AvPGalaxy Forums

Okay, over in the Prometheus TEDTalk thread I posted an (intended to be) tounge-in-cheek theory about Peter Weyland being Charles Bishop's son who saved/rebooted the company years after his father's death (the theory itself being a commentary on the recent course change for the A/V/P series, thus giving richer thematic depth to the whole thing - okay, actually I just thought that up now, but it still works.)

As everyone who's less naive than me and who knows anything about message boards probably would have guessed, my comment soon sparked yet another debate about how AVP sucked, how those movies should be erased/ignored because they're a disgrace, how Prometheus shouldn't count if it contradicts previous canon (!!!), how the AVP movies also contradicted previous canon, hey waitaminute weren't the AVP xenos genetically modified, no they weren't there wasn't any evidence of it, it was pretty obvious, (maybe not that last bit but yeah), this all sucks, blah blah blah. I wrote the below in response to the perceived silliness with no doubt foolish hopes of ending it and getting things back on topic, only to find that when I finished, the thread had, in fact, gotten back on topic. As such, I've posted the main part of what I wrote here, where it can have its own discussion.

A point has to be made about AVP: I was about 9 when I first learned a lot about Alien and Predator from my awesome babysitter, even though I wasn't old enough to see them; that October, AVP came out, and she told me about that one as well. In fact, six years later I caught the film on TV, and it sped up my efforts to see the classics for the first time, and indirectly inspired me to join this forum.

Thus, to me and to many other younger fans, AVP has nearly always been part of the canon. I suppose it's like the Star Wars prequels, which I also grew up with. Fans who grew up with the originals hate how they ruined the series, but we young ones just took them in stride.

It's ironic; I was a bit older by the time Episode III came out, but because I was scared of the film's supposed "violence" I learned the story from the tie-in media, and when I finally saw it in theaters I suppose I had less attachment to it. Maybe that's what helped me realize years later that Episode III sucks major balls, while I still find Episode I bad but not horrible, and I like and enjoy Episode II despite it's flaws.

Yet I must accept the fact that the kids being raised on The Clone Wars TV series will see all the cool prequel Jedi dying without a fight like the Aliens in AVPR, will see the logical gaps and flaws in the previous two films which might have been acceptable in those completely tear the series apart as the Jedi show themselves to be complete and total idiots and attempt to take Sideous down in private (thanks to RedLetterMedia for pointing that out) as well as fail to address Anakin's obvious massive psychological problems that anyone who hadn't seen the original trilogy would detect; will watch General Grievous, the fearsome warrior of the awesome cartoon series and spin-off media and the most built-up bad@$$$ ever get his butt handed to him by one Jedi like a complete pansy; will watch Vader's final transformation from a terrifying villain to a whiny, stupid, idiotic, selfish baby who acted more mature at nine years old and who slaughters children to save his wife and who completely, utterly destroys any sympathy, fear, liking, or respect we had for the character either as Anakin or Darth Vader...and will take it all in, and accept it as just part of the story, what happens in that universe.

And much as Plinkett and I and many others wish that that film could be erased, or how every Doctor Who fans of all eras wish that certain storylines of Doctor Who could be erased, it can't and won't happen. The film is done, it has made its mark on popular culture, for better or worse. And so has AVP; simply put, for the newest generation it's part of the story, the story that's been told since 1979, and even since 1938/39 and 1984 if one brings the DC heroes and Terminator into it. AVP has been out for eight years now, and many of us in pop culture who didn't go years between seeing the old films and seeing the new ones think rather well of it. To us, ignoring that film would be like ignoring Predator 2 (*coughRodriguezcough*); it simply can't be done. Deleting it is deleting part of the series history, the entire building blocks of the franchise in the last decade, and no one should want to be George Lucas with the Special Editions.

In the end, though, it's up to us whether we include the prequels as part of Star Wars, and the same goes for all the movies in the A/V/P universe. Let those who argue that the nuking of a town in the 21st century wouldn't lead to a major collapse of everyone involved, including the US government, and that entertainment isn't a qualification for a film keep AVPR for themselves to enjoy.

All of our little canon universes differ wildly, depending on what we like dislike, because in the end, the stories that we read and watch and play and listen to exist only on our heads, having their own meanings and significance and even quality, but in the end it all comes down to your preferences, your relationship with the works of art and media that you like.

To me, the Alien series ends with Aliens, and the AVP series stops before AVPR happens; I even tend to bristle at anti-Aliens/AVP sentiment. (By the way, I saw Aliens almost a year ago, so any claim of me being a butthurt Newt/Hicks fan for twenty years is BS, which stands for Brothers Strause, naturally). At the same time, many people find Alien Cubed an essential part of their experience and relationship with the series, and feel threatened when the film gets shoved around.

Does it really matter if everyone, even the filmmakers, says AVP didn't happen? Does it matter if holders-on like me say it did?

Discount AVP if you like, discount Prometheus and be crazy if you want (Note to future self: in no way will this comment become embarrassing if the movie is bad. Also, if the movie is bad I'd start preparing for the apocalypse right away.). Or, like me, count them both, and come up with silly theories to satisfactorily explain it all. With my theory, I am not threatening the "truth" of the series by making AVP canon when many traumatized fans wish it not to be, and those who wish for no connection with AVP do not threaten AVP fans' ability to find one, or to simply enjoy both films regardless of any "canon feud". Those who like my theory or any fan theory can accept it, while those who don't can freely nod their heads sympathetically while rolling their eyes and sighing at what an idiot the poster is.

In the end, we're all in it together as far as supporting/loving the series, and in fact both AVP and Prometheus will be crucial in the future, the movies that brought the mythos into the modern world, and the sources of a bunch of new fans along the way.

Spoiler

Hey, at least I didn't John Galt to write this post. You can thank me later.

Spoiler

He probably would have gone on about our universal right to troll and start flame wars with each other anyways.

[close]

[close]

I went ahead and voted for two completely opposite options in the poll (the first two) just because I could.

Also I've got no problems accepting both AvP and Prometheus as "canon".

Edit-- also countdown until this thread turns into a totally unrecoverable shitstorm.

(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FtJ3J8.jpg&hash=041d7af35142ebdf3c485dab3e4b7e9d705c07f7)

as far as I'm concerned, I treat canon like I treat a buffet: "I like this... but I don't like this..." its fiction!!!

QuoteFans who grew up with the originals hate how they ruined the series, but we young ones just took them in stride.

I grew up with the originals.  I love the prequels and the Clone Wars.  I don't need to be told what to think by Plinkett.  Don't assume too much.

As for Ailen/ Predator/ AvP/ Prometheus:

I dig some of the EU comics, etc.  But they get excised from the continuity because they don't fit.  I don't like the AvP movies, but I've yet to see a single piece of evidence that conclusively (although there are some dodgy bits) tells me they don't fit.  If Prometheus excises the AvP films from the Ailen continuity (which is looking likely at this point) - suits me.  They can sit in their own canon. However, Prometheus may introduce more canon issues.  We don't know yet.

As for what everybody else thinks - it doesn't matter.  There will never be a single consensus, and the debate will never end.  Fox can't/ won't form everything into a single coherent continuity.  Fans are free to pick and choose, and those who try to tell you they shouldn't should really just f**k right off.

Quote from: SM on Mar 01, 2012, 10:26:18 PM

QuoteFans who grew up with the originals hate how they ruined the series, but we young ones just took them in stride.

I grew up with the originals.  I love the prequels and the Clone Wars.  I don't need to be told what to think by Plinkett.  Don't assume too much.

As for Ailen/ Predator/ AvP/ Prometheus:

I dig some of the EU comics, etc.  But they get excised from the continuity because they don't fit.  I don't like the AvP movies, but I've yet to see a single piece of evidence that conclusively (although there are some dodgy bits) tells me they don't fit.  If Prometheus excises the AvP films from the Ailen continuity (which is looking likely at this point) - suits me.  They can sit in their own canon. However, Prometheus may introduce more canon issues.  We don't know yet.

As for what everybody else thinks - it doesn't matter.  There will never be a single consensus, and the debate will never end.  Fox can't/ won't form everything into a single coherent continuity.  Fans are free to pick and choose, and those who try to tell you they shouldn't should really just f**k right off.

Hey, I'm not saying everyone who grew up with the originals dislikes the prequels, but that's sort of the equivalent of fans being okay with AVP in this context; there's plenty of fans who grew up with the originals and like AVP. As for me assuming too much, are you a Neimodian by any chance?  ;)

Don't worry, I'm not one of those brainwashed Plinkett fanatics. His reviews are far from perfect and I certainly disagree with many of his view points and methods, the "Character Test" in particular being a sham, but the reviews are without a doubt still some of the best ever, as the guy's observations of the way the films are made and his observations of the plot holes and the lack of character development, and most especially the presentation of the content overall are simply masterful. Heck, I'm one of the twelve people who loved Kingdom of the Crystal Skull and he managed to produce the only negative review of it that I've ever liked!

Quote from: Topazora on Mar 01, 2012, 10:06:29 PM
as far as I'm concerned, I treat canon like I treat a buffet: "I like this... but I don't like this..." its fiction!!!

Ah, now that's a great simile/metaphor!  :)

Quote from: Xenomrph on Mar 01, 2012, 10:01:57 PM
I went ahead and voted for two completely opposite options in the poll (the first two) just because I could.

Also I've got no problems accepting both AvP and Prometheus as "canon".

Edit-- also countdown until this thread turns into a totally unrecoverable shitstorm.

http://i.imgur.com/tJ3J8.jpg

That made me laugh! Thanks!

"Aaaaargh, captain! AVH: Alien vs. Hunter approachin' off the port bow!"

Quote from: SM on Mar 01, 2012, 10:26:18 PM
Fans are free to pick and choose, and those who try to tell you they shouldn't should really just f**k right off.

