...Please spell check.
And it said they feared its power and were worried someone would misuse it...if someone can misuse it, this heavily implies it's not alive. Otherwise, it would just do the job itself.
It's Zelda, the mask isn't symbolism for anything. It's just a villain.
Since the first time we met Zelda in Lanayru's Spring, he was built up as a follower, just like Cole. You are not presenting yourself well because you are merely giving statements without evidence. I have explained to you the change of role the Skull Kid had from villain to victim and how the mask's role changed it. You have yet to explain to me how Ganondorf destroyed Zants role. Even if you skipped every cutscene until the end and didn't realize Zant was obviously a follower, he's still a villain. Even IF Ganondorf had not be mentioned earlier, Zant would still be his own motivated villain. In the case of Majora's Mask though, it changed so the Skull Kid was NEVER a villain. Just an innocent prankster.
No. They just changed his motives. Sorta like SS changed the Master Sword origins.
No, I mean by comparison, Ganondorf was an established villain. He was a spiteful man who wanted dominion over the world and Hyrule to be destroyed. This was not only mentioned countless times in OoT, but also in tWW. Even the Gods knew he wanted to destroy Hyrule, which is why they didn't destroy it, otherwise they would just be giving him the satisfaction. He was seen destroying and trying to destroy the land multiple times in OoT and in the backstory of tWW. The reason this character failed in tWW is because it was bound to another established character and ended up contradicting itself.
The Skull Kid was his own fresh character, with a real motive shown in the game rather than a hastily told backstory in 30 seconds. He had the potential to be one of the best villains in the entire series with his tragic history and personal reasons to destroy the land. But then they completely ruin it by saying none of it is real and then give us the weakest villain in the series next to Bellum.
How dose one produce evidence of ones own Opinion? An opinion is not something that can be proven. You can try to convice some one that your opinion is right. This is a thread about Opinionsnot facts.
So what I made a simple mistake typeing on the Iphone so what. Dont try to tare people down for simple and easy mistakes to make.
Every story has symbolisim. In it that is what a story is is a seris of symbols. There is simple symbolisim(and common symbolisim) of good and evil, link and the Villain. Then theres the symbolisim ghat you have to find for yourself and interpret.
As for the frist part real part of your argument, there was so mutch more that they could have done with zants character. Ther was less build up to the revile that ganondorf was the real villain of TP it was not revealed untill the end of abtriers grounds. Zant went from being a villion to just a minion in one of the worst way's posible, appering to be the big bad for half the story to being a crazed whiney child.(i have not played sprit tracks past the frist temple it has the worst control scheme ive seen for a game IMO)
The mask was a constent pressence through out the game. You could feal the wide spread impact of the mask through out the game. From the poison in the swamp to the curse of Ikana.
His motives were unexplained in OoT. Unless if you provide the evidence to back it up that he had motives back then. Also what game shows that master swords origins?
Were dose it say that none of MM is real? I've seen no evidence to prove that it all is fake.