139 replies to this topic

[MikePetersSucks]

Aye but here's some food for thought: I dismiss the man as a reputable source seeing as people are too stubborn to accept how TWW fucked up the tranquillity present in the Zelda timeline as spectacularly as it did. Lord, people once believed there was only one Link before that odd thing was conceived; even worse still was that everyone thought it plausible for ALTTP to still work into the chronology as the very LAST game set in Hyrule... now its virtually impossible to place that title in either child or adult timeline.

Thank you so much Eiji Aonuma. What would the canon do without you?

1) OOT fucked up the timeline first
2) One-Linkers were a minority.
3) LTTP was never the last game in the chronology. Lolprequel.

Also, what the hell is TRR?

[wring]

I don't think they developed a timeline until around the time Ocarina of Time was released. So Link to the Past and Legend of Zelda were originally completely unrelated to each other. But then they started trying to retcon a timeline out, and won't tell us what that timeline is, making it very confusing to place the original games. So maybe Link to the Past is the last game, maybe not, its hard to tell.

[Raien]

Also, what the hell is TRR?

Tingle's Rosey Rupeeland.

I don't think they developed a timeline until around the time Ocarina of Time was released. So Link to the Past and Legend of Zelda were originally completely unrelated to each other. But then they started trying to retcon a timeline out, and won't tell us what that timeline is, making it very confusing to place the original games. So maybe Link to the Past is the last game, maybe not, its hard to tell.

Every new Zelda game connects to one previous game (except the original Four Swords), so the timeline can be tracked back to the first Zelda game. ALttP was developed as LoZ's prequel (explaining Hyrule and Ganon's origins) and OoT was developed as ALttP's prequel (elaborating on Ganon's origins and the Hylian race).

Edited by Raian, 02 December 2008 - 02:00 PM.

[Masamune]

-It's not a serious depiction of the Zelda mythology; it's a spoof. It spoofs conventions in Zelda, and I don't see that as a justification to accept it's canoninity (no more than Austin Powers is a canon part of the James Bond universe).

Tingle has been a spoof from his very conception. Does that mean Majora's Mask, The Wind Waker, Four Swords Adventures, and other games are not canon? Your logic is flawed because Austin Powers was designed to make fun of spy movies, however TRR was designed as a spinoff to the Zelda series.

-It was not developed by Nintendo, but by a second/third party called Vanpool. Nintendo EAD develops the Legend of Zelda series.

So clearly Oracles, Four Swords, and The Minish Cap aren't canon. Roger that.

-As for origins for Tingle, the character is different in every game so I don't see how TRR really matters in that respect. There is no one Tingle just like there is no one Link or Zelda.

And yet people obsess over the origin of Link's 'hat' in The Minish Cap. How is the origin of a character, presumably the 'first', not a big deal? He might not be crucial to the Triforce mythos, but he is a part of the Zelda universe, no matter how much you may dislike him.

[Raien]

Tingle has been a spoof from his very conception. Does that mean Majora's Mask, The Wind Waker, Four Swords Adventures, and other games are not canon? Your logic is flawed because Austin Powers was designed to make fun of spy movies, however TRR was designed as a spinoff to the Zelda series.

There's a difference between a spoof character and a spoof universe. TRR is not set in the Zelda universe, it is set in a universe that spoofs the Zelda universe. Deities like Rupee-man do not reflect the Zelda mythology, thus it's obvious that TRR is not set in the Zelda universe.

So clearly Oracles, Four Swords, and The Minish Cap aren't canon. Roger that.

If a third party game gave me reason to believe that it was a serious extension of the Zelda mythology, then I can happily accept a canon status. TMC and FS were quite clearly written as side-stories in the same vein as the Metroid Prime trilogy. Oracles is also quite clearly a side-story, although I don't accept that its story is relevant to the timeline due to the nonsensical use of series staples. TRR quite clearly says, "This game is a joke. Don't take it seriously." And so I don't.

Edited by Raian, 03 December 2008 - 12:24 PM.

[Masamune]

Despite the fact that Four Swords Adventure was developed in house and would otherwise canonize at the very least Four Swords, eh?

Anyways, it sounds like you're just picking what you want in your Zelda universe rather arbitrarily. I'd argue that LA takes itself less seriously than TRR does in the scheme of things. In any case, I don't think that qualifies you to make a blanket statement that TRR isn't part of the greater Zelda universe. For your personal canon, perhaps, but for the overall series, there's little to no justification to exclude TRR as part of the Zelda universe.

