THE FLASH TV series – an intriguing hypothesis

Is Dr. Wells actually Barry Allen AND Professor Zoom?

Over at Bleeding Cool, Mark Bristow posits a theory about a deeper connection between the Flash’s alter-ego and his mentor, Dr. Harrison Wells, who has not only taken Barry Allen under his wing to guide him through this trying time of discovery but also gone to great lengths to keep Barry’s life and the evolution of the Flash on track – lengths as far as killing Simon Stagg, so that his scientific rival could do nothing to alter Barry’s trajectory. 

Bristow puts forth the idea that Dr. Wells is actually a future iteration of Barry, who got caught in the past when he traveled back in time to save his mother from Professor Zoom (the more colloquial moniker of the Flash’s arch nemesis, Reverse Flash).  For how Bristow came to this conclusion, I offer a link to his piece.  Go read it, if you haven’t already, then come back here for an expansion on what he puts forth. 

Back?   Okay. 

Bristow’s argument is sound – which doesn’t mean I think this is how it will play out, but I would appreciate very much having this be a narrative thread the creators follow.  And with the opening episode, they have shown a willingness to embrace time travel and one of the core events of DC Comics mythology of three decades past – Crisis on Infinite Earths – with the reveal of the 2024 newspaper in the pilot’s coda. 

He also offers that the expectation Dr. Wells may become Professor Zoom is merely a red herring, meant to put us off the idea that Wells may be an older Barry Allen.  Proof for that is the fact that the character of Eddy Thawne is named after the Reverse-Flash from the comic universe.  With Leonard Snart (Captain Cold in the show and comics), Clyde Mardon (the “original” Weather Wizard in the show and the comics), and Barry himself, we have characters plucked directly from the comics and transposed into the television series, which lends credence to this idea that Thawne will become Professor Zoom. 

But, what if that is a double-feint, and Thawne will merely be a police detective throughout?  It could happen.  Simon Stagg (integral in the creation of Metamorpho in the comics, now dead in the series) and Iris West (who’s still a love interest, if unrequited, of Barry in the series, but far from the same character in the comic) also prove that characters can change drastically in their transition to the small screen.  Why couldn’t Thawne also fall in this group?  That would lead us back to the idea that Dr. Wells will become Professor Zoom…but could still be a future-Barry Allen.

-   We already know he has access to future facts and is most likely from the future, with the revelation aforementioned Central City newspaper from 2024. 

-  With the killing of Simon Stagg, Dr. Wells has revealed a penchant for taking extreme measures to protect Barry and his evolution as the Flash

-  Extrapolating from that, everything Dr. Wells does is working toward this desire to see that Barry Allen becomes the Flash.  It is history to him (as shown with that 2024 newspaper), but apparently not a foregone conclusion, and he does not want anything to alter Barry’s destiny.  Judging by the ease with which Wells killed Stagg, one might reasonably say it is an obsession.  Mining deeper into that idea, one could also argue that Wells judges every detail of his life (if we go with the theory that Wells is a future-Barry) as important to achieving this destiny, even the killing of his mother by mysterious lightning while a child. 

-  Dr. Wells – or Barry Allen – could be so obsessed with the need to become the Flash (his monitoring of Barry the night of the accident at S.T.A.R. Labs strongly intimates that Wells purposefully set the events in motion that would lead to the accident and create the Flash) that he might become Professor Zoom in order to achieve this, going so far as to race back in time to kill his own mother in order to launch his younger self on this path toward becoming a metahuman. 

All of this time-travel theory can bend one’s brain, and if you think about it for too long theories and suppositions collapse under their own weight.  Time travel is an age-old science fiction trope.  With the paradoxes that come from such a narrative thrust, one must often choose between setting down hard and fast rules and explain it as precisely as possible within the story or just going all-in with the craziness of it all and allowing for the audience to be smart enough to follow along, and if the stories and characters are compelling enough, you won’t lose them.  In this instance, if the writers of The Flash are moving toward something of this nature, I hope they would choose the latter tactic and just barrel headlong into the speed force and the insanity that surrounds time travel as a narrative device.  It would go along with the brighter, more fun approach to this show and could make for some interesting plot twists and storylines.  