This right here.

Canon debate is like religion and politics....its causes drama, flame wars and a lot unpleasantness, so i won't be surprised if it ends up getting locked due to members fighting, so any sign of anger or frustration then this thread needs to halted to grinding stop.


I have always believed that a person's opinions is something they are entitles too but trying to force those opinions on others without a lot of strong evidence is disrespectful and rude among other things.

In my opinion, its the films that are canon only, everything else is non-canon E.U, i also personally view all three franchises as separate. I do hope Prometheus contradicts everything about the AVP films since not only are they crap but they ruined the established lore and what is worse is that its a film, something i have to consider canon.

Quote from: Nero the Jackal on Mar 02, 2012, 01:12:31 PM
Canon debate is like religion and politics....its causes drama, flame wars and a lot unpleasantness, so i won't be surprised if it ends up getting locked due to members fighting, so any sign of anger or frustration then this thread needs to halted to grinding stop.

I have always believed that a person's opinions is something they are entitles too but trying to force those opinions on others without a lot of strong evidence is disrespectful and rude among other things.

The "fandom = religion/politics" thing is old, but definitely very appropriate. And you're right, I hope I haven't started a thread that's gonna turn into another flaming.  :-\

Quote from: Nero the Jackal on Mar 02, 2012, 01:12:31 PM
In my opinion, its the films that are canon only, everything else is non-canon E.U, i also personally view all three franchises as separate. I do hope Prometheus contradicts everything about the AVP films since not only are they crap but they ruined the established lore and what is worse is that its a film, something i have to consider canon.

Well, I certainly respect your opinion, though I like AVP1.  :)

As far as I am concerned, and this is probably the easiest way to follow the three different continuities but I see the Alien, Predator, and Alien vs Predator franchises as a multi-verse in a sense. Think of it like how the Highlander franchise goes, you've got the movie continuity, and you've got the series continuity. From how I see it, this works quite well with the three franchises here in particular, or rather now... Four, if we consider Prometheus to be a whole new universe altogether.

Now, I could list and incorporate the EU but as a simplified means of showing these three alternate universes which are parallel to each other, I won't be adding the EU for the sake of simplicity.

In my case, I choose to follow the AvP continuity. Which continuity you follow is up to the beholder.

From how I see it, it goes.

Continuity - PREDATORS

Predator
Predators

Continuity- ALIEN

Prometheus
Alien
Aliens
Alien 3
Alien Resurrection

Continuity- Alien vs Predator

Predator
Predator 2
AvP
AvP-R
Alien
Aliens
Alien 3
Alien Resurrection

-Rakai'Thwei

Quote from: Peakius Baragonius on Mar 04, 2012, 03:32:10 PM

Quote from: Nero the Jackal on Mar 02, 2012, 01:12:31 PM
Canon debate is like religion and politics....its causes drama, flame wars and a lot unpleasantness, so i won't be surprised if it ends up getting locked due to members fighting, so any sign of anger or frustration then this thread needs to halted to grinding stop.

I have always believed that a person's opinions is something they are entitles too but trying to force those opinions on others without a lot of strong evidence is disrespectful and rude among other things.

The "fandom = religion/politics" thing is old, but definitely very appropriate. And you're right, I hope I haven't started a thread that's gonna turn into another flaming.  :-\

Quote from: Nero the Jackal on Mar 02, 2012, 01:12:31 PM
In my opinion, its the films that are canon only, everything else is non-canon E.U, i also personally view all three franchises as separate. I do hope Prometheus contradicts everything about the AVP films since not only are they crap but they ruined the established lore and what is worse is that its a film, something i have to consider canon.

Well, I certainly respect your opinion, though I like AVP1.  :)

The first one did indeed have potential which is why its more bitter-sweet.  :)

Quote from: RakaiThwei on Mar 04, 2012, 05:35:05 PM
As far as I am concerned, and this is probably the easiest way to follow the three different continuities but I see the Alien, Predator, and Alien vs Predator franchises as a multi-verse in a sense. Think of it like how the Highlander franchise goes, you've got the movie continuity, and you've got the series continuity. From how I see it, this works quite well with the three franchises here in particular, or rather now... Four, if we consider Prometheus to be a whole new universe altogether.

Now, I could list and incorporate the EU but as a simplified means of showing these three alternate universes which are parallel to each other, I won't be adding the EU for the sake of simplicity.

In my case, I choose to follow the AvP continuity. Which continuity you follow is up to the beholder.

From how I see it, it goes.

Continuity - PREDATORS

Predator
Predators

Continuity- ALIEN

Prometheus
Alien
Aliens
Alien 3
Alien Resurrection

Continuity- Alien vs Predator

Predator
Predator 2
AvP
AvP-R
Alien
Aliens
Alien 3
Alien Resurrection

-Rakai'Thwei

Well they have shown in one of the special features discs that everything but the toys are apart of the overall Saga.  Just thought you should know that.

No one should know that because it's incorrect.

Quote from: SM on Mar 05, 2012, 02:40:26 AM
No one should know that because it's incorrect.

It is correct, your just a troll.

I just think of it this way: there are alternate realities, so everything's canon...somehow.

Quote from: KingAngel ofthe Outergulf on Mar 05, 2012, 02:43:24 AM

Quote from: SM on Mar 05, 2012, 02:40:26 AM
No one should know that because it's incorrect.

It is correct, your just a troll.

*you're

And no, it's still not correct.

And the canon debate turned argument is started  :laugh: 

Nearly made it to page 2 without it starting this time.

yep but it was inevitable.

Quote from: QuantumSheep on Mar 05, 2012, 02:46:27 AM
I just think of it this way: there are alternate realities, so everything's canon...somehow.

This.

-Rakai'Thwei

Quote from: RakaiThwei on Mar 05, 2012, 03:36:04 AM

Quote from: QuantumSheep on Mar 05, 2012, 02:46:27 AM
I just think of it this way: there are alternate realities, so everything's canon...somehow.

This.

-Rakai'Thwei

Wrong, film's canon first, then comics if they fit in (but i don't tAke as canon, personally view only)

There is no "wrong".

Quote from: SM on Mar 05, 2012, 03:47:12 AM
There is no "wrong".

Also this.

-Rakai'Thwei

Quote from: RakaiThwei on Mar 05, 2012, 03:52:16 AM

Quote from: SM on Mar 05, 2012, 03:47:12 AM
There is no "wrong".

Also this.

-Rakai'Thwei

bingo and its our views and opinions currently.

I already told you how I view canon and continuity. Of course I base my outlook from various sources, ranging from the story, in depth interviews and statements from writers, directors and producers, as well as in-universe connections.

Basically, story and Word of God is how I go through my outlook.

I mean there are a lot of people out there that say that PREDATORS is in fact Predator 3 but I often disagree with them by posting up links with Rodriguez's word refuting that claim (which was made by Antal), as well as dates when statements were made, and specific web chats as well, but all of that would get me nowhere and really, it's futile.

Regarding Prometheus, well, it's tricky because the movie isn't even out yet. So it's a wait and see situation.

Regarding the EU, I count the EU depending IF certain stories manage to somehow tie in nicely with the films, and this also counts the games as well. Some of the novels, comics, and games I don't count because they are extremely outlandish and are crossovers, or simply don't follow lore (i.e. AvP Arcade).

-Rakai'Thwei

Quote from: SM on Mar 05, 2012, 02:51:21 AM
Nearly made it to page 2 without it starting this time.

Darn it!  :-\

;)

Quote from: Peakius Baragonius on Mar 05, 2012, 05:28:12 AM

Quote from: SM on Mar 05, 2012, 02:51:21 AM
Nearly made it to page 2 without it starting this time.

Darn it!  :-\

;)

Let's try to make it to page 3 next time guys. ;)

Quote from: SM on Mar 05, 2012, 03:47:12 AM
There is no "wrong".

Don't know why i said wrong (must have been drunker than i thought) since an alternate reality would mean the films are separate from the E.U so i would agree there if it was true. Its should currently be left to people's opinions since there is no strong proof either way of its status and all this is just petrol to fire.

I still consider AVP to be canon in the Prometheus timeline.  For those people who say that there is no way that humans could have technologically evolved space travel by the time the movie takes place, a lot of this is easily explained away with the Predator technology acquired by the humans in AVPR.

Quote from: predxeno on Mar 06, 2012, 07:52:56 PM
I still consider AVP to be canon in the Prometheus timeline.  For those people who say that there is no way that humans could have technologically evolved space travel by the time the movie takes place, a lot of this is easily explained away with the Predator technology acquired by the humans in AVPR.

Keep on talking...keep on talking...

Quote from: predxeno on Mar 06, 2012, 07:52:56 PM
I still consider AVP to be canon in the Prometheus timeline.  For those people who say that there is no way that humans could have technologically evolved space travel by the time the movie takes place, a lot of this is easily explained away with the Predator technology acquired by the humans in AVPR.

Lol this thread is mostly full of "oh my god, there's going to be a flame war."

Easily explained away?  The reverse-engineering of a single energy weapon from an alien race can easily explain away FTL travel and/or cryotubes almost a century in the future?

That in no way makes it easy to explain, much less explain away.

As for the OP, I'm curious why people don't exclude things from canon that contradict the movie-established storyline.  It's a simple thing to do, and helps the story maintain maturity as well as a better continuity.  You have to start somewhere, why not start with the way canon has been formed and decided from movie-source material for years?

Comics, toys, and video games that are film-related have usually been marketing or extensions, but never given the weight of a film unless specifically stated so by the controlling authority.  This is definitely the exception instead of the rule.

This should be obvious, but people have to make things more complicated by denying this obvious canon tool and trying to fit things that don't, and won't, fit.

