[TV] The Mandalorian (*Spoilers*)

[Triceron]

Yes, and I am arguing that if their fan theory/explanation is true, than X logically follows. And if you accept something as true, you cannot then choose something later that would then call into question your fan explanation. So, if you feel that the World between Worlds operates on closed loops ... you then not say there is an open possibility, these two are logically inconsistent.

Yet that is the problem, you argued X follows without considering that it is only logical to you and not following true logic of the canonized plot or accepting an 'inconsistency' as logically viable.

You argued headcanon with headcanon. Two wrongs don't make a right, and by extrapolating how time works you assume a closed timeline can not be open or altered. Unless you know that is canon, there is no point using it to support an argument. How time flows is simply unknown, therefore you can't actually argue its logical consistency. You are applying real world standards to fiction. You are actually assuming the unknown to formulate an argument, and the truth is you shouldn't be assuming at all.

Like I said with the Beskar spear, whether the Darksaber cuts it or not is the will of the Creators. Any internal logic does not apply considering Beskar is already logically inconsistent to the cobtinuum in itself by its use in the Mandalorian. The inconsistencies are all based on unknown factors which make any explanation viable. Dark saber cuts Beskar spear, doesn't cut Beskar spear, neither needs to be explained by fans because there are unknown factors at play. Trying to fit logic that Darksaber shouldn't cut Beskar is assumption at best, even if we see it happen in another show. We are talking about unknown factors, no need to explain the possibilities. The show creators can explain that the Beskar spear was intentionally forged to break against Darksabers, or Gideon has force/secret empire science powers and used it to enhance the Darksaber cutting power. The show has infinite ways to explain it away, and its not up to the fans to fill in those gaps with 'logic'.

[Darththeo]

Yet that is the problem, you argued X follows without considering that it is only logical to you and not following true logic of the canonized plot or accepting and 'inconsistency' as logically viable.

You argued headcanon with headcanon. Two wrongs don't make a right, and by extrapolating how time works you assume a closed timeline can not be open or altered. Unless you know that is canon, there is no point using it to support an argument. How time flows is simply unknown, therefore you can't actually argue its logical consistency. You are applying real world standards to fiction.

I argued if you are going to have headcanon, your headcanon needs to be consistent with itself.
You must follow the logic you set up, you cannot apply headcanon A to how something works in one case and apply headcanon B to how it works in another.

If you accept that Ashoka never dies than what follows is Ezra cannot choose to save Kanan ... you cannot justify one without contradicting the other. And the argument the author can come in and says something is is a nonargument because the author hasn't done anything more than present us the situation.

- - - Updated - - -

So, if you say "Ashoka never dies, closed loops." How now do you justify Ezra actually choosing not to save Kanan, there is no loop he saved Kanan in. Now if you permit loops to be formed, than at it logically followed that there was at some point where the loop did not exist ... meaning Ashoka must have died before the loop was first made.

If you allow alterations to the timeline, the event that is being altered must have happened at some point in some time.
If you do not allow alterations to the timeline, the event never happened in the first place and the timeline cannot change.

Either you have alterations or you have Ashoka living always ... you can't have both.

[Triceron]

I argued if you are going to have headcanon, your headcanon needs to be consistent with itself.

Then you are arguing against yourself, since consistency is only what you deem it to be and just as subjective as the headcanon itself.

If I said closed loops can be changed without making alternate timelines, your head would explode but mine wouldn't. Yours would because you are trying to logically explain it, mine wouldn't because I'd be regarding this as fiction doing what it needs to serve the story. Consistency is what you regard it as. Fiction is fiction. It isn't real, therefore the truth is consistency doesn't actually exist. Trying to make sense of timelines is beyond the scope of the story being told. It should be left regarded as ambiguous.

There are infinite ways to canonically address plot holes and inconsistency, the most convenient being never to explain it at all and let the fans interpret what they choose to.

[Sorensen]

I argued if you are going to have headcanon, your headcanon needs to be consistent with itself.
You must follow the logic you set up, you cannot apply headcanon A to how something works in one case and apply headcanon B to how it works in another.

If you accept that Ashoka never dies than what follows is Ezra cannot choose to save Kanan ... you cannot justify one without contradicting the other. And the argument the author can come in and says something is is a nonargument because the author hasn't done anything more than present us the situation.

- - - Updated - - -

So, if you say "Ashoka never dies, closed loops." How now do you justify Ezra actually choosing not to save Kanan, there is no loop he saved Kanan in. Now if you permit loops to be formed, than at it logically followed that there was at some point where the loop did not exist ... meaning Ashoka must have died before the loop was first made.

If you allow alterations to the timeline, the event that is being altered must have happened at some point in some time.
If you do not allow alterations to the timeline, the event never happened in the first place and the timeline cannot change.

Either you have alterations or you have Ashoka living always ... you can't have both.

Cus saving kannan would not create a closed loop as he was holding back the fire to save friends saving kannan would kill Ezra fucking up time.

[Darththeo]

Then you are arguing against yourself, since consistency is only what you deem it to be and just as subjective as the headcanon itself.