On Alan Moore

So, a few weeks ago, Jason Aaron utilized his CBR soapbox in order to rebutt remarks made by Alan Moore in an interview with Bleeding Cool a while back. Aaron took umbrage with Moore's denunciation of the comic medium (to which, Moore means the major corporate publishers, Marvel and DC) and its talent (by stating he didn't believe they even had "bottom-flight" talent, Moore was trying to make a point that creators are hampered in the corporate system, not allowed to create while having to maintain a decades-old status quo in which nothing - or very little - of meaning can be related through these stale narratives; a bit harsh, yes, but not meant to be taken literally). Here's a link to Jason Aaron's full column Here's the full Bleeding Cool interview with Moore This column by Aaron - a creator whom I respect, and whose work I've enjoyed - spurred a lot of dialogue on the CGS forums, and I thought I would share some of my half-formed thoughts now. Someday, I might write a more refined piece on Moore, but for now, here you go: First, neither man in this instance is completely right, and neither one is totally wrong. That may sound like I’m straddling the fence, but it’s just a statement of fact. If Aaron feels the need to speak out against Alan Moore’s statements, that is totally his prerogative. But, I feel he is missing the larger point, which Moore has stated for many years, that the “mainstream” comic industry is stuck on a treadmill, churning out derivative pap while not allowing the creators they’ve hired to really develop new and challenging narratives within the medium. (Ironically, Aaron is one of those distinct voices who has brought new and exciting projects to the medium). And, by saying “fuck you” to Alan Moore, he is squandering an opportunity to further this important discussion. Moore, for his part, is right in his assertion that Marvel and DC should be looking ahead rather than back (though, as consumers, it is fair to say that, IN GENERAL, readers prefer comics that are, essentially, telling the same stories over and over again. Neil Gaiman has written to the point that he has fans clamoring for his next work, but when that next work is not THE SAME as the last work, e.g. Sandman, there is always a vocal minority disappointed.). But, Moore uses broad generalizations to make his argument, which – particularly if one is new to his work and knows nothing of Moore’s history – can certainly be taken as an attack on all creators within the medium. Again, ironically, with works like The Other Side and Scalped, Jason Aaron is one of those writers creating new works with a distinct voice unbeholden to the “industry,” which in Moore’s mind would be the primary superhero universes of DC and Marvel. In the end, I back Moore in this debate. The fact that superheroes dominates this tiny medium is disappointing. Sure, they’re fun, and I enjoy them. But if the medium is to remain vital, we need the wealth of diverse works that have been emerging for years (decades) now. This is the crux of Moore’s argument – which, I feel, is obvious when one chooses to see this larger picture rather than parse the details of the text – and one that I feel is often missed by those who want to rant against the “crazy old man.” THERE WAS A LOT OF BACK AND FORTH IN THE FORUM THREAD, AND EVENTUALLY I CHIMED BACK IN TO THE DISCUSSION, REMARKING ON TWO SPECIFIC POINTS: With regard to Watchmen, this is spot on.

DG_Now, on 07 January 2011 - 02:10 AM, said:

Yes, he intended to use the Charlton characters, but the very fact that he couldn't proves (to me) that it doesn't matter. Watchmen wasn't only about the characters included in the story. Nominally so, yes, but the graphic novel was far more (again, to me) about the craft of creating a comic book. They told a story -- as the movie proved -- that was most effectively told in sequential art with word balloons. The true genius of Watchmen isn't that it's an interesting alt-world story about man's role in the nuclear age (although that is pretty good), but that it's essentially a murder mystery presented and solved on the very first page of the comic yet explored for several more.

The brilliance of the book is not in the plot or the characterizations - although they are very good - but in the way Moore & Gibbons crafted the book. They use symbolism, foreshadowing, thematic parallels, and other "literary" devices throughout the narrative. And Moore's words when juxtaposed with Gibbon's art offer up multiple meanings/levels of meaning within the entirety of the book. Single comic panels offer us triple meanings. Decisions or comments made early on have very different connotations and/or produce significant ramifications later on. The level of craft within Watchmen is the highest we've seen in the medium - especially with regard to what can uniquely be done with the comic medium.

torchsong, on 07 January 2011 - 09:43 AM, said:

Here's my take on the "But Moore Uses Old Characters In His Stories" discussion: It's true that he's used everyone from the Charlton heroes to Lewis Caroll's Alice in his storytelling, and on the surface you'd think he's crazy to call out others for doing the same. What I think we miss is HOW he uses existing characters compared to how the Top-Flighters are using them: Moore: Takes a pre-existing character, and our pre-existing expectations of them, and crafts something wholly different out of them. The Invisible Man's a prick, Superheroes are pretty damned evil sometimes, Alice, Wendy and Dorthy are really...REALLY horny, etc. Moore's not beholden to us to give us what we clamor for. He owes us a story, and we owe him the decision to read it or not.

And I agree with this wholeheartedly, and this is the crux of this entire "Moore uses old characters too" argument. Moore takes these characters we know and reinvents them in order to tell a completely new story. He is innovating. And he is utilizing the thematic elements from these characters to give us a totally new perspective on their stories. Swamp Thing before Alan Moore and after Alan Moore are two very different characters (and yet, he did not circumvent any of the prior continuity). Miracleman/Marvelman before Alan Moore and after Alan Moore are, again, two completely different characters. The Invisible Man. Mina Harker. These are different characters before and after Moore as well. And the list goes on. Moore is railing against editorial not encouraging innovation, not encouraging stories that will have "meaning" because they are freed from the constraints of the corporate mindset. He just wants honest stories - and, tangentially, honest negotiation between creators and companies - from writers and artists who are allowed to create something new rather than rehash worn concepts.