It's futile, and will lead to frustration or one jacked-up and inconsistent storyline.  I'll take a reduced canon that goes by the great movies I love and makes more sense than trying to fit in AvP toothpaste and lunchboxes just because Fox made a few horrible obvious cash-cow movies that didn't pay attention to the originals they stole from.

Well in the EU, the humans also reverse engineer a crashed Predator ship that landed on Earth in order to travel to the stars.

Quote from: RagingDragon on Mar 06, 2012, 08:07:32 PM

Quote from: predxeno on Mar 06, 2012, 07:52:56 PM
I still consider AVP to be canon in the Prometheus timeline.  For those people who say that there is no way that humans could have technologically evolved space travel by the time the movie takes place, a lot of this is easily explained away with the Predator technology acquired by the humans in AVPR.

Lol this thread is mostly full of "oh my god, there's going to be a flame war."

Easily explained away?  The reverse-engineering of a single energy weapon from an alien race can easily explain away FTL travel and/or cryotubes almost a century in the future?

That in no way makes it easy to explain, much less explain away.

As for the OP, I'm curious why people don't exclude things from canon that contradict the movie-established storyline.  It's a simple thing to do, and helps the story maintain maturity as well as a better continuity.  You have to start somewhere, why not start with the way canon has been formed and decided from movie-source material for years?

Comics, toys, and video games that are film-related have usually been marketing or extensions, but never given the weight of a film unless specifically stated so by the controlling authority.  This is definitely the exception instead of the rule.

This should be obvious, but people have to make things more complicated by denying this obvious canon tool and trying to fit things that don't, and won't, fit.

It's futile, and will lead to frustration or one jacked-up and inconsistent storyline.  I'll take a reduced canon that goes by the great movies I love and makes more sense than trying to fit in AvP toothpaste and lunchboxes just because Fox made a few horrible obvious cash-cow movies that didn't pay attention to the originals they stole from.

Alternately, I'd rather include the EU that I enjoy if it means I have to overlook some inconsistencies that really don't hurt anything. If I have to ignore or reinterpret 1 throwaway line in 'Alien Resurrection' so I can include EU materials that I feel are in many regards superior to 'Alien Resurrection', that seems like a no-brainer to me. I'd rather have a larger, more inclusive "universe" at the expense of some degree of consistency.

Saying "it's always been movies, therefore it should always be movies" is circular reasoning and a logical fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition).

You're acting like ignoring the EU is the "obvious" choice, or that those who opt not to are objectively "wrong" or something. It's personal preference.
Like seriously, why do you even care? You seem genuinely upset that people would ignore "the obvious canon tool" as you put it. What difference does it make what people do or don't choose to include?

If every contradiction, no matter how small, is grounds for omitting a source, why not just say that only 'Alien' is "canon" and end it right there? You could argue that the sequels contradict 'Alien' (and each other) on various levels so obviously if you wanted a "mature", tightly-plotted universe you'd want to omit everything except 'Alien', no?

Ignoring inconsistencies because you enjoy something on the contrary is a fallacy in itself.
I hate taking philosophy out of the lecture hall. And canon debates. *shields self*

Quote from: Valaquen on Mar 06, 2012, 08:55:04 PM
Ignoring inconsistencies because you enjoy something on the contrary is a fallacy in itself.
I hate taking philosophy out of the lecture hall. And canon debates. *shields self*

But it's not a fallacy since we're talking about fiction and it comes down to personal choice anyway. RagingDragon was acting like there's some sort of objective "correct" choice when it comes to canon (or at least he was trying to rationalize his own personal choice that way) and I was showing that his views boil down to personal preference just as much as people who choose to accept the EU. The reasoning he was stating was a logical fallacy at best, and if you actually follow through with his line of reasoning you end up with the sequels getting disregarded anyway.

And everyone will do whatever they want anyway so what difference does it make?

Okay, let's get stupid here.

If the fans are free to assemble any sort of canon they would like, it isn't a canon, just personal preference.  The two words contradict each other, canon =/= personal preference.  It makes no sense, but is really one of the few choices left to A/P/AvP fans.

So since we're talking about canon, as per the above definition of being something that is defined by events and facts within a story rather than through the interpretations of the audience over several disconnected and possibly contradicting stories, we have to look at what has been produced and go from there.

The movies are the source material for all EU, in this case.

The obvious must now again be stated, because it isn't already obvious enough:

In most EU, toys, video games, and comics (to a point, especially recently) are targeted towards children and considered disposable.  Now, if we can safely put the insanity of including all of that crap in a movie's canon to the side, we can concentrate on EU material that isn't directed at children, like novels and novelizations.

(Note for clarity - You'll notice that the three above categories, toys, video games, comics, are often simply understood to be extensions/marketing of a product instead of canon-establishing story extensions to the product (like a film sequel.)  Most toys don't tell a story related to the movie, comics are all over the place, and video games have never been so advanced that they have the capability to tell a story via the game that could have the clout and presentation to match a film they were based from until recently.  Colonial Marines will have a big impact on this area.

Basically, there's no regulation because the media industry understands what these things are: disposable.  They don't effect the movies, or the canon, unless the studio comes out and says they do, so they don't have to worry about cleaning up any messes, just making money.

Only in dark superfan dungeons on the internet do these issues arise where common sense is simply abandoned in a desperate argument to make sense of a mess.

I write those things off, even if I like them, because they were never intended to establish film-level canon.  That's just common sense, and if you disagree or don't get it, stop reading now.)

Moving on, we have a wide array of novels and even novelisations that can expand a story quite a bit.  As far as these things establishing canon, It follows suit they're licensing agreements like the rest and dismissed by studios with the aforementioned three other EU categories, but since they are traditionally a more adult media, it's excusable to want to include them as part of an R-rated film canon.  They can offer some great efforts that expand a property...

Some real answers could be found in Fox's licensing agreements to companies like Dark Horse, which I don't know about.  The basics of getting a license for an intellectual property are so that an outside company may produce and market that property without infringing on copyright and trademark laws.

If Fox authorizes licensors to establish canon, then there it is, and we're all stuck dealing with this shit storm mess.  If not, then it's marketing to create products in the same universe (that may or may not be consistent) with no bearing on the film universe at all.

I mean there's a lot to that.  If Dark Horse f-ed up canon so bad, why renew their license?  Probably because it makes money! 

Xenomprh, not replying to you because -
A) You believe that a sequel that expands on an original film is a retcon because no one saw the new stuff in the first film.

B) You get emotional because I bother you.

If you look too closely at any series whether they by TV, movie, or video game, you are bound to find inconsistencies somewhere; AVP is no exception.

QuoteIf the fans are free to assemble any sort of canon they would like, it isn't a canon, just personal preference.

This is exactly correct and the entire point. :)

The fans don't get to decide what "canon" is, they don't own the franchise. Fox, on the other hand, does own the franchise and gets to decide what's canon and what's not. Seeing as how most fans don't like FOX's opinion on the matter (the EU is canon, AvP is part of both Aliens and Predator, etc) and disregard what they say anyway, we're back at the first point you made: the fans are free to assemble any canon they like for themselves.

QuoteIn most EU, toys, video games, and comics (to a point, especially recently) are targeted towards children and considered disposable. 

That's not just an opinion, it also has no bearing on anything. Everything in Star Wars is canon (on some level) unless explicitly pointed out by LFL, up to and including video games, comics, and even some of the toys. That's right, some of the "action features" in some of the toys have cropped up in other sources and are considered "canon".

QuoteI write those things off, even if I like them, because they were never intended to establish film-level canon.  That's just common sense, and if you disagree or don't get it, stop reading now.

But this only matters if you care about the phrase "film-level canon", or if you care about the "intent".

QuoteSome real answers could be found in Fox's licensing agreements to companies like Dark Horse, which I don't know about.  The basics of getting a license for an intellectual property are so that an outside company may produce and market that property without infringing on copyright and trademark laws.

If Fox authorizes licensors to establish canon, then there it is, and we're all stuck dealing with this shit storm mess.  If not, then it's marketing to create products in the same universe (that may or may not be consistent) with no bearing on the film universe at all.

FOX's licensing department has a "continuity bible" and an official AvP timeline (which they keep internally and don't disclose the specifics of with their licensees like Dark Horse or whoever) but any time something EU gets licensed it has to be cleared with the licensing department. Sometimes FOX kills certain ideas (the Alien and Predator "homeworlds" have long been off-limits topics for Dark Horse, for example, going so far as to retcon their existence out of the comics when they initially showed up, at FOX's request) or asks for things to be changed, and the end result I've heard from numerous authors and DH staff I've asked is that yes, the EU stuff is considered "canon". Shit, FOX even got hands-on with the 'Predators' movie action figures and designed the packaging themselves (as opposed to having NECA doing it in-house like they do with most of their stuff) and ended up littering the packaging with a bunch of AvP and EU references. The topic came up in some interviews with Gearbox staff regarding the Colonial Marines game, and they said that FOX is considering the game "canon".

However, more importantly, you're not bound by anything FOX says because it's fiction and entertainment and why should you let FOX dictate to you what you can enjoy and how you can enjoy it? Why should you let anybody?
We already have these forums "segregated" such that the movie subforums don't include EU materials for those who don't want to acknowledge them, etc.

QuoteA) You believe that a sequel that expands on an original film is a retcon because no one saw the new stuff in the first film.

That's because that's what a retcon is. By definition, that is a retcon. It's something in a later source that changes information you (thought you) knew about a prior source.

QuoteB) You get emotional because I bother you.

I think you've got that mixed up there, ace. :) I think I bother you, and you get emotional about it.

What it boils down to is Fox isn't interested in keeping any sort of singular continuity ever since they let Dark Horse write comics featuring Hicks and Newt, while they were developing Alien3 with no intention of following the comic storyline.

