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:Candice Willmer/Archive 1

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

Appeared in Company Man

She was the nurse that was caring over Parkman at the end of the episode....and later was shown again in next week's preview. Right? HiroDynoSlayer - 18:14pm 2-26-07

  • She was listed in the credits, so yes, I believe so. --Fcphantom 23:41, 26 February 2007 (EST)

Power we know what her power is? (Heroe) 22:26, 16 February 2007 (EST)

  • The spoiler for Missy Peregrym said she was a "temptress" (some kind of pheromones, maybe, but that seems awful Eden-esque), but then again, it called the character "Faith" so who knows how accurate it was?--Hardvice (talk) 22:29, 16 February 2007 (EST)
    • Just as a heads up, we're going to have to come up with a better name for her power. "Temptress" is a person, not a power. I'm sure we'll understand more when the ep airs, but I'm thinking "temptation" will be her power. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 21:41, 21 February 2007 (EST)
      • Her power could be anything, really. She could be a temptress who can channel the spirits of the Marx Brothers for all we know. I think we're reading too much into the word "temptress".--Hardvice (talk) 21:58, 21 February 2007 (EST)
        • Right, totally agree. I'm just mentioning it because over at evolved humans, she's commented out, and her power is listed as "temptress". I just want to make sure we don't start calling her power "temptress". Ugh. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 00:41, 22 February 2007 (EST)
          • I read somewhere it's more than likely shape-shifting of some sort, but we'll have to wait and see (look for her to do a nice Simone impression).--Baldbobbo 00:41, 27 February 2007 (EST)

Next Question

Should we assume the character is actually called "Candace Willmer", since she has appeared that way on the list three times already? I mean, the NBC blurb also called "Eric Roberts" "Eric Robert" and thought "Aron Malsky" was the actor's name. (Insert regular caveat about NBC confusing DL with the Haitian and periodically spelling Niki with two k's here.)--Hardvice (talk) 22:32, 16 February 2007 (EST)

If the only reference to "Candice" is a single NBC blurb then I'd go with Candace for now unless we see "Candice" show up more frequently. If we find that they changed their mind and actually changed her name to Candice we can always fix it. Though the more reliable sources have repeatedly shown Candace, so I'd put more trust in them. (Admin 22:42, 16 February 2007 (EST))
So far it's the NBC blurb and TVGuide, but since TVGuide is just going with what the NBC blurb says...let's move her.--Hardvice (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2007 (EST)
Ok. It may go without saying, but I'd leave the redirects for Candice in place for now at least until we know for sure what her name ends up being. (Admin 22:49, 16 February 2007 (EST))
I have a feeling when it comes down to it, they'll go with what's on the list. They pay pretty close attention to it -- I mean, they made a printout with names from the list. Hopefully the people that "matter" will throw us a bone and keep some continuity. :) — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 23:25, 16 February 2007 (EST)

Spoiler Info up so early?

Since this is the character page, why is the spoiler information up? I left most of it as a comment in other pages since that episode doesn't air until 5 Mar. Normally the character pages reflect what has actually aired.--Baldbobbo 14:02, 24 February 2007 (EST)

  • If the character hasn't appeared yet at all then typically the character page gets created with the spoiler information, but the character doesn't get linked to from non-spoiler pages. That way people interested in spoilers can still find out beforehand, but people who avoid spoilers don't get exposed to it. (Admin 14:11, 24 February 2007 (EST))
  • Actually, I just checked and the page is currently linked to from the list, so you're right it shouldn't have spoiler information in the main article. (Admin 14:14, 24 February 2007 (EST))
    • I just delinked Candace from the list for now, so we're ok and can continue to add spoilers to her article until she airs. This is like how Claude's article was entirely made up of spoilers until he aired. (Admin 14:18, 24 February 2007 (EST))
      • Cool beans.--Baldbobbo 14:26, 24 February 2007 (EST)


I notice there's no redirect from "Candace" to "Candace Willmer" How do you make one? Heroe 12:29, 3 March 2007 (EST)

  • Edit Candace. For content just place #REDIRECT [[Candace Willmer]]. (Admin 12:31, 3 March 2007 (EST))

