FlashForward: "Better Angels" 4/1/10 - Grading & Discussion

[stj]

Nice effort but I can't agree.

My working theory: the future glimpsed were one where the blackout happened, but not the flashforward...

Mark would still have his gun but Mark wouldn't shoot Demetri. But the flashforward shows a future where Mark's gun shot Demetri. You might argue the producers didn't mean the visions to show us a future where actions based upon the flashforward have brought about the flashforward itself. The problem is simply that they've also showed us the very opposite, actions taken because of the flashforward preventing the flashforward itself. Which I think also argues against your working theory.

The future is always in flux....

Which implies that the past is not. This certainly isn't true of the people in the flashforward. There is so far as I know no way to privilege some given moment as the magic now which has a fixed past but a future in flux. If the future is in flux, the past is in flux. The stuff with Dyson Frost stealing Campos' plans from Campos' past implies strongly that the timeline opening the series has already been tampered with. But that doesn't resolve the paradox, it merely distances it.

...logically, the future had to be created before it could be observed, so this is a future where such observation never occured. When people awoke with their memories of the future, it changed the timeline--as foreknowledge necessarily must in any scenario outside absolute predestination.

Since the flashforward did change people's actions, then the future they saw will never occur. Since, as you say the future they saw must exist before they can see it in the flashforward, but they are creating a future in which there was foreknowledge due to the flashforward, when was the future with the blackout but without foreknowledge created?

The answer of course is never. But as you say logically that future had to be created before people could see it. This is a temporal paradox. There can be no consistent plot. You can posit multiple timelines to do away with the need for internal consistency to the history of the narrative. But that raises the question of why everyone saw one particular timeline.

Worse, with multiple timelines, there is no way to derive useful information about "our" timeline from the others. But all this folderol about D. Gibbons and Flosso must be motivated by the belief that useful information about our future can somehow be acquired! The whole notion of multiple timelines basically derives from manyworlds interpretations of quantum mechanics. The problem there is that the other universes are impossible to access!

Also, the element of arbitrariness in multiple timelines stories (as opposed to restoring timelines stories) is that dramatically people want the character to actually change things, not just go to another timeline to escape.

Causal loops may be bizarre but they are at least consistent. There is no way to make sense of the plot. Flashforward has always been most interesting when it addressed the characters' different reactions to their flashforwards. But that is character driven drama in a sense entirely different from the usual meaning of the phrase. Usually, "character driven drama" means enactment of scenarios (sometimes repeatedly!) starring cool characters the audience identifies with.

 

[Trent Roman]

Mark would still have his gun but Mark wouldn't shoot Demetri. But the flashforward shows a future where Mark's gun shot Demetri. You might argue the producers didn't mean the visions to show us a future where actions based upon the flashforward have brought about the flashforward itself. The problem is simply that they've also showed us the very opposite, actions taken because of the flashforward preventing the flashforward itself. Which I think also argues against your working theory.

There is, I acknowledge, a weakness in the argument regarding potential circularity: something glimpsed in a flashforward leading to events which are part of the flashforward, and Marc's board in particular is the best example of that. He's been reconstituting the board based on his vision of the future, but how did he constitute it originally? It remains possible that all that evidence was acquire through regular detection methods the first time through, but this (and other glimpses like Bryce's and his prospective girlfriend meeting for no other reason than they saw themselves meet) are problematic. Still, better a realm of possibility than outright contradictions, and overall the show (as the book itself) indicates that the flashforwards do not show fixed futures. (As for the gun, we don't know how that'll work itself out yet.)

The stuff with Dyson Frost stealing Campos' plans from Campos' past implies strongly that the timeline opening the series has already been tampered with. But that doesn't resolve the paradox, it merely distances it.

I believe the implication there is that D. Gibbons stole Campos' plans during a flashforward of his own--not looking into the past from the present, but looking into the future from some point in the more distant past (as his addressing Dimitri from 1991 also points towards). This also accounts for 'Uncle Flosso' and the conspirators' involvement in his life: they knew he was going to be one of the people responsible for creating the technology they would reverse-engineer from their glimpses of the future. What the show has yet to address, of course, is how the first flashforward took place to begin with. It is possible that D. Gibbons was skilled enough a physicist to have created the effect himself, perhaps by accident, but didn't understand it enough to duplicate it at a larger scale by himself; or else that there is a limited set of circumstances where a flashforward is actually a naturally occuring phenomenon (although this seems unlikely).

