SydLexia.com - The Forums :: View topic

Posted: Nov 29 2006 03:40 pm

So, the teaser for the "last Heroes of the year" says one of them will die. Any guesses on who it'll be? Personally I think they could kill off:

* One of the Petrelli Bros.

* Isaac. I don't even remember if they showed him in this week's "6 Months Ago" episode.

* Nicky's son. Accidentally killed by Nicky while sniping. And we know he's got some type of electronics-based power since he called his mom on a dead phone.

Posted: Nov 29 2006 03:57 pm

I was kinda disappointed with the "Six Months Ago" episode. It gave us all sorts of cool backstory, including making Nicky's storyline a whole lot less lame, but the way the thing with Hiro ended disappointed me.

Also, there seem to be a logical gap in his ability. Future Hiro already effected the past by telling Peter Petrelli to save the cheerleader. So he can change the past and he should have been able to save Charlie.

The other option is that he jumping around on a preset timeline and he can only do things that help to preserve the timeline, not alter it. I hope that's not the case though, as fatalism is really, really gay.

Fatalism also undermine the entire concept of the show. The heroes are supposed to save the world. In a fatalistic world, the world can't be saved. For the world to be saved, there must be some sort of threat against it which has a chance to either occur or to be stopped. In fatalism, no such chance exists. The result of every threat, every action, every choice, is already predetermined, which makes them all equally mundane.

In order for a storyline such as this to be compelling, there needs to be the concept of free will in it. Without free will, concepts such as self-sacrifice and heroics become marginalized. In fact, the very idea of self-sacrifice is negated under fatalism, because self-sacrifice presuppose a conscientious choice.

Posted: Nov 29 2006 04:53 pm

I don't think that Hiro can't change the past. I think that at the current time, especially when he doesn't know the full extent of his power, he took this failure as an impression that he can't. It could come up later in his life that he finds out that he can indeed change the past to a certain extent.

As far as Charlie goes, perhaps Hiro could have saved her, but he ended up "jumping back" into the future either subconsciously or because some time/space window had closed. (I honestly have no idea how or why he jumped forward. What the hell was that?)

Somehow, I don't think that the writers introduced Charlie just to have her in a two-episode arc. I really feel that they are going to bring her back, probably through Hiro saving her once he realizes he can, which will be his sign that later he can go back and change other things, a la with Peter in the subway.

Posted: Nov 29 2006 07:23 pm

See, this is the sort of thing that I was talking about when I said "no character shall get the power to muck around with time." The same shit, with two exceptions, happens. "can I change destiny?" "oh noes! turns out I fucked up the past and now hitler is president!" "I guess time travel is bad unless you intend to save lois lane"

Damn good show though.

2010 SLF Tag Champ Joined: Jun 07 2006 Posts: 12294

what show is this now?

Posted: Nov 30 2006 01:41 pm

JEW wrote:

what show is this now?

I can't tell if you're kidding or not, so I'm just gonna go with the assumption that you;re not. The show is Heroes.

Posted: Nov 30 2006 02:00 pm

Syd and I were talking about this yesterday, and I've decided that if anyone dies it'll be either Isaac or Eden. Isaac has already served his purpose so there's no reason to keep him around, and while Eden hasn't done much, I could see her dying while trying to get Saresh to come back or something.

As for the fatalism thing, if Hiro couldn't save the girl, I don't think they are saving the world. I don't think it was Hiro "from the future" persay that came back with the sword. It could just be an older Hiro, basically stuck jumping around trying to prevent the world from ending but totally unable to, and at the end of the season/series the world ends and everyone dies. I think I'm just desperate for America to start making shows that only last one season and don't make a second, crappy season no matter how popular the first was. That way, writers will actually have the option of killing a protagonist for once!

Posted: Nov 30 2006 02:45 pm

Dr. Jeebus wrote:

As for the fatalism thing, if Hiro couldn't save the girl, I don't think they are saving the world. I don't think it was Hiro "from the future" persay that came back with the sword. It could just be an older Hiro, basically stuck jumping around trying to prevent the world from ending but totally unable to, and at the end of the season/series the world ends and everyone dies. I think I'm just desperate for America to start making shows that only last one season and don't make a second, crappy season no matter how popular the first was. That way, writers will actually have the option of killing a protagonist for once!

That actually sounds plausible.

Wait, did I say plausible? I meant really, REALLY dumb.

Hiro makes a reference to the future when he comes to tell Peter to Save the cheerleader: Peter's scar (or lack thereof). Also, he speaks perfect English and somehow learned to use a kitana blade. Did he learn to do all that whilst he was busy jumping around trying to save the world? Somehow I think not.

Although I do share your desperation for more shows to be as good in their second seasons as they were in their first. I have to say though, that Grey's Anatomy and House were just as good if not better in season two. House's third season is faltering just a little, but Grey's is still going strong. I have high hopes for Heroes.

