169 replies to this topic

[lord-of-shadow]

Discuss our new storyline article, written by ZL's new staff member Arturo, here.


Personally, I enjoyed the read. His logic makes sense, although it relies on a few assumptions - which is fine, since most things do.

[SteveT]

I don't see why the sleeping Zelda has to be anyone other than just the sleeping Zelda.

[Hero of Slime]

This is a little too late. We needed Arturo during the time of Zythe.

Edited by The Zol, 04 September 2006 - 10:30 PM.

[Alardonin]

Actually most of what is written there,i thought it was already considered.And yes,i tought about it many times, the possibility of the name zelda standing more as a symbol than a regular name,kinda like the "hero" stands as a title.Maybe the origins of the name zelda have yet to be fully explained,if the name istself stands as a symbol.

I dont know,i thought about stuff like this many times you could only speculate so much.You could even say that the name zelda was phrophecised to appear in every princess,whenever any trouble involving the triforce would appear.The same with Link,just as an example if you regard ocarina of time as the first zelda,there might be a possibility that the next blood lines that would be involved in the saving of hyrule,would be destined to have the names of the first owners of the golden power.Or the first involved in the saving of hyrule from prophecized coming of Ganon the prophecy responsible for the creation of the master sword.

Of course all of this is speculation what im trying to get at with this is that whe need more info .there is just so many ways to see this,but as always whe have no real proff,altought that kinda falls to the beaty of the legends so i cannot complain.

[Showsni]

Starting with the assumption that OoT is the Imprisoning War it's all well and good, but that's a pretty large assumption to make. Indeed, the Sleeping Zelda could itself be used to help argue against the OoT-IW connection to avoid the bending of canon that otherwise occurs, with Zeldas before the Sleeping one. I still believe that Sleeping Zelda is the reason Zelda is called Zelda. In fact, in TWW it accounts for why Daphnes calls Tetra Zelda - he remembers the naming tradition, even though it has been lost to the rest of the world (perhaps purposefully, to mislead anyone seeking the remnants of the royal family).

I agree that the Two Kings theory, while technically viable, is too complex to really be considered, and flies against all common sense.

Of course, ALttP first threw a wrench into the timeline, as it claims to be a prequel to LoZ and AoL, yet contains a Zelda before the first generation one. I still put SZ as soon as possible, and assume that the sleeping Zelda is a nearish descendant of the ALttP Zelda, who has been named after her; say, her granddaughter, for instance. Then she is still the first generation of the long line of princesses named Zelda, as there is a gap before her, and it's not a coincidence as to why she is also named Zelda. After ALttP the triforce is whole and the royal family is strong, so it is highly likely that the golden age at the start of AoL's manual follows on from the end of ALttP.

[Alardonin]

Starting with the assumption that OoT is the Imprisoning War it's all well and good, but that's a pretty large assumption to make. Indeed, the Sleeping Zelda could itself be used to help argue against the OoT-IW connection to avoid the bending of canon that otherwise occurs, with Zeldas before the Sleeping one. I still believe that Sleeping Zelda is the reason Zelda is called Zelda. In fact, in TWW it accounts for why Daphnes calls Tetra Zelda - he remembers the naming tradition, even though it has been lost to the rest of the world (perhaps purposefully, to mislead anyone seeking the remnants of the royal family).

I agree that the Two Kings theory, while technically viable, is too complex to really be considered, and flies against all common sense.

Of course, ALttP first threw a wrench into the timeline, as it claims to be a prequel to LoZ and AoL, yet contains a Zelda before the first generation one. I still put SZ as soon as possible, and assume that the sleeping Zelda is a nearish descendant of the ALttP Zelda, who has been named after her; say, her granddaughter, for instance. Then she is still the first generation of the long line of princesses named Zelda, as there is a gap before her, and it's not a coincidence as to why she is also named Zelda. After ALttP the triforce is whole and the royal family is strong, so it is highly likely that the golden age at the start of AoL's manual follows on from the end of ALttP.

yeah your right showsni i forgot to also mension what you said about the king Daphness.AoL being the first one might be true,and like i said there might be other reasons for the use of the zelda name making AoL not a necessity for the begining of the legends,but still i couldnt see why it would not be the first,its definitely possible and lets be true about this which zelda fan that at least cares for the timeline of zelda havent for a moment considered AoL as the first in the timeline since they´ve known the series.