And then FOX stepped in and had stuff changed so citing the Hicks and Newt thing is kind of a non-issue since it got fixed. FOX not caring before doesn't mean they don't care (to some degree) now. Lucasfilm didn't give a flip about "canon" when 'Splinter of the Mind's Eye' or the Marvel comics were coming out, but it's pretty obvious their view on canon isn't the same as it was as 1978.

The bottom line is that whether you like FOX's approach or not, you're still free to make your own decisions on what you take as "canon" anyway. You said it yourself on the first page:

Quote from: SM on Mar 01, 2012, 10:26:18 PM
Fans are free to pick and choose, and those who try to tell you they shouldn't should really just f**k right off.

Actually i heard star wars does have canon since someone said george considers his films canon only, the games another canon and the books another.
I think someone on here said it.
Anyway what is a solid fact is that the movies are canon.

Quote from: Nero the Jackal on Mar 06, 2012, 10:47:58 PM
Actually i heard star wars does have canon since someone said george considers his films canon only, the games another canon and the books another.
I think someone on here said it.
Anyway what is a solid fact is that the movies are canon.

Star Wars has a multi-tier canon system - the movies (and some other specific things) are up at the top, and then you have other things ranked below it. The tiers only matter in the event of a contradiction, though - if the movies say one thing and the novels say another, the movie's info takes precedent because it's on a higher tier. However it's still on a case-by-case basis - it's not like you throw out the entire source, you just throw out that bit of information that's contradicted by a higher source.

And again, this only matters in the event of a contradiction. At the end of the day it's all still "canon".

If you want an in-depth explanation of Star Wars "canon" (with a bunch of quotes and examples and whatnot), I suggest this page (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Canon).

Well i will always take the movies canon first and only that until a fox person who been part of the company since the first alien and therefore knows his/her stuff and says in clear words what is canon and what is not, dark horse people or any other non-fox people do not count or should not.

Again i say i just personally consider the films canon and the E.U non-canon as an opinion only until proven undisputedly otherwise.

I think a lot people feel threatened when someone says its non-canon, i have no idea why since being non-canon does not equal crapness and badness, indeed i found some E.U downright amusing.

To be fair, I don't like you.  But that was a good reply to my lengthy post.   :laugh:

Your Star Wars example is tired because they're the most popular company, and one of the only ones, to be so involved with their own EU.  It's different with Star Wars because they've made it that way, Lucas has, and everybody should know that by now.

Exception, not the rule.

Quote from: Xenomrph on Mar 06, 2012, 10:33:06 PMBut this only matters if you care about the phrase "film-level canon", or if you care about the "intent".

Quote from: Xenomrph on Mar 06, 2012, 10:33:06 PMThat's not just an opinion, it also has no bearing on anything.

What are the intent of toys?  Who is the target demographic, adults?  Must be opinion.  But wait...

You've made it abundantly clear that because you are capable of having an opinion, everyone else must acknowledge this and it is suddenly dragged into the physical universe.  Your opinion that the facehugger was an independent organism was just as valid as the right answer simply because you thought it up and Fox wasn't around to say "no," but according to the boundaries by which we were defining the discussion, it wasn't valid at all.

You just insisted that it was.

That's unreasonable.

So is saying something like this:

Quote from: Xenomrph on Mar 06, 2012, 10:33:06 PMHowever, more importantly, you're not bound by anything FOX says because it's fiction and entertainment and why should you let FOX dictate to you what you can enjoy and how you can enjoy it? Why should you let anybody?
We already have these forums "segregated" such that the movie subforums don't include EU materials for those who don't want to acknowledge them, etc.

You are basically saying that I am alive and the movie doesn't physically restrict my thoughts.

Just what in the?

And then you made that statement more important than the entire previous rest of your post by saying:

Quotemore importantly

So I'm feeling a little shaky about the actual meaning you could be assigning to the word "opinion."

But ignoring the important part of your post above, this here:

Quote from: Xenomrph on Mar 06, 2012, 10:33:06 PMFOX's licensing department has a "continuity bible" and an official AvP timeline (which they keep internally and don't disclose the specifics of with their licensees like Dark Horse or whoever) but any time something EU gets licensed it has to be cleared with the licensing department. Sometimes FOX kills certain ideas (the Alien and Predator "homeworlds" have long been off-limits topics for Dark Horse, for example, going so far as to retcon their existence out of the comics when they initially showed up, at FOX's request) or asks for things to be changed, and the end result I've heard from numerous authors and DH staff I've asked is that yes, the EU stuff is considered "canon". Shit, FOX even got hands-on with the 'Predators' movie action figures and designed the packaging themselves (as opposed to having NECA doing it in-house like they do with most of their stuff) and ended up littering the packaging with a bunch of AvP and EU references. The topic came up in some interviews with Gearbox staff regarding the Colonial Marines game, and they said that FOX is considering the game "canon".

This stuff was all great that I didn't know.  But honestly if there is some sort of apocryphal continuity bible, why don't they ever seem to read it?  My only belief is that if Fox kills a certain idea, it's because they either think it's not going to make them as much money or they want to save it for as much future-money making as possible.  The easier and more likely answer to everything in this paragraph is that Fox wanted more money.

Colonial Marines is going to be its' own case, I think.

I hope people are enjoying our little back-and-forth, it's exhausting.

And don't take anything personal, I don't feel like being reported today.

QuoteAnd then FOX stepped in and had stuff changed so citing the Hicks and Newt thing is kind of a non-issue since it got fixed. FOX not caring before doesn't mean they don't care (to some degree) now.

But they still don't care.  They didn't care when they developed Alien Resurrection and it wrote off all the comics - again - and they still don't care when they let a guy write a Predator novel and he's oblivious to the long established term 'Yautja'.

It's not like Star Wars where films rule all and everything else has to conform.  In Alien, films are oblivious to all other licensed material other than films (which may change again if Prometheus excises AvP).  PLUS the EU often doesn't have a single coherent continuity either.  Current case in point is how precisely Colonial Marines, Alien3 - The Gun, Extermination, CMTM, Infestation, AvP (original FPS), and Female War all fit together when covering much of the same events surrounding the Sulaco and Derelict (which the Resurrection novel says was destroyed anyway).

As should be obvious, I'm not trying to force any particular view of canon.  However pretending Fox is actively looking after it is - to be kind - naive.

QuoteWhat are the intent of toys?  Who is the target demographic, adults?

What difference does it make?
As an aside, the target demographic of any Aliens/Predator toys released after, say, 2000 has been adults. :P

QuoteYou've made it abundantly clear that because you are capable of having an opinion, everyone else must acknowledge this and it is suddenly dragged into the physical universe.  Your opinion that the facehugger was an independent organism was just as valid as the right answer simply because you thought it up and Fox wasn't around to say "no," but according to the boundaries by which we were defining the discussion, it wasn't valid at all.

You just insisted that it was.

That's unreasonable.

No, it's called death of the author (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_the_Author) and it's not exactly a new concept.
Me having an opinion, especially if it's one I can (and have) articulated, does make it valid. This doesn't mean you have to agree with it, but it also doesn't mean you get to just instantly write it off as automatically "false".

And I don't see how it's incompatible with what I was saying - FOX has said what they feel is "canon", but that shouldn't stop anyone from deciding for themselves what they want to include.
Just like if a creator says "the facehugger is *this*" and someone else can interpret it differently, they're totally free to.

QuoteBut ignoring the important part of your post above, this here:

but that's not the important part of my post. The important part of my post was the part I helpfully labeled as "more importantly". :P

QuoteBut honestly if there is some sort of apocryphal continuity bible, why don't they ever seem to read it?  My only belief is that if Fox kills a certain idea, it's because they either think it's not going to make them as much money or they want to save it for as much future-money making as possible.  The easier and more likely answer to everything in this paragraph is that Fox wanted more money.

But that's opinion at best, and completely irrelevant.

QuoteBut they still don't care.  They didn't care when they developed Alien Resurrection and it wrote off all the comics - again - and they still don't care when they let a guy write a Predator novel and he's oblivious to the long established term 'Yautja'.

Yeah and then they stepped in and said "this Hish thing was a bad idea, stop doing it" and started using "Yautja" again on the 'Predators' merchandise packaging that they developed.

QuoteHowever pretending Fox is actively looking after it is - to be kind - naive.

Actively looking after it to the degree it could be? Sure. But to say they ignore it wholesale isn't accurate either.

I didn't say that.

It used to seem to be the case that as long as a novel more or less conformed to the films, then it didn't have to conform with other novels and comics.  With A:CM, they seem to have even dropped that clause.

For me:

Predator Series
Predator
Predator 2
Predators

Alien Series
Prometheus
Alien
Aliens
Alien 3
Alien: Resurrection

Alien vs Predator Series
Predator
Predator 2
Alien vs Predator
Alien vs Predator Requiem
Alien vs Predator (2010)

Just my way of 'organizing' canon I guess. Perhaps it's best left unorganized.

Quote from: SM on Mar 06, 2012, 11:20:48 PM
I didn't say that.

Fair enough, just didn't want other people saying it either. :P

The novels and comics having their own tones and interpretations and whatnot isn't exactly out of line with how the franchise has been handled since 'Aliens', what with even the movies being drastically different from each other. One could argue that it's more important that the creators tell the story they want to tell, the way they want to tell it, rather than adhering to strict "continuity". Cameron wanted to make the Aliens into sorta-space-bugs (whether that's absolutely compatible with what we saw in 'Alien' is arguable, there's plenty of people here on this forum who don't think it is) because that's how he wanted to tell his story. 'Alien3' killed everyone and had a radical tonal shift from the first two movies, because that's the story Fincher (or the studio) wanted to tell.