Posted: Nov 30 2006 04:40 pm

Also, if Isaac dies, it would prove that the timeline is alterable. If you remember, when Hiro jumped into the future right before the bomb went off, he found Isaac with his brain cut out.

Posted: Nov 30 2006 05:27 pm

Syd Lexia wrote:

Also, if Isaac dies, it would prove that the timeline is alterable. If you remember, when Hiro jumped into the future right before the bomb went off, he found Isaac with his brain cut out.

Ohhh yeah, so maybe Isaac will die afterall, though how he'd wind up back in New York when he's currently in Texas(?) would warrant an explanation.

Joined: Nov 29 2006 Location: Minnesota Posts: 91

It may be that Hiro cannot alter the timeline directly, i.e. through his own personal actions, which may be why he couldn't save Charlie, but he can change events by traveling to other points in time and space to tell other people to do the dirty work for him, like when the English-fluent version of Hiro visited Peter in the subway to tell him to save the cheerleader.

As for who "falls" (NBC didn't exactly say a hero dies exactly), I'd guess either Isaac or Eden. Isaac's power is pretty crappy when you consider that eventually Hiro can "foresee" the future as well, by actually visiting it himself, without the need to get high on heroin first. Isaac has outlived his usefulness. Eden's power is ridiculously strong and may present too many problems for the writers in the future. If Sylar is going to remain any kind of serious threat, Eden has to be out of the picture.

Posted: Dec 02 2006 11:26 pm

Good call. Or it could be Mr. Bennett's other assistant, the guy who can blank people's minds.

Joined: Nov 03 2006 Posts: 763

Syd Lexia wrote:

I was kinda disappointed with the "Six Months Ago" episode. It gave us all sorts of cool backstory, including making Nicky's storyline a whole lot less lame, but the way the thing with Hiro ended disappointed me.

Also, there seem to be a logical gap in his ability. Future Hiro already effected the past by telling Peter Petrelli to save the cheerleader. So he can change the past and he should have been able to save Charlie.

The other option is that he jumping around on a preset timeline and he can only do things that help to preserve the timeline, not alter it. I hope that's not the case though, as fatalism is really, really gay.

Fatalism also undermine the entire concept of the show. The heroes are supposed to save the world. In a fatalistic world, the world can't be saved. For the world to be saved, there must be some sort of threat against it which has a chance to either occur or to be stopped. In fatalism, no such chance exists. The result of every threat, every action, every choice, is already predetermined, which makes them all equally mundane.

In order for a storyline such as this to be compelling, there needs to be the concept of free will in it. Without free will, concepts such as self-sacrifice and heroics become marginalized. In fact, the very idea of self-sacrifice is negated under fatalism, because self-sacrifice presuppose a conscientious choice.

most people don't think about that stuff.. so it doesn't take from the show.. except to you...

For the record i agree with you that there exists free will...

Joined: Feb 24 2006 Posts: 2578

JonSnow wrote:

Only religious people believe in free will...

besides most people don't think about that stuff..

WTF?

Posted: Dec 09 2006 04:04 pm

JonSnow, what percentage of words that you write on the site would you say are total bullshit? 40%? 60% Are you in "Bill O'Reilly range" at this point? Are you trying to be more ridiculous with every post, or do the rest of us have to deal with RegalSin 2.0 at this point?

Posted: Dec 09 2006 04:09 pm

S. McCracken wrote:

JonSnow, what percentage of words that you write on the site would you say are total bullshit? 40%? 60% Are you in "Bill O'Reilly range" at this point? Are you trying to be more ridiculous with every post, or do the rest of us have to deal with RegalSin 2.0 at this point?

Breathe S --- it'll all be over soon... hopefully... mods???

Posted: Dec 09 2006 04:49 pm

Tishwitch wrote:

Breathe S --- it'll all be over soon... hopefully... mods???

Eh, I don't know if I'd go as far as modding him. Being a jerk isn't necessarily against the rules. Regal was a distraction to the point that no one wanted to respond to threads because he would have to put in his two incoherent cents.

That being said, I pride myself on being the forum goon and if he doesn't want to stop being a jerk, I'm gonna call him on it every time.

If need be, I'll put him on notice too, since he seems to love that. Twisted Evil

Posted: Dec 09 2006 05:21 pm

I'll call him on it, too.

Regal 2.0. (shudders) Shocked

Joined: Nov 03 2006 Posts: 763

Well I was being truthful with that statement people who are generally not religous reject free will... based on a lack of scientific support for the notion, and the fact it is quite incomprehensible how something could have free will...

However if you noticed, but i guess i didn't do it fast enough, I had edited my post so as not to have to express that POV, even though I'd argue it's very much true...