I dont have a timeline of my own and [img]http://forums.legendsalliance.com/public/ALOT.png[/img] of people do,but i can see that yours shownsi is distinguished to what most fans believe to whats more predictable,still your timeline in my opinion falls into place as well as any timeline,unless of course if you argue about the creators placement of the timeline but still it makes sence and for know that is all that matters untill proven wrong in the games.

[Fyxe]

Starting with the assumption that OoT is the Imprisoning War it's all well and good, but that's a pretty large assumption to make.

Not reeaaaally.

[Jumbie]

What can I say, I agree to 100% with what Arturo wrote there. Not that I follow blindly, but I've also had it like that in my timeline for quite some time now. If one goes with OoT as the first, no matter if Single or Split Timeline, there is no other chance but to look for another interpretation of why the Prince wanted all following princesses to be named Zelda.
It's easy, in fact. Just as Arturo quoted me, since the real Zelda fell only asleep but was still alive, there would've been no need to call the Prince's descendants Zelda as well. But he did want the naming custom to be continued like before nonetheless, and that's what it means that all upcoming princesses were named after the Sleeping Zelda.
Now that we came upon the Shinentai myth in another thread yesterday, which basically means that the LoZ Zelda has part of the same soul as the Sleeping Zelda, we might add that the Prince was actually expecting that a part of his sister's soul would be reincarnated among his descendants. This would explain why he insisted in the naming tradition to be continued.

[Alardonin]

Not reeaaaally.

I agree its not really as shocking as one might think.Actually i thought that such a theory would have already been regarded.Its still just a theorie thought,but in zelda what isnt.

[Hero of Slime]

Not reeaaaally.

Yes really, it is an assumption to say that the game creators still consider the two to be the same thing.

[Fyxe]

Yes really, it is an assumption to say that the game creators still consider the two to be the same thing.

Uh, it's a far bigger assumption to say that they've just 'changed their minds' when the designers quite clearly and openly intended them to be in the first place.

If we're going to have a discussion on one issue, there's nothing wrong with beginning it around an assumption that already has some fairly solid evidence behind it.

Edited by Fyxe, 05 September 2006 - 08:17 PM.

[Hero of Slime]

It is an even bigger assumption to think that the creators absolutely believe the same thing they beileved eight years a go when a newer game contradicts that old belief.

[Fyxe]

No, it isn't, especially when the re-release of ALttP only served to reinforce the connection for the US market. You have no proof that TWW contradicts the OoT and ALttP connection. It doesn't actually flat-out contradict it at all. It just makes things incredibly confusing, but until the creators actually explain some more things you shouldn't assume they're contradicting themselves when they make no obvious attempts to do so.

[Hero of Slime]

It is an assumption to say that a re-release has any kind of deeper canon applications other than just being a remake.

Until the game creators explain some things you should go with the most recent evidence. And that is OoT-TWW.

[Hylian]

ALTtP was re-released? I honestly didn't know that...cool!

[Jumbie]

Really now, couldn't we stay with the topic? Arturo naturally assumed OoT to be the first (or second, after TMC) game in the chronology, and everyone who doesn't is simply in the minority, and each discussion about it is pointless

[lord-of-shadow]

Honestly, I can't believe anyone would doubt for even a second that OoT is or is closely related to the Imprisoning War. I've regarded that as absolute fact for years now. I have a hard time taking anyone seriously if they try to claim otherwise. Either they're just being argumentive for the sake of being argumentive, or they're looking too deeply into arcane details - and if you do the latter, nothing will ever fit together well.

The same could be said of many things, however. I feel exactly the same way about LA coming after LttP and not after the Oracles.

