Jump to content

IPBoard Styles©Fisana

Photo

Time travel in OoT


  • Please log in to reply
158 replies to this topic

#31 LionHarted

LionHarted

    Quirky.

  • Members
  • 2,029 posts

Posted 06 April 2007 - 12:20 PM

The Link of TP would have had no idea where the Temple of Time really was. I mean, sure you can argue that the Temple was somehow moved, but why?

Retcon?

There doesn't have to be a reason, does there?

#32 Crazy Penguin

Crazy Penguin

    Knight

  • Members
  • 729 posts

Posted 06 April 2007 - 12:50 PM

Small point, but this isn't the case. Ganon escapes from the Dark World before the flood. Those windows could have been made after his escape and before the flood.


Why would they create a shrine celebrating the sealing of Ganon after Ganon has escaped that seal?

So the Door of Time is open in the ending. There's pehaps a fifteen second time window in between Link opening the Door of Time and pulling the Master Sword, thus making it not be "moved" from the Temple of Time. I will also add that child Link is in the Temple of Time during this entire spiel, is rather conscious.

So if I understand you correctly, when the split happens, Link would HAVE to return during this brief time span and most likely reinhabit Link's body. However, this is not doing what Zelda intended, for Link to return the Master Sword and close the pathways of time forever. In fact, the path of time was never opened, and I don't believe that's what the ending of Ocarina of Time was trying to say. (This is beside the point that Ganondorf is closely watching Link just outside and is just yearning to grab the Triforce once Link does this... which Link isn't going to do.)

The question that I keep asking--and nobody has explained with enough verbage to make it crystal clear--is WHERE this sword that "already exists" in the child timeline comes from. So tell me if I'm reading between the lines properly or not because that's what it appears you're saying.


Huh? You're making this more complicated than it is. I'm not entirely sure what it is you're even asking.

Here it is again step by step.

1. Link defeats Ganon.
2. Zelda sends Link back in time and presumably keeps the Master Sword.
3. Link arrives in the past next to the Master Sword of the past.

4. The Master Sword that adult Zelda kept in the adult timeline is seen in The Wind Waker.

5 The Master Sword that child Link left in the Temple of Time in the child timeline is seen in Twilight Princess.

Ocarina of Time was ambiguous enough for this to work.

So what is the problem?

But the Master Sword is nowhere near the Temple of Time in Twlight Princess.


The Master Sword was in the ruins of the Temple of Time in the Sacred Grove.

#33 LionHarted

LionHarted

    Quirky.

  • Members
  • 2,029 posts

Posted 06 April 2007 - 01:06 PM

Why would they create a shrine celebrating the sealing of Ganon after Ganon has escaped that seal?

The Master Sword in TWW serves as a seal on Hyrule, and on Ganon's power.
The Master Sword is in the shrine.

The shrine doesn't need to have been created before he escaped, but the Master Sword needs to have been placed there after (because while placed there, it serves to seal Hyrule). The shrine's main function in TWW seems to have been to house the Master Sword.

Because of this, many people say that the shrine was made for the purpose of creating the seal on Hyrule, which would mean it was created after Ganon escaped the SR.

#34 Crazy Penguin

Crazy Penguin

    Knight

  • Members
  • 729 posts

Posted 06 April 2007 - 01:18 PM

The Master Sword in TWW serves as a seal on Hyrule


When was this mentioned?

#35 LionHarted

LionHarted

    Quirky.

  • Members
  • 2,029 posts

Posted 06 April 2007 - 01:23 PM

When was this mentioned?

It's subtle.

By the way, boy... When you drew that
sword of yours out of its pedestal...

Did you by chance notice how all of the
monsters frozen in time down there
suddenly began stirring again?


Do you understand precisely what that
means? ...I highly doubt you do.

Foolish child. While that sword is indeed
the blade of evil's bane, at the same time,
it has long played another role...

You see, it is also a sort of key...
a most wretched little key that has kept
the seal on me and my magic intact!

By withdrawing the blade, you have
broken that seal...

