" or "Bob Parkman" or (heaven forbid) "Bob Muggles"). And we do have other characters whose names have only come from secondary sources (Elisa Thayer, for one--not to mention Angela Petrelli for quite a long time, and Kaito Nakamura for several episodes at least). The issue with Linderman for me is that he's very specifically first-name-less in the show (like Mr. Bennet was) for such a long time, but I wouldn't be completely opposed to including his name from Heroes 360. I guess I'm not horribly opposed to leaving this one "Bob" since a) it's confirmed by a very reliable source, and by multiple less-reliable sources as well, and b) it doesn't really spoil anything. Since it's not likely to be wrong and isn't much of a spoiler, I can't see a problem with leaving it as is, and simply adding a Note that he was unnamed in the episode.--Hardvice (talk) 01:26, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
      • Heh, not likely to be wrong? I like how this is justified as more a matter of probability of the spoiler info. being correct than the fact that it's spoiler info.--MiamiVolts (talk) 01:45, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
        • It's less an issue of "not likely to be wrong" and more an issue of "comes from someone involved in the show who probably knows his name and is not just making shit up Kristin-style". And I just don't see how anything about the plot is spoiled by knowing the character's name. Again, Angela Petrelli was called Angela months before the name was spoken on-show, and Elisa Thayer's name has never been said. If she showed up next episode and said "My name's Elisa Thayer", it's not a "dunh-dunh-dunh!" moment -- in fact, it would have zero effect on the plot -- and the same is the case if Bob says "my name is Bob". It's information that's not from a canon source, but it's a huge stretch to call it a spoiler because, well, it just doesn't really spoil anything.--Hardvice (talk) 01:56, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Can someone please go through the credits and see what Stephen Tobolowski is credited as? I say if he's credited as Bob, then I don't know why we'll argue any further, since we draw a lot of the minor character's names from that. Otherwise, I think that technically speaking, we don't know that this guy's name is Bob still. I undid it when the episode aired, but it was too much to handle since 30 people started linking to Bob instead of something ambiguous. Anyway, my two cents.--Bob 02:03, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
    • Since he's credited as a guest star during the opening credits, there's no character associated with his name. Only the minor parts listed during the closing credits have a character name listed.--Hardvice (talk) 02:06, 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 too 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)
      • I personally think our best bet is something like "transmutation", with a note that at present he has only shown the ability to transform a metal spoon into gold. That confines us to what's been shown without foreclosing the possibility that there's more to it. If we call it "transmutation" and it turns out he can only make gold (and I suspect that's the case), then we haven't been wrong so much as less than specific (although we will have noted that he's only displayed metal-into-gold, of course), but if we go with "aurification" and it turns out he can turn plastic into salad dressing, then we're just plain wrong.--Hardvice (talk) 01:47, 26 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'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))
  • Why was his power changed to alchemy?--IMax 22:27, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
    • If I recall, the writers referred to it as "alchemy" during one of the CBR interviews and stated that his ability goes beyond transforming things into gold. (Admin 22:28, 22 October 2007 (EDT))


Unless my eyes deceive me, Bob is wearing horn-rimmed glasses. This may be noteworthy in relation to West. --Ted C 14:16, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

  • Nah, they're just solid black frames. I thought the same, but was wrong.--Bob (Talk) 14:27, 16 October 2007 (EDT)


Bob's occupation was recently set to "Leader" of the Company. This is wrong, or at least not supported by what has been shown, but what should replace it for the time being? As a member of the group of twelve, he's more than an agent. "Executive"? "Co-Founder"? --FissionChips 14:52, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