Thanks. Heroe 12:38, 3 March 2007 (EST)

Whoever put "Dynamic Camo"

  • This isn't that. Dynamic Camo is the ability to blend in with your surroundings unseen... aka Invisibility.--Riddler 22:43, 5 March 2007 (EST)
    • I suppose it's possible that it's considered dynamic camo, but I agree Invisibility would be more likely. In any event one of the best reasons to not call it dynamic camo is that we've gotten that term from Chandra's files I believe so we need to wait until they actually explicitly identify someone's power as dynamic camo before we can call it that. (Admin 22:55, 5 March 2007 (EST))
    • Define: Dynamic - Refers to actions that take place at the moment they are needed rather than in advance. Almost all of the abilities are dynamic, I know, but Candace's power appears to take a little concentration, like Hiros. Claude's invisibility is dynamic (camo). Nathan's flight - Dynamic (Flight).--Riddler 22:58, 5 March 2007 (EST)
      • Also, I didn't mean to sound snappy there. :P --Riddler 22:59, 5 March 2007 (EST)


Although likes to call her "Candice", the name is spelled "Candace"on the list, which is the only canon source to date for the spelling.--Hardvice (talk) 14:11, 8 March 2007 (EST)


What ever happened to her being called Faith? NBC sucks with their promo tags for episodes.--Baldbobbo 01:03, 9 March 2007 (EST)

  • As far as I know, Faith was only ever in fan-published spoilers. Not that NBC doesn't suck sometimes, but this time, the first official mention of her was as Candace. Or Candice, at least. I guess they do suck after all.--Hardvice (talk) 02:09, 9 March 2007 (EST)

I'm so glad that....

No has tried to change this page to "shapeshifting" Heroe(talk)

  • Why, is Candace Willmer's nickname "shapeshifting"? :) — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 10:25, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Real Appearance

Wouldn't it be funny if Sylar caught Candace, and she reverted to her normal form to be played by Rosie O'Donnell? --AverageMan 10:47, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

  • 'cause if I was dumpy in real life and I could shape-shift, I'd appear to look pretty darn good. --AverageMan 19:24, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
    • Neener-neener. I hate to say "I told ya so". See Betty. AverageMan shoots, he SCORES! --AverageMan 08:17, 10 July 2007 (EDT)
      • If they cast Rosie to play Betty in her true form then you get an extra point. :) (Admin 09:41, 10 July 2007 (EDT))
        • Bingo! Now if only my prediction about Niki and Nathan's baby could come true. Then I would be super-cool, instead of just average. --AverageMan 13:05, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

Changing the Effect?

Any thoughts on why they changed the visual effect used when Candace uses her power? Did they think it was too confusing, or do they want to show her more as a shapeshifter and less an illusionist? I guess that falls in line better with the original description of a character wielding a tremendous amount of sex appeal. Nevertheless, it was kind of jolting. It's not like they even tried to make it look the same as in Parasite. --ZyberGoat 00:06, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

  • They've done similar things with some of the other powers (precognition and invisibility come to mind). I think it's a creative challenge to not repeat yourself. It also keeps the story moving ("We've already paraded the power the first time it was used, now we're just referencing it to make sure you remember.") And then there's the issue of different directors with different visions. Plus, it certainly helps keep the budget down. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 01:14, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Is the Illusion only visual?

Does her illusion only fool the eyes, or can it fool other senses too? If not, surely HRG would have noticed the difference in hairstyle and clothing while hugging 'Claire' in .07% --Havoc 04:12, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