Then again, my view of canon is less... strict then many of yours. I take arcane details less seriously, choosing to follow what I see as the spirit of the series and the intent of the creators more then trying to make every tiny little detail fit.

[Jumbie]

Either they're just being argumentive for the sake of being argumentive, or they're looking too deeply into arcane details - and if you do the latter, nothing will ever fit together well.

In their favour I'd say they're just taking everything far too literal. But words are spoken to be broken, and Nintendo didn't ever give a thing about an overall Zelda timeline until Aonuma became director, so who cares if OoT's events came out a little different than the distorted legend of ALttP (it's stated to have been distorted right in the US manual!) described them? One should assume that everyone automatically perceives both games as being/referring to the same events..
We've even heard up to three game programmers admit that OoT is the Sealing War of ALttP fame. What's with all this talk about TWW and FSA retconning the OoT+ALttP connection? OoT+ALttP has been much too established as prequel & sequel as to ever be retconned. Or could you imagine that some future game will someday retcon the OoT+TWW connection? Probably not, so why would this have happened to OoT+ALttP?!

Then again, my view of canon is less... strict then many of yours. I take arcane details less seriously, choosing to follow what I see as the spirit of the series and the intent of the creators more then trying to make every tiny little detail fit.

That's also what I do (unless dealing with issues that the creators supposedly didn't care to ever explain - in such cases a little fanfic can't do any harm, as long as it's recognizable as such). But those people who do always interpret a whole bunch of connotations into single words that are casually said in a game's text, strangely are often the same ones who prefer Single Timelines. No idea why that is, but who always takes in-game quotes as more valid than the creator's intentions has no other choice but to misunderstand the entire way that Nintendo have been going with the Zelda timeline for 3 years now (TWW).

..And to add something about the actual topic: Can anybody plausibly disprove that there cannot be any games involving the complete Triforce between the Sleeping Zelda time and LoZ+AoL?

[Hero of Slime]

OoT+ALttP has been much too established as prequel & sequel as to ever be retconned. Or could you imagine that some future game will someday retcon the OoT+TWW connection? Probably not, so why would this have happened to OoT+ALttP?!

I believe that in a fictional universe the canon is entirely up in the air and the creators of that fictional universe can change anything they want at any time they want. You even argue that they have done so before.

I share the same view of the IW that Fyxe has. I think that it is the ending of OoT. However, since I have not heard of any way to get them to work with TWW and that fits with the rules of timelining, I think that I have no chioce but to put them as separate events.

[Jumbie]

I believe that in a fictional universe the canon is entirely up in the air and the creators of that fictional universe can change anything they want at any time they want. You even argue that they have done so before.

But usually, fans get very, very pissed off about such things. ..To say it right out, I just couldn't suffer them to have ripped apart the OoT+ALttP connection in favour of TWW. No, this would be the greatest bummer I can think of!

I share the same view of the IW that Fyxe has. I think that it is the ending of OoT. However, since I have not heard of any way to get them to work with TWW and that fits with the rules of timelining, I think that I have no chioce but to put them as separate events.

Do the rules of timelining claim that there cannot be a Split Timeline?!

[Arturo]

Well welll well....

When I wrote the article last thing I expected is turning it on a debate about the Seal War. The Seal War was intended to be OoT, and it's still is, as proved with ALttP GBA. And still, it doesn't have anything to do with Sleeping Zelda.


I plan to write an addendum with your questions or critics.- I know the article is not perfect, but please, don't turn it on an OoT debate.

[lord-of-shadow]

..And to add something about the actual topic: Can anybody plausibly disprove that there cannot be any games involving the complete Triforce between the Sleeping Zelda time and LoZ+AoL?

The only way aorund Arturo's conclusion, as far as I can see, would have to be... implausible. It would involve the Triforce being retrieved from the Great Palace by someone placing the seven crystals in the statues, and then putting it back at some laer date.

