Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected] or [email protected]
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
You've way over analysed it. It'd be like pissing on Star Wars because the Force has no basis in science.
As someone who enjoys the magic systems of Brandon Sanderson, I do piss on Star Wars for not having a logical basis for The Force.
Actually it's not that bad. Harry Potter is much worse.
No, the problem is internal consistency, in Star Wars the force works the same way in all films. But imagine if on one movie someone was shown using the force to move objects, and on the next movie the same character was shown trying to reach for something important and failing and not using the force and when asked he replies "it's not possible to move objects with the force". That's the problem here, internal consistency, on one movie it's said it works one way, on the other it's said it works differently. I love both movies, I just think T2 shitted on one of the main things from T1.
Except the prequels establish force powers that we never see again and so do the sequels. Like force super speed in the phantom menace.
Just because you don't see them again doesn't mean they're impossible.
https://youtu.be/-QPJoRWz8Sc
You're right
And you know how they explained time travel not making sense in Doctor Who? They called it "wibbly wobbly, timey wimey stuff" and hand waved all that shit away.
And that's fine, but if one Dr. Who explained time travel in detail, showing things that would be impossible, the next doctor shouldn't violate those rules, it's about in-universe consistency.
I'll go ahead and guess that you haven't seen much doctor who :)
Dr who has av lot of qualities, consistency is not one of them (and it's OK)
You are correct, I haven't. But if the next Doctor said Time travel was impossible and spent the entire show not time traveling (because time travel is impossible) I bet that would raise some eyebrows.
No, the "Single Time Line" bit is a basic feature of T1, part of what makes it great, that T2 simply throws away.
I'm so glad I saw the films as a young kid then. To me it was just a cool horror film with a murder bot and the second was Arnie the robot hero!