Eframepilot wrote:
Your theory of parallel timelines may make more sense, but it also completely ignores the purpose of the timeship and has no backing outside of your speculation. (The parallel "timelines" in "Parallels" were not caused by time travel but by the Many Worlds theory of QM.) When it comes to time travel, nothing makes sense. It's part of suspension of disbelief that time travel works the way the characters say it does, not how our fanwank (or antifanwank) explains it.
That's convenient, isn't it? "It's part of suspension of disbelief that time travel works the way the characters say it does, not how our fanwank (or antifanwank) explains it." The timeship was built by a madman, not a stable person. In essence, what you're arguing is your usual nonsense about dialogue overriding visuals. Some things just stay the same, don't they?
Look at Back to the Future or Terminator. You could apply your theory of parallel timelines to those movies as well. In fact, it's required to explain the paradoxes.
...but gee, we're not debating those movies, we're - *gasp* - debating Star Wars and Star Trek. Imagine that!
But it completely eliminates the drama. Marty isn't fading out of existence, he's just being shunted to another timeline. The Skynet computer system is totally delusional and Ahnuld's missions (both of them) are pointless! We use suspension of disbelief to ignore the obvious paradoxes.
Drama is irrelevant. We are the VS debaters. Red herrings are futile.
Hell, if we really go with theories that make the most sense and selectively enforce suspension of disbelief, where do we stop? The Star Wars universe contains asteroid belts with giant potatoes and rebel fleets that use huge tennis shoes as gunboats, if you look close enough.
No, actually, they don't. We don't selectively use suspension of disbelief when we see a ship onscreen, because said ship doesn't violate any known principles of physics. There's no competing theory that explains the phenomena better than this. With the time travel example, however, there IS a competing theory, a better one: ours. Predictably, instead of coming up with a better theory, you try to poke holes in ours. Why am I not surprised?
Their "lasers", whatever they are, don't fall ballistically in a gravitational field, unlike all known or predicted matter or energy (since space itself is curved).
We never see a situation in the movies where that should happen, oh dishonest one. But don't let that stop you; it never has before.
Isn't it more logical that Star Wars is just some dream of an autistic boy staring into a snow globe?
I see you finally managed to describe your definition of logic. Thank you.
) and blasting Theed from orbit years before Palpatine is elected Supreme Chancellor, just declare time travel to be a cheap, stupid cop-out that is forbidden by the Temporal Prime Directive anyway and ignore it a la superbeing intervention.