But those people who do always interpret a whole bunch of connotations into single words that are casually said in a game's text, strangely are often the same ones who prefer Single Timelines. No idea why that is, but who always takes in-game quotes as more valid than the creator's intentions has no other choice but to misunderstand the entire way that Nintendo have been going with the Zelda timeline for 3 years now (TWW).

You misunderstand me. I think anyone who tries to hard to fit things together period, whether it's using in-game quotes or not, is going to end up with a convoluted mess of a timeline, which couldn't bear up under close scrutiny anyways. The split-timeline theory is just such a thing. Too far fetched and messy for me to regard it as even remotely plausible, regardless of what Aonuma has said. It is my belief that he was either misunderstood or just said it in a desperate attempt to put some sort of workable order to the Zelda games.

When I say that I look at developer intent, it's because the developers don't really HAVE any overarching intent for the series as a whole. They just have smaller connections that they focus on, without trying to worry about getting everything to fit together. Their intent never spans more then a game or too, the connections they obviously are trying to make merely involve things like the LttP-LA one, the LoZ-AoL one, the OoT-LttP one, the tWW-OoT one...

But as soon as individuals, such as Aonuma or Miyamoto, start trying to talk about details or trying to fit some overall timeline... that's when I stop paying attention or giving it any trust or credence.

[Jumbie]

The only way aorund Arturo's conclusion, as far as I can see, would have to be... implausible. It would involve the Triforce being retrieved from the Great Palace by someone placing the seven crystals in the statues, and then putting it back at some laer date.

That's what I imagined to hear

The split-timeline theory is just such a thing. Too far fetched and messy for me to regard it as even remotely plausible, regardless of what Aonuma has said.

I've always wondered if people who dislike the Split Timeline theory also aren't fond of other fictional series that involve the same thing... Of those I don't know to many to be honest, but could you tell me if you really don't like this concept anywhere it appears, or just not in Zelda (for whatever reason)?

It is my belief that he was either misunderstood or just said it in a desperate attempt to put some sort of workable order to the Zelda games.

Well, I've studied all 3 different versions of this interview excerpt, which were independently translated from Japanese, and they all include the very same train of thought. I've imagined it as a quick conversation, I considered why Miyamoto felt the need to intervene when Aonuma was unclear, and after all of that I really don't see any room for misunderstandings anymore.
It's basically like that: The question is when TWW takes place. Aonuma answers it takes place 100 years (or centuries, depending on the version) after OoT ended, and stops speaking. Everything would've been fine by now.
But no, Miyamoto then intervenes as if Aonuma forgot something important. He reminds him to specify from which point the 100 years/centuries start, after Child or Adult ending. This is the crux! Who would honestly care about those 7 years difference, added up to those 100 years (or if we go with centuries, which is a unprecise amount of time anyway)? Going by common sense, this really proves that Miyamoto's point was not the 7 years difference between Child and Adult, but AFTER which ending, so to speak in which timeline, TWW takes place.
At this point Aonuma answers that OoT had two endings of sorts, and specifies that TWW takes place after the Adult ending, where we're naturally required to add in our minds: "as opposed to Child ending". Look at it that way, which would it play a role if TWW happens after Adult or Child, if both were seen to have happened in OoT anyway? Whether it's 100 years or 107 years, that's really unimportant, especially since they most likely said centuries at any rate.

When I say that I look at developer intent, it's because the developers don't really HAVE any overarching intent for the series as a whole. They just have smaller connections that they focus on, without trying to worry about getting everything to fit together. Their intent never spans more then a game or too, the connections they obviously are trying to make merely involve things like the LttP-LA one, the LoZ-AoL one, the OoT-LttP one, the tWW-OoT one...

But well, this one was about only OoT and TWW, and indirectly also ALttP, but they wouldn't speak of it anymore since it's an old game now. Anyway, the developers should know best about their own intents, even though they probably don't care as much as fans do.

But as soon as individuals, such as Aonuma or Miyamoto, start trying to talk about details or trying to fit some overall timeline... that's when I stop paying attention or giving it any trust or credence.