  • In .07%, Candace didn't seem to go "full force" with her power--she really only changed her appearance. In Parasite, she exerted a lot more control over her surroundings. She was able to somehow hide Simone's body and change a few other details in the room. That's why her power is not called "shape-shifting" but "illusion". — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 06:45, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
    • Just to be clear, I meant that if her power of illusion cannot fool the sense of touch, then HRG would have noticed a clear difference between what he was seeing (i.e. Claire's hair) and what he was feeling (Candace's hair). So is this what tipped him off that it wasn't really Claire? Or was it something else?--Havoc 07:22, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
      • In the commentary, we learn that the original script had the following complete line of HRG to fake Claire: You're not smell like a stripper. The writers removed the extra excerpt before it got filmed, and Jack and Hayden (HRG and Claire) argued futilely for them to reshoot it. So she either can't modify smell or she didn't know what Claire smelled like.--MiamiVolts 09:28, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
        • More likely she didn't know her smell. She had met Sandra before making her illusion, so that's probably why she pulled Sandra off so well for Bennet to mistake his own wife.--Bob 10:28, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
          • Bennet even kissed Candace when she was Sandra, and it still fooled him. I think "Claire" came in the cell, there was no tipoff, other than a really bad lie. Bennet's a smart guy and he knows the resources the Company has, and is aware of "what your girl Candace can do." I'm sure he was thinking "Why is Claire here? That makes no sense? (And why is she wearing a cheerleading outfit?)" I believe it was just a case of Bennet using good logic, not a limitation in Candace's power. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 14:28, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
            • I agree. I think it was a case of "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." He knew better than to fall for Candace's tricks again. --Ted C 11:35, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Hey, would a camera see Candace's real form, or her illusion? Heroe!(talk) 15:17, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
    • We don't really know yet. If her power affects other people's minds (like The Shadow), then a camera would see Candace's real form. If it actually creates a holographic image, then the camera might be fooled too.--MiamiVolts (talk) 15:47, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
      • At first I was going to say this might have implications for observers that Candace isn't aware of. It just occurred to me though that Future Sylar was using Candace's powers to impersonate Nathan in Five Years Gone and showed as Nathan while on all the TV broadcasts to the nation (although I suppose it's still possible that Future Sylar could have been mass-affecting the entire world?). Guess we'll see.. --Glue 16:25, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
      • Note that Candace mimicked Simone's voice long after she was dead, and Future Sylar mimicked Nathan's. I think, like Hana's wireless data transception, all this might be attempting to delve too far into "how it works" again. --Glue 16:29, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

On others' pages

I think that when Candace imitates someone it should be on their pages as well, so that it is the same perspective as when watched on TV. It may have to be worded different, like: Jessica appears to... ...but is revealed to be Candace. The same for Sylar when he has her power. -Lөvөl 15:47, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

  • At first thought, I would tend to agree, but the character history section is a history for that specific individual. If Candace is aping Niki, then her actions aren't really a part of Niki's history. The whole reason the character histories are written confined to the character's perspective is that it thus limits their content to the character's own appearances and actions.--Hardvice (talk) 15:58, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Move to Candice?

  • We should probably discuss this, since her name has appeared as "Candice" on-screen, but we have the situation where we have two conflicting canon sources. Technically, neither spelling is confirmed, and I think the way we have it set up is sufficient (we note both spellings and the other redirects here, which is what we did with, say, Hana Gittelman), but is there a strong preference for moving this?--Hardvice (talk) 23:18, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
    • Displayed as prominently as it was, I think it's probably time to make the switch. --Ted C 07:25, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
      • Yeah, I agree it should get moved. It's listed in the opening credits as "Candice". If only they had also listed her last name too.--MiamiVolts (talk) 18:21, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
      • Wait, when was it spelled "Candice?" I didn't see that. Heroe!(talk) (contribs) Random Page! 19:09, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
        • Opening credits of episode 21.--MiamiVolts (talk) 19:10, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
    • I just checked the episode and I see it, too. When they cut to the first scene with Candice and Micah it prints their names. I would change it to Candice and redirect Candace. As prominent as the on-screen info was if it were a typo I think they'd have seen it. They either changed their mind as to the spelling later on in the series, made a mistake on the original list spelling, or perhaps the Human Genome Project has her name misspelled. :) (Admin 19:23, 8 May 2007 (EDT))
      • It might just be a mistake. Let's wait to see if it happens again. Heroe!(talk) (contribs) Random Page! 19:25, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
        • I believe that virtually every written reference to it except for The List has spelled it Candice, so if there's a mistake it's probably with The List. We dismissed NBC's spelling because they don't have the best record when it comes to details, but now we have strong corroborating evidence. (Admin 19:28, 8 May 2007 (EDT))
          • I think moving the page to Candice is a good idea. NBC spelled her last name Wilmer, but the list says Willmer. I'm torn as to which spelling it should be for the last name--we've never seen Candice Willmer, but the list is a better source than NBC (or is it?). I'm tending to think "Candice Willmer" is the better choice. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 06:54, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Fat and Old?