Most people have problems with religions, God and or god(s) based on plausibility issues meaning they see the existence of a God as unlikely or implausible, based on a lack of personal experience, scientific evidence, and they also percieve religion as merely a means of controlling the masses... So they are disheartened about it, and when analysing God find no reason to believe in such a being...

And generally when you put idea like free will to the question it is hard to muster support for it... So this is a high correlation amongst intellects who reject God on grounds of plausiblities to one's who reject free will... implying that non-religious people in general deny free will, on the grounds of plausibility, and on "how" would free will work.

however, even though many of the brightest mind in the world denounce free will, there are a fair amount which do support it, and I personally support the notion of free will, and would consider myself if not religoius a spirtual person who accepts the notion of "God".

But I digress and hopefully that will be enough to explain myself, I wouldn't want to derail a thread.

Posted: Dec 14 2006 01:07 am

JonSnow wrote:

I wouldn't want to derail a thread.

So yeah, looks like we're waiting until the 22nd of next month.

Posted: Dec 14 2006 04:04 am

JonSnow wrote:

[a whole bunch of stuff about free will]

First of all, there's a difference between not being religious and rejecting the notion of a God. The majority of people who aren't religious do have some sort of belief structure or their own sense of spirituality, they, for one reason or another, just aren't the type ot go to church every week. I don't have research statistics to point to unfortuantely, but I'd venture that the percentage of those people that believe in free will is comparable to the percentage of religious people that do (And not all will, since free will isn't a tenet of all religion).
As for a lot of scientists/intellectuals rejecting free will, well yeah. If they can't prove it, it's not real. Just like God/gods.
So where does that leave the majority of athiests? Afterall, while most intellectuals are athiest, I sincerely doubt that most athiests are intellectual. I also think that the vast majority of people are stupid in general, of course, which biased me, but whatever. So where would they stand on free will? I think it's safe to say based on what I have learned from people in general as well as from the actions of secularists that many or most of these people believe in free will as well. Why? The same reason they refuse to believe in God. Arrogance. They want to remove all traces of religion from society not because they feel that the idea of a God is unprovable or unplausible from a scientific standpoint, but because they don't want anyone, least of all God or the government, telling them what they can and can't do. It is that same arrogance that would make it hard for these people refuse to believe that they're part of some immovable timeline where everything they can and will do has already been plotted out.
As for where I stand, I believe in God though I am not particularly fond of any of the formal religions, which stems from being rased Roman Catholic and the incredible history of corruption in the Catholic church. It's nothing against their belief structure, just the falability of those who have been in control of it. I also believe in free will though I think that is a seperate from believing in God, as one could just be a fatalist. My reasoning behind it is no more provable than the argument against it, but if all else fails in a debate then I will just admit it is arrogance that makes me believe in free will. If anyone can PROVE to me that there is no free will and everything I do has already been decided, I will kill myself on the spot because my life, and I believe no one's life, will have any real meaning. I'm not interested in a world where there's this giant 6 year old boy named Fate and we're his Lego men. (tenuous analogy maybe, but that's how I sees it)

Posted: Dec 14 2006 05:06 am

Oddly enough, the attribution of negative motivations and goals to athiests as a whole is rather arrogant. Is that hypocrisy?

In any case both Dr. Jeebus and JonSnow should chill. This philisophical tangent is absurd considering that the character in the show grappling with these weighty concepts is probably gonna end up fighting a T-rex (or maybe an allosaurus) with a katana. Remember, MST3K mantra.

Posted: Dec 14 2006 05:10 am

My response wasn't meant to be argumentative this time, and threads go off topic.

Posted: Dec 14 2006 07:12 am

Free will has nothing to with religion. If any, the opposite is true. Ideas such as fatalism and destiny which reject free will in favor of a predetermined future usually reconcile their beliefs by throwing God into the mix. If the future is predetermined, than some force has predetermined it. That force is God. Or the gods, depending on your religion.

Posted: Dec 14 2006 08:33 am

Thanks for the erudite response Syd.

Personally, I hope that when Hiro goes back in time to fight the T-rex/Allosaurus that he steps on a butterfly or giant mosquito or other insignificant vermin. In movieland and short stories this causes an absurd change in human culture, usually involving hitler winning a war or some other hackneyed cliche involving alternate universes. This is in preference to what would probably happen, which is one of the other 7,000, 000 given insects of the same species would take its place instead of dying. Then again, killing a very big lizard might have a larger effect.

Hiro also ends up going back to WWII. Naturally he manages to show up in germany, or perhaps poland, versus india or some other country that didnt have much to do with the war. Fortunately, he happens to be japanese; who were allies at the time. So as long as he avoids kosher foods, homosexuality, and hanging around with gypsies he should be fine.

The other thing I'm holding out for is the possibility of him going to ancient japan to train in using that sword.