  • All speculation. All we definitely know is a) he knows about the founding of the Company, and b) he works for it. We don't know his rank, similar to Thompson. I would say he holds at the least Thompson's rank in the organization.--Bob (Talk) 14:54, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
    • True, true. It's all speculation. --FissionChips 14:56, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
      • I doubt it would be excessive to call him a "senior" agent, but that's about the best we can do for now. --Ted C 15:58, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
  • I would imagine, because he is the primary means of capital within the group, that gives him an important position. Something tells me he's not calling most of the shots, but that's just a hunch.--Quadro 15:09, 24 October 2007 (EDT)
  • I forget which episode, but he refers to himself as the head of operations. Shoreline83

Robert Bishop

In part three of the commentary for Fight or Flight, currently available at the NBC website, Greg Grunberg explains that on a prop on the set of Bob's office it gives "Bishop" as his last name. Would that be considered acceptable as canon? Cuz just calling the guy "Bob" on this page is a little blah and vague. - ZachsMind 14:05, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

  • It is "blah", but I think it's also supposed to somewhat reflect the mysterious nature of the guy. I'm not sure I would move the article until we get a little more confirmation on Bob's last name. Not only is Greg Grunberg prone to jokes, I'm just not sure I'm ready to make the leap until it's agreed somewhere else. Because Bob is a pretty connected guy and has been involved with the Company since its inception in 1977, I'm sure his last name has been kept quiet for a reason. I would personally feel more comfortable if we just waited a bit until we find out more. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 14:12, 23 October 2007 (EDT)
  • I don't think that's necessarily a genuine reference. Stephen Tobolowski played a character in the film Sneakers, which starred Robert Redford - whose character primarily went by the alias Martin Bishop. ...or, it could be genuine. They'll probably reveal it in the season finale. ZZ 22:31, 30 October 2007 (EDT)
  • They also said in the commentary that the name was apparently invented by the props department.--Hardvice (talk) 10:34, 31 October 2007 (EDT)
  • In Four Months Ago he says that you can call him Bob, but that indicates that he has a full name, so why not move this to Robert Bishop? -- Riffsyphon1024 01:44, 13 November 2007 (EST)
    • I think he needs to be moved now, but the reason is that the writers/producers specifically told us his full character's name is "Robert Bishop" in tonight's Heroes Interactive.--MiamiVolts (talk) 01:49, 13 November 2007 (EST)
      • In light of that, I agree. The episode commentary made it sound like it was something the props guys made up, but this sounds like actual confirmation from a secondary source.--Hardvice (talk) 02:00, 13 November 2007 (EST)
  • The best route in my opinion is to change the name to Robert Bishop, but have Bob still refer to the name Bob.--TRECORD-- Talk/Contrib 03:31, 13 November 2007 (EST)
    • Agree Chrisyudbsname.JPGChrisyudbstalk.JPG 07:50, 13 November 2007 (EST)
      • D.L.'s, Eden's, Candice's, Niki's, Charlie's, Jackie's and Matt's articles are all named with their most common names. So, as per that precedent, I say we should rename the article Bob Bishop and include Robert in the lead and the infobox only ... --LeoChris 16:20, 13 November 2007 (EST)
        • Good point. That fits the naming conventions.--Hardvice (talk) 16:36, 13 November 2007 (EST)
          • I agree, Bob Bishop is better, with Robert as an a.k.a. So are we waiting now for more people to chime in?--MiamiVolts (talk) 20:43, 13 November 2007 (EST)
            • My vote goes for Bob Bishop as well, as he specificaly asks to be called by his shortened name. --Piemanmoo 23:28, 13 November 2007 (EST)
              • Heroes Interactive has never steered us wrong, to the best of my knowledge. With a commentary comment and an HI mention, I think it's time to move the page. He's never been called Robert (just as D.L. has never been called Daniel), so it should be moved to "Bob Bishop", with "Robert Bishop" listed as his formal name in the infobox. (Plus, I used to work for a guy named Bobby Bishop.) -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2007 (EST)
                • Rob Bishop is a representative for utah and taught at the high school near where I live. -Lөvөl 00:39, 14 November 2007 (EST)
                  • I always think it's funny when somebody like that actually becomes a bishop, and he's called Bishop Bishop. I once served with an Elder Elder. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 00:42, 14 November 2007 (EST)
                    • Why had I never caught the fact that you're LDS? That explains the Albanian. Well, and the Utah thing. And why you're a generally all-around nice guy.--Hardvice (talk) 00:45, 14 November 2007 (EST)
                      • Thanks, that's very kind of you. My four wives thank you. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 00:54, 14 November 2007 (EST)
                        • You're making them edit Heroes Wiki for you, aren't you? That explains the edit volume! No, seriously, my best friend is Mormon and being around her makes me try to be a better person. She's so nice I sometimes want to punch her. Through a weird twist, I used to work with tons of Mormons and they were by and large the nicest people I've ever worked with, with one exception. So just shut up and accept the (stereotypical) compliment already.--Hardvice (talk) 03:41, 14 November 2007 (EST)