I don't remember her comments suggesting she is fat or old, they may have suggested that she may not be as attractive as she makes herself appear, but fat and old? Did I miss something? -Lөvөl 15:13, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

  • In the Company's facility, Micah commented to Candice, "I have a cousin that eats like you. He's huge." And Candice replied, "So am I." Then later on, when Micah and Candice are at the polling station, there's an exchange where Candice replies that she might really look like Ms. Baker, and that Micah wouldn't know. It could be, though, that Candice is just teasing Micah both times, but I think that's what people have been discussing.--MiamiVolts (talk) 04:08, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
    • She also, when talking about how peoples judge your appearance, looks kind of sad... As if she already lived this experience before.. Something with her voice and eyes made me think this.. -- FrenchFlo (talk)        04:16, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
    • Fat, yes--but I'm not sure that it really implies being old. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 11:13, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

Ok, did any of you think that she's maybe just being a normal girl who thinks they are fat and ugly compared to other people, when clearly they're not?--The Empath 19:33, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

  • We have new stuff about that question, according to the season finale, when Niki/Jessice knock her out, she fall on the floor and then, fake micah disapear. What is interesting is that Candice actually stay in the shape we know, I mean, when knocked out, if fake micah disapear, it means that she can't use her power anymore, so, she should be in her true shape. I mean that she is not fat and ugly, she is as we see her in every episode. -- FrenchFlo (talk)        07:37, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
    • What's weird is that the writers more-or-less confirmed she's overweight in the last CBR--and then we didn't actually see it. Odd.--Hardvice (talk) 12:41, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
      • Here's what Joe Pokaski and Aron Coleite said: "OR – she was still barely conscious – OR – her subconscious so strongly desired to be thin that she was able to maintain that form – OR – people might be over thinking this."--Ice Vision 21:22, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
        • My own thought was that she has spent so much time maintaining that particular illusion that she can literally hold it in her sleep. Knock her out and she shifts to her "default" illusion, not her true appearance. --Ted C 10:18, 4 June 2007 (EDT)
        • Hehe, as an informatician that is what as I thought, she may have a default shape!! :) -- Frenchflo.gif (talk) 10:29, 4 June 2007 (EDT)
        • I knew it! She is(well, was) fat. I had thought so when I first found out what her powers were Japanimation 10:08, 8 October 2007 (EST)

New Graphic Novel

I know I might be jumping to conclusions, but does anyone else think that "Betty" is Candice? -- User:Cameth 11:23, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

  • While nothing here should be changed until it's confirmed, I'd say it's a pretty safe bet.--Leshia 06:27, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
    • I had the same idea when i saw her power. it's not exactly like we have seen it work so far (most of the time she changed her own appearance except the time she kept Micah inside the room by making all doors appear closed), but never the less i think "Betty" is Candice! Waldmeister 06:33, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
      • I was thinking so, too - I remember when I first saw Candice I thought she looked kind of punky, so to see Betty all goth-like, it makes sense. --AcidBurn133 08:18, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
  • I do! I do! Also makes sense that when she's knocked out in the S1 finale, she's wearing a goth t-shirt. --Kschang 16:34, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

New speculation?

Well... Candice Willmer was on the list... but her name (according to what we're all assuming from the novel which seems obvious) is Betty. Wouldn't that be the name on the list? Much like Eden McCain, if she was on the list she'd most likely be listed as Sarah Ellis... so, maybe there will be some kind of plot twist, and this isn't actually Candice... the writers or someone interviewed DID mention that they would explore multiple people with similar powers.