Which is why it's easy to ignore them as part of the film continuity.  Cauldron for instance didn't bug me because it only vaguely referenced some film events and contradicted others (it bugged me because of the annoying characters).

Exactly. :) It's by that same reasoning that I'm willing to ignore/reinterpret contradictions in order to get things to fit better.

Quote from: Xenomrph on Mar 06, 2012, 11:17:28 PM

QuoteWhat are the intent of toys?  Who is the target demographic, adults?

What difference does it make?
As an aside, the target demographic of any Aliens/Predator toys released after, say, 2000 has been adults. :P

QuoteYou've made it abundantly clear that because you are capable of having an opinion, everyone else must acknowledge this and it is suddenly dragged into the physical universe.  Your opinion that the facehugger was an independent organism was just as valid as the right answer simply because you thought it up and Fox wasn't around to say "no," but according to the boundaries by which we were defining the discussion, it wasn't valid at all.

You just insisted that it was.

That's unreasonable.

No, it's called death of the author (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_the_Author) and it's not exactly a new concept.
Me having an opinion, especially if it's one I can (and have) articulated, does make it valid. This doesn't mean you have to agree with it, but it also doesn't mean you get to just instantly write it off as automatically "false".

And I don't see how it's incompatible with what I was saying - FOX has said what they feel is "canon", but that shouldn't stop anyone from deciding for themselves what they want to include.
Just like if a creator says "the facehugger is *this*" and someone else can interpret it differently, they're totally free to.

QuoteBut ignoring the important part of your post above, this here:

but that's not the important part of my post. The important part of my post was the part I helpfully labeled as "more importantly". :P

QuoteBut honestly if there is some sort of apocryphal continuity bible, why don't they ever seem to read it?  My only belief is that if Fox kills a certain idea, it's because they either think it's not going to make them as much money or they want to save it for as much future-money making as possible.  The easier and more likely answer to everything in this paragraph is that Fox wanted more money.

But that's opinion at best, and completely irrelevant.

QuoteBut they still don't care.  They didn't care when they developed Alien Resurrection and it wrote off all the comics - again - and they still don't care when they let a guy write a Predator novel and he's oblivious to the long established term 'Yautja'.

Yeah and then they stepped in and said "this Hish thing was a bad idea, stop doing it" and started using "Yautja" again on the 'Predators' merchandise packaging that they developed.

QuoteHowever pretending Fox is actively looking after it is - to be kind - naive.

Actively looking after it to the degree it could be? Sure. But to say they ignore it wholesale isn't accurate either.

Okay, interesting.  But one essay from some French a-hole in the late 60's?  I appreciate the concept, but when examined, it's an objectively flawed concept.  Your opinions sure do exist, but the creator (if he did include certain traits in his creation) has established what that creation actually is.  Your beliefs can still exist, but they are false.  I mean, you can think that a television is a car, because that is within the phase space of conscious awareness, but it doesn't make it so according to physical rules.

And I have never written off something you've said as "automatically false."  The time I take to unravel and explain your complex failures is substantial, and my responses are just nothing short of amazing.  I bet they have people laughing in several different time zones.

:laugh:

QuoteBut one essay from some French a-hole in the late 60's?  I appreciate the concept, but when examined, it's an objectively flawed concept.

But it's not, and it's in fact the prevailing mode of film analysis taught in modern higher-level film, literature, and art circles.
The thing is it's not just something you can agree or disagree with - it simply is. If you choose to follow what the creator says, that's your prerogative. But the bottom line is they're not the be-all end-all, nor should they be.

You might not like this, but that doesn't change that that's the way it is. :)

QuoteI mean, you can think that a television is a car, because that is within the phase space of conscious awareness, but it doesn't make it so according to physical rules.

In that example you're talking about a real-life physical object, which a facehugger (thankfully) is not. If I say "the sky is always red and gravity doesn't exist", that's objectively false. If I want to cite examples from 'The Empire Strikes Back' to show that Darth Vader is actually a homosexual (just to make up an example off the top of my head, I don't seriously believe that) then my argument exists and literally cannot be "false" because of the reasons presented by Barthes (and others). Likewise if I want to interpret the Facehugger as an independent organism and can provide examples of its abilities and behavior which back that up, then that interpretation is perfectly valid whether you (or the creators) opt to agree with it or not.
It isn't so much that an interpretation is "true" or "false", because there is no one singular "correct" interpretation. That's the point of Death of the Author.

There's a guy I know on another forum who'd drive you absolutely insane because he takes Death of the Author to the total extreme. I think his theories and interpretations are nonsense and rarely agree with him, but it's the notion that movies and art in general can be interpreted those ways that are important. Sticking strictly to the author's intent is limiting and ultimately boring. It's a footnote at best.
Don't get me wrong, many times I do abide by the authorial intent, and I'm always willing to consider it, but that doesn't mean I always agree with it or that it's automatically correct. Examining it critically and making my own decision is the important part.

QuoteThe time I take to unravel and explain your complex failures is substantial, and my responses are just nothing short of amazing.  I bet they have people laughing in several different time zones.

I don't know if I'm supposed to take this seriously or not. :D Ambiguity on the Internet and all that.

QuoteNo, it's called death of the author and it's not exactly a new concept.

Barthes himself was dismissive of cinema, because he didn't think it was open enough to interpretation (that is, everything you see is already drawn for you on the screen, there is no interpretative leeway for the viewer in most regards of cinema, unless the 'author' of a film deliberately or mistakenly makes it so). Why is Barthes' literary theory touted as the film theory here? It was always in contest with auteur theory, for example (when you're dealing with auteur theory, all you're looking at on the screen is intentionality, which you dismiss with Barthes). Nobody ever made it law, and it was formulated primarily for literature - you can apply it to film (you can apply it to microwave food directions), but it's not the film theory. In three years of studying film at university I have never heard death of the author being touted as so - same goes for my English literature studies. Barthes himself seemed happier this way. Ah, what does he know, he only wrote the damn thing ( :D).
I need to stop partaking in canon debates. Well, really, I don't have any particular argument to make. I abide by how SM put it on the first page. Anyway I like this:

QuoteAs for ideas, everyone has them. What counts is the poetic singularity of the analysis. That alone can justify writing, not the wretched critical objectivity of ideas. There will never be any resolving the contradictoriness of ideas, except in the energy and felicity of language."
Jean Baudrillard

Hmm.  We may have discovered why the general public often finds higher-level film, literature, and art circles to be intolerable, elitest wankers. :laugh:

That's a fine answer, though, and it's nice you took the time to fully explain it.  Concepts like that are so oblique that I feel they don't really belong in a discussion about 'canon,' which is precisely the arrangement of events in a fictional world.  The theory only appeals to the basic nature to fiction, but you can observe fiction from the opposite perspective by saying that once it's been written or filmed or what have you, it's a concrete, unchangeable thing and no amount of interpretation or opinion can alter it in any way.

I mean, that's what happens.  The film is the way it is forever, regardless of how it's interpreted or by who.

Does this concept apply to literal things we see in the film, physical events, etc... or is it strictly the interpretation of ideas?  I mean, if someone is burned to death in a film, and we choose to deny this fact in the film on the grounds that it's fiction, doesn't that revert us to the level of about a 4 year old?  Of course it's fiction, but it's defined within the confines of an explained fictional universe.  It's supposed to be taken that way.  You can take anything you want out of context and make it your own, but that's quite a juvenile thing to do.  It's the equivalent of "let's play pretend."

We're kind getting into epistemology here, to me proof that the Death of the Author doesn't belong in a canon debate, but in a philosophy thread.

It's sad that the state of Aliens/Predator canon is so bad that we must resort to philosophical concepts to make it work.

:-\

Nevertheless, I respect your answer there.  You and Predxeno could make a formidable canon enforcement and explanation squad.

Fan speaking, you're Deadliest of the Species! ;)

I don't think there's any need for personal insults!

Especially when we have King Angel of the Outer Gulf to fill that role...

Quote from: SM on Mar 07, 2012, 12:44:06 AM
I don't think there's any need for personal insults!

Especially when we have King Angel of the Outer Gulf to fill that role...

What do you expect from this kind of thread? it brings out the worst in all as they try to prove who is right.

QuoteWhy is Barthes' literary theory touted as the film theory here?

Because, as you said, it can be applied to film just as well (no matter if Barthes agrees or not). It can be applied to any artistic medium. The intent of the author is an interesting footnote, but why should it be considered the be-all end-all just because the author said it? That's intellectually lazy. Why can't you make up your own mind? Do you need the author to hold your hand?
Keep in mind that's different from seeing what the author said and agreeing with them - in that case you're making your own assessment, and it happens to be in-line with what the author thinks. But it still doesn't mean the author is automatically correct.

Authors lie, remember things incorrectly, change their opinions due to any number of reasons, etc. Some things might have been included by the author subconsciously and not intentionally, but it doesn't mean they're not there. They initially created the work and their intent might have shaped the work at the moment of its conception, but its out of their hands the moment it's released to the public for their consumption. Everyone is going to bring their own experiences and ideas to the table, and it might not be at all what the author had in mind when they created it.
This is even more true when you're talking about a collaborative work like a movie. The scriptwriter might have one idea, and then the actor might interpret it completely differently which colors their performance of the script, and the director might have yet another intent behind it as he films the scene, and then that intent might get changed even further when it's time for the editor to edit the scene. Which "author" is correct? Why are they correct?

QuoteDoes this concept apply to literal things we see in the film, physical events, etc... or is it strictly the interpretation of ideas?  I mean, if someone is burned to death in a film, and we choose to deny this fact in the film on the grounds that it's fiction, doesn't that revert us to the level of about a 4 year old?