I can't really appreciate that..

[Hero of Slime]

I have no problem with spilt timelines, I used to have a split timeline my self before Octo and Zythe converted me. I just don't think that a split timeline solves the issue. The game creators intended for OoT to be the IW, by that I mean that the sealing of Ganon done by Link and the sages. To put ALttP after the child ending also contradicts the original intentions So I view Split timelines as also having OoT and IW as different events.

[Fyxe]

When I say that I look at developer intent, it's because the developers don't really HAVE any overarching intent for the series as a whole. They just have smaller connections that they focus on, without trying to worry about getting everything to fit together. Their intent never spans more then a game or too, the connections they obviously are trying to make merely involve things like the LttP-LA one, the LoZ-AoL one, the OoT-LttP one, the tWW-OoT one...

Amen to that, although I do think Aonuma is gradually trying to work it out. I'm fairly sure TP will have a lot of connections to other games in the series. This may make things more confusing, or it may not.

[jman]

I read this guy's article, which I was quite interested in because it's something I posted a couple of times over the years. However, I think there are some inconsistencies... Firstly assuming that sleeping Zelda and everyone else are literally all re-incarnates of themselves, whether you choose to put sleeping Zelda as the first Zelda or one of the last, there are still other Zeldas between those times who possibly can't be a reincarnated soul of sleeping Zelda BECAUSE SHE AINT DEAD. So this kills the theory of any Zelda being a reincarnate of sleeping Zelda (should she be the first princess Zelda) and it also kills the theory of LOZ Zelda being a reincarnate of sleeping Zelda (assuming sleeping Zelda was put to sleep after ALTTP but before LOZ).

Personally I think reincarnation is a lame excuse. I started hearing that around WW especially because the game's Link was not a bloodline of OOT Link, but was apparently his reincarnation. This is also why I have a gripe about the split timelines, because Link was sent to be a kid again, so how could his soul be in two separate universes at once? My personal take was that after the adult or alternate future, Link was sent back and what happened reversed itself. Thus, in the OOT ending where child Link goes back to see Zelda (presumably before he goes to Termina) Princess Zelda knows what he's on about, so she gives him the ocarina of time and then Link leaves. The events with Ganondorf touching the triforce have still happened and Ganon's seal is still intact over time being reversed. The WW intro stuff about the hero not showing up when the Hyruleans expected it was (in my on opinion) because Link went to Termina and although he may have gotten out, he didn't return to Hyrule. Doesn't WW state that Ganon somehow escaped the Seal and got into Hyrule?? Well to me, that was OOT's seal. There probably weren't any events of it in ALTTP because - (1) OOT was the main imprisoning war and (2) Events could be lost over time and this wasn't so big as the Imprisoning war (3) they made WW after so who knows what the hell their intentions are of what to do with it , and (4) Anything could happen between WW and ALTTP even if it doesn't happen in PH when it's released.

Anways back to the sleeping Zelda, it seems to me that there will never be an explanation at least not in the next few years because as soon as one part of Zelda's timeline starts getting deep, we are taken away and thrown into another part of the Zelda universe. Personally, I believe that the guy's point about naming every Princess Zelda because of the tragedy and not because of other reasons was a good point. However, looking at this story in the context in which it was written and the fact that AOL has been re-released with the same story,maybe Nintendo want this Zelda to be the first one in the series... However, one must think that if the person in AOL who wrote the scroll was the King who passed away and bore a son and a daughter in the AOL backstory, does make one believe that this must've happened after the triforce had been united for the last time i.e. after ALTTP. This is plausible with all the info about the light force and how nobody remembered the triforce or it isn't mentioned anymore. It makes more sense to think that if the princess after ALTTP was the sleeping princess, that there would be more Zelda's (Zelda games) based after this. I for one believe the oracles are based after this. But they will never give us answers, and Zelda is being marketed to sell not satisfy peoples' curiousity (which is a marketing tool in itself and keeps people engaged like we are right now).

