This wiki is a XML full dump clone of "Heroes Wiki", the main wiki about the Heroes saga that has been shut down permanently since June 1, 2020. The purpose of this wiki is to keep online an exhaustive and accurate database about the franchise.

Talk:Claire Bennet/Archive 1

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

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

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

Claire & the Cat

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

The punching of Jackie

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

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

Pain resistance

  • Had a thought earlier tonight while watching the mini-marathon on Sci-Fi. In Godsend, Claire pokes her collarbone back into place with what appears to be only minor pain. I've known people to break their collarbones, and they've said it's pretty painful. Does anyone think that part of Claire's power is a resistance to pain? Or maybe she's just injured herself -purposely or not- so many times that she's just built up a tolerance? --ZyberGoat 02:35, 1 February 2007 (EST)
    • I've thought the same. The few times she's shown much of a reaction, it was either a shock (getting stapled) or otherwise unpleasant (burning flesh smell with the muffins). I'm guessing she doesn't feel pain like most people do, but she feels something.--Hardvice (talk) 02:39, 1 February 2007 (EST)
      • It's mentioned in the power page, and it's a great observation. Her pain level is somewhat inconsistent, but I'll accept it in the name of good storytelling. - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 02:44, 1 February 2007 (EST)
        • In the previews for Kindred Claire says "I can still feel pain", or something exactly like that, to West. This basically means that she is an amazingly brave person, or just used to it, but jumping out of Nathan's office takes guts when you know your gonna feel it. Although her pain would be short-lived compared to others. --SomeoneImportant 15:53, 6 October 2007 (EDT)
          • She tells West that she does feel pain she just recovers from it very quickly. --Emmy141
  • She feels the pain just like everyone else, like mentioned in "The Butterfly Effect" -- (WaterRatj) 21:57, 29 January 2010 (EST)


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

  • In The Fix, before the shot of the windchime. She tells Bennet the bears need to go. "I'm almost 16 dad".
  • Even if she were 20 or 21 months old, it's still reasonable that a reporter would say she's 18 months old. But we also need to remember that the Odessa Register reported her, um, dead. Roxana Castillo leaves something to be desired in her factual representation--her word can't be trusted. I would say Claire's word can. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 06:37, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
    • Even if the "eighteen months" thing is correct, isn't this an easy fix? Who is to say that HRG gave Claire her real birthdate? She might very well be a few months older than she thinks she is. (Ulicus 22:06, 27 April 2007 (EDT))
      • In Run, Meredith says Claire's 16. If you look at an HD screenshot of the Odessa Register article, the date of it is February 28, 1992, which would put Claire's birthdate around August 1990 if she was 18 months old at the time it was written. Kring stated in an interview that she's 16 [1], and they stated that she had recently turned 16 in the Godsend commentary. That one line in The Fix was probably just a mistake, and should be discounted. They've had far worse continuinity errors on the show. Conduit 12:31, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
        • You're absolutely right, and thanks for providing great sources. I agree the line in The Fix that she was "almost 16" is most definitely a mistake. However, it's still in the canon source, and I'm not so sure we can say it should be discounted. In fact, it should definitely be in Claire's notes (where it is), just as all other continuity errors are dealt with in the Notes section. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 17:29, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
  • I think this is worth revisiting, since more than one in-canon source has indicated that she's 16. Her bio-mom says she's 16. Her mom says she was co-captain of the cheer squad by junior year. (Which would make her at least 16, possibly older.) Potostfbeyeluvr 11:48, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
  • The season premiere seems to place her next birthday in March 2007 April 2007, and being either her 16th or 17th birthday, this would place her birth as March April 1990 or 1991. I think this might be getting closer to the truth. Alex W (talk) 11:15, 26 September 2007 (EDT) (edited 21:01, 26 September 2007 (EDT))
    • I certainly received the impression that she drove herself to school on the day the Nissan Rogue was stolen. The State of California requires you to be 16 to legally drive. [[2]] Can we cange the info box to "at least 16" and leave the birth year as undefined since it's in question? --NissanVersaDootDoot 18:49, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