Since the flashforward did change people's actions, then the future they saw will never occur. Since, as you say the future they saw must exist before they can see it in the flashforward, but they are creating a future in which there was foreknowledge due to the flashforward, when was the future with the blackout but without foreknowledge created?

During the blackout itself, as I've said. For the two minutes and seventeen seconds where the global population had blacked out but before their awareness returned to the present with knowledge of the future, this is how the future looked: blackout but no flashforward. Remember that, unless we have a predestination paradox, the timeline cannot foresee future interventions in the timeline from outside it--in this case, the foreknowledge gained two minutes later (from an absolute perspective).

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Before Janice introduced Abdi to Mosaic, he wanted to be the Big Hero orating to the adoring masses. The evidence pointed to a different path, but he still wanted to be the Big Hero orating to the adoring masses. The so-called personality change wasn't such a radical turn around.

He sure liked to lecture people, that's for sure, but he seemed to be far more interested in power than anything else. Maybe he was just playing the crowd for suckers with his Lincoln-quoting schitck, and afterwards would have gone right back to his successful warlording career after the schitck had served whatever strategic purpose he has planned (diversion? suckering in bleeding-heart Westerners?) But the story did nothing to imply it. He seemed to be a) bad, then b) good in the future, then c) dead, so what does it matter?

And that's what's wrong with the show.

The show has thoroughly established that events are occurring that plainly will lead to the future seen. For example, Aaron's daughter is indeed alive, and is lost in Afghanistan.

It has also thoroughly established that it is not certain whether actions taken to change the future won't cause the undesired events

In other words, all we know is that it's not 100% certain that the visions will come true. It might be 100% certain that they won't come true. Or anything in between. Unless we have some inkling of how likely they are - are they easy to thwart, or hard, or does it depend on the person, and which characters have easy or hard jobs? - it's hard to get emotionally invested in this story. It's all too random.

My working theory: the future glimpsed were one where the blackout happened, but not the flashforward.

That would explain why nobody was showing themselves winning lottery numbers in the future, but then people are seeing visions of a future that isn't necessarily theirs, and in fact, maybe can't be theirs, since the past was not the same.

Once again - too many unknown factors. I'm less interested in debating the finer points of time travel (that's what the Trek XI forum is for) because the real problem isn't whether or how the "time travel" makes sense, it's that enough of the story hasn't been locked down to allow the viewers to care about the story.

We really need more established ground rules here. Otherwise, the audience dwindles to just us few who are still curious about things despite the lack of emotional involvement, but that isn't an audience any TV series can survive on, especially not one on broadcast TV. Even on cable, I wouldn't try it.

 

[Trent Roman]

He sure liked to lecture people, that's for sure, but he seemed to be far more interested in power than anything else. Maybe he was just playing the crowd for suckers with his Lincoln-quoting schitck, and afterwards would have gone right back to his successful warlording career after the schitck had served whatever strategic purpose he has planned (diversion? suckering in bleeding-heart Westerners?) But the story did nothing to imply it. He seemed to be a) bad, then b) good in the future, then c) dead, so what does it matter?

The fact that he was wearing his mother's necklace in the flashforward indicates that he was always there when the bodies of his villagers were found. However, whereas the version we encountered seemed to derive much of his power from his apparent prophetic vision, it's possible the original Abdi was far less hostile (not believing himself to be a destined warlord and as such invincible) and so didn't get shot, and the grisly discovery is what motivated him to become this great peacemaker (as, indeed, I thought was going to be the outcome before he went apeshit on Merry and Vogel killed him).

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Temis the Vorta]

That's an intriguing idea, but it'll never do the series any good because it will never be explored. And I doubt the writers put that much thought into whether the guy was "really" good or evil and under what circumstances. He was a disposable character.

 

[stj]

For the two minutes and seventeen seconds where the global population had blacked out but before their awareness returned to the present with knowledge of the future, this is how the future looked: blackout but no flashforward. Remember that, unless we have a predestination paradox, the timeline cannot foresee future interventions in the timeline from outside it--in this case, the foreknowledge gained two minutes later (from an absolute perspective).

Special and general relativity show there is no absolute perspective. These theories are well supported experimentally, especially special relativity. The October 17 now does not determine the existence of a particular April 29, blackout only, then change April 29 when then minds return with foreknowledge that changes the previously determined April 29. The reason is that April 29 comes after October 17. To say there was April 29 that was not created by the events of October 17 and after, including the flashforward, is saying there was an April 29 which had no cause in its own supposed timeline. This is the paradox. It is self contradictory.

