|The Flash >> View Post|
Subj: Re: FLASH May 9th
Posted: Wed May 10, 2017 at 09:27:52 pm BST (Viewed 402 times)
Reply Subj: Re: FLASH May 9th
Posted: Wed May 10, 2017 at 08:04:09 pm BST (Viewed 412 times)
Quote:What exactly are the Time Remnants again? I thought the way they explained it when Barry fought Zoom was that the Barry from the future came back so there were 2 Barrys at the same time. Presumably, when the fight is won, the first Barry goes back in time becoming the second while the second Barry continues on into the future. There should be no leftover Barrys, there isn't really a "second" Barry they are both the same guy who just overlaps his timeline a little. So how can Savitar be a leftover remnant whose motivation is that Team Flash gave him the cold shoulder after the fight was over because he wasn't the "real" Flash? Where would a Time Remnant go? Wouldn't he just be reabsorbed into Barry if nothing else? Or is it more like Bart/Impulse in the comics when he developed the ability to create energy duplicates of himself that had nothing to do with time travel (as far as we knew), his "scouts?"
A time Remnant is a past version of Barry, at least that's how I understand it. As evidence of this, Zoom created a time remnant who had no powers. Apparently, he went back in time and snatched a version of himself before he got his superspeed. That version died. How Zoom didn't die in turn, I'll never understand.
The whole Time Remnant crap makes no sense at all.
Quote:Okay, anyway ... so when Barry loses his memory, so does Savitar, so they have changed time. It even erases everything he's done like give Wally powers. Shouldn't he basically cease to exist then? If everything he did in the future is erased then he never will kill Iris, so there is no reason for Flash to fight him, or create Remnants, and therefore Savitar should never be created in the first place. I just think it makes no damn sense.
You said it. It makes no sense. Logically, Savitar SHOULD have faded from existence. That would mean Barry would never be able to regain his memories, otherwise Savitar would be born again.
But this show rarely, if ever, follows logic. The moment time travel was introduced into this show, the moment things started going downhill because, logically speaking, if Eddie killed himself then a whole host of things should have happened: The real Dr. Wells should be alive, Star Labs shouldn't have any outside damage to it, Barry shouldn't have powers, Nora Allen should still be alive (along with Henry), etc, etc.
But things didn't happen that way because the showrunners don't bother with logic. And that's one of the reasons why this show is going down the drain. It's losing more credibility by the episode. Frankly, I'm surprised this show hasn't been cancelled yet. How many more glaring mistakes can the showrunners get away with before the general audience finally catches on and leaves this show for another in droves?
Quote:At least we see Killer Frost warming up a little bit.
Indeed. I love this storyline for the character so far. The actress must be having fun with it.
Quote:I agree with Iris though, I prefer fun Barry over brooding Barry.
Me too. But, in a way, I'm glad he has his memories back. He'd just end up repeating all his stupid mistakes again if he never regained his memories.
Quote:I just feel sorry for HR if the only Star Trek he had on his Earth was Voyager.
It's interesting that a hero/villain performs one amazing feat, or use a power they haven't used for 20+ years, and that automatically propels them to a high status despite scans and evidence to the contrary. I don't know what is worse, selective feat picking that has only been done once or twice 20, or more, years ago or ignoring evidence from scans or the lack thereof. We need to stop putting our favorite heroes/villains on pedestals and start putting them where they really belong. But it's evident that people never will because they would rather accuse others of cherry picking feats, when they don't, and being 'morally superior' when they aren't. I guess being honest and as fair as possible only opens one up to being the target of childish accusations and fault finding by those who insist on acting petty and childish. What happened to a good debate between two civil, mature, adults?