If I said closed loops can be changed without making alternate timelines, your head would explode but mine wouldn't. Yours would because you are trying to logically explain it, mine wouldn't because I'd be regarding this as fiction doing what it needs to serve the story. Consistency is what you regard it as. Fiction is fiction. It isn't real, therefore the truth is consistency doesn't actually exist.

You literally discounted none of my argument.

My argument isn't "Closed loops don't allow changes."
My argument is you can't have fixed closed loops and allow changes.

Either you ALLOW changes or you DO NOT. You can't have no changes at point A but allow changes at point B without creating additional inconsistency with the established media.

[Ihavewaffles]

Yes, she later had a claim to the Darksaber via combat ... I was talking about when she originally took it. It doesn't matter she later has what someone sees as a more legitimate claim when we are talking about how the Darksaber HAS been claimed.

And Maul (the current character confirmed to own the Dark Saber the longest) matters to how the Darksaber is claimed.

Maybe you should negotiate Messi's football contract! At one point he couldn't even walk, weak toddler! Guy obviously hasn't earned his football status when one factors in how he began!...Someone cut his salary now!!

[Northern Goblin]

Sidestepping the Darksabre laws of inheritence and ownership for a moment, what an absolute beauty of an episode.

This season has reminded me how I felt as a kid when I first saw Star Wars, it evokes the same emotions that the sequel trilogy simply couldn't.

Also majorly excited over the show announcement drop in the post credits. I don't think it's season 3 of the Mandalorian, more its own show, the fact they both run concurrent in December is pure coincidence. The D+ schedule is about to get stacked with both MCU and SW shows, there's going to be overlap somewhere.

Filioni and Favreau absolutely nailed it with this, and have renewed my faith in Disney's plan for Star Wars. Before now I'd enjoyed Rogue One, Solo was fine for what it was, and I have zero interest in ever watching the sequel trilogy again, had this show flopped I would have walked away and been content with all the old media that exists.

Now? Now I can't wait to consume every last bit of what they have planned.

[Darththeo]

Cus saving kannan would not create a closed loop as he was holding back the fire to save friends saving kannan would kill Ezra fucking up time.

Which doesn't remove the problem from the lack of choice from the scenario.
If it cannot be done, it doesn't matter why it cannot be done.

And if it creates closed loop, than logically it follows before the loop was created Ashoka had died.

This is the problem with time travel. Any time you attempt to get both things, you hit a logical inconsistency.

- - - Updated - - -

Maybe you should negotiate Messi's football contract! At one point he couldn't even walk, weak toddler! Guy obviously hasn't earned his football status when one factors in how he began!...Someone cut his salary now!!

So you are saying if we are talking about Messi's history of being a football/soccer player ... we shouldn't talk about any time before he was playing professionally?

[Triceron]

You literally discounted none of my argument.

My argument isn't "Closed loops don't allow changes."
My argument is you can't have fixed closed loops and allow changes.

Either you ALLOW changes or you DO NOT. You can't have no changes at point A but allow changes at point B without creating additional inconsistency with the established media.

Except you are wrong.

This is fiction. It can be exactly what you just explained. All other inconsistency with established media is simply unexplained and ambiguous. You personally deem it inconsistent because it lacks logical sense to you, because you believe it is not explainable. That's the problem with assuming any hard point and applying it to the rest of established canon.

What you are dealing with is unknown factors, so there is no reason to apply it to the rest of the established media if it has not been canonically explained. Again, we are dealing with a fictional universe where literally anything can happen, no need to assume logic has to apply consistently throughout.

By all means there could be a future event that explains how timelines can be altered without causing ripples. Or it could be left unexplained at all. Either way it needs no internal consistency to continue the universe; it is literally fiction and any of it can be rendered canon or non-canon (retconned or phased out) by the Creators.

[jimboa24]

QUESTION:

So...if Luke took Grogu away to be trained...

...does that mean Grogu is dead?? Because Ben Solo killed all of Luke's students...and Grogu obviously ages very, very slowly, so he probably would have still been in training when Luke took in Ben Solo.

[Darththeo]

Except you are wrong.

This is fiction. It can be exactly what you just explained. All other inconsistency with established media is simply unexplained amd ambiguous. You personally deem it inconsistent because it lacks logical sense to you, because you believe it is not explainable. That's the problem with assuming any hard point and applying it to the rest of established canon.

What you are dealing with is unknown factors, so there is no reason to apply it to the rest of the established media if it has not been canonically explained.

Except I am not because you declare it so. You have YET to actually address my argument.

It is inconsistent because it is inconsistent... THIS IS NOT AN OPINION. This is an objective measure. I am judging the explanation against itself and showing how that relates to canon and what it means.

The fact that in theory the author can come down and confirm the inconsistency as canon ... does not remove the inconsistency it creates. Or because they can retcon it, would still not remove the inconsistency with the explanation the fan came up with.

What you are saying is literally akin to saying "The wall is not red... because it could be painted black at some point." If you are fine with your explanation being inconsistent that is another matter all together, it doesn't remove it from being inconsistent.

- - - Updated - - -

It’s hilarious to see someone argue they’re right and everyone else, including the people who write the stories, don’t know what they’re talking about.