One thing is for certain and we must all be mindful of this:
When LOZ came out so many years ago, the concept of the triforce and the depth of the story wasn't the same. For one thing it stated that Ganon stole the triforce of Power from the kingdom. Whether he touched the whole triforce and it split (which is not probable because the TOC would have been in death valley) or what exactly happened is unclear. Zelda obviously hid the TOW all over Hyrule because she didn't want him to get it. However she could have used the TOW to disguise herself as Shiek or whatever. Anyhow my point is that the triforce started out very differently to how we perceive it now. Ganon stole a piece and Zelda hid a piece and a piece was missing. What this sounds like is that the triforce pieces were described as physical objects which were for different uses, and Ganon wanted them all. In AOL Link already has the other two triforce pieces but goes to find the TOC and then uses all 3 pieces to wake sleeping Zelda up. He also has the mark on his hand which could have meant that he had the TOC all along or whatever. But in ALTTP, the plot thickens and we are told that Ganondorf attained the whole triforce while in the dark world. And finally in OOT, we see that the triforce will only remain whole if it is touched by someone with a balanced character (with whatever specific requirements) or it will only be inherited in Part and the other pieces will go to others who they are best suited to. Here it becomes a more spiritual material which knows what is going on around it, where as in ALTTP when Link find the triforce, the 'essence of the triforce' informed him when Ganon made a wish for evil, the triforce didn't know and granted it because it was an object. The essence didn't explain that because Ganon was evil, the triforce granted him his wish but only let him inherit it in part. So the metamorphasis from LOZ - OOT is from an object which can be stolen, to a spiritual form of matter which chooses who can use it for what purpose (which makes more sense since it was forged by the goddesses). Thus there are bound to be small or minor inconsistencies, but the overall storyline has a main sort of plot order to it (even if Nintendo is vague on the details and some games are made by Capcom too). So in this case, all the stuff in between is left up to the consumers which keeps people interested and wanting to know more.

Edited by jman, 07 September 2006 - 09:38 AM.

[Alardonin]

Honestly, I can't believe anyone would doubt for even a second that OoT is or is closely related to the Imprisoning War. I've regarded that as absolute fact for years now. I have a hard time taking anyone seriously if they try to claim otherwise. Either they're just being argumentive for the sake of being argumentive, or they're looking too deeply into arcane details - and if you do the latter, nothing will ever fit together well.

I can see where your going,but from a perspective of sense,i dont see why there shouldnt be the possibility of the Imprisoning War,not being in a total diferent time,from OOT.Some people still believe with all there might that the imprisioning war is the acoutings from OOT,but,yet they still argue about it.

I not to long ago argued about it,simply because it is diferent from what most people believe in the legends, and because such a story still stands.Im not talking about my perspective here,because i couldnt care less if the Imprisoning War is or isnt the acountings of OOT,but there are people that do have a definitive timeline and there beliefs fall in one of those examples.

I dont see why you wont take anyone seriously for actually seing something in the timeline diferent from your perspective of the legends.And about the "either" maybe your just not seing this correctly,and they fall in none of those catagories.Honestly from the perpective of sense i have to disagree with you regarding it as fact,but at the same time there is no use in trying to argue about this with me,because what i trully care about the series is not finding out about the so so definative truth,actually its far from that,and im not going to explain why i find the series to be so special,because i wouldnt get out of here today specially if i was in the right spirit,maybe thats good for another thread.

Also what i said about the "either" was a response directed to people as a hole,because in my case you are totaly correct,sometimes i pay to much atention to litle details,but at the same time i have my side of zen(dont know if it is written correctly,but o well most the text probably isnt very well written ) towards the zelda storyline.The reason for this is because zelda unlike any other game was the game that actually mayde me think and study about the story trying to think of every possibility ,altought i dont do that as much i used to,zelda is also the game that actually took more of my attention towards imagination,and imagining it from [img]http://forums.legendsalliance.com/public/ALOT.png[/img] of perpectives,so i think i can be forgiven for that.