If a third party game gave me reason to believe that it was a serious extension of the Zelda mythology, then I can happily accept a canon status. TMC and FS were quite clearly written as side-stories in the same vein as the Metroid Prime trilogy. Oracles is also quite clearly a side-story, although I don't accept that its story is relevant to the timeline due to the nonsensical use of series staples.

I'd call the Metroid Prime "In Betweenquels" more than Side Stories, given how heavily they deal with the Metroid mythos as opposed to the Four Swords games, which only brush casually with the Zelda mythos.

I'm assuming by nonsensical you're referring to the Master Sword and maybe to a less extent the Triforce? It's a bit silly, yes. But then Episode 1-3 of Star Wars was silly with midichlorians and the wealth of retcons. Unfortunately no matter how much we might wish they weren't, they're still canon.

Edited by Masamune, 03 December 2008 - 12:25 PM.

[Raien]

Despite the fact that Four Swords Adventure was developed in house and would otherwise canonize at the very least Four Swords, eh?

If Nintendo canonises a third-party title, then fine, I accept it's canon. But please show me where Nintendo has accepted Oracles and TRR are canon, or this point is irrelevant.

Anyways, it sounds like you're just arbitrarily picking what you want in your Zelda universe rather arbitrarily. I'd argue that LA takes itself less seriously than TRR does in the scheme of things. In any case, I don't think that qualifies you to make a blanket statement that TRR isn't part of the greater Zelda universe. For your personal canon, perhaps, but for the overall series, there's little to no justification to exclude TRR as part of the Zelda universe.

LA follows all the symbolic conventions that define the Zelda mythology, even though it features deities and characters outside of Hyrule. TRR's symbolic conventions spoof the Zelda mythology; deities like Rupee-man exist only to define Tingle as the "hero" of the Tingle universe, in place of Link. It's quite obvious from this that TRR is set in a spoof universe of Zelda, and that is a perfectly valid justification not to include it in Zelda canon.

I'd call the Metroid Prime "In Betweenquels" more than Side Stories, given how heavily they deal with the Metroid mythos as opposed to the Four Swords games, which only brush casually with the Zelda mythos.

The distinguishing feature of the Metroid Prime Trilogy is Phazon, which (assuming you've read the editied Prime scans) is completely unrelated to the Metroid species. Combinations of scans establish that the boss Metroid Prime was actually a Metroid native to Tallon IV, which was mutated by the Leviathon and brainwashed to protect its Phazon Core. In Prime 2 & 3, the Metroids have only made token appearances, having no relevance to the story of Phazon that took place. In other words, if Phazon didn't exist, the mainstream stories would not be affected in any way. I think that fulfils the clear definition of a "side-story".

I'm assuming by nonsensical you're referring to the Master Sword and maybe to a less extent the Triforce? It's a bit silly, yes. But then Episode 1-3 of Star Wars was silly with midichlorians and the wealth of retcons. Unfortunately no matter how much we might wish they weren't, they're still canon.

I'm referring to lots of things, although the appearance of Jabu-Jabu, Hyrule's guardian spirit of water, comes to mind most strongly. The best comparison is Majora's Mask; a game which is set in another world and previously-established characters have new and unrelated identities. Even if Oracles is canon, its' general story is at least as relevant to the timeline as Majora's Mask (i.e. not at all).

Edited by Raian, 03 December 2008 - 12:49 PM.

[Masamune]

You keep saying that TRR spoofs the Zelda universe, but I'm not seeing anything of significance I would call a spoof. I see a few nods to the Zelda series (the toddler bodyguards dress similar to Link), I see locations that correlate to their Zelda counterparts (Mount Desma to Mount Doom), and I see the presence of actual Zelda characters (the Great Deku Tree, who is nearly identical to his TWW counterpart). Some elements take itself less seriously. While it's true that Tingle has a computer in his own home, Tingle also gives Link a Gameboy Advance (Tingle Tuner) in The Wind Waker. While there might be some oddball humor, that largely comes from the fact that Tingle is the protagonist. I see little evidence that the game would be considered an all-out spoof. The most 'out there' things come from Uncle Rupee, who is an ancient demon of significant power. Is it really that odd to see him in a Limo when he's clearly a higher deity? Have you even played the game?

