A Station Eight Fan Web Site
How is it possible that Impulse is still present in the 2016 timeline? he time-travelled to achieve an objective (i.e. stop the reach apocalypse) and with that objective achieved there wouldn't have been a reason for him to time-travel in the first place, thereby creating a paradox which would have erased impulse from the 2016 time line and placed him back in his own 'altered' timeline (where the reach apocalypse was prevented). Time travelling gives me a headache :(
Me too sometimes. But this is basically ASKED AND ANSWERED already. Check the archives under Young Justice Invasion or Time Travel.
Since the concept of time travel has been introduced I was wondered if you view time travel as more of a circular thing (events that repeat themselves and are unchangeable) or more like J.J. Abrams Star Trek where time travel creates an alternate reality?
It depends which series you're talking about. I've gone on ad nauseum about time travel in Gargoyles, and I've even answered this question vis-a-vis Young Justice. (HINT: They utilize two different theories of time travel.) Check the ASK GREG archives.
Once again, you and your team are incredible. Each new episode of YJ is better than the last. I'm sure that you are bummed about the unscheduled hiatus, but I (and I'm sure everybody else who has followed you since Gargoyles) will be there Jan 5th, feeling like it is Christmas morning. Perhaps absence will make the heart grow fonder. But enough of the propers, as I've had a question that I've been wanting to ask you for months.
1) Have you seen Looper? If not I STRONGLY suggest that you do. I would imagine it is right up your ally.
2) If so, I wanted to hear your take on the time travel aspects. How does its interpretation of multi-verse/multiple timelines mesh with your working theory on Gargoyles. You have talked at length about working vs non-working paradoxes. As the movie suggests, "I don't want to talk about time travel because if we start talking about it then we're going to be here all day talking about it, making diagrams with straws." So, let's face it, it isn't an exact science.
2)Obviously, it doesn't hold true to your interpretation, based on the ending (I'm not going to spoil it for anyone here), but do you think that it implies a working or non working paradox? If you see it and are like "WTF?", there is a great piece online, where they actually lay it out with straws that I would suggest.
Just wanted to see if you had checked it out and get your spin.
Thanks once more to you and your team (and The Team) for Young Justice. I have a feeling that it is going to come back to serious fanfare and you'll be answering questions about Bibbo's blood type for years to come. At least I hope so.
Happy New Year! I know this next one will be a big one for you!
P.S. You teased something about Gargoyles a few weeks ago... anything? Just a tiny taste? A morsal for a long time fan?
1. I have not.
2. (You had two question twos.) But since I haven't seen the movie, I can't respond to either.
P.S. I did? I seriously don't recall. What did I say?
To elaborate on my last post...if you go back & change something, then there would be no reason to go back, therefore you never did, and nothing changes...ie. Bart would have to have been from a future in which Impulse had already arrived from the future 40 years ago, and the changes he made would be a part of his own.
I swear, its not as complicated as it sounds.
Wow. I'm sure you don't mean to sound as condescending as you're coming across. I totally understood what you were getting at. And again, it's the way I prefer to handle time travel stories. BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT'S STILL A FICTIONAL CONCEIT. As long as we're being internally consistent about the rules of time travel on Young Justice, then I think we're fine.
Ok so in Gargoyles the Archmage fell into that chasm in 984 and was supposed to die, but didn't. How was it possible for him to save himself? I understand the "future Archmage" came and saved himself in 984, but the Archmage from 984 must have conjured his future incarnation to begin with while he was falling down that chasm, I'm I close? Thanks!!!
No, you're not. Didn't you JUST ask this question recently? If not you, someone else did. Anyway, "ASKED AND ANSWERED." Check the archives.
Greg: "The Archmage's ENTIRE LOOP was part of the timestream. [..]
The Archmage NEVER died in that cavern. In ANY incarnation.
[...] it's a WORKING paradox. It does have logic. I did a panel on this at a Gathering once, and it's easier to explain with a chalkboard. But it works. Trust me."
If he never died in the cavern then how did the time loop begin? Just out of the blue future archmage shows up to save his past self? Isn't that Deus Ex Machina?
I'm not trying to provoke you or anything, I just really wish to understand this paradox, especially the part that makes it work. Would it be too much to ask you to doodle that panel and upload it to GargWiki or something? I CAN'T be the only one not understanding this...
If you want to call it Deus ex Machina, you can. In other words, you can fault the storytelling but not the integrity of the time-loop. ;)
But I don't think it IS Deus ex Machina, except by technicality, BECAUSE of the time-loop. It was inherent in who the Archmage was.
