H may have caught you guys in a continuity gaffe. “In ‘The Hard Part,’ Mohinder tells Molly he hadn’t been born yet when his sister Shanti died, which is why his father couldn’t use Mohinder’s antibodies to cure his sister (like Mohinder does for Molly). But in ‘Seven Minutes to Midnight,’ Mohinder’s mother tells him that he was two years old when Shanti died. Which one is true — was Mohinder born while Shanti was still alive, or was he still in his mother’s womb, like the picture Mohinder shows to Molly suggests?”

Yes. Continuity gaffe. It happens. We apologize. We are only human and sometimes, some things do fall through the cracks.

http://comicbookresources.com/news/newsitem.cgi?id=10548

Anyway, my Linderman/Haitan/Angela/Thompson/Mr.Muggles(kidding) theory, which probably will be blown to pieces in a few hours by the new episode.

Linderman sits at the top of Multiple organizations. The Company and his group of gangsters are just a few.

Angela has contact with him, not with the lower members. Angela knows Linderman from the group weve heard of a few times, that she joined right after war stories. After the falling apart, she goes on her way. She’s not so much involved with Linderman as much as getting occasional calls from him, detailing his current plans and how she fits in with them.
Since she is not working with him and doesn’t trust him, she tries to shield Claire from him while still trying to keep his plan going.

Thompson is bellow Linderman. He basicly just follows orders. He has two jobs: overseeing part of the company, and doing whatever linderman tells him too. In one arm he is manager, in the whole scheme nothing more than a grunt. He has control over bennet and a few others, but outside of the company, he does things like relay messages between Linderman and Nathan, talk to Mohinder, etc. Thompson realy knows only what he needs to to complete whatever assignment he’s on. He doesnt know about Claire’s importance, only that she’s an evolved human that needs to be brought in.

Bennett knows about Linderman, but knows NONE of his plans. he runs his arm of the company with relative autonomy until/unless he messes up big. He knows that Peter will explode, not that Linderman wants him to explode, so he gives Isaac the gun to kill him.

The Haitian knows only what Bennet tells him, begins to go the Claude route concerning the Company, and Angela, who probably doesnt trust Linderman, contacts him to keep Claire safe. Haitian follows her orders, tries to keep Claire safe, realy knows nothing else.

Kaito was once on a level higher than thompson, but lower than Angela. Eventually, he either was promoted or broke away, and either was put in charge of an entire arm of Linderman’s machinations, or started his own Company. In any case, he is not high enough to have Linderman’s grand plan revealed to him, so does not know about Hiro’s abilities. (Kaito’s place is probably the one part of my theory that will both be proved correct/incorrect soonest, as he is in tonight’s episode, and the shakiest, because of the spoilerific images revealed showing him with Hiro’s unbroken sword.)

Hope all of the above makes sense. We’ll see how it stands up to tonights episode. Most of it probably wont be put to the test until Generations though.

The Mohinder’s birth continuity issue- hero’s time-traveling messed up when Issaac’s death was, maybe Mohinder’s birth too? (And since present-Hiro hasnt travelled back that far, I would assume that Future-Hiro caused this when he was observing all the different life lines.)

I have a huge theory about the whole Linderman/Angela/Thompson/Hatian/Kaito mess, but it would take forever to explain, and I need to run. I’ll post it asap.

Oh, and as for the purpose of Isaac’s death- Isaac himself said that it served some HUGE Purpose regarding Sylar’s death?

PPS I doubt that DL will die. The scene with him in this ep was obviously a lead in to a GENERATIONS plot, so he’ll probably stick around for that.

Anyway, just a couple of things. The “Buffy”/”Angel” deaths that stand out in my mind as being brilliantly handled were those of Doyle, Jenny and Joyce, for different reasons. Doyle’s was particularly impressive because it was handled so well when it was essentially forced upon them. I don’t really count Anya–I think he just felt he couldn’t do the apocalyptic finale without killing somebody, and the lot just happened to fall on the 1000-year-old demon whose life deserved a better death. And I only regret Tara’s death because it was responsible for the introduction of the highly annoying and unfortunate Kennedy the next season.

But the deaths of Jenny and Joyce were almost poetic in their emotional impact. Jenny was necessary because the audience needed to give up the idea that there was any good in Angelus. Joyce’s death was necessary to show that yes, people can die of natural causes in a supernatural world.

Isaac’s death was necessary because…we all needed to be shown how futile everything is? I guess you see my point.

I would like to see you respond to the Thompson/Linderman/Angela/Haitian/Nathan connection because I’m just so confused about it. The specific thing that baffles me is why they were torturing Bennet to find out Claire’s location when Thompson must–having contact with the Petrellis and being in on “Plan Nuke”–have known where she was all along. I guess it was all part of the ruse to get her away from Bennet and making him an unwitting accomplice in that, and tortruing him was their way of keeping him off the scent, as it were (clearly didn’t work).