Since There are 2 sets of information pointing to Claire's birthday/age, Can someone seperate that notes into the 2? One for her rough DoB going from her birthmother and the newspaper article (They put the right name, so a source would have known the baby was 18 months old), and one from what she believes because of what her family told her etcetera. I ask this because, in season 2, and supported by other stuff Claire learned from her family etc, her 17th birthday would be April (Season 1 took place oct-nov of 06, and season 2 starts off march 07, same school year, and Junior year, well you turn 16 before you start junior year, and turn 17 before you start senior. Not all junior-year students turn 17 during that school year, if their birthday was in august.) Her 2 'dates of birth': between 1st and 19th April, 1990. (Season 2 stating it to be in April, and her starsign' ending on the 19th.) and around August, 1990 (the newspaper ad, from February 92, stating she was 18 months old, and her mom talking about her age being 16 as if it was a bit more recent that 6 months ago, although that could be her telling Nathan as a reminder of how much time had passed)--Alex mcpherson 79 03:44, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

You don't have to turn 16 before you start junior year, even ignoring the possibility of skipping grades (not too likely in this case, as it would've probably been mentioned already). I turned 16 three months after I started my junior year, and that's not especially out of the ordinary. --Psiphiorg 23:58, 13 November 2007 (EST)

Whatever age she is in the main series, why on earth is an infant used to depict her when she's supposed to be 18 months old? (They said the fire happened when she was 18 months old.) Have these people never seen an 18-month-old child before? They walk around on their own; they don't lie in daddy's arms and vaguely pat his face.

  • The news report that noted she was 18 months old also reported her as dead. I wouldn't put too much value in the Odessa Register or in Roxana Castillo's reporting. :) -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 00:49, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

Mr. Bennet and other characters said she was 18 months old. The *writers* said she was 18 months old. The infant they used to portray her was... an infant. Don't the people who write the show talk to the people who cast the show? Doesn't anyone involved with the show realize what an 18-month-old child looks like? Or are you saying the writers (who also presumably wrote the line saying that Nathan "might not remember" the woman he had a child with) were trying to mislead us by saying she was 18 months old, and that she was actually only 14 1/2 when the show started? -- Js

Guys, now that Mrs. Bennet said to Alex that her daughter "is only 17" during the events of Exposed, shall we now include that as her official age? -- Bonchilla 02:53, 4 March 2009 (EST)

  • I would agree with that. It seems to be the most explicit and concrete example we have. I won't be surprised if it contradicts some past information, but it's the latest information we have and we may just have to accept that they made a mistake in the past if the math comes out wrong. (Admin 03:27, 4 March 2009 (EST))
    • Because it conflicts with so many other sources of information, I would rather put it in the notes. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 08:41, 4 March 2009 (EST)


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

  • No, you're not. Heroe(talk) 16:46, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
    • What really gets me is when D.L. is called a "shape-shifter". Or a Haitian. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 17:21, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
      • Feels good to not be alone. Thats something I really don't understand, why D.L. is called a "shape-shifter" that is. User:Benoni 14:50, 22 March 2007 (EST)
        • You have stupid NBC to blame for that.
        • I thought D.L. could turn invisible? hehe. Joke. 'Phase-shifter' is closer to it. Heh. Swap the P and S.. Shape/Phase... might have been a typo? --Alex mcpherson 79 03:47, 25 October 2007 (EDT)


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

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


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

reference to bible?

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

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

  • Well, the term "Good Samaritan" has purely Biblical origins, as far as I can tell, even though the term has become quite secular. True, Heroes might not be directly referencing the Bible or even anything religious when they printed that, but it still (in my opinion) counts as part of the theme. When Sylar's mom thanks God for bringing her son home safely, the same argument can be made that she's just sort of using a common term rather than actually thanking God. There are other similar examples. It's kind of a fuzzy line, isn't it? I don't mind taking the reference out, but I kind of lean towards putting it in and letting people make their own judgments about it. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 13:33, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
    • well in my opinion it looked a little out of place u see. the line was kind of pushing it because from what i see, it appeared out of nowhere and doesn't quite fit in. but that might just be me.--Zenithdoom 15:51, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Lizards Summary