The Master Sword, while in the pedestal, did the following:

1) Sealed Hyrule, freezing everything there in time
2) Sealed Ganondorf's magicks

You removed it from the pedestal, and both of these effects disappeared.

Edited by LionHarted, 06 April 2007 - 01:23 PM.


#36 Crazy Penguin

Crazy Penguin

    Knight

  • Members
  • 729 posts

Posted 06 April 2007 - 02:20 PM

Oh right, I thought you meant the big "bubble" around it which didn't crack until the king made his wish. I still think it stands to reason that the shrine was built shortly after Ocarina of Time though, since it depicts the six sages of that time.

#37 Vertiboy

Vertiboy

    Crusader

  • Members
  • 405 posts

Posted 06 April 2007 - 02:40 PM

This isn't a good analogy because there is no logic at all in re-ordering the Star Wars films. Each of them makes a clear and obvious progression into the next.


Maybe not to you, but this SW fan may think that there is a logical reason to rearrange the films. Who are you to say that someone doesn't have a logical reason for placing the prequels last? What may be a crappy reason to you may be a logical reason to them.

You see, to me, I think that the single timeline is crap if all of the current games are taken into consideration because TWW and TP were specifically made with the split timeline in mind, whether there are plotholes with the Master Sword or not. That is just my opinion, though, and I am not trying to push it on you as fact. (What I am trying to push as fact is that the split timeline is official, but I understand that many single-supporters acknowledge that as a fact.) I am not saying that you have no logical reason for thinking that the single timeline works better. I am just saying that while said logic may exist, I fail to see it.

The same applies to rearranging the SW films. Just because you see no logical reason for placing the originals first, that doesn't mean that someone else (even if it is just one person among the 6 billion in the world) doesn't see a logical reason for doing so. While said logic to rearranging the SW films may exist to someone else, you fail to see them.

It is really a matter of opinion. What is logic to one person may not be logical to another. I see no logic in believing that the single timeline would work better than the split. Why? We know for a fact that the writers don't scrutinize every detail or think these scenarios as thoroughly as we do. Still, I do not deny the fact that someone else could see the logic in it. You do not see the logic in placing the original SW movies before the prequels, but you should not deny the fact that someone else could see the logic in it.

Edited by Vertiboy, 06 April 2007 - 04:03 PM.


#38 BourgeoisJerry

BourgeoisJerry

    Apprentice

  • Members
  • 118 posts

Posted 06 April 2007 - 04:53 PM

Hmm, with this many posts between my last one and now I thought I'd have a lot to respond to, but there isn't a whole lot I disagree with that others aren't already arguing.

Isn't the implication that both the Master Sword and Link's body are brought to the Sacred Realm after he draws it the first time? Which means that if Link goes back after he first draws it, the Master Sword is already in the sacred realm and on it's way to the future, or if the timeline does split, the Adult Timeline.


It's only in the Sacred Realm because that's where Link is (well, we aren't technically told what happens with Link's body, but it doesn't really matter.) Now, we can either assume that Link first woke up in the Sacred Realm after Zelda sent him back, but we aren't shown that, or we can say that his body was returned to the Temple of Time the moment his spirit returned, or we can say it did the same thing his Bow and other possessions did in Majora's Mask. It doesn't really matter which one of these explanations we go with, all that really matters is that there are ways to explain the Master Sword being in the Temple of Time without inconsistencies.

#39 LionHarted

LionHarted

    Quirky.

  • Members
  • 2,029 posts

Posted 06 April 2007 - 04:59 PM

While he is intitled to his own opinion, the fact of the matter is that the movies were structured around that order.

The fact of the matter is that he is incorrect, whether he has a logical reason or not.
The films do happen in that order.

Edited by LionHarted, 06 April 2007 - 05:00 PM.


#40 Vertiboy

Vertiboy

    Crusader

  • Members
  • 405 posts

Posted 06 April 2007 - 05:06 PM

The fact of the matter is that he is incorrect, whether he has a logical reason or not.
The films do happen in that order.