Anyways, the most damning piece of evidence for me that Oracles, The Minish Cap, and TRR are part of the Zelda canon can be found in the most obvious way. Nintendo published them. Unlike the Zelda CD-i games, Nintendo released these games, with their logos and copyrights clearly displayed, and made it infinitely clear that they were perfectly aware that these games existed. The burden of proof is not to say that these games are canon. Rather it should be Miyamoto or Aonuma's duty to decide they're not canon. It's happened before. A good example would be the Castlevania series. Castlevania Legends was retconned out of the series. It was not the fans who decided this would be the case, but the creators.

The same should apply for the Zelda series. Until one of the creators says that OoX, TMC, and TRR are noncanonical, then they are assumed to be canonical because the creators were aware of their existence and release and have thus far said nothing to suggest that they are not part of the Zelda series.

I'm referring to lots of things, although the appearance of Jabu-Jabu, Hyrule's guardian spirit of water, comes to mind most strongly. The best comparison is Majora's Mask; a game which is set in another world and previously-established characters have new and unrelated identities. Even if Oracles is canon, its' general story is at least as relevant to the timeline as Majora's Mask (i.e. not at all).

I'd argue that Oracles is plenty relevant. Content aside, it features: A) The Triforce, B) Ganon, C) The Master Sword. Those are three MAJOR factors of the Zelda timeline. Aside from other important details, those three have always been the cornerstone of determining the placement of games.

Edited by Masamune, 03 December 2008 - 01:10 PM.

[Raien]

You keep saying that TRR spoofs the Zelda universe, but I'm not seeing anything of significance I would call a spoof. I see a few nods to the Zelda series (the toddler bodyguards dress similar to Link), I see locations that correlate to their Zelda counterparts (Mount Desma to Mount Doom), and I see the presence of actual Zelda characters (the Great Deku Tree, who is nearly identical to his TWW counterpart). Some elements take itself less seriously. While it's true that Tingle has a computer in his own home, Tingle also gives Link a Gameboy Advance (Tingle Tuner) in The Wind Waker. While there might be some oddball humor, that largely comes from the fact that Tingle is the protagonist. I see little evidence that the game would be considered an all-out spoof. The most 'out there' things come from Uncle Rupee, who is an ancient demon of significant power. Is it really that odd to see him in a Limo when he's clearly a higher deity? Have you even played the game?

I'll be honest and confess that I haven't played the game, but that doesn't change how I feel about the series' establishment as a spoof. The Legend of Zelda universe is arguably defined by the myths that construct it, just as the universe of Greek Mythology is defined by its myths. I personally believe that any story that exists to spoof or satirise the myths should not be placed within the context of the myths themselves. I also don't believe that any story which removes a series from its established mythological context should be considered canon. This belief might result in a case of personal preference, but it's actually a belief that a lot of people share as fans of any established series, and I know that writers tend to respect that belief as well. Stories featuring popular characters tend to be ignored by new writers for that very reason.

Anyways, the most damning piece of evidence for me that Oracles, The Minish Cap, and TRR are part of the Zelda canon can be found in the most obvious way. Nintendo published them. Unlike the Zelda CD-i games, Nintendo released these games, with their logos and copyrights clearly displayed, and made it infinitely clear that they were perfectly aware that these games existed. The burden of proof is not to say that these games are canon. Rather it should be Miyamoto or Aonuma's duty to decide they're not canon. It's happened before. A good example would be the Castlevania series. Castlevania Legends was retconned out of the series. It was not the fans who decided this would be the case, but the creators.

The same should apply for the Zelda series. Until one of the creators says that OoX, TMC, and TRR are noncanonical, then they are assumed to be canonical because the creators were aware of their existence and release and have thus far said nothing to suggest that they are not part of the Zelda series.

As I mentioned in my previous paragraph, writers tend to avoid acknowledging stories that they do not want to see associated with the franchise, which includes Nintendo's stance on the CD-i games. As an unrelated example, Resident Evil's writers have never referred to Survivor, even though that game established the mass production of the Tyrants. Nintendo have never acknowledged OoX or TRR with regards to the Zelda series, which could be to avoid association.

I'd argue that Oracles is plenty relevant. Content aside, it features: A) The Triforce, B) Ganon, C) The Master Sword. Those are three MAJOR factors of the Zelda timeline. Aside from other important details, those three have always been the cornerstone of determining the placement of games.