  • ... is currently a c n' p from the episode summary. It's too detailed and needs to be trimmed down. (I was going to put the sectstub template on, but thought "This section is a stub. You can help by expanding it. In particular, this section needs to be trimmed down" sounded a bit odd.  :) --Hardvice (talk) 23:29, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
    • I second that. I was like Holy shitake mushroom! I was like, was she in that many scenes? Then I realized how detailed it was. Jason Garrick 15:30, 6 October 2007 (EDT)


  • Hasn't Claire's surname legally changed to Butler through relocation, along with the rest of her adoptive family? I know it would mean an ugly amount of editing, but it seems unlikely that the Company is going down any time soon. Thoughts? (Revengeance 09:47, 8 October 2007 (EDT))
    • No way to tell if she's legally changed it or not. But even if she had, she's still more widely known as Claire Bennet (that's even how the family refers to themselves in the second season). Afterall, Sylar's legal name is still Gabriel Gray. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 12:14, 8 October 2007 (EDT)
    • I doubt it's been legally changed. That would defeat the purpose in changing it, since there would be a paper trail and the Company would be after the Butlers instead of the Bennets in no time.--Hardvice (talk) 12:36, 8 October 2007 (EDT)
    • My name is Alex Mcpherson. Well, it's not my REAL name but that's what I go by online. Not many people online know my real name... It's my Alias. Likewise, in real life others use Alias's there, rather than online (or both, depends what they do/why they have an Alias.) But usually, if they're not a spy working for a government or similar, their Alias doesn't have legal documents. If they do and don't go by their other name anymore, it's not an Alias. Just watch the TV show Alias (Gren Grunberg was on it before Heroes). Syd has numerous Alias's (some with legal documents, or forged documents as it were for those she had with SD-6). Not sure on those who have entered into Witness Protection, but the WP do have files on that locked up according to Alias season 3/5. For Noah, Sandra, Lyle and Claire? No they won't even use WP to change name. He would have gotten them new social security numbers and stuff like that without the normal procedures of changing name/new numbers, to get rid of the paper trail between Bennet and Butler. (again, the TV show Alias as an example, one of Syd's Aliases used a dead woman's social security number. I don't doubt that Noah Bennet would use that method aswell)--Alex mcpherson 79 03:57, 25 October 2007 (EDT)


Technically, Claire doesn't have her Nissan Rogue anymore, so can we remove it or add a note saying that it was stolen?--croush 23:35, 12 November 2007 (EST)

V-Cut vs. Y Incision

It's minor, but the primary cut first made during an autopsy is called a "Y incision" not a V-Cut. Yes, I have watched too much CSI. Autopsy Steps

Dataloss 14:56, 24 September 2008 (EDT)

Vivian Lewis

When did she go by that alias? --Snow Leapord 11:03, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Anyone else think Claire is probably the stupidest person in the entire show?

I cannot see why she fails to understand that her ability is not an offensive ability. She has the ability to heal. She should be pumping out blood for people who are sick and need treatment, instead of trying to be some stupid bounty-hunter who uses a taser. She needs to understand that some of the greatest heroes of all are found in hospitals and emergency rooms. --Logic[] 13:07, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

She probably knows this. But logic rarely wins when against emotions (no offense to you :P). Claire probably feels that saving people with her blood isn't "action" enough... she feels like she needs to be out there in the battlefield rather than behind the scenes. Sincerely, Thrashmeister [ U | T | C ] 13:18, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
"But logic rarely wins when against emotions" It is this unfortunate truth resonating within the large majority of people on our planet which stymies some of the greatest advances of modern science that history has ever known. Emotions: the fundamental product of humankind's cognitive evolutionary history which acts as the source of both our greatest strengths and greatest weaknesses. --Logic[] 13:46, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

I disagree. Peter is so much more stupid. Claire acts dumb because of HRG and her own idea of being "normal". Peter is a stupid person that makes stupid decisions. As a counter, Sylar is a insane person that is very smart and makes smart choices. Claire=dumb, Peter=ultimately stupid, Sylar=the only person on the show with a higher IQ than a contestant on "Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader." Yeah, I guess you can tell I'm a root fort the bad guy person. (Brave New World=Goddie-too-shoe Sylar. Sulk.)--Dance4thedead 23:27, 22 February 2010 (EST)

Not going back to highschool?

