Talk:Six Months Ago

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is not a forum! This is not a forum for idle discussion of Heroes. Comments that do not pertain specifically to the improvement of the article "Six Months Ago" are subject to removal.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Six Months Ago article.

Contents

[edit] Update Reference Links in Article

Someone has put links to peoples names, not the actual character links. For example Peter links to Peter and not [[Peter Petrelli]. Can someone go through the list and fix it up? I would but I'm swamped with work right now. Thanks.


I think I've got them done, but I may have missed a couple. Gotta do some work now.

There are a whole bunch of red links. --Addict 2006 23:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I got rid of the Wikilinks to non-existent articles. Primogen 23:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Circular Time

Hiro explains in Episode 1 that time isn't a line, but more like a circle: when one travels back into the past one is causing events that will be experienced in one's future. This is experienced when Hiro gives Charlie the Japanese phrasebook. However, had Charlie gotten it specifically from Hiro, she would have recognized him in the Burnt Toast Diner when he met her (first time for him, would be second time for her). Charlie loved him; she wouldn't have forgotten his face.

You might argue that "Hiro can't stop someone from dying if that's the reason he went into the past: if he did, then he wouldn't have a reason to jump into the past." - IE, the "Time Machine" paradox where the guy built his machine specifically to save his fiancee. Hiro, on the other hand, wouldn't lose the ability to time-travel if he went back to try to save Charlie: it's built in.

Hiro's memory of the past MUST be unaffected by his powers. Otherwise, in his memory of events, Charlie would have greeted him enthusiastically when he "first met her", because she'd be in love with him and would already know about his powers, etc. In other words, that old timeline is Hiro's past now, and no one else's: Hiro is touring the Multiverse of possible outcomes, but it probably doesn't seem that way because there may be an "inertia" to any one Universe or Timeline. Hiro probably retains an unconscious set of "coordinates" for what he expects of his world: so far the furthest in time he's teleported as Present-Hiro is six months, which is pretty tight when you consider how much of time in the past and future there is to land in. Charlie remarks that his shirt says "Batchagai", or "I Don't Belong Here". In-DEED.

My working theory is that Charlie, forewarned and forearmed, faked her death using the blood clot as a convenient explanation, and times it so that Hiro and Ando perceive little to no difference: dead is dead. Sylar would also have been thrown off: if it seems real to the town of Midland it'll seem real to an outsider looking for the "deceased". Hiro is the only one who would retain memory of the event, because he was the one who reacted to it and was at cause. However, choked by grief he's not asking the right question: "how did she die?"

Considering that story arcs were written for five seasons in advance to cover allusion to future events by characters such as Issac and Hiro, it's not unreasonable to assume that this is a major clue as to the inner workings of Hiro's power-set and that Charlie indeed is not dead. If I'm right, Charlie will surface later in the series to save Hiro's life at a critical moment and restore his confidence that he can change the timeline. Tar 14:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Kinda hard to fake your death when Syler slices your head open, not to mention the reaction of the people discovering the body is not something one would expect from a death from a blood clot, but rather a very messy blunt force trauma injury.

OverlordQ 17:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Please use this page only for discussions about improving this article. There are plenty of fan forums on other sites for posting theories about the show. Primogen 17:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] reflection

I was wondering if the reflection in the window during the hospital scenes with the patrelli's was the eclipse. If it is I think that would be a good thing to add to a trivia section.

REDMON89

My first thought was that it was supposed to relate to the eclipse (which didn't happen until nearly six months later), but I believe it was actually a reflection of a light. Whether it was intended to resemble the eclipse or not is unknown, and speculation about such would be inappropriate for the article unless someone can find a quote about it from a producer. --Psiphiorg 01:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Smile by Lily Allen

This song would not have been out, if the episode is set in April. Smile was only released in July, 4 months before the episode is set. --ParalysedBeaver 18:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that counts as a "goof". Good ear. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, a continuity error, on the producers part. --ParalysedBeaver 15:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Synopsis vs. Summary (was:OK. Before this gets ugly.)

Rather than having people swap the "synopsis" and the "summary" back and forth any more times, let's attempt to generate some concensus on it instead. Clearly it's unnecessary to have both a "synopsis" and a "summary." No other episode article has such a structure and the information is redundant. The question is then should the article have the "synopsis" or the "summary"? My feeling is that the "summary" is more useful since it's more detailed and the "summary" level of detail is used in every other episode. Otto4711 20:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

FWIW summary could mean any kind of overview of the episode: plot, production, thematic material, blah blah blah. If you're referring explicity to a plot/story summary, I think synopsis is what you want. Whcih is what we have now. Let's not edit war here, people, ok? — David Spalding ta!k y@wp/Contribs 22:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
At the risk of making things even uglier, Wikipedia:WikiProject Television episodes uses "Plot". Primogen 22:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I support "plot" per the spirit of Otto's comment and the good/common sense of other Wikipedians over TV eps. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't care what the section is called. My concern is about the content. A nascent edit war seems to be brewing over the content of the two sections being swapped in and out. When I removed the first few paragraphs, there was an untitled section giving an overview of the ep, a one-paragraph "preview" and then a fuller summary of the episode. I took out the untitled section and the "preview" on the grounds that they were redundant and no other ep article had a similar structure. Since then there have been a number of edits, putting some of the untitled information back, taking it back out again, switching the shorter untitled information for the more detailed information and so on. The aricle as it now stands consists of the formerly untitled section under the name "synopsis." Again, I don't care what the thing is actually called but let's stop the back-and-forth. Given the choice between the shorter information and the longer information, my preference is for the longer information. It more closely matches the way that other episodes are recapped and the reason given by the editor for removing it, that it's "overly long," doesn't really hold water for me. Otto4711 22:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] please, don't delete the entire thing.

I know this summary is long. However, you cannot just delete the entire thing and leave three meaningless paragraphs. that does not help to explain what the episode is about. If you wish to shorten it, do so my condensing it. Do so by writing it in the same style as all the other articles we have for heroes. Good look at Fallout, which is a perfect example. dposse 20:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Another editor drastically trimmed the plot synopsis down about a week ago. I wasn't quite happy with what he did, but I was waiting to see the reaction from other people, which there wasn't any until now. There is a problem in that all the episode plot descriptions are too long. The description for "Six Months Ago" is over 3,000 words long. By comparison, I looked at an episode description from Buffy The Vampire Slayer, ST:TNG, and Lost, and they were each about 1,000 words long. Even "Fallout" is lonk at about 2,000 words. When episode descriptions are written at the shot and dialog level (rather than the scene level), they become more of a transcript than a plot description. Primogen 20:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm continuing this on Talk:List of Heroes episodes#Plot synopsis length in episode articles to broaden the discussion to cover the problem of episode description length in general. Primogen 21:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pop culture references

Hiro makes quite a few pop culture references, is it worthwhile to place them in the trivia section? I'm asking this here because in this episode, when he talks to his past self on the phone, he says "Great-o Scott-o!" which is a reference to Back to the Future. Annie D 12:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Various references have been added, and then removed, as we're supposed to avoid speculation as to what the show's creators and writers intended. However, in the case of "Great Scott", the phrase is already linked to a Wikipedia article about that same term. --Ckatzchatspy 17:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
"Great Scott!" was a common phrase, and the BACK TOTHE FUTURE films only referenced it, too. As per the Great Scott page, it dates to the 19th century. Now, just listing them in the Trivia section might be interesting, avoiding any conjecture as to the writer's intent. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 17:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/i/x/Talk%7ESix_Months_Ago_6b46.html"