When I say that I look at developer intent, it's because the developers don't really HAVE any overarching intent for the series as a whole. They just have smaller connections that they focus on, without trying to worry about getting everything to fit together. Their intent never spans more then a game or too, the connections they obviously are trying to make merely involve things like the LttP-LA one, the LoZ-AoL one, the OoT-LttP one, the tWW-OoT one...

But as soon as individuals, such as Aonuma or Miyamoto, start trying to talk about details or trying to fit some overall timeline... that's when I stop paying attention or giving it any trust or credence.

Ok now its time for me to be seen,as the "naive zelda fan" because im going to say to you right now,that the split time line can definatly be considered,before wind waker was made or even before aunoma stepped into the ground.

I actually did consider it before that,so im going to say something that most people might regard as ludicrous,because the people usualy do that towards nintendo,makes them seem more righteous and less of a fan boy towards them,also more intelligent.What im trying to say is that perhaps the creators care more about the timiline then what most of us are willing to believe,thats also a response to further posts and no need to kill me,im only expressing my opinion.

[MikePetersSucks]

However, I think there are some inconsistencies... Firstly assuming that sleeping Zelda and everyone else are literally all re-incarnates of themselves, whether you choose to put sleeping Zelda as the first Zelda or one of the last, there are still other Zeldas between those times who possibly can't be a reincarnated soul of sleeping Zelda BECAUSE SHE AINT DEAD. So this kills the theory of any Zelda being a reincarnate of sleeping Zelda (should she be the first princess Zelda) and it also kills the theory of LOZ Zelda being a reincarnate of sleeping Zelda (assuming sleeping Zelda was put to sleep after ALTTP but before LOZ).

Did you miss my entire theory about the Sleeping Zelda/Reincarnation problem being solved by the common shinentai concept from Japanese legend and mythology? Basically if the soul is rendered unable to act, but cannot leave it's body, the soul can splinter a part of itself to continue the cycle.

Link was sent to be a kid again, so how could his soul be in two separate universes at once?

The same way Hyrule can be in two universes at once, or how the Triforce can be in two universes at once etc. As the timeline splits, everything is doubled. This includes souls.

The events with Ganondorf touching the triforce have still happened and Ganon's seal is still intact over time being reversed.

That contradicts your earlier gripe about Link's soul.

[Jumbie]

I'm fairly sure TP will have a lot of connections to other games in the series.

You actually think so? I expect PH to explain much more than TP will, namely that it'll clear once and for all if a New Hyrule comes to exist or not, and in case the game doesn't show a New Hyrule, there won't ever be one.
But as for TP, what could it explain? Aonuma implied that the events of OoT don't play such a great role for TP, except that Ganon should be sealed away before/during TP because of OoT. So nothing left to explain about OoT. Then, something about TMC? Very unlikely. All that's left are TWW and games happening after that or happening in the other timeline. I do expect a hint at the Great Flood, which I hope will only happen a good while after the game's end. As for the other games, how could TP foretell the future? There's basically no way to include evidence for a Split Timeline, either.
I think the game that'll really clarify the major problem (if the older games are happening after TWW or in the Child timeline) will be PH.

[Alardonin]

The same way Hyrule can be in two universes at once, or how the Triforce can be in two universes at once etc. As the timeline splits, everything is doubled. This includes souls.
That contradicts your earlier gripe about Link's soul.

That is one possibility,but what could also happen is hyrule being splitt into two and the sacred realm remaining with just one time line:"imagine a line,a time line for that matter,it turns into two due to links travel,but betwen those two time lines there only exists one for the sacred realm,now since the sacred realm presents itself from a totaly diferent plane(or dimension if you prefer) from hyrule it has a time line of its own(speculation of course).Imagine two time lines and one in the midle of the two,featuring 3 time lines,making only one triforce and Ganon existence,and since that timeline is in the midle of the two,Ganon itself could have traveled throught both times to create its caos"sorry taken from a thread i made not to long ago.Still there are even other stuff you could consider.