Because Gilmore girls references Tony Soprano by name (not on a TV screen in the background) we could assume that he actually exists in the Gilmore world (not as a fictitious TV character, but as a real mobster who has some national fame or notoriety) this would render there no paradox. It would be like them saying “nice tracksuit, are you having lunch with John Gotti?
If you watch the Gilmore girls the pop culture references are legendary and copious. There were references to 80s and 90s rock stars, musicals. Stars Hollow did a rendition of ‘show boat’ where Kurt did willie in black face. The shows aired overlapping 2005-2007 One was likely revenge for the other😁
So sopranos is fictive level 1 because we're watching it. Gilmore girls is on fictive level 2 because the sopranos watch it. We're also able to watch any fictive level above us. So how can Lorelai reference Tony Soprano? Because those in the fictive levels are aware of their viewers one fictive level below them. In that moment she is referencing Tony Soprano, their regular viewer who always watches in track suits. Why don't they mention any other viewers or that fact that they have viewers? It just hasn't come up. Their viewers are very boring and not worth discussing. Except in this one case.
Doesn't them just existing in the same universe resolve this paradox though? Like if Jeopardy had a question about Wheel of Fortune and Wheel of fortune used Jeopardy as an answer, it's not a paradox. They're both in this universe and both televised.
@@ojaimarknot if they are watching them as tv shows. You exist in a world that has tv, but you don't exist in the same world as the world's of those tv shows. If in Gilmore Girls they watched your life because it's a tv it means your life isn't real it's a tv show.
@@demiser21 Right, but both Sopranos and Gilmore Girls being tv shows in their universe still resolves that. We just don't get to see their off screen lives. We only get to see the shows within a show. All of the other in universe people are aware of both shows the same as we are, so they also get the references. Hence including them in the shows. As a thought experiment, if you only ever saw the Itchy and Scratchy Show as it's own standalone show (say in youtube clips or something), you'd have no proof or reason to believe that it was actually a show within the Simpson's universe unless otherwise led to that information. Assuming both Gilmore Girls and Sopranos are similarly shows within a show universe, this wouldn't be a paradox. It would just be a limitation of what we get shown from inside the show universe. Seeing as the idea and definition of paradox are themselves not particularly rigid, one could argue that if any logical explanation can resolve a paradox, it's reasonable to assert that the paradox doesn't actually exist. Kind of like one counterexample disproves an absolute statement kind of thing. Basically I'm not saying it's 100% logically proved that both are shows within a show. I'm just saying if there's one logical explanation, there may be a million others. But it does indicate there isn't a paradox present.
Because Gilmore girls references Tony Soprano by name (not on a TV screen in the background) we could assume that he actually exists in the Gilmore world (not as a fictitious TV character, but as a real mobster who has some national fame or notoriety) this would render there no paradox. It would be like them saying “nice tracksuit, are you having lunch with John Gotti?
Right, I thought the same thing right away. No paradox
If you watch the Gilmore girls the pop culture references are legendary and copious. There were references to 80s and 90s rock stars, musicals. Stars Hollow did a rendition of ‘show boat’ where Kurt did willie in black face. The shows aired overlapping 2005-2007 One was likely revenge for the other😁
I believe both are Warner Bros. productions too…
So sopranos is fictive level 1 because we're watching it. Gilmore girls is on fictive level 2 because the sopranos watch it. We're also able to watch any fictive level above us.
So how can Lorelai reference Tony Soprano? Because those in the fictive levels are aware of their viewers one fictive level below them. In that moment she is referencing Tony Soprano, their regular viewer who always watches in track suits.
Why don't they mention any other viewers or that fact that they have viewers? It just hasn't come up. Their viewers are very boring and not worth discussing. Except in this one case.
Doesn't them just existing in the same universe resolve this paradox though? Like if Jeopardy had a question about Wheel of Fortune and Wheel of fortune used Jeopardy as an answer, it's not a paradox. They're both in this universe and both televised.
The difference is wheel of fortune and jeopardy do not take place in fictional universes
@@davechensky Sure but Sopranos and Gilmore Girls can exist in the same fictional universe.
@@ojaimarknot if they are watching them as tv shows. You exist in a world that has tv, but you don't exist in the same world as the world's of those tv shows. If in Gilmore Girls they watched your life because it's a tv it means your life isn't real it's a tv show.
@@demiser21 Right, but both Sopranos and Gilmore Girls being tv shows in their universe still resolves that. We just don't get to see their off screen lives. We only get to see the shows within a show. All of the other in universe people are aware of both shows the same as we are, so they also get the references. Hence including them in the shows.
As a thought experiment, if you only ever saw the Itchy and Scratchy Show as it's own standalone show (say in youtube clips or something), you'd have no proof or reason to believe that it was actually a show within the Simpson's universe unless otherwise led to that information. Assuming both Gilmore Girls and Sopranos are similarly shows within a show universe, this wouldn't be a paradox. It would just be a limitation of what we get shown from inside the show universe.
Seeing as the idea and definition of paradox are themselves not particularly rigid, one could argue that if any logical explanation can resolve a paradox, it's reasonable to assert that the paradox doesn't actually exist. Kind of like one counterexample disproves an absolute statement kind of thing. Basically I'm not saying it's 100% logically proved that both are shows within a show. I'm just saying if there's one logical explanation, there may be a million others. But it does indicate there isn't a paradox present.