I have no ability to upload a doodle anywhere, I'm afraid.
Can you tell us who was the first (a) person, (b) being and (c) entity to figure out how to work the Phoenix Gate?
Yes, I can."
Really, you can? I wouldn't think the term "first" could apply to the Phoenix Gate. And I'm not even being sarcastic (well, maybe just a little), but how can something in an infinite loop ever be said to have a beginning or end? Perhaps there's an earliest time it appeared, but odds are it was taken there by someone else, who may have taught this "earliest" person how to use it- in which case, could (s)he really be said to be the first person to have used it? I'm interested in this- do you think of there being a beginning to something like the Phoenix Gate? Or am I just reading way too much into an off-the-cuff smartass remark?
Mostly, yeah, you're reading too much into it...
BUT.. haven't I already answered this? The first entity to figure out how to work the Gate was the entity that bound the Phoenix IN the Gate.
Iâd like a clarification on the only thing I donât understand about Gargoyles: Archmageâs time loop.
So, the Archmage didnât die when he plunged down the chasm because he was saved by his future self, thus changing his inevitable outcome: death. But, the future Archmage could not have travelled back in time to save his past-self in the first place unless the latter had survived naturally, only to age and get the talismans and then travel back and begin the loop. The future Archmage saving his past-self from certain death doesnât go against the showâs premise of time being immutable? The future Archmage could not have saved his past-self without changing history...
Is this confusing? So is this paradox, but even paradoxes make sense when they adhere to an internal logic, but I canât find this one. A clarification would make wonders for the throbbing headaches this time loop gives me.
The Archmage's ENTIRE LOOP was part of the timestream. It changed nothing. It always was. (You're viewing the timestream linearly instead of viewing it as a whole.)
The Archmage NEVER died in that cavern. In ANY incarnation.
And yes, this is a paradox, but it's a WORKING paradox. It does have logic. I did a panel on this at a Gathering once, and it's easier to explain with a chalkboard. But it works. Trust me.
In response to Matthew and also to your answer earlier concerning "All You Zombies," doesn't changing what he did (let alone preventing his own birth) also change history? It is part of the past that the character said certain words in a certain order, and not other words. If he chooses to change the words, he must change history also. Isn't this true of Demona in Vows as well? But in Gargoyles, history cannot be changed.
The reason I focused on whether or not the character remembers the words spoken to their past selves is this: when Demona shows up with the Phoenix Gate, the events of her encounter with herself have not actually happened yet. So they appear not to be predetermined. But she remembers what she her future self said to her when she was on the receiving end, and she remembers watching her future self kick Goliath. The events are already in her memory, and therefore part of the history she has already participated in. If she remembers the events, then either her memories are wrong (and were wrong all along) or else the events were part of history. The other possibility I can think of is that when she went back in time, she temporarily forgot her previous encounter with her future self and was free to make it up from scratch.
What I don't follow is how she (or Heinlein's protagonist) can choose not to play along without altering history.
Nothing prevents you from TRYING to change history. Succeeding is something else. Nothing prevents you from trying to jump off a cliff in order to fly under your own power. Succeeding at flying under your own power is something else.
Again, free will is NOT the same as sudden control over things you never had control over.
There's no forgetting in a mystic sense going on with Demona. (No making it up from scratch.) But it has been a thousand plus years. Her memory is good, but not photographic. She tries to make some changes, and no changes are made. They can CHOOSE not to play along. But they DIDN'T choose not to play along. It's a loop. The fact that the CHOICE itself is part of the loop doesn't negate the choice.
If you're falling off that cliff (not flying) and AT THAT POINT choose not to jump... well, it's a little late. But the fact that you can't change it halfway down the mountain doesn't negate the fact that you made a choice in the first place.
In an earlier post the discussion was about Robert Heinlein's "All You Zombies..." and whether the protagonist had free will or was predestined to carry out his actions in the story. You said he could have chosen to do otherwise. I agree, but I'd like to point out that it wasn't much of choice. If he did not he would not have been born. So whether not he had free will, he had to do what he did to ensure his own existence.
If existence mattered that much to him. Like any of us, sometimes the choices we're presented with aren't particularly appealing. You're in a burning building. You can jump to your death or burn to death! Choose! (Yeah, not fun. But you get the idea.) Having free will doesn't make you omnipotent in real life, so why would it make you omnipotent in a time travel story?