I have a feeling that we may never see Claire back in school for the remainder of Heroes. I heard in a Heroes Unmasked episode that one of the reasons that Claire hasn't been back to school this season is that the writers feel that Hayden is outgrowing the high schooler role or something. I personally feel that she doesn't look to old to be in high school but that's my opinion... Also if West is no longer to appear on the show then what are the odds that if Claire goes back to school she wouldn't run into him? It looks like Claire Bennet may have to hang up her iconic cheer leading uniform for good.--Cairoi 20:12, 19 November 2008 (EST)

She seems to erase people from her mind....

Has anyone else noticed that every time Claire gets close to a fellow class mate she seems to eventually completely forget them? Ever since Zach helped her track down Meridith she hasn't once mentioned him, even though though she said he was her only "real" friend. Then in season two she meet West, who even though she also got really close to, she never mentioned again after the season was over. I know they sort of broke up but still, it doesn't seem realistic to just completely cut people out of your life who you were so close to. Claire wasn't the only one to do this though, Peter seemed to completely forget about Catlin as well. Maybe its a genetic thing..--Cairoi 19:30, 21 November 2008 (EST)

  • She was forced to cut Zach out of her life. The graphic novels indicate that there was quite awhile between Noah's return (right after she broke up with West) and her attack by Sylar, meaning she had quite awhile to get over West off-screen. Peter's been busy saving the future (and therefore Caitlin) from the virus, the Company (by trying to reveal their secret,) and the formula, and when he isn't busy, he's stuck in a powerless body. - Josh (talk/contribs) 20:08, 21 November 2008 (EST)
    • Are you sure about that? I'm pretty sure the same day she broke up with West was the same day Sylar attacked her. She was wearing the same shirt in episode 1 of season 3 as the one she wore when she dumped West(until she changed into a white one). Also another reason why it had to be the same day was that Nathan was shot the day she broke up with West and episode one picks up there. I donno I get that Claire and Peter were forced to cut people out of their lives, but it would be cool if they just mentioned them.--Cairoi 19:52, 22 November 2008 (EST)

Claire catalyst

Can someone please explain to me why Claire automatically assumes she is the catalyst? They said that Kaito Nakamura was responsible for hiding the catalyst. Claire has never even been in contact with Kiato so if she was the catalyst wouldn't it make sense that she be in japan so Kaito can keep a close eye on her. Her only reason for believing that she is the catalyst is because Sylar said she was special. What would Sylar know about the catalyst so long before Mohinder's research on the genetic modification formula. If someone could explain Claire's logic hear that would be great.-- Firemole 6:09PM 24 November 2008 (CNT)