The edges of the television screen can be the boundaries of the fictional universe, and the time elapsed in the episode can serve as absolute time, as a convention with meaning for us, but not part of the fictional universe, like background music. The two minutes and seventeen seconds of the April 29 with a history of the blackout but no flashforwards can exist only if you understand this to be so because it happened first in the episode. The thing is, I think this kind of soft headed scifi demands a much lighter touch. It belongs in something that is basically a comedy, like SG1.

The implicit claim that there is only one future possible at any given time is the same as saying that the future is totally and uniquely determined. Again, the problem is that there is no magic Now with the power to change the future.
Every Now is part of a totally and uniquely determined future. The difficulty is trying to claim that there the future isn't fixed because it hasn't happened yet, while simultaneously trying to say there is a specific future for minds to travel to. It is contradictory, i.e., paradoxical.

Also, it's just as possible that during the blackout their brains received signals from the future. If the minds were traveling forward to their future bodies, why couldn't they take action? It sounds like those stories of people in comas being aware of their environment, in this case people in a blackout being aware of their future selves' environment. (Presumably because of "resonance" between similar brains? Not even the novel tried to rationalize this!) The minds in April 29 didn't have any signals to receive, the minds in October 17 being unconscious.

As to the notion of a "predestination paradox," it is not a paradox to say that the information from the flashforward caused an April 29 to come into existence. What is paradoxical is saying that an April 29 that didn't happen caused another April 29 to come into existence. Personally I doubt that causal loops could actually exist. But as near as I can make out, some interpretations of quantum mechanics, like consistent histories, basically say that the entire unique history of the universe resolves all quantum indeterminacies.

Part of the problem is that the novel was illogical because Sawyer wanted his version of free will. The gaps show more in a really long form like a television serial. If the show had stuck with consistency, they could have done Bridge of San Luis Rey or Appointment in Samarra with various characters. In my opinion this would have been much better in the long run.

Shooting down Abdi was supposed to be fun, not watching Abdi's character unfold as he made choices. This is crudely sensationalistic, which is the retooled version of Flashforward. I've noticed that some people have liked Mark more since the show has revealed his belief he is the one to stop another blackout. Previously, the show has not taken accepted this rather egocentric view. The retooled version may "vindicate" the character though.

 

[Trent Roman]

I'm sorry; by 'absolute', I didn't mean somebody outside of relativity altogether, but someone--like Campos--who was aware during the flashforward.

I'm not sure I'm explaining myself correctly, so I'm going to go the Doc Brown method:

In Step 1, the timeline is unfurling as usual when Event A (the blackout) occurs.

In Step 2, the awareness of all individuals at point A gets sent forward in time to point B, the beginning of their flashforward. At this point we're still in the same timestream because there have been no interventions; and the future, constantly in flux, becomes 'solidified' by the presence of observers.

In Step 3, after the two minutes and spare spent in the future, the awareness of all individuals returns from point C to the past--but not to point A, but to point D: the two minutes and such that the blackout lasted.

In Step 4, the return of the awareness of all individuals--carrying foreknowledge of the future--creates a divergeant timeline (Timeline 2) in which the series in now taking place; one which is similar but different to the way events would originally have occured. So when we reach B': C', some things will be as they originally were; other things will be different. As for Timeline 1, it existed with certainty during A: D; where or not it continues to exist after point C, I have no idea. The trendy thing these days is to say that it does, but as I see no scenario where a blackout occurs without a flashforward except between points A: D, and after point C there are no observers to settle the variables, I would just say it loses coherency and fizzles away.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[stj]

The way I see it is that in Step 4, there is no timeline 1 anymore. In Step 4, the first arrow now goes to B', then the second arrow goes from C' to D.

In linear television time, you have the story to A, then the story from B to C, then the story from D onwards. The time B to C has taken place on the TV screen, so it's the past. The past is fixed. B' to C' hasn't taken place on the TV screen, so it isn't fixed. How can there be a single storyline with two intervals, B to C and B' to C', which are supposedly the same time period, but also separated by six months of story? By a paradox, of course.

Also of course, you may be right in thinking that your working theory is the show's working theory. I reject it but I'm not writing the show. The logical problems in the novel are getting magnified by the serialization.

Beautifully clear exposition of your explanation. Much appreciated.