Oracles doesn't do anything relevant with them. Nothing happened to the Triforce, Ganon was returned to his original situation and the Master Sword was a connection bonus, featuring none of the symbolism that distinguishes it as the blade of evil's bane. Nothing happens in Oracles that affects the timeline, and that makes it an irrelevant game.

Edited by Raian, 03 December 2008 - 01:54 PM.

[Alastair]

If Nintendo canonises a third-party title, then fine, I accept it's canon. But please show me where Nintendo has accepted Oracles and TRR are canon, or this point is irrelevant.

Footage of Oracles was included as part of the Zelda Retrospective on the Zelda collectors edition disc.

I'm not sure where I stand on TRR. The whole game seems like a deliberate joke, but then it has little timeline relevance, so I'm not sure it's cononicity matters.

[Raien]

Footage of Oracles was included as part of the Zelda Retrospective on the Zelda collectors edition disc.

Then I would define the game as irrelevant. It doesn't bother me, to be honest, so long as I don't have to discuss the game in the timeline when I perceive it to have no importance.

[MikePetersSucks]

Tingle's Rosey Rupeeland.

Should've figured. My mind wanted to think of a bad fangame.

OH WAIT LOL.

As for this whole debate about it's canonicity...I just saw it as Tingle delivering a totally untrue, elaborated story about how he became the magnificent Tingle!

[Arturo]

Nintendo have never acknowledged OoX or TRR with regards to the Zelda series, which could be to avoid association.

Isn't it enough acknowledgement for you that Capcom has continued to make Zelda games?

[Raien]

Isn't it enough acknowledgement for you that Capcom has continued to make Zelda games?

Why should it be? If a company makes good games, it makes sense to rehire them regardless of their games' canoninity status. Can you really imagine Aonuma saying, "Oracles were great games to play, but they're not canon! Let's find someone else to remake ALttP!"?

[Showsni]

There are references to OoX in other Zelda games, though. Why shouldn't it be canon?

[Sign of Justice]

ALttP: Ganondorf the thief enterred the Sacred Realm, touched the Triforce and was transformed into the Demon King of Darkness.
FSA: Ganondorf the thief enterred a Pyramid, touched a magic Trident and was transformed into the Demon King of Darkness.
Extra clue: A single incarnation of Ganondorf is only liable to transform into the Demon King once, according to Japanese mythology (from which this part of the series is known to derive from).

Well first I gotta say one thing. I do believe almost the same timeline as Lex. I am not a follower of his, but I have a very similar timeline.

I believe the Subrosians in TRR telling Tingle he looks like a hero that the Subrosians helped a long time ago fight an ancient demon. This is undoubtedly a refrence to OoX. This takes place in a flooded land. Hinting towards a post-tWW placement. The fact that the OoA past has much more water than the OoA present suggests the GDT's plan is working.

I believe that the fact that the SW is the first time the Triforce leaves the SR is too much evidence to have it be anything but be OoT.

The many refrences that tMC hints heavily to a post flood game. You could disregard those as cameos/easter eggs. I see no reason to though because they are timeline indicators and should be treated as such.

Now to explain your point. Now that I've established most of my timeline. So right now it would look like
/tWW/PH-OoX-tMC-FS/FSA
OoT
\MM-TP

Now we know that Ganon's soul is in a "Yorishiro" in OoX which would be an object. Now looking at Ganon from OoX what object does he have? The Trident. This fits in perfectly with FSA.
Now Ganon's origin in LttP is he touched the Triforce and became Ganon. This sounds fairly similar to OoT. Ganondorf touched the Triforce. It split. He gained the ToP. And he had the power of Ganon. So now that we know that let's look through the events in order.
OoT happens. Ganondorf touches the Triforce much like in the LttP BS. He gets sealed. Escapes the seal. Does not destroy it though in tWW. He gets "killed" by the MS. Now either LoZ comes. Or it goes straight to OoX. Either way Ganon/dorf is dead. Ganon's spirit gets put into the Yorishiro (the Trident) then tMC happens. FS then FSA Ganon touches the Trident. Jumbie's translation hints that the Trident was used before. So this makes perfect sense. Then comes LttP. Therefore the Ganon spirit has it's backstory from OoT. And it also corresponds with the FSA origin.

ALttP is a prequel to LoZ.

I've only seen evidence to that on the back of an NoA box. Which was later retconned by Miyamoto.