Ok, since Admin doesn't want to comment and everyone agrees on "Bob Bishop", but none of the administrator seem to actually want to do the move, I guess we should vote?

  • I vote for Ryan to do the move since he was the first administrator to comment on the name. :)--MiamiVolts (talk) 01:08, 14 November 2007 (EST)
  • Also, just to clarify, what I meant was that when asked if I wanted to comment on the move I said that it looks like things were proceeding logically towards the rename so I didn't need to say anything. :) As for the move, let's go with Nike's slogan: "Just do it!" (Admin 01:10, 14 November 2007 (EST))

Is it Just Me....

But over the last THREE DECADES couldn't they pretty much have drained Adam of his blood daily? So why the fixation with Claire? Bob sure is risking alot for someone who should have a stockpile of Adam's blood that rivals the Federal Oil Reserves.... --Mish(Talk) 12:14, 20 November 2007 (EST)

  • Peter also could have read Adam's mind while working with him and discovered that he really intended to release the virus. A lot of things that make sense are often overlooked for the sake of the story. Perhaps regenerative blood only works for a certain period of time after it's taken, after which it loses it's properties. --Piemanmoo 17:50, 22 January 2008 (EST)

For graphic novels... we add ones that characters appear in, or only if they have significance in it? Bob was in The Kill Squad Part 1, seen talking to linderman, but it is not mentioned on his page. Just wondering why. --mc_hammark 17:44, 8 September 2009 (EDT)

Is it mentioned under his S2 page? Because Kill Squad is in S2...--Iheartheroes 18:56, 8 September 2009 (EDT)

Death date

Since recent confusion of the timeline in heroes, I've been changing deaths after season 2 to post march 2007, but bob's page already says that he died on 21st march. How do we know it is this exact date? --mc_hammark 10:13, 28 October 2009 (EDT)

  • Because he was killed the day after Nathan's speech in Odessa, if I recall correctly. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 11:30, 28 October 2009 (EDT)
    • I don't think there's anything that says it is definitely the next day though, is there? --mc_hammark 11:31, 28 October 2009 (EDT)
      • Claire, while watching that Nathan had been shot (March 20) was attacked by Sylar. That day, Sylar is confronted by two Company agents. Bob and Elle watch the feed the next day (March 21), and Bob is killed before Elle can return later the same day. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 11:54, 28 October 2009 (EDT)
        • Ok, but is there anything proving that this all happened on the same day. How do you know that there wasn't a night inbetween Bob and Elle watching the footage to Bob being killed? --mc_hammark 13:53, 28 October 2009 (EDT)
          • I suggest you use the airing date of his death episode. The writers appear to be using that now. --User:Blood69 19:01, 19 February 2010 (AEST)
            • I disagree, Blood. That's not always a good date to use. For instance, the episodes that aired in 2010 all took place in 2009. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 11:11, 19 February 2010 (EST)

Follower rather than leader

In the 1960s, Bob seems to be the weakest of the 4 founders. Any chance the girl he danced with, is future wife? --User:Blood69 19:02, 19 February 2010 (AEST)