Yeah, it is watching you do that who thinks "Maul's home" I was literally referring to him living out of a cave.

You were talking about yourself.

[Triceron]

QUESTION:

So...if Luke took Grogu away to be trained...

...does that mean Grogu is dead?? Because Ben Solo killed all of Luke's students...and Grogu obviously ages very, very slowly, so he probably would have still been in training when Luke took in Ben Solo.

Grogu is Vaders age. If anything, Grogu should be teaching Luke.

[cuafpr]

QUESTION:

So...if Luke took Grogu away to be trained...

...does that mean Grogu is dead?? Because Ben Solo killed all of Luke's students...and Grogu obviously ages very, very slowly, so he probably would have still been in training when Luke took in Ben Solo.

probably to be seen, he could have gone back to the Mando before those events, or be somewhere else. Will be interesting to see how the show does without him on there everyweek.

[Triceron]

Except I am not because you declare it so. You have YET to actually address my argument.

It is inconsistent because it is inconsistent... THIS IS NOT AN OPINION. This is an objective measure. I am judging the explanation against itself and showing how that relates to canon and what it means.

The fact that in theory the author can come down and confirm the inconsistency as canon ... does not remove the inconsistency it creates. Or because they can retcon it, would still not remove the inconsistency with the explanation the fan came up with.

What you are saying is literally akin to saying "The wall is not red... because it could be painted black at some point."

If it is someones opinion that the Wall is not red because it could ve painted black, then that is their opinion to make. It is not addressed by saying 'But the rest of the house is red so it should be red'. You aren't changing anyones opinion by pointing out anything you consider illogical or inconsistent. You haven't accepted it as opinion.

It is addressed when you finally come to accept it as someones opinion and move on.

And to be comparable, this wall is not red or black, it doesn't even exist. It is a fictional wall that can be any color the creator chooses, left to be interpreted any way pleased.

[Darththeo]

probably to be seen, he could have gone back to the Mando before those events, or be somewhere else. Will be interesting to see how the show does without him on there everyweek.

Well, he did somehow survive one Temple massacre ... I don't see it is impossible for him to survive another.

- - - Updated - - -

If it is someones opinion that the Wall is not red because it could ve painted black, then that is their opinion to make. It is not addressed by saying 'But it could also be painted Red, so it shouldn't be black!'

It is addressed when you finally come to accept it as someones opinion and move on.

No, you failed the analogy. In the analogy, color represents whether or not the idea is consistent with itself. It either is consistent or it is not. Red means inconsistent in the analogy.

It is saying the wall is not red because it could be painted black in the future - You
Vs the wall is red because it is currently red - Me

Just because the inconsistency in your explanation could be explained later, doesn't remove the inconsistency in the present. You cannot declare something not inconsistent because at some imaginary point it won't be.

Nor does painting the wall black today remove the fact it was red in the past. The inconsistency was there until it was explained and until it is explained it is inconsistent.

[Darththeo]

He hadn’t retreated from Dathomir when the saber was claimed, just the cave. Maybe you should do what I suggested and revisit everything since you clearly don’t remember it all that well and have imposed your own head canon over reality.

Except he was literally in the process of leaving Dathomir for the planet with Twin Suns and trying to get Ezra to come with him.

Seriously, telling me to revisit when you are been wrong is hilarious.

[Orange Joe]

No, canon actually doesn't say she never or didn't died. Canon says she was saved from death by time travel. What exactly that means is up to interpretation. Does it mean she never died or does it mean she died and then that death was later altered ... both fit canon and one isn't a more canon explanation.

These are two different statements with two very different meanings. It is YOUR interpretation of canon that saving via time travel means the event never happened at all ... that's still head canon.

If she was saved from death she didn't die. Otherwise she would have been resurrected from death.

- - - Updated - - -

Which doesn't remove the problem from the lack of choice from the scenario.

There was a choice. He choose. Just because you don't want to admit it doesn't mean he didn't.

[Darththeo]

I literally just watched it and she had it before he left the planet. You’ve yet to have anything beyond head canon to argue your side. Remind me again how you think Ahsoka literally died at one point in the current canon.

Where does that actually disagree with anything I said? Please prove it, I'll wait.

- - - Updated - - -

Time travel is too confusing for people who think head canon is permanent.

No, it isn't. But given you think I have EVER argued headcanon is permenant proves you haven't read a damn thing.

I have literally never claimed that nor could you call it an implication. Once again you are wrong as you always are.

[Darththeo]

If she was saved from death she didn't die. Otherwise she would have been resurrected from death.

There was a choice. He choose. Just because you don't want to admit it doesn't mean he didn't.

Two words: Time travel.

If there was a choice, Ashoka at some point died.

That's it ... you cannot give Ezra a choice AND say Ashoka never died ... it is logically inconsistent with itself.

You would then need to add ADDITIONAL head canon to your head canon to explain it. So your head canon makes more assumptions on canon than mine does.

[Jotaux]

It’s also irrelevant she didn’t win the sabor from Maul because she wins it later in combat. And no Ashoka didn’t die in rebels. So much obsession over your own head canon.