I know, and the same applies to the split timeline. Aonuma has confirmed it multiple times. He even went into great detail, saying that after Link returned from the adult timeline, he talked to Zelda about Ganondorf, etc. The split timeline is a fact.

The fact of the matter is that the single timeline is incorrect, whether there is a logical reason for it or not.
The timeline is split.

Edited by Vertiboy, 06 April 2007 - 05:10 PM.


#41 LionHarted

LionHarted

    Quirky.

  • Members
  • 2,029 posts

Posted 06 April 2007 - 05:17 PM

Aonuma has confirmed it multiple times.

Meh. Twice that I know of, one of which we didn't have an actual quote for.

He even went into great detail, saying that after Link returned from the adult timeline, he talked to Zelda about Ganondorf, etc. The split timeline is a fact.

Actually, it is possible for a single timeline to still work, if this Aonuma statement is viewed as invalidating the previous that TWW is after the adult ending specifically. It would be speculative beyond belief, but without reaffirming that TWW is indeed after the adult events in that interview, one could interpret "parallel" as "occurring alongside". Most single-timeliners who still practice take that approach.

However, if we treat developer statements that way, then only a very few previously-established facts ever carry over into future titles, so I would agree that such theories should not be looked into.

Edited by LionHarted, 06 April 2007 - 05:18 PM.


#42 Crazy Penguin

Crazy Penguin

    Knight

  • Members
  • 729 posts

Posted 06 April 2007 - 05:36 PM

Actually, it is possible for a single timeline to still work, if this Aonuma statement is viewed as invalidating the previous that TWW is after the adult ending specifically.


How can it be viewed that way?

It would be speculative beyond belief, but without reaffirming that TWW is indeed after the adult events in that interview, one could interpret "parallel" as "occurring alongside".


That would mean Twilight Princess and The Wind Waker both took place at the same time. I hope I don't have to point out how absurd such an idea is with a single timeline.

The interview was very specific and clear cut. Trying to "interpret" it in a different way is the equivelent of putting one's fingers into one's ears and chanting "LA LA LA LA LA I'M NOT LISTENING!"

#43 LionHarted

LionHarted

    Quirky.

  • Members
  • 2,029 posts

Posted 06 April 2007 - 05:54 PM

How can it be viewed that way?
That would mean Twilight Princess and The Wind Waker both took place at the same time. I hope I don't have to point out how absurd such an idea is with a single timeline.

1) Single-timeliners can now claim that Adult OoT doesn't carry into other games. Without specific errors in "fact" (that is, things we can prove).
2) No. That would mean that Twilight Princess is TWW's parallel. The events that close TP would end, and a string of events that lead into TWW would begin. The ending of TP would then be "parallel" to TWW.

Of course, if you take both interviews into account, then it's obviously that "parallel" means "after the other ending."

Single-timeliners don't care about what was said before if what was said now can be interpreted as invalidating it.

#44 Crazy Penguin

Crazy Penguin

    Knight

  • Members
  • 729 posts

Posted 06 April 2007 - 06:05 PM

2) No. That would mean that Twilight Princess is TWW's parallel. The events that close TP would end, and a string of events that lead into TWW would begin. The ending of TP would then be "parallel" to TWW.

Of course, if you take both interviews into account, then it's obviously that "parallel" means "after the other ending."


http://dictionary.re...?r=2&q=parallel

#45 Vertiboy

Vertiboy

    Crusader

  • Members
  • 405 posts

Posted 06 April 2007 - 06:06 PM

Actually, it is possible for a single timeline to still work, if this Aonuma statement is viewed as invalidating the previous that TWW is after the adult ending specifically.


It is also possible for the original SW to come before the prequels if you view any statements by Lucas and others as invalid.

Also, he has confirmed it more than twice. He made similar comments about TWW back in 2002 and/or 2003. Aonuma is the director of the games. If he does not know the timeline order of the games, then the timeline is screwed. However, Aonuma has expressed interest in games' stories.

In the '03 interview, he said TWW was hundreds of years after the adult OoT ending. In the '06 interview, he said, and I quote...