Meh, doubt it, but putting Candice on the list and changing her name to Betty seems odd to me.--Riddler 12:55, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

  • Just means that she was already going by Candice (or rather, Candace) when her DNA got added to the Human Genome Project thing.--Leshia 12:56, 5 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Great question. We learned from Dale Smither that she gave blood 11 years prior, then signed a form allowing use in the Human Genome Project. I'm sure Chandra gathered the names on his list from many sources (it's doubtful that Claire, at 15 or younger, gave blood--remember, her name was on the list six months ago when Chandra contacted Mr. Bennet). Who knows where all the names come from. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 13:16, 5 July 2007 (EDT)
    • IIRC, the writers said in a BTE that Sandra put Claire's DNA on file with the FBI as a precaution. Some people do that in case of kidnapping.--Hardvice (talk) 23:42, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

New Page Formatting

just to let you know im going to change Candice's page to a different format. If it doesn't work out, then i dont care if you change it back but i do want you guys to consider using this as a format for the other character pages. Sorry i cant wait longer.--Kettieli (talk) 16:07, 18 July 2007 (HST)

  • I suggested you might use the sandbox or a user subpage instead of modifying this or another major page. On this talk page, I added your signature for you (you can append --~~~~ to do that yourself). Thanks for your assist. I prefer 2nd format that I was working on, but I think we can cooperate and use both. I'll try and fix this up a bit.--MiamiVolts (talk) 23:06, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
  • I'm not understanding the purpose of the format that's currently being used for this page. It eradicates jumps (for instance, Candice Willmer#The Hard Part no longer exists), and it is nonstandard. Sure, span ids could be inserted, but what's the point? Plus, I'm not interested in changing the format for 256 character pages, plus all the articles about items, locations, places, references, fan creations, you get my point. But even if all that were easy to change, I personally don't like this format. It's difficult to read and needs to be broken up into more digestible pieces. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 23:46, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
    • I agree... I can see changing some of the longer histories like Candice's into summaries, but part of the episodic season did occur 5 years in the future and the rest in the previous dates that were mentioned... and if we include the graphic novels, we have to be even more broad so I'd include them maybe on the episode articles themselves but it's really superfluous imho. Anyways, I just changed the Candice article to the same season history type format we're using for FBI, etc. and I was able to use some of Kettieli's summarizing, so I hope he doesn't think his efforts were all for nothing.--MiamiVolts (talk) 00:09, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
      • Right, what Kettieli wrote wasn't bad--in fact, the content was quite good. I just didn't like the format, personally. I like the idea of a short and succinct summary of the season (for articles that have, say, more than 7 or 8 episodic summaries, or that are just arbitrarily "long") and a link to the full summary on a new subpage. I do think the summary as it is here needs to be pared down a bit and be less detailed--maybe 2 strong paragraphs--but it's a step in the right direction. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 00:19, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
        • I like the edit you made, but i'm going to move the graphic novel part up to the top since those events did occur before the events of season one--Kettieli 18:32, 18 July 2007 (HST)
          • Ok, I just narrowed it down to 4 paragraphs. I think that it's bare enough now. As for the order, on this wiki we prefer put things in order of appearance, not sequentially. This is very important cause this series has alternate timelines and jumps around in time, so please don't reorder it.--MiamiVolts (talk) 00:36, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
            • Right. First of all, we can't assume that Betty happened "several years" earlier any more than we can assume it was last week. That's one of the reasons we keep things in episodic order rather than chronological. Suppose another event occurs in Candice's past--it'd be difficult to say exactly when it happened, unless a specific date is attached. Hiro is a great example--technically, he's the only major character who has never had a flashback or a flash forward--yet his activities jump around quite a bit chronologically. And if things are chronological, if there's another possible future, where do we put that one--especially if that possible future is also 5 years later? In my opinion, it's just best, for a number of reasons, to put things in episodic order. Then there's no confusion, no guestimating dates, no arguments about speculation. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 00:48, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
              • i'll leave it alone for now but the possible futures weren't even on the characters pages because there is a completely different page for future characters. Okay i must admit that i got most of these ideas from Lostpedia, but Lost jumps around in time as well and also has alternate timelines but they are able to make it work with chronological order. I know that that's a completely different show but I would appreciate it if you could take a look at the site anyways. Here's the adress: 19:00 18 July 2007 (HST)