  • When he was poking around her brain, he saw that her brain wasn't like any other brain he had poked before, that it was different, Sylar's power is to understand how things work, and Kaito is the one who handed Claire to Noah after he and Claude tried to bag and tag Meredith, they took baby Claire, and Kaito presumably put the catalyst inside her. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 19:26, 25 November 2008 (EST)
  • Granted. But couldn't the catalyst still be a number of people possible Ando or Kimiko? It would make more sense if Kaito had kept the child with the catalyst near him as opposed to off in a distant country where he would most likely not be able to keep an eye on her. It seems like he's gambling with the future of humanity here.
    • In response to original question, Kaito has not only been in contact with Claire but she is being handed to another company agent for protection/care. HRG was most likely given Claire to protect the catalyst. Ring bells? --Oxico 19:40, 25 November 2008 (EST)
      • That and I'm sure that the group of 12 kept in touch during these years, and it's not like Kaito couldn't get a jet to New York if he wanted to. Plus, the founders as a whole never meant for the formula to be used again, at least that's what Angela makes it seem, so there was no need to keep the catalyst's host near. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 19:44, 25 November 2008 (EST)
      • Also, why not keep the third, most important part away from the rest of the formula?--Oxico 19:51, 25 November 2008 (EST)
        • If they didn't intend it to be used again, why didn't they just destroy the formula? That's what I would do. It seems to me that they expected it to be stolen. Also, a non-evolved human host would be less conspicuous than the child of two evolved humans (who tend to end up with powers.) If the 12 had kept in contact. Angela would have been able to right away tell Claire she was the catalyst rather than haver her figure it out.
          • Kaito was the only who knew the identity of the host, and if they didn't intend to use, makes sense they wouldn't talk about it. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 20:06, 25 November 2008 (EST)
          • Not to mention it would be useful to have a formula that can hand out powers for "just in case" scenarios ie the eclipse.--Oxico 20:09, 25 November 2008 (EST)
          • Kaito contact thing, My mistake. But how would anyone know that the eclipes would do that? Still would be smart to keep her close by.
          • It seems likely that the "catalyst" isn't something Kaito gave to Claire. I think anyone born with rapid cell regeneration can be the catalyst; since Adam is the only other "native" we know of, and he's dead, it has to be Claire. Adam was in custody at the time Kaito gave Nathan powers. Product Placement 20:14, 25 November 2008 (EST)
          • Cant be simply rapid cell regeneration as Arthur now has that power form Peter. If it was that, they wouldn't need Claire. It's definitely something different

Couldn't the catalyst simply be the approaching of the eclipse. Most other hero's started developing there powers about the time of the eclipse but maybe being born with the powers puts the formula in you and your metabolism keeps it from mutating you until an eclipse occurs at the point the formula takes affect.

  • This is going to sound boring coming from me, but can you please spell Kaito and Claire? I have a borderline OCD behavior when it comes to spelling. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 20:32, 25 November 2008 (EST)
  • Sorry. I feel for you but i am an awful speller so I wont be able to change it as i am to lazy to look it up.
  • Why hasn't anyone ever questioned Claire being the catalyst? There are still a vast number of people that it could be other than Claire.
  • Couldn't Mohinder's info about the catalyst being a human be off? It would make more sense if it was an object that shot some weird ray thing that caused the reaction rather than the presence of a certain human.
  • I think the writers should have used this as an opportunity to add some importance to the characters who aren't seen so much. Don't you think? I would say it is a waste to have the catalyst be Claire. We see so much of her i now give a sigh when she appears on screen. She's starting to become boring. (sorry Claire fan boys but she is just on so much and so overly dramatic about everything that it has become draining to watch her. Giving more importance to her is simply a waste.)
    • Could you guys please sign your posts? It's pretty difficult to tell who's talking to who here. --Ricard Desi 18:24, 13 December 2008 (EST)

Claire Bennet's age.

On Claire Bennet's biography page it is mentioned that she is 17 in the info box. It also states that in the episode "The Eclipse Part 2" when Hiro takes her back in time 16 years to 1992 she sees her baby self at 18 months old.

The problem is that the baby shown is much too young to be a year and a half. She was at best a few months old if that. And I think very recently in "The Eclipse part 1" I think she mentions she was 16 so it seems maybe the age is wrong on the page. Hunter2005 18:17, 13 December 2008 (EST)

Never mind I see it is discussed elsewhere on the discussion page, but my observations still stand. Hunter2005 18:35, 13 December 2008 (EST)

Claire sucks

Does anybody else wish they'd just get rid of Claire? Can anyone say they enjoyed watching her this season with all the "I can't feel pain" and "I can fight, I can be more". Personally I find her to her to be the most annoying and my least favorite character to watch. Just wondering what you guys think. Also she is responsible for the "watering down" of HRG, I'd love to see Claire die permanently and HRG go on some revenge trip. D Toccs 01:33, 28 December 2008 (EST)

Birth Name

Is there any canon infomation on Claire's birth name? Gordon? Petrelli? Lizzie Harrison 05:12, 29 December 2008 (EST)