LA is a sequel to ALttO.
Oracles are stand-alone titles.

Proof? Because nothing states that LA HAS to go after LttP. And OoX-LA is a possibility.

Regarding AoL's BS, we simply believe it to be the first in a specific naming tradition related only to that story, not a tradition stretching back to the beginning of time.

I'm not talking about just the naming tradition. But the fact that the Zelda in the story is the "First Generation" and that the Triforce is out of the SR.

-As for origins for Tingle, the character is different in every game so I don't see how TRR really matters in that respect. There is no one Tingle just like there is no one Link or Zelda.

You've obviously never played TRR. It states that there can be many Tingles. Therefore the origin for every Tingle in the series is explained.

It would help if I actually knew what your timeline is.

[NM87]

FSA and TP messed up the timeline.

MC-FS-OOT-WW/PH
MC-FS-OOT-ALTTP/LA-LOZ/AOL-OOX

Originally, Lex tried to slide a confirmation of AOL being on the same timeline as WW, but the quote turned out to be ambiguous.

[Impossible]

This topic probably should have ended back with Raian/jhurvid's post on the first page instead of endless repetition, but here's finally something new to comment on...

The Capcom/Flagship Zelda games bear the Legend of Zelda title, and were made with the involvement of Nintendo EAD and even Miyamoto. FPTRR possesses none of those features. It isn't a Zelda game, and it has no relevance to Zelda canon. Also, there aren't Subrosians, sorry to disappoint you.

By the way, didn't we generally agree that the sages of the Adult Timeline would still have been famous on the Child Timeline, so it's not actually a contradiction, plot-wise? Hence the only debate is intent, and 1998 intent, contrary to Lex's belief, is not in line with 2008 intent. The old version of the timeline, before TWW changed things completely, isn't relevant.

Edited by Impossible, 04 December 2008 - 01:17 AM.

[Arturo]

The name Salona is a NOA invention, and they are not called that way in the European versions. So tehy might be Subrosians, after all.

And I have played the game.


And loved it.

[Masamune]

Just because you've played the game and know what the game is actually about does not give you the right to simply assume that just because it was made with Nintendo's knowledge and published by them and released with their name on the game that the game could even remotely be considered canon.

[MikePetersSucks]

I believe the Subrosians in TRR telling Tingle he looks like a hero that the Subrosians helped a long time ago fight an ancient demon. This is undoubtedly a refrence to OoX. This takes place in a flooded land. Hinting towards a post-tWW placement. The fact that the OoA past has much more water than the OoA present suggests the GDT's plan is working.

Or TRR is completely achronological, and the receding water in OoA is due to some other phenomenon.

I believe that the fact that the SW is the first time the Triforce leaves the SR is too much evidence to have it be anything but be OoT.

Fact? Who says that was the FIRST time the Triforce left the SR?

The many refrences that tMC hints heavily to a post flood game. You could disregard those as cameos/easter eggs. I see no reason to though because they are timeline indicators and should be treated as such.

There's just as much for a non-flood or a pre-flood.

Now we know that Ganon's soul is in a "Yorishiro" in OoX which would be an object. Now looking at Ganon from OoX what object does he have? The Trident. This fits in perfectly with FSA.

Why do I have to keep explaining that the Trident isn't the Yorishiro? Twinrova didn't hold up a trident and transmogrify that into Ganon's body, they did it to their own flesh. Zelda herself was the intended Yorishiro, that's why they kidnapped her.

Now Ganon's origin in LttP is he touched the Triforce and became Ganon. This sounds fairly similar to OoT. Ganondorf touched the Triforce. It split. He gained the ToP. And he had the power of Ganon. So now that we know that let's look through the events in order.

Ganon has the full Triforce in LTTP though.

I've only seen evidence to that on the back of an NoA box. Which was later retconned by Miyamoto.

Citation Needed.

Proof? Because nothing states that LA HAS to go after LttP. And OoX-LA is a possibility.

LA was created as a sequel to LTTP, that much is a fact. The question is whether or not it still holds or if OOX retconned it.

I'm not talking about just the naming tradition. But the fact that the Zelda in the story is the "First Generation" and that the Triforce is out of the SR.

It never says she was the FIRST Zelda, just that after her tragedy all princesses HAD to bear her name.

You've obviously never played TRR. It states that there can be many Tingles. Therefore the origin for every Tingle in the series is explained.

