Talk:Future Tense

From GargWiki
Revision as of 04:33, 29 August 2012 by Supermorff (talk | contribs) (-----)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

This has always been really eerie, and somewhat creepy. But, in the "Dream of Prophesy" section, is it worth noting the absence of the Twin Towers in the Future Tense version of Manhattan? Of course, we handle it in the best possible taste. I'm personally torn on doing this. -- GregX 22:24, 17 May 2011 (PDT)

I know I don't know New York City and Manhattan Island as much as others (and you've lived there, right Greg?) but did the episode really make it obvious that they were missing? I know that there wasn't any particular focus like, say, with they pointed out Lady Liberty, but (with vague memory serving me), I felt all the focus was put on the Eyrie Pyramid (and the original building was on the opposite side of the island from the WTC, right?), and any glimpse at that area of the city was likely just background, right?. Again, not sure.
I was just looking at his ramble from Future Tense (and I can only imagine the difficulty to jot down notes on a ton of factoids from nearly a decade ago in a less-than-half-hour sitting) and he didn't mention the Twin Towers like he did the Statue of Liberty -- and that was rambled in February 2005, so it did have more than a fair chance of getting noted in that post).
Getting back to the point, I don't think I'd be opposed to pointing out the coincidence, but if we do it should probably be attached with a sampling of GregW's thoughts on handling the subject with respect if he ever did have a chance to tell a story about that day (the stories would have to continue past 1997 all the way into 2001 but his point's still there). Just my two cents.
Oh, and here's the relevant Greg answers I've found so far in a quick search: [1][2][3][4] . . . I hope at least that helps -- Pheon 00:35, 18 May 2011 (PDT)
If we're going to do that, it should be on it's own page, or as part of the World Trade Center page. Not here. -- GregX 19:02, 18 May 2011 (PDT)
Never mind, it's already there. -- GregX 19:29, 18 May 2011 (PDT)


So, this particular discussion came up again, originating on AIM. Sigh... in "Future Tense" the World Trade Center was missing on New York's skyline. It was suggested that since the Twin Towers were clearly gone in Puck's vision, we should make a note of that in the most tasteful manner possible. Of course, at this point, the only real justification for it is that Greg mentioned more than once that once he gets there on his timeline, he's not going to ignore it.

As for why I am of two minds on this. Well, I think that's obvious. All the other things listed were all either intentional foreshadowing or things fans just assumed are intentional foreshadowing. This is very different. But, if it is listed.... the real life retro activity of it would be noted in bold.

This is a subject that hits closer to home with me than I wish, so... like I said, I am of two minds. Probably more than two minds. Would you be okay with this? Should we just play it safe and not touch it? I don't know.

I wrote to Greg Weisman and got the following response: I really think it's up to you guys. I don't object - at least not in theory, but I don't see a need for it either. --GregX 12:01, 28 August 2012 (PDT)

It is an interesting thing to think about. I can't help thinking that if 9/11 never happened, would anyone have ever noticed the Twoers' absence in Future Tense? And if so, would we have jumped to the conclusion that in that dream/prophecy the Towers had been destroyed or removed at some point?
But as for the matter at hand, I suppose my thoughts are not unlike Greg Weisman's. I don't outright object to it, but I'm also not sure we need it either. A big question is were the Towers intentionally left out of the vision or did the artist simply forget to draw them or are the lost in the smog or whatever? I doubt the Towers were intentionally left out by the staff/writers/artists, so it seems to be a interesting coincidence. Still, does that coincidence alone bear mentioning?
I suppose if I had to make a call on it right now it would be this. At the very bottom of the Future Tense page an entirely seperate section is created out of respect. In that section, we tastefully and clearly note the coincidence and its implications. --Matt 12:56, 28 August 2012 (PDT)
I would recommend adding a simple statement of fact (i.e. they did not appear) to the Tidbits section, and leave it at that. -- Supermorff 04:33, 29 August 2012 (PDT)