Sure, there's certainly a difference between saying "yeah Ripley never died in 'Alien3'" and interpreting, say, what the function of the blue mist in 'Alien' was. The first is a plot point, it's about as close to a "fact" within a fictional story as you'll get. The second is something the movie leaves open to interpretation. Perhaps Ridley Scott says it's a security system, and you could argue that from the movie, but you could also cite the movie to argue other interpretations as well.

Likewise with the facehugger thing. If one chooses to compare it to terrestrial animals based on its capabilities and how it relates to other similar creatures and cites specifics from the movie when doing so, that's perfectly alright.

It would be different if someone, say, tried to argue that the Alien doesn't have acid for blood. The characters point it out, the blood acts like an acid, arguing that it's not acid for blood is pretty objectively false. But the facehugger thing, if you have to start citing the authorial intent to prove your point then it's probably vague enough that it could be interpreted different ways.

A similar example would be, "do Aliens communicate telepathically". If you go strictly movies-only it's possible to interpret it either way, and that doesn't mean anyone is "wrong". It's different ways of looking at the movie and drawing different conclusions.

Quote from: Nero the Jackal on Mar 07, 2012, 12:53:25 AM

Quote from: SM on Mar 07, 2012, 12:44:06 AM
I don't think there's any need for personal insults!

Especially when we have King Angel of the Outer Gulf to fill that role...

What do you expect from this kind of thread? it brings out the worst in all as they try to prove who is right.

I don't think anyone's seriously upset with anyone else (yet). :P

Give it time.

A lot of this junk is just between Xenomrph and myself, and I think I can say we're not truly angry and just joking.  I don't want to scare anybody away.

Quote from: Valaquen on Mar 07, 2012, 12:21:48 AM

QuoteNo, it's called death of the author and it's not exactly a new concept.

Barthes himself was dismissive of cinema, because he didn't think it was open enough to interpretation (that is, everything you see is already drawn for you on the screen, there is no interpretative leeway for the viewer in most regards of cinema, unless the 'author' of a film deliberately or mistakenly makes it so). Why is Barthes' literary theory touted as the film theory here? It was always in contest with auteur theory, for example (when you're dealing with auteur theory, all you're looking at on the screen is intentionality, which you dismiss with Barthes). Nobody ever made it law, and it was formulated primarily for literature - you can apply it to film (you can apply it to microwave food directions), but it's not the film theory. In three years of studying film at university I have never heard death of the author being touted as so - same goes for my English literature studies. Barthes himself seemed happier this way. Ah, what does he know, he only wrote the damn thing ( :D).
I need to stop partaking in canon debates. Well, really, I don't have any particular argument to make. I abide by how SM put it on the first page. Anyway I like this:

QuoteAs for ideas, everyone has them. What counts is the poetic singularity of the analysis. That alone can justify writing, not the wretched critical objectivity of ideas. There will never be any resolving the contradictoriness of ideas, except in the energy and felicity of language."
Jean Baudrillard

This makes sense, especially from a literary standpoint.

I prefer to keep things less mystical when it comes to canon.  This aspect simply adds another boatload of potential problems and complexity.  What you see is there, what is implied, maybe you can prove or explain through other connections.  If not, you're up the creek until the studio says otherwise.

I honestly care the most about the EU living up to the standards set by the first films.  I don't want to include most of the EU, and the AvPs, simply because they suck compared to their source material.

I know it's different from having seen the AvP films first, my thoughts may not apply, but I fell in love with quality films, so everything that is based off of those or comes after or represents is going to be compared.

So far, the majority of crap has been crap.  If I were in charge, there would be some belt-tightening, baby, canonically speaking.

It would be deep-space salvage, and not much would be left, except for the integrity of the original creatures themselves.

I could call it "the great un-rape."

But different people have different thresholds of what they consider "crap", or what they're willing to accept. Maybe the quality isn't that good, but it's such a novel concept or an interesting/creative execution that it's worth overlooking the quality.

And ultimately you're not in charge. Well, not exactly - you're in charge of what you want to accept. If you want to disregard the EU because you think it's crap and not worthy of the films, more power to you. It's entertainment and it's meant to be enjoyed. I happen to enjoy the EU, and I also enjoy finding ways to make it "fit". It's a fun hobby for me.

QuoteI could call it "the great un-rape."

Or to keep it in EU parlance - The Big Deletion...

Quote from: Xenomrph on Mar 07, 2012, 02:50:59 AM


And ultimately you're not in charge. Well, not exactly - you're in charge of what you want to accept. If you want to disregard the EU because you think it's crap and not worthy of the films, more power to you. It's entertainment and it's meant to be enjoyed. I happen to enjoy the EU, and I also enjoy finding ways to make it "fit". It's a fun hobby for me.

Well, theres what you/i like to accept, but theres also whats officially considered canon and part of movie continuity and mythos. I myself also enjoy early Dark Horse stories a great deal, but I prefer them to be separate universes/entities, which they are

As much as I absolutely cant stand and despise Resurrection, theres no amount of denial or twisting that would erase it from the series. Its a liquid poop in the pool that cant be taken out, a poop that made me get out of the pool for many years untill Scott's DC in theaters revived my fandom. Now Im swimming in it trying not to think about it

QuoteWell, theres what you/i like to accept, but theres also whats officially considered canon and part of movie continuity and mythos. I myself also enjoy early Dark Horse stories a great deal, but I prefer them to be separate universes/entities, which they are

But according to FOX they're not separate.

But if you want to consider them separate, there's really nothing stopping you.

That's kinda the whole point. :P

Whats not separate, EU?

That's correct. :)

Quote from: Xenomrph on Mar 07, 2012, 01:36:20 AM

QuoteWhy is Barthes' literary theory touted as the film theory here?

Because, as you said, it can be applied to film just as well (no matter if Barthes agrees or not). It can be applied to any artistic medium.

Yes, I know, it can be applied to anything from literature (for which it was intended as Barthes was not a fan of cinema's lack of interpretative qualities) to food packaging instructions, but I asked why it's being touted as the theory: it's in fact the prevailing mode of film analysis taught in modern higher-level film, literature, and art circles. This is categorically untrue. There are several theories of film interpretation, and none of them are prevailing. Most are in competition or contradict one another. It's fine to refer to Barthes if you want to, but others don't have to. Like I said, Barthes is useless when it comes to auteur theory for example, and it's not wise for a lecturer to adhere to one theory when dissecting film. As a Film & Literature student I'm encouraged to consider all facets of a work's creation, and blotting out the voice of the author would be to severely limit an interpretation. Often, people who ignore the author can come out with all sorts of crazy, left-field interpretations and we may need the author to explain that a cigar is just a cigar, etc.

All that's being contested is your assertion that Barthes is the end-all, be-all. He never has been and I can never imagine it being the case. One suitable criticism of Barthes is that no matter how the author interprets his own work s/he's still always one step closer to the material than anyone else.

QuoteAs a Film & Literature student I'm encouraged to consider all facets of a work's creation, and blotting out the voice of the author would be to severely limit an interpretation.

No one is saying you have to ignore the author's intent, merely that saying "the author's intent is automatically correct simply because it's the author's intent" is wrong.
If you happen to agree with the author's intent, that's fine. Even better if you can cite the work to back up the author's interpretation. But to say "the author is automatically 'right'" is inherently flawed and just as limiting as disregarding the author wholesale.

QuoteOne suitable criticism of Barthes is that no matter how the author interprets his own work s/he's still always one step closer to the material than anyone else.

But they really aren't - they may have been closer to it at the time of its creation, but times change, people change, and the audience changes. That's what makes it art - that it can be looked at by different people with different viewpoints, all of whom bring something different to the table when they interpret it.

QuoteOften, people who ignore the author can come out with all sorts of crazy, left-field interpretations and we may need the author to explain that a cigar is just a cigar, etc.

But why do you need the author to explain it? Why are they automatically "correct"? Why is anyone? If someone comes up with a crazy interpretation (and believe me, I've seen it happen a lot) what's the problem?

Quote from: Xenomrph on Mar 07, 2012, 02:31:22 PM
No one is saying you have to ignore the author's intent

Barthes does. Have you read beyond the Wikipedia page?

Quotemerely that saying "the author's intent is automatically correct simply because it's the author's intent" is wrong.

Disagree, unless the author can be objectively shown as a liar, ie., George Lucas. Otherwise, the author is always closer to the work than reader (and still, I'd suspect that Lucas knows the deal, he's just not telling because he seems to have believed his own cult of personality). Barthes delineated between "writerly" and "readerly" texts, one of which was open to interpretation. The other you don't get to question so much. He likewise said this of cinema - the screen does not allow us to gloss over the "author's" intentions, because the film-maker tells us everything already - unless he intends otherwise. See auteur theory.

QuoteBut to say "the author is automatically 'right'" is inherently flawed and just as limiting as disregarding the author wholesale.

Sorry, I just find this ridiculous reasoning. Mostly because you go from advocating Barthes to dismissing him in the one sentence. I'm sure you have a more concrete view of whatever you're meaning.

QuoteBut they really aren't - they may have been closer to it at the time of its creation, but times change, people change, and the audience changes.

You still look at the text as written. Hence the saying, "trust the tale, not the teller." Stories as written capture the essences of the author at the time. Structuralism, as in Barthes, dismisses the author wholesale and focuses on the reader's interpretive qualities, no matter how blinkered or ignorant they can be.

QuoteBut why do you need the author to explain it? Why are they automatically "correct"? Why is anyone? If someone comes up with a crazy interpretation (and believe me, I've seen it happen a lot) what's the problem?

They're correct in what the text says because they said it. A reader can only report what they hear.

You're actually confusing me somewhat, because you seem to advocate Barthes in one extreme, and then seem to posit and adopt a more lax approach the application of his theory. Additionally, I never intended to discuss Structuralism with you, but to merely correct the assertion that DotA is taught as the film theory.

QuoteBarthes does. Have you read beyond the Wikipedia page?