Yea, but Mr. Rupee is the only one with the power to make more, and none of the ones that currently exist look similar, as far as we know.

[Raien]

Sign of Justice, may I ask why you've simply ignored the most important points in my previous post? Because if there's one thing that's absolutely fucking annoying in debates, it's having to repeat myself. You're still claiming that the GDT is responsible for changes in OoA's Labrynna after I disproved that very concept in my last response, and you've simply chosen to ignore the subject of context on all grounds despite that it is key to defining the meanings of any detail in the Zelda series, including your own meanings.

And one thing you haven't seemed to grasp yet is that I am not debating the Zelda timeline on your terms. You theorise the Zelda timeline as you would with the storyline of Lost or Heroes, but what you forget is that the writers of Lost/Heroes had the general progression of events worked out from conception, whereas Aonuma has stated that the Zelda timeline absolutely does not develop in this fashion. No Zelda game is developed with the foresight of events occuring in a future Zelda game. No Zelda game is developed to tie events together on the basis of vague and random details. Furthermore, Aonuma has stated that the Zelda timeline is firmly locked away on a Word Document at Nintendo HQ, which makes it unrealistic to expect second/third-party developers to work with the timeline in this fashion (which in turn explains why Capcom/Flagship games are generally disconnected from the main series). And then let's not forget that both Nintendo EAD and Flagship have regularly stated a love of referencing past games for fun, including FSA's connections to TWW and ALttP. It's the admissions by Zelda developers that make it easy to recognise the difference between easter eggs and genuine timeline references.

You asked how I concluded that ALttP was developed as a prequel to LoZ? It's simple; ALttP explains the origins of Hyrule, the Triforce and of Ganon. Yes, it really is that fucking simple. It didn't take a single random quote to come to that conclusion, and it's certain that Nintendo weren't looking at random quotes for justification. And for the record, Miyamoto most certainly did not retcon ALttP's timeline placement because he admits to having no interest or responsibility for the direction of the game storylines. Miyamoto's explanation of the timeline is no more informed than yours and mine.

When you've removed yourself from the Lost/Heroes box of theorising, you'll notice two things have ultimately become irrelevant over the course of development in the Zelda timeline. The first is the First-Generation Princess Zelda, which is simply impossible to place within the context of the current chronology. The second is the OoT-SW relationship, which has been killed with the destruction of Hyrule in TWW. As for the GDT's plans to build a new island, I still challenge your argument that it represents a rebuilding of Hyrule. As an optional quotation with little emphasis, there's nothing to suggest that it serves any purpose other than to explain the Korok's ceremony. There's certainly no justification for the flimsy connections with OoX and TRR that you've created.

PS: My timeline is:

OoT > MM > TP > SW >ALttP > LA > AoL BS > LoZ > AoL > OoS > OoA
OoT > TWW > PH

TMC > FS > FSA

Make of that what you will.

Edited by Raian, 04 December 2008 - 06:16 PM.

[MikePetersSucks]

Oh wowzer we gotz teh saem timelin.

[Impossible]

The name Salona is a NOA invention, and they are not called that way in the European versions. So tehy might be Subrosians, after all.

What does NoA have to do with it? They didn't even touch FPTRR, and Salona is from the European version. I was under the impression that the Japanese version actually calls them Saloners, as in, people who work at the Salon. So there's no suggestion of Subrosians.

Fact? Who says that was the FIRST time the Triforce left the SR?

Well, duh. It's a single, meaningless word produced out of rewording in translation that exists solely in the US GBA manual of ALttP. Duh! Over-interpretation and semantics should be the deciding factor of any timeline!

[Arturo]

What does NoA have to do with it? They didn't even touch FPTRR, and Salona is from the European version. I was under the impression that the Japanese version actually calls them Saloners, as in, people who work at the Salon. So there's no suggestion of Subrosians.

Sorry, I am so used to blaming everything to NOA...

When I said NOA, I meant English European translator, and when I said European translations, I meant the erst of them. And they are saloners because they work in a salon, not because that's the name of their race as you seem to have claimed. We don't know if they are humans, or what they are, but their aspect is similar to Subrosians, so we can't discard that possibility.

[Impossible]

I never said it was the name of their race. We don't even know that they ARE a specific race, so there's not much for the whole "Subrosian" idea however you want to put it. There's no connection to Zelda in any case.

[Sign of Justice]

It never says she was the FIRST Zelda, just that after her tragedy all princesses HAD to bear her name.