                • In Lostpedia, most of their character articles have both season's summaries on a single page. That really makes the article too long, imho. Also, I have read that some of the Heroes Wiki admin mention they desire to have our own style seperate from Lostpedia.--MiamiVolts (talk) 01:18, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
                  • I'm very familiar with Lostpedia and love the site. In fact, many of our users (including me) come with experience from Lostpedia. Just as Lost is sort of the granddaddy of the modern serialized television show, Lostpedia is kind of one Heroes Wiki's forerunners (along with other great wikis like Memory Alpha). But Miami is right, we're prefer our own style--not just because there's anything wrong with Lostpedia's style, but because our style works for us. Lostpedia very much bills itself as an encyclopedia for Lost (says it right there in the site name and on the main page), which means they tend to go for briefer descriptions and prefer summarizing over details. We call ourselves a fan site for Heroes, which means we don't necessarily go for brevity. Each has its advantages and disadvantages. Though they may be similar, they're slightly different. Something as simple as chronological order (over episodic order) or using parenthetical cites (over section headings) is a major stylistic difference. To change it now would mean mass changes to this site, as the style is pervasive. But not only would it change our style (which would be a huge undertaking, though possible), it could ultimately mean changing the basic philosophy behind our site. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 01:35, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Okay sorry i've still been here for only a couple of months and misunderstood the purpose of this site. I shouldn't have just gone in and changed everything up. You can reset it if you want but let me know what happens okay--Kettieli 21:36 18 July 2007 (HST)
    • No reason to be sorry, you were doing what you thought would be best for the site (though major changes are best discussed before going ahead and doing). Plus, you gave me an opportunity to wax poetic about the differences between Lostpedia and Heroes Wiki. Now, if only I had a Venn diagram... :) -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 08:21, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
  • I'm not exactly sure what changes this page went through to get to it's current form, but I do like seeing a Season One summary with a link to episode details. To keep the character pages from getting ridiculously long, we're going to need to do that for all major characters at the end of each season. I do recommend keeping episode details from a current season on the main character page, though. --Ted C 09:44, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
    • How much detail are you talking about, Ted? I think it looks pretty good right now. Do you think it should be more detailed? -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 09:52, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
      • should i start editing the other character pages too then?--Kettieli 09:43 19 July 2007 (HST)
        • I don't see any reason why you shouldn't. --Ted C 16:09, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
      • I think the amount of detail in the Season One summary is about right. The link goes to the Episode summaries that used to be here, and they're good as they are. Basically, I think the revision of this page and transition of individual episode summaries to a separate page has worked out well, and I was figuring it needed to be done before Season Two starts, anyway. Basically, I think we'll want to have individual episode summaries for Season Two on the character page until the end of S2, at which point we will have a Season Two summary here and move the S2 episode summaries to a Season Two page for Candice. Make sense? --Ted C 16:09, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
        • Perfect sense, and I agree completely. It's not a hard transition to do--the most difficult part is getting a concise summary that's not too long and not too short. (I recently did Claire's summary, so it's open for editing.) To help make the transition smoother, I added some templates for new pages. Click on a Season One history page that hasn't been written yet (Sylar/Season One, for instance), and you should see a "Season History" button pop up. Click it, and the directions/guide for doing a season history should come up. It'll be pretty easy to change the template at the end of Season Two, too. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 16:21, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

About the Aliases Section

Should Candice be included as well ? It is, after all an alias (even if it is / was her main one), and it looks like she won't use it anymore, as she switched to Michelle in 2x03 ? --LeoChris 21:18, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

  • I've just discovered there is a precedent for a similar situation ( Eden McCain ) and therefore added it to the aliases section ... --LeoChris 11:35, 13 October 2007 (EDT)


Can we kill the dead stuff for Candice until at least next week? I'm not so sure Candice has bitten the dust just yet...--MiamiVolts (talk) 02:50, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