But it’s the Haitian’s involvement that has me really perplexed. I don’t want to believe that he was lying to Claire or that he was double-crossing Bennet(although he obviously did lie when he said he knew nothing of her real father). I just don’t want to believe that, but with what I saw in “The Hard Part,” I guess there is no choice but to believe it.

The Haitian was passionate about Bennet not being implicated (Plan Gunshot). His betrayal of the company was quite poetic, and made him analogous to Claude, in a way. But Angela’s involvement just puts a wrench in all that, and some explanation is really due. I hope that’s an appropriate appeal?

Timothy, point taken. I think it could go either way; it could be that Mohinder’s blood is genetically “revved up,” and that it constitutes an ability in itself if he’s able to cure another super of a virus; I think it depends on the nature of the virus, and on whether the show puts him in another situation where he’ll need to demonstrate the “ability” again.

But, as you say, it could just be that his relation to Shanti meant he was a suitable candidate for the transfusion. In which case, yeah, there was nothing “special” about it. If that’s the case, consider me corrected.
Kelly, dude — breathe! Seriously. If you want to rant about the show, e-mail me and we’ll talk about the stuff that bugged you. Don’t inflict ranting on the site’s readers (leave that to me), and please don’t attack the writers for creative decisions they’re entitled to make.

I encourage debate about the show in this blog. Heck, that’s why I’m here. But there’s a line between constructive criticism and flatout ranting, especially when it comes to describing the show’s decisions as “stupid” and “inept.”

Heroes doesn’t need me to defend it, nor does anyone making the show, because they know they’re doing an amazing job. But for the record, here’s my take on your thoughts.

It boils down to one suggestion:

Have a little faith in the show!

I would seriously disagree that anyone working on Heroes is “out of touch” with what the fans want. Most of them are comic-book and sci-fi fans themselves, and that’s part of what’s led to this show’s success; the people making it know what we want because they want the same thing.

I’d also disagree that the show treats its character deaths with “pride.” The point that Kring underlines during every interview in which he discusses this aspect of the show is that it’s a part of the show’s reality, and that it’s a necessary dramatic development in a story which has been meticulously planned out.

If the show feels a character has served their “purpose” in the story, I’d rather see them go than stick around and contribute nothing to the drama. And if the show wants a character written off, that’s their privilege. I thought that killing off Charlie and Isaac was a shame, but I would never call it a “blunder” or a wrong move. I trust Kring’s reasoning behind it, and I trust that he wrote the character off the show in order to introduce another who’s equally compelling and equally worthy of our emotional attachment.

Judging from the success of the show, I wouldn’t say Kring’s messing up too badly, or that he’s “p**sing off half the audience.” The show wouldn’t be drawing in 11m+ viewers a week if he was.

Buffy and Angel — I’m as huge a fan of those shows as anyone, but I wouldn’t hold them up as paragons of dramatic perfection, certainly not next to this show, and certainly not when it comes to killing off its characters. (Tara? Anya? Turning Fred into a smurf? You thought that stuff was “well crafted”? ) And truthfully, I’d say Heroes runs circles around both of those shows’ first seasons.

Have a little faith in the show and the crew making it, because so far it’s been beyond awesome. Given the way it’s made us care about the characters (and, by the sound of it, the way it’s made YOU care about them), I can believe that the characters who’ll be introduced next season will be just as — if not more — compelling than the ones who were written out.

Im not sure that i agree with you on the death part. First of all, lost and 24 never overdid it. 24 was and has been great until this year. It is not the overabundance of deaths that harmed it, but the incongruity with the story when it makes no sense, like with Curtis. All other deaths in the show were within context and i felt made the show stronger.

I think part of what makes heroes so great is that anyone can die (except claire and peter of course :)). You get invested in the characters becuase they are well written and deep. They are well acted as well, obviously, but its the depth of the characters that make them compelling, even in a short time. If nathan dies in a heroic fashion in line with his character, or dl, or even ando, i can accept that. I like all three characters, but in each case, if they die saving their loved ones (peter, micah, hiro) i can accept that. I do agree that Issac’s death seemed to not fit in, he just gave up on life. i agree with you there. But in a well thought out meaningful to the story death, i think the show has it right. In fact, to me, one of the great joys of the show is that you dont know who is safe. As exciitng as some shows are, when you know there is no way that a character can die, it is a little anti-climactic. I love shows where anyone at any time could conceivably die (Galactica, B5).

That being said, if it doesnt make sense within the context of the character and show, it feels contrived and weak.

I do agree with the whole haitian/linderman/angela connection. It just doesnt feel right or make sense, and i hope they explain that further.

Besides, since it’s been demonstrated that what superpower someone gets is pretty much random, Mohinder’s parents would have no reason to think that Mohinder would happen to come out with the right superpower. Especially since it’s been established that papa Suresh didn’t start his research until after Shanti died.