Please read the japanese translations first. It specifically states that the Zelda is the "First Generation" Zelda. Which if you cannot tell right now, means she is the first.

I never said it was the name of their race. We don't even know that they ARE a specific race, so there's not much for the whole "Subrosian" idea however you want to put it. There's no connection to Zelda in any case.

If they are subrosians then it has a lot of connection to Zelda.

I don't have time to answer like 4 people's long comments atm. So I will only address a few things.

As for the GDT's plans to build a new island, I still challenge your argument that it represents a rebuilding of Hyrule. As an optional quotation with little emphasis, there's nothing to suggest that it serves any purpose other than to explain the Korok's ceremony.

With that logic you must surely believe that the Fierce Deity Mask is not canon. Or the Biggoron sword from OoT is not canon.
Now about the SW and the Sleeping Zelda Story. The SW can be debated. I don't know enough about it to truly debate it well enough though. However nothing has been shown recently that contradicts it. So there is no reason to say it is impossible to place. Because it fits quite nicely on the AT.

Well I have to go. I do not have time right now to answer all of your questions.

[jacensolo06]

Please read the japanese translations first. It specifically states that the Zelda is the "First Generation" Zelda. Which if you cannot tell right now, means she is the first.

Which could mean that she's the first generation of the naming tradition.

[Raien]

With that logic you must surely believe that the Fierce Deity Mask is not canon. Or the Biggoron sword from OoT is not canon.

No, with my logic, the Fierce Deity Mask and Biggoron Sword are just irrelevant. Believe it or not, quotes can be canon without connecting six games together in the timeline.

And here's the kicker; there is nothing in TWW that relates the GDT's plans to a rebuilding of the kingdom of Hyrule; it's fanfiction. The GDT says nothing about his island paradise becoming Hyrule. The people suggest no wish to revive the kingdom of legend. Link and Zelda have been told clearly that their new home will not be called Hyrule. The portals to the Sacred Realm will remain buried under the ocean (presuming they still exist after Hyrule's destruction), making the Triforce inaccessible. All of Hyrule's magics are also buried, as is the connection between the Hyrulians and the gods. With this all established, it is practically impossible for Hyrule to be rebuilt according to the fanfiction.

Now about the SW and the Sleeping Zelda Story. The SW can be debated. I don't know enough about it to truly debate it well enough though. However nothing has been shown recently that contradicts it. So there is no reason to say it is impossible to place. Because it fits quite nicely on the AT.

TWW kills Ganon, which means that the original intent of the SW is impossible. You can either fan-retcon the meaning of the SW, as Lex does to create a convoluted mess of a timeline, or you can accept it doesn't work anymore. Same goes with AoL BS.

Edited by Raian, 05 December 2008 - 07:39 AM.

[wring]

Please read the japanese translations first. It specifically states that the Zelda is the "First Generation" Zelda. Which if you cannot tell right now, means she is the first.

Which could mean that she's the first generation of the naming tradition.

I've thought through this, and have come to think that the sleeping Zelda legend is impossible no matter how you twist the timeline.
1. She IS supposed to be the first Princess Zelda. If there was a naming tradition before the legend happened, it would make the Prince's law redundant. Wind Waker did seem to imply there was a tradition of naming Princesses Zelda since Ocarina of Time, since Tetra was really Zelda because she was a Princess, atleast that's my understand and what I've heard. It can't happen after Ocarina of Time because the tradition already exsisted by the time of Ocarina.
2. It can't happen before because the Triforce is in the Sacred Realm. Ocarina implies Hyrule is created, and then the Triforce goes into the Sacred Realm, and stays there until Ganondorf touches it. There is no room for a King to hold the completed Triforce.
3 The Triforce of Courage can't be hidden for all those years. The Sleeping Zelda legend would have to happen directly before Legend of Zelda, which it can't because of reason 1. The reason it must happen directly before is because after Zelda falls to sleep, the Prince hides the Triforce of Courage in a sealed area until AoL happens. The Triforce of Courage appears in virtually every Zelda game, so either there is two Triforces of Courage or it happens directly before Legend of Zelda, unfortunately, as I've stated, Reason 1 makes this impossible.
I've decided to throw out the sleeping Zelda legend and go with the later translated version of the story. A wizard cast a sleeping spell on Zelda and Link has to break it. No plotholes at all!