I have read Barthes, yes, but that doesn't mean I advocate following him 100%.

QuoteSorry, I just find this ridiculous reasoning. Mostly because you go from advocating Barthes to dismissing him in the one sentence. I'm sure you have a more concrete view of whatever you're meaning.

It isn't so much dismissing Barthes as finding a middleground between adhering to the authorial intent 100% and dismissing it 100%.

QuoteStories as written capture the essences of the author at the time. Structuralism, as in Barthes, dismisses the author wholesale and focuses on the reader's interpretive qualities, no matter how blinkered or ignorant they can be.

And what's the problem?

QuoteThey're correct in what the text says because they said it. A reader can only report what they hear.

But that's circular reasoning - you haven't told me why they're correct, all you've said is "they're correct because they're correct". Why is anyone "correct"? Why does anyone have to be? Why is there one singular way to look at a text?

Quote from: Xenomrph on Mar 07, 2012, 04:31:03 PM
I have read Barthes, yes, but that doesn't mean I advocate following him 100%.

It isn't so much dismissing Barthes as finding a middleground between adhering to the authorial intent 100% and dismissing it 100%.

This is what I wanted cleared up.

QuoteBut that's circular reasoning - you haven't told me why they're correct, all you've said is "they're correct because they're correct". Why is anyone "correct"? Why does anyone have to be? Why is there one singular way to look at a text?

The reason that they're correct is self-sufficient. Additionally, I likewise didn't advocate a singular way of looking at a text, I just put the author before the Average Joe.
EDIT: I'd like to add, you can be relentlessly reductive if you want to be, and you can end up doubting that up is up and down is down since all logic ultimately hinges on circularity if you reduce it enough. Put it this way: you make a post; someone takes issue with your post and accuses you of stupidity or rudeness; you re-evaluate your post, see nothing of the sort, and try to reason with your opponent. How can he legitimately say what you meant? Surely you know he's wrong or misguided as to your intention and purpose.

Quote from: Xenomrph on Mar 07, 2012, 02:31:22 PM

QuoteAs a Film & Literature student I'm encouraged to consider all facets of a work's creation, and blotting out the voice of the author would be to severely limit an interpretation.

No one is saying you have to ignore the author's intent, merely that saying "the author's intent is automatically correct simply because it's the author's intent" is wrong.

i think the bottom line here is that its not black and white at all, it really depends on the situation. Couple of examples. The original alien by its creators intent was a creature living 24 hours and morphing people in the eggs. this has been changed in the second movie. Second movie's intent for the Queen was that one of the first larvas become a queen sensing no others are around. That was changed in the third which showed a queen facehugger and a queen being born a queen. But as far as Alien series, its really a collective effort.
When it comes down to Star Wars lets say, or Terminator, where script, directing, idea and world stemmed from one guy only, I tend to give credence only to what its creator and designer (Cameron even designed all the machines and endo) says since idea, story, script and movie came from him. Its like Tolkien and Lord of the Rings, Wachovsky brothers and Matrix etc

So its really not that simple or black and white

In short, if its a collective effort, different idea givers, script writers and directors working on one project, i tend to be open to sequels and others additions, if theres one common creative force (Giler and Hill in this case), if thers one mind behind it ALL, like Lucas & Star Wars or Cameron & terminator, for me personally nothing else matters, in other words, holding a legal paper with rights does not automatically make you a legitimate artist and creative force behind a story. Its like, a guy with fat wallet who bought Mona Lisa cannot add mustache to it and tell me its really a guy, I tend to stay with DaVinci's interpretation, an artist and creator behind it, not a guy who has enough money to toy with it

Xenomrph, I really fail to see the point of some of your comments.  You constantly break everything down to the most simplistic and open-ended sort of philosophic context, and then try and argue very concrete things with this view like it's the underscoring bottom line for these debates.

Can't you give yourself some sort of logical boundary?  I mean we're really talking about canon here, it isn't theoretical, and really all it takes is avoiding saying blatantly pointless things like "why isn't everyone's opinion right?" that frankly sabotage any logical framework and make future discussion difficult as tries to incorporate this slippery, theoretical, and logically flawed idea, and for what reason?  There is no reason save to make things a giant pain in the ass.

You have to spin it all weird to make it work in your context, anyway.  It isn't naturally like that dude.

As far as an author's interpretation, well that's just a fact.  The only questions arise when you bring up theories like Barthes, which are very interesting, but I don't think they do anything for the discussion.

When an author creates something, he/she has control of what it is because he/she physically created it.  I mean god is that splitting hairs or what?  Sure after it's released and given to the public, it's open to all sorts of interpretation.  Duh.  Just because this is possible doesn't change the nature of what the creation was in the first place.  It just doesn't need to be said anymore.

The only real use I can find in Death of the Author, concerning films, is to encourage different viewpoints to discover new things about a film.  I don't think anybody wants to advocate that all of these viewpoints will:
A) Be valid within the facts provided by the movie, or the physical facts of our real world, and
B) Trump what the creator intended simply because.  I really don't care if it's some touted theory, I think it's idiotic at the most basic level and I really don't care for it.  Logic agrees with me.

A crabby post, but this discussion has gotten pulled into a ridiculous area.  Can we just talk about canon and leave the metaphysics out of it? :laugh:

If I were around when Barthes was talking all this mess, I would've slapped him, so don't think I'm picking on you.

Well cant we all argee that is it is just one big mess........for good or bad :laugh:

QuoteThe reason that they're correct is self-sufficient. Additionally, I likewise didn't advocate a singular way of looking at a text, I just put the author before the Average Joe.

That's all well and good, my point is that it's not an automatic universal truth. :)

Quoteif thers one mind behind it ALL, like Lucas & Star Wars or Cameron & terminator

To be fair a lot of what made the original Star Wars movies good and memorable wasn't solely Lucas. The original movies were as much a collaborative effort of many talented people as the Alien movies are.

Quote
As far as an author's interpretation, well that's just a fact. 

But it's not, that's the point of Barthes.

QuoteWhen an author creates something, he/she has control of what it is because he/she physically created it.  I mean god is that splitting hairs or what?  Sure after it's released and given to the public, it's open to all sorts of interpretation.  Duh.  Just because this is possible doesn't change the nature of what the creation was in the first place.  It just doesn't need to be said anymore.

But that's the point, that what the creation was in the first place isn't necessarily the most relevant part of it. Shakespeare is still relevant and appreciated today, and today's world is totally, radically different from Shakespeare's time.

QuoteThe only real use I can find in Death of the Author, concerning films, is to encourage different viewpoints to discover new things about a film.

That is exactly the point. :)

QuoteI don't think anybody wants to advocate that all of these viewpoints will:
A) Be valid within the facts provided by the movie, or the physical facts of our real world, and
B) Trump what the creator intended simply because.  I really don't care if it's some touted theory, I think it's idiotic at the most basic level and I really don't care for it.  Logic agrees with me.

All viewpoints? No. But to discard it sight-unseen just because it's not perfectly in-line with what the creator says is short-sighted.
And no one's saying it trumps the author, merely that the author doesn't automatically trump everyone else just because.

In the Facehugger example, people were saying "it's simply a penis" just because Dan O'bannon said it was, and the problem was when you stopped and thought about what it was doing, it wasn't a penis. Thematically and metaphorically it was acting like a penis, but that doesn't mean it actually literally was one, despite what Dan O'bannon was saying.
Not to mention that Dan O'bannon's intent may have been interpreted differently by everyone else who worked on the movie, and that would influence the final product as well.

It's less about discarding the author's intent and more about thinking about what the author is saying and deciding if it makes sense and if the text supports it, instead of just saying "welp this is what the author says, case closed".
Ridley Scott says Deckard is a replicant in 'Blade Runner' (and he didn't always think that, either). You can use the movie to support that reasoning, but you can also use the movie to support that he's not a replicant, either. And then you've got the rest of the people who worked on the movie who insist that he's human, despite what Ridley Scott has said.

Quote from: Xenomrph on Mar 07, 2012, 06:19:04 PM

QuoteThe reason that they're correct is self-sufficient. Additionally, I likewise didn't advocate a singular way of looking at a text, I just put the author before the Average Joe.

That's all well and good, my point is that it's not an automatic universal truth. :)

And I never claimed so. It's nice to reach an understanding of sorts.

QuoteIn the Facehugger example, people were saying "it's simply a penis" just because Dan O'bannon said it was, and the problem was when you stopped and thought about what it was doing, it wasn't a penis. Thematically and metaphorically it was acting like a penis, but that doesn't mean it actually literally was one, despite what Dan O'bannon was saying.

I think he meant that if performs the function of a penis -it deposits seed and is thereafter useless- which isn't meant to be taken literally in the first place.

QuoteRidley Scott says Deckard is a replicant in 'Blade Runner' (and he didn't always think that, either). You can use the movie to support that reasoning, but you can also use the movie to support that he's not a replicant, either. And then you've got the rest of the people who worked on the movie who insist that he's human, despite what Ridley Scott has said.

There's a lot to suggest that Scott considered Deckard to be a replicant way back in '82 (primely, the fact that such footage as the dream sequence and Deckard eyes exists in the first place - Scott also clarified a few years back that Deckard's nature was a hot topic during production). What can we truly say? We weren't there in this instance. This is another reason Barthes was dismissive of cinema (though he loved the theatre): too many cooks, not enough interpretative leeway (because by dismissing Scott's interpretation, we're simply turning to another author's, ie Fancher and co). Luckily, I think BR turned out to be quite malleable for either interpretation, though this arose serendipitously. Had the final cut been released in '82 the debate wouldn't even exist.

QuoteAnd I never claimed so. It's nice to reach an understanding of sorts.