The Wind Waker is parallel. In Ocarina of Time, Link flew seven years in time, he beat Ganon and went back to being a kid, remember? Twilight Princess takes place in the world of Ocarina of Time, a hundred and something years after the peace returned to kid Link’s time.


I understand that there are two interpretations of the unquoted part ("parellel"), but here is what I don't understand. You are automatically adopting the interpretation of the "parellel" statement that is inconsistent with the previous statement. Do you do that any other time? What I just said is kind of confusing (I tried to word it to the best of my abilities), so let me reiterate.

Let's play a game. I will describe a kickball that I am picturing in my head, and we will see what you picture in your head. The kickball is large. In your head, you are probably picturing a large kickball that is maybe 2-3 times bigger than an average one. Now let me make another statement about the kickball. The kickball is not tiny. Did the image of the kickball change? Unless you have a different thought process than other humans, then no, it did not. The latter statement only worked to reinforce the first one. They were complementary statements. They do not contradict one another. If your thought process always follows the same logic that you do when you say the two Aonuma quotes contradict one another, then maybe the kickball changed in your head. I said that the kickball was not tiny. The image in your head could have changed from a large kickball to an average sized kickball. After all, an average sized kickball is not tiny. The goal of this game wasn't to successfully picture the same image as I did. The goal of the game was to show you that, most of the time, if two statements can complement one another, a person's mind will interpret them that way.

The latest Aonuma statement about TWW being parellel can be interpreted the way that you said, in which it contradicts the previous statement. However, this is against most humans' thought process. If two statements can complement one another, most people will adopt the interpretation that allows them to do so. In other words, I am saying that the only reason to say that the two statements contradict one another is to follow a thought process that is contrary to that of most humans.

I cannot speak for everyone, but here is my interpretation of how this mess of the quotes contradicting one another started in the first place. Someone out there subconsciously (that is important) thought, "Oh, no! The new Aonuma quote proves the split timeline! This can't be right! I am in denial because what I have believed to be true for a long time has been proven false. As a defense mechanism, I will scrutinize every little detail of Ocarina of Time, The Wind Waker, Twilight Princess, and the Aonuma quote to find a way to secure and justify my beliefs in my own mind. What is this? It seems as if I can interpret this 'parellel' quote in a way which would make it inconsistent with the earlier Aonuma quote. Also, the director and developer quotes have been wrong in the past. Aonuma said that The Wind Waker was going to be the first Zelda story, and it wasn't. I can use this to my advantage and say that I distrust all Aonuma statements since he has been wrong in the past. Yes, this is a great defense mechanism, and I will utilize it." In other words, people are fooling themselves into thinking that the single timeline could still be official in order to avoid being hurt. You may think that's BS, but this is the kind of basic information that anyone can learn by merely taking high school level psychology. Defense mechanisms are pretty easy to recognize.

Edited by Vertiboy, 06 April 2007 - 06:08 PM.


#46 LionHarted

LionHarted

    Quirky.

  • Members
  • 2,029 posts

Posted 06 April 2007 - 06:41 PM

http://dictionary.re...?r=2&q=parallel

having the same direction, course, nature, or tendency

In the '03 interview, he said TWW was hundreds of years after the adult OoT ending.

In an '03 interview, he said TP came between OoT and TWW.

Edited by LionHarted, 06 April 2007 - 06:42 PM.


#47 Fyxe

Fyxe

    hwhere is fyxckz adn her big boobs/>?

  • Members
  • 7,132 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 06 April 2007 - 06:59 PM

having the same direction, course, nature, or tendency

You took those words out of context from the whole description.

Also, the fact that they have the same direction means they must be seperate, else mentioning the fact that they are parallel would be meaningless.

#48 Vertiboy

Vertiboy

    Crusader

  • Members
  • 405 posts

Posted 06 April 2007 - 07:18 PM

In an '03 interview, he said TP came between OoT and TWW.

If he did, then you should have no trouble finding a quote to prove it... :)

Edited by Vertiboy, 06 April 2007 - 07:20 PM.


#49 FDL

FDL

    Famicom

  • Members
  • 1,634 posts
  • Location:Right behind you!
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 April 2007 - 07:23 PM

I just figured I'd address some stuff I saw...

Small point, but this isn't the case. Ganon escapes from the Dark World before the flood. Those windows could have been made after his escape and before the flood.


That's actually a good point. I think that may be true, because in the stain glass I think it shows water above Ganon.

How does that prove anything? The Link of TP would have had no idea where the Temple of Time really was. I mean, sure you can argue that the Temple was somehow moved, but why? I suppose the Sacred Grove is a more secure location, but since Link took the Ocarina to Termina, there was no way past the Door of Time.


Just a question, why would even think it's not the Temple of Time? It's obviously just a retcon.

Oh yeah, I'd just like to make everyone's aware that the MS seal in TWW probably has nothing to do with OoT.

#50 Vertiboy

Vertiboy

    Crusader

  • Members
  • 405 posts

Posted 06 April 2007 - 09:13 PM

I think that the Temple of Time in the Lost Woods isn't necissarily a retcon, but loose continuity. It was convenient storywise for the ToT to be the Woods, so they put it there. If they needed it in the Gerudo Desert, then they would put it there. It's kind of how Lake Hylia, the Lost Woods, etc. don't have one fixed location. They move all around Hyrule because Hyrule's geography has a loose continuity.

Edited by Vertiboy, 06 April 2007 - 09:17 PM.


#51 The Missing Link

The Missing Link

    Monk

  • Members
  • 396 posts

Posted 07 April 2007 - 12:44 AM

Well, there's no proof that it's not. The portal Link goes through could just as easily have led him to the same place the Temple was in Ocarina. But the Master Sword is nowhere near the Temple of Time in Twlight Princess.

Let's see:

In the Lost Woods in TP. Not in the Lost Woods in OoT.
In TP, Death Mountain is roughly the same distance from Hyrule Castle (and in the same direction) as it is in OoT.
In TP, Kakariko Village is roughly the same distance from Hyrule Castle (and in the same direction) as it is in OoT.
In TP, there seems to be an abandoned Kakariko Village, but there ISN'T an abandoned Castle Town.

Proof? No. Strong evidence to suggest? Yes.

This is to say that it even matters. It could have just as easily been an artistic choice or--most likely--Aonuma and friends wanting to make the plot crop up in the form of a cameo.

Yes, the more we analyze this, the less sense it makes.

That's precisely my point.

Huh? You're making this more complicated than it is. I'm not entirely sure what it is you're even asking.

*sigh* Even after making clever diagrams, people still don't understand what I'm trying to say. Even worse, no one is still explaining the one thing I want explained.

Okay... so let me guide YOU through this moment by moment since your timeline didn't answer the question. I'm going to follow your logic as best as I can understand and point you to where I lose you.

From Link's perspective:

Time 0: Link opens the Door of Time.
Time A: Link enters the Temple of Time and draws the Master Sword.
Time 7yrs + A: Link wakes up in the future.
(Revisits not discussed here for simplicity's sake.)
Time 7yrs + B: Link defeats Ganondorf and Zelda sends Link back but not the Master Sword.
Time X: Link appears by the Master Sword in the Temple of Time.

In this case, B > A. I'm not going to put a stipulation on X... yet, with the exception that X is much less than 7 years.

Now there are three cases for where Time X--when Link comes back from the future--could be.

CASE I: X > A.

From the perspective of the normal flow of time:

Time 0: Link opens the Door of Time.
Time A: Link enters the Temple of Time and draws the Master Sword. The Master Sword should now be in the Sacred Realm with Link.
Time X: Link appears by the Master Sword in the Temple of Time. Contradiction since the sword isn't there???

CASE II: X < 0.

From the perspective of the normal flow of time:

Time X: Link returns from the future to where the Master Sword is in the Temple of Time.
Time X + 1: Link goes out to meet Zelda via the Door of Time. Contradiction since the Door of Time isn't open???

CASE III: 0 < X < A.

Time 0: Link opens the Door of Time.
Time X: Link's spirit returns from the future and reinhabits his body, appearing right next to the Master Sword, which isn't drawn.
Time X + 1: Link closes the Door of Time, thus preventing the Triforce from being stolen. Contradiction since he has the Triforce of Courage in the last scene???

~~~

I want to know two things.

(1) Which of these cases are you arguing?
(2) Why is the potential contradiction I called out not valid?

Any rationale is fine. I'll believe anything reasonable. However, I just want it explained so that I can get behind a good idea that I cannot see (should one exist).

#52 BourgeoisJerry

BourgeoisJerry

    Apprentice

  • Members
  • 118 posts

Posted 07 April 2007 - 02:00 AM

Oh, sorry, I must have forgotten about your post while I was reading all the rest, and I didn't go through them all to make sure I didn't forget to respond to anybody since that'd make the reading take even longer. Anyway, the one I'm arguing for is:

CASE I: X > A.

From the perspective of the normal flow of time:

Time 0: Link opens the Door of Time.
Time A: Link enters the Temple of Time and draws the Master Sword. The Master Sword should now be in the Sacred Realm with Link.
Time X: Link appears by the Master Sword in the Temple of Time. Contradiction since the sword isn't there???


The explanation for the contradiction is the same for the explanation for Link being in the Temple of Time rather than the Sacred Realm, since the Master Sword has been in his hands since Time A. There are a few explanations I can use, which I mentioned in my last post, but the main one is that Link's body (along with the Master Sword) was returned to the Temple of Time the moment his spirit arrived (Link is transported to and from the Sacred Realm all the time, so this trip couldn't be that hard.) We can also simply say Majora's Mask time travel laws apply here, which means that there will never be more than one Link and any objects that were in his possession at the point he was sent back from will find its way to him at the point in time he was sent to (meaning there would be no Master Sword in the Temple of Time back in Ocarina of Time, and no Hero's Bow in the chest in Woodfall Temple.)

#53 The Missing Link

The Missing Link

    Monk

  • Members
  • 396 posts

Posted 07 April 2007 - 04:27 AM

The explanation for the contradiction is the same for the explanation for Link being in the Temple of Time rather than the Sacred Realm, since the Master Sword has been in his hands since Time A. There are a few explanations I can use, which I mentioned in my last post, but the main one is that Link's body (along with the Master Sword) was returned to the Temple of Time the moment his spirit arrived (Link is transported to and from the Sacred Realm all the time, so this trip couldn't be that hard.)

Thank you. That is precisely what I wanted to hear. :)

We can also simply say Majora's Mask time travel laws apply here, which means that there will never be more than one Link and any objects that were in his possession at the point he was sent back from will find its way to him at the point in time he was sent to (meaning there would be no Master Sword in the Temple of Time back in Ocarina of Time, and no Hero's Bow in the chest in Woodfall Temple.)

Except Link wouldn't have the Ocarina of Time any more since he gave it to the future Zelda. ;)

I think I'm going to bow out of this one for the preservation of sanity. I think I'm reasonably convinced that one of the following are true:

(1) There is no explanation for things that is not contradictory, or
(2) There is no explanation that is not contradictory that isn't also horribly convoluted.

#54 Fyxe

Fyxe

    hwhere is fyxckz adn her big boobs/>?

  • Members
  • 7,132 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 07 April 2007 - 05:08 AM

TML, please stop using algebra. Dear god please stop. My brain switches off every time I see it. Nothing in Zelda is complex enough that algebra is needed to make things simpler. You're just making things more confusing.

#55 The Missing Link

The Missing Link

    Monk

  • Members
  • 396 posts

Posted 07 April 2007 - 12:08 PM

TML, please stop using algebra. Dear god please stop. My brain switches off every time I see it. Nothing in Zelda is complex enough that algebra is needed to make things simpler. You're just making things more confusing.

For you. However, I cannot argue with results; I got precisely what I wanted the moment I used it. ;)

But for your sake, I'll use it only again only when I get through five pages of forum discussion and still can't seem to get my one question answered. (You have to admit that I restrained my mathematician genes quite heavily before resorting to that. :P)

#56 BourgeoisJerry

BourgeoisJerry

    Apprentice

  • Members
  • 118 posts

Posted 07 April 2007 - 04:38 PM

Except Link wouldn't have the Ocarina of Time any more since he gave it to the future Zelda. ;)


That'd be why that isn't my main explanation. Seriously though, there is no inconsistency with the Master Sword being in the Temple of Time. If there's an inconsistency it's with Link being in the Temple of Time. The Master Sword was in his hands, so if we can explain him being in the Temple of Time the Master Sword is explained right along with that. Personally, I don't think it would be too difficult for Link's body to be returned to the Temple of Time, since that's exactly what happens seven years later (after a brief conversation with Rauru) and the Master Sword returned to the Temple of Time with him that time as well.

#57 Chaltab

Chaltab

    Bright Lord of the Sith

  • Members
  • 1,031 posts

Posted 07 April 2007 - 06:23 PM

It is also possible for the original SW to come before the prequels if you view any statements by Lucas and others as invalid.

Also, he has confirmed it more than twice. He made similar comments about TWW back in 2002 and/or 2003. Aonuma is the director of the games. If he does not know the timeline order of the games, then the timeline is screwed. However, Aonuma has expressed interest in games' stories.


*facepalm*

If George Lucas came out and said that Attack of the Clones took place after Return of the Jedi, would you accept it as fact? Obviously not. The reason your analogy fails is that there is nothing at all ambiguous about the canon facts of Star Wars. In TPM, Anakin is 10 years old. In AOTC, it's been ten years since he saw Padme last. He's 20-something. The clone wars begin. Three years later, Anakin becomes Darth Vader. The original trilogy happens. There is a clear, logical progression from one movie to the next. Anyone who says that the order of the movies is different than the order of the episodes is an idiot.

Zelda fans don't have that luxury. There is clear progression from one game to the next in some cases. In others, games seem to contradict each other on major issues. Your analogy fails because you're compairing apples and mental patients.

Let's play a game. I will describe a kickball that I am picturing in my head, and we will see what you picture in your head. The kickball is large. In your head, you are probably picturing a large kickball that is maybe 2-3 times bigger than an average one. Now let me make another statement about the kickball. The kickball is not tiny. Did the image of the kickball change? Unless you have a different thought process than other humans, then no, it did not. The latter statement only worked to reinforce the first one. They were complementary statements. They do not contradict one another. If your thought process always follows the same logic that you do when you say the two Aonuma quotes contradict one another, then maybe the kickball changed in your head. I said that the kickball was not tiny. The image in your head could have changed from a large kickball to an average sized kickball. After all, an average sized kickball is not tiny. The goal of this game wasn't to successfully picture the same image as I did. The goal of the game was to show you that, most of the time, if two statements can complement one another, a person's mind will interpret them that way.

If I was, for whatever reason, basing a single timeline on Aonuma's statements, that analogy might make sense and I would be crazy.

But my timeline has nothing to do with Aonuma's interviews; It has everything to do with the path Master Sword, the age people remember the Hero of Time as, the references to Majora's Mask in The Wind Waker, and my opinion that splitting the timeline is essentially a cop-out to let Aonuma keep tying as many games to OOT as possible. I'm not expecting Aonuma to suddenly follow my timeline.

This can't be right! I am in denial because what I have believed to be true for a long time has been proven false. As a defense mechanism, I will scrutinize every little detail of Ocarina of Time, The Wind Waker, Twilight Princess, and the Aonuma quote to find a way to secure and justify my beliefs in my own mind. What is this? It seems as if I can interpret this 'parellel' quote in a way which would make it inconsistent with the earlier Aonuma quote. Also, the director and developer quotes have been wrong in the past. Aonuma said that The Wind Waker was going to be the first Zelda story, and it wasn't. I can use this to my advantage and say that I distrust all Aonuma statements since he has been wrong in the past. Yes, this is a great defense mechanism, and I will utilize it."


So you're saying you think that single-timeliners base their self-worth on a Zelda timeline.

No comment neccessary here.

In other words, people are fooling themselves into thinking that the single timeline could still be official in order to avoid being hurt. You may think that's BS, but this is the kind of basic information that anyone can learn by merely taking high school level psychology. Defense mechanisms are pretty easy to recognize.


*sigh* I don't care what is "official"--Aonuma can program whatever he wants to program into a game. Official or not, the timeline as Aonuma described it is flawed.

Not to mention you're basically saying that people who still argue for a split timeline are weak-minded fools trying to prevent emotional trauma. That's insulting to say the least.

#58 Vertiboy

Vertiboy

    Crusader

  • Members
  • 405 posts

Posted 07 April 2007 - 08:14 PM

*sigh* I don't care what is "official"--Aonuma can program whatever he wants to program into a game. Official or not, the timeline as Aonuma described it is flawed.

Not to mention you're basically saying that people who still argue for a split timeline are weak-minded fools trying to prevent emotional trauma. That's insulting to say the least.


I know that you accept the fact that the split timeline is official, and whether or not you think that it is the best explaination is your opinion. I am just trying to prove that no matter what you think would work best, TWW and TP were structured around the split timeline, as were the prequels structured to be before the originals.

Yes, granted, the SW film timeline isn't as complicated, and there are no where near as many inconsistencies in the SW film universe (though it isn't flawless, either). The point is that certain installments of the series in question (TWW and TP; Ep. I, II, III) were structured around a certain order, and after a certain point, people will fail to see the logic in placing these installments in another order other than that intended.

The defense mechanism doesn't apply to everyone defending the single timeline. It is just the people who can't accept the fact that TWW and TP work better with split according to the creators' logic. You can believe that the single is a better explaination all you want. They were structured around the split timeline, just as Ep. I, II, and III were structured to be prequels, so not many people fail to see the logic in saying an idea other than that intended is best. If you are saying that before TWW came out, the single timeline would have been the better explaination, then there is a little more drive behind that since no games that were made around the split timeline were out then.

If George Lucas came out and said that Attack of the Clones took place after Return of the Jedi, would you accept it as fact?


It depends on why he is saying that. Is he saying it because he truly has changed his mind, or is he just saying it because he is just trying to make SW fans mad? Is he saying it for a completely different reason? Anyway, if Lucas truly changes his mind and wants AotC to come afte RotJ, then yes, I would accept it as fact. Even if he never makes any movie(s) bridging the gap between Ep. VI and I, if the creator wants to change his intent, then so be it.

#59 LionHarted

LionHarted

    Quirky.

  • Members
  • 2,029 posts

Posted 09 April 2007 - 10:29 AM

If he did, then you should have no trouble finding a quote to prove it... :)

Did I say '03?
I meant '05.

But that's beside the point.
The split timeline was not confirmed in '03. In fact, the only thing that was confirmed in '03 was that Adult Link did indeed defeat Ganon, and that that was not erased by the child ending of OoT. That the two endings were "parallel" was not confirmed until December of '06.


You took those words out of context from the whole description.

This isn't my interpretation, which you'd know if you read my earlier posts, I imagine. This is the interpretation of stubborn people who won't let go of their single timelines.

So I'd appreciate it if you'd stop attributing it to me.

That's actually a good point. I think that may be true, because in the stain glass I think it shows water above Ganon.

Could be sky.

Time X: Link appears by the Master Sword in the Temple of Time. Contradiction since the sword isn't there???

Your description of Time X here could just as easily describe any of his other trips to the past.

#60 The Missing Link

The Missing Link

    Monk

  • Members
  • 396 posts

Posted 09 April 2007 - 11:32 AM

I'm going to post once more just to handle the new case, and then I'm really hitting the road again.

Your description of Time X here could just as easily describe any of his other trips to the past.

Which means that Ganondorf totally has the Triforce of Power and Zelda so shouldn't be in the castle because, you know, her life is at stake here.




Copyright © 2021 Your Company Name