  • If she ain't, that's one ELABORATE illusion. Maybe she could tell that what Sylar really wanted was his powers back and gave him a little taste of it? Liek a preemptive strategy to keep Sylar from killing her? Plausible. Not sure if it's likely.--NissanVersaDootDoot 09:35, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
    • There's at least two other possibilities: 1) Candice and Sylar are both in a dream world made by Molly's nightmare man, 2) Kane (who has the power to steal powers) has taken both Sylar's and Candice's powers and is impersonating Candice. I prefer the second explanation.--MiamiVolts (talk) 10:33, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
      • If you're interested, Greg Beeman talks about the Candice/Sylar story in his latest blog entry. (Admin 10:39, 9 October 2007 (EDT))
        • All of these theories are speculation though, and should be added to the theories page. The episode gave no reason to think Candace was not dead, and one thing we know about Sylar, is that when it comes to killing someone to get into their brain, he is very effective at doing that. Similarly, we have two examples where Candace was rendered unconscious, and she reverted to her 'present' facade. In Sylar's kill-scene, however, she fully reverted to her original Betty form...showing she was not unconscious, but truly dead as a doornail. --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 10/9/2007 10:42 (EST)
        • I personally think there's already enough evidence she's dead... and Greg's comments help seal the deal for me personally by showing the behind the scenes information that drove the decisions. I can understand if others are reluctant to count her out, though. However from Greg's blog it's clear there isn't anything planned for the future for that character. I know we're not going to leave her untagged indefinitely so we might as well mark her now. Just my thought. (Admin 11:02, 9 October 2007 (EDT))
          • Not using the same actress for more than one episode is not the same thing as saving the character. I'd prefer to hold off until next week and if we don't hear anything more then to mark her dead, but I can understand why others want to get it over and done with. It's not like the producers ever misled us before, but my preference is not to jump the gun. I'll add a couple updated theories to theory pages.--MiamiVolts (talk) 12:04, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
            • I think it's certainly possible that she's Not Really Dead. But I think this is one of those cases where we have to play along. We saw a body, and Sylar thinks he killed her. She's dead for now, and if she turns up later, she can be changed back. Anyone could be Not Really Dead--Chandra (no body, just ashes), Mr. Petrelli (no body, no grave), D.L. (no body)--the only difference is that Candice had the obvious means to accomplish it.--Hardvice (talk) 15:02, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
              • There are enough open questions about why and how Sylar and Candice got to Mexico, they could easily write a "Candice faked her death" plot without using credibility. And the more I think about it, the more I think, that this could actually make more sense than the current version. So if the authors (after returning to work) want Candice to return, they can do it ... or "Michelle" ... or "Whoever". I hope they do.--Maraxus 02:29, 13 December 2007 (CET)


Can we archive a bit of this page? It's getting so long that my borwser craps out when trying to edit it. I'd do it, but I don't really know how.--NissanVersaDootDoot 10:53, 9 October 2007 (EDT)


The only aliases should be Candice and Michelle. Pretending to be someone who exists shouldn't make that person's name an alias. --Cylon 14:02, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

  • I thought the same thing too....especially because of the nature of her power. Otherwise, everyone she ever impersonated should be listed as an alias, and if she had been a long-lasting main character, she could have dozens and dozens of names, constantly being added as aliases. She should just list her primary aliases in the charbox, and then we should document all of her impersonation illusions in a list or paragraph somewhere in the body of her page, or another page related to the power if it is warranted. --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 10/9/2007 15:35 (EST)
    • I'd say the same kinda goes for portrayed by...--Riddler 22:42, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
      • But Candice really was portrayed by all those people. And she definitely took on the alias of other people--even if those people really exist in her world. Just as Sylar took on the alias of "Zane Taylor" for so long, Candice pretended to be "Niki Sanders" (and others). Just because they are real people does not make her alias any less valid. An alias, by definition, is simply another name, or an assumed name. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 23:05, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
      • I can take or leave the alias side of things (personally, I think these are aliases she has used, but I can understand the objection). But the "portrayed by" is essential. In the case of people like the doublemint twins, the geisha, and Mrs. Baker, this is the only character article to which the actor is tied. Having the link go one way but not the other doesn't make sense.--Hardvice (talk) 23:38, 11 October 2007 (EDT)