Now we just need to help RagingDragon understand this. :P

QuoteI think he meant that if performs the function of a penis -it deposits seed and is thereafter useless- which isn't meant to be taken literally in the first place.

Bunch of people in the facehugger thread seemingly didn't get the memo on that one, and were citing O'Bannon as the sole authority on the matter. That's where the "death of the author" thing really started.

QuoteThis is another reason Barthes was dismissive of cinema (though he loved the theatre): too many cooks, not enough interpretative leeway (because by dismissing Scott's interpretation, we're simply turning to another author's, ie Fancher and co).

Yeah that doesn't make sense to me - by having more "cooks", you'd think there'd be even more interpretive leeway.

Quote from: Xenomrph on Mar 07, 2012, 06:33:47 PM
Yeah that doesn't make sense to me - by having more "cooks", you'd think there'd be even more interpretive leeway.

Well it confuses me too that Barthes would champion theatre but not cinema, merely because cinema shows too much. What can you say, humans are very dynamic and contradictory beings.
EDIT: there's less leeway because there are more authors to dismiss, which each one differing from the other. Barthes believed in the birth of the reader, who supplies a text's meaning.

QuoteEDIT: there's less leeway because there are more authors to dismiss, which each one differing from the other.

I guess I'm still not seeing the problem. If he's willing to dismiss the author, why does it matter how many there are?

Quote from: Xenomrph on Mar 07, 2012, 06:44:25 PM

QuoteEDIT: there's less leeway because there are more authors to dismiss, which each one differing from the other.

I guess I'm still not seeing the problem. If he's willing to dismiss the author, why does it matter how many there are?

Because of the many disparate viewpoints, and also because film is a cumulative work, unlike many pieces of fiction, which allowed Barthes to dismiss the author in the first place. At this point, this is only my (incomplete) interpretation of Barthes, because, aside from dismissing cinema, I don't believe he spent much time on multi-authored works like film. That's more a problem for auteur theory. Barthes was first and foremost a literary critic.

I understand the points you're trying to make.  After all of this debate, it shouldn't be subtle to anyone.

But I previously stated the only real use I can see for Death of the Author in this instance, especially within a canon debate.

Your continuing examples are just illustrating how many people ultimately go into the creation of a movie.  There are lots of changes, different creative forces, and plenty of opinions, but in the end you get a single product, regardless of what you believe.

I can see authorial intent and fan interpretation clashing in the right situations, I mean, if there's room for it.  But with something established, like the facehugger and Deckard, you have the end result, which is a concrete fact as far as the movie is concerned, and no amount of opinion or interpretation is going to change that or self-validate said opinions.  It doesnt matter what happened in production or what not, you can clearly see the limits of what you're discussing on the screen.  Authorial intent wins every time, unless a different opinion can justify/prove itself with facts from the movie in question.

If there was a scene where the facehugger did something other than it's sole purpose, or had any other organs to suggest that it could survive on its own, when compared to other independent organisms, and this wasn't specified by the creator(s), that debate would be valid and death of the author would be relevant.  As it stands, there is no evidence of any kind that supports this, and regardless of what happened before, during, or after production, it doesn't change the end product that everyone sees in the films.  It has one purpose, to lay an alien in your chest, then it dies.  If you interpret that differently, it's flawed unless you throw all rules of logic out the window because you have zero in-movie evidence to go by, and what we see in the movie is the framework.  Everything else is just speculation, what-ifs, deleted scenes, opinions, ad infinitum...

It seems more likely that death of the author would apply in a broader sense, with themes and social meanings and subtexts, beliefs of the characters or things like that.

You just keep applying it to situations that definitely don't need it.  They can be clearly observed in an open-and-shut manner, I think.

Canon is not one of those things. :laugh:

QuoteBut with something established, like the facehugger and Deckard, you have the end result, which is a concrete fact as far as the movie is concerned, and no amount of opinion or interpretation is going to change that or self-validate said opinions

.....but this isn't true. Or at least, you haven't demonstrated why it is.
The whole point to Blade Runner is the ambiguity and that you can interpret it multiple ways. Not to mention the authors (plural) disagree on whether he's human or not.

QuoteYour continuing examples are just illustrating how many people ultimately go into the creation of a movie.  There are lots of changes, different creative forces, and plenty of opinions, but in the end you get a single product, regardless of what you believe.

Yes and that single product can be interpreted multiple ways, that's kind of the point of "art".

QuoteIf there was a scene where the facehugger did something other than it's sole purpose, or had any other organs to suggest that it could survive on its own, when compared to other independent organisms, and this wasn't specified by the creator(s), that debate would be valid and death of the author would be relevant.  As it stands, there is no evidence of any kind that supports this, and regardless of what happened before, during, or after production, it doesn't change the end product that everyone sees in the films.  It has one purpose, to lay an alien in your chest, then it dies.

Purpose doesn't factor into it - it otherwise fits the definition of an independent organism if you compare it to other terrestrial creatures. It evidently has internal organs, it can create more of itself (in a roundabout way, just like the Queen), it's mobile, and it has some sort of sensory and reasoning capacity especially if you start taking the EU into account. Saying "it's simply a sex organ, end of story" is oversimplifying it, especially if you have to turn around and cite "the author" to "prove" it. Shouldn't you be able to prove it without citing the author? The fact remains that it can be interpreted another way straight from the movies themselves.
Not to mention in this instance "the author"'s statements can be interpreted as them speaking metaphorically, because when you take them literally it stops making sense.

QuoteYou just keep applying it to situations that definitely don't need it.  They can be clearly observed in an open-and-shut manner, I think.

Canon is not one of those things.

"Canon" is pretty open-and-shut, too -- FOX says the EU is canon and that everything is part of the same "universe", full stop. If there are "contradictions", then that's too bad.
Of course most people don't like that judgment, and so threads like this exist. :P

Which is why there's nothing wrong with people picking and choosing what they want to accept, for any number of reasons. Just like we said multiple times way back on the first page.
What's the problem again?

The problem is... you really just don't get it. :laugh:

There's nothing wrong with that, but you're like talking to a wall.

A wall that constantly repeats itself.

It's obvious what the facehugger is without "citing the author," (what does that even mean?)  You can tell what it is simply by watching the movie.  Out of all of the crazy ass arguments about the alien I've read, I've never seen anyone question what a facehugger is, nor insist that such bogus bullshit is correct against everyone else that disagrees, nor continue on about it like you have some point to prove or interesting insight to offer.

You just prefer to keep insisting, and continue wasting everyone's time instead of ever admitting you're wrong about anything.  More concerned with getting the last word.

Seems like a personal problem to me.  Wow dude, just... wow.

I'm done, I really don't care anymore.  Time to use that wonderful ignore function and get back to some non-retarded conversation.

How did we get from a canon argument to an artist's interpretation of the films argument?

I don't know.  Probably my fault, damn it!  Sorry, what a bloody mess.

Canon, Predxeno, tell me about the canon.

Tell me about the rabbits, George.

And you said you didn't feel like getting reported today. :D

Quote
It's obvious what the facehugger is without "citing the author," (what does that even mean?)  You can tell what it is simply by watching the movie.

And yet, I was able to cite the movie to show that maybe, just maybe, it's not as simple as "it's just a penis". Funny how that worked.

QuoteOut of all of the crazy ass arguments about the alien I've read, I've never seen anyone question what a facehugger is, nor insist that such bogus bullshit is correct against everyone else that disagrees, nor continue on about it like you have some point to prove or interesting insight to offer.

Just because you think it's bullshit doesn't automatically make it wrong. :D

"Citing the author" is exactly like what it sounds like - you're citing the author's statements, in this case Dan O'bannon. I can't believe i have to spell that out. Like, you know what a citation is? When you cite a source? You reference it, you know? It's not complicated.

Just like in the other thread, I wasn't disputing the facehugger's function within Alien reproduction, merely that people were oversimplifying it, in the same way that saying "the Queen is an ambulatory egg-factory" is oversimplifying it, and that even if you do simplify it down to "it's an ambulatory penis", it's not correct. :P

Not to mention I wasn't insisting that it was correct, merely that it was an alternate way to look at it.

QuoteYou just prefer to keep insisting, and continue wasting everyone's time instead of ever admitting you're wrong about anything.  More concerned with getting the last word.

Seems like a personal problem to me.  Wow dude, just... wow.

What are you even talking about? You're the one getting all hostile and insisting that their opinions are immutable facts that everyone has to agree on. And then you get completely unreasonable when someone disagrees with you? Sounds like you're the one with the personal problem.

Actually, I received the report and closed it. It seems very much a case of 'six vs 1/2 a dozen.'

If you guys want to get down, take it to PM.

I think the AVP films where made to be canon, by its filmmakers, but when a sequel/prequel comes along and rewrites the past, so the last movie never happened in the series of other movies, again, its because the director wanted a more true sequel/prequel, but I have always hated that.

I guess its just me, but I like continuity, not just in the Aliens and Predator films, but in games, comics, series, even really shit movies, like Critters or something, it can be anything, but I have never liked a filmmaker who, because he/she didn't like the last movie, makes a new one which rewrites the events of the previous movie, when you could just make a new movie, which might have very thin references to the last, but start a new story, counting what had happened, but you don't have to continue it, kind of like what 'Predators' did.

For me, if I don't like a certain film within a series of movies, I just don't watch it, and watch the good ones instead, I just think its childish to do something like "I don't like your movie, and so does many people, so I am going to do my own version of how it should be".

But then its up to you, what film you like counts within the series, but for me, it can be really, really bad, but its there, we have seen it, its done, move on to the next tale.

And that's all I will say, don't want any arguments, rants or so on, but in the end, what can we really do about it, we don't make these movies, Hollywood does.

QuoteI think the AVP films where made to be canon, by its filmmakers

According to Paul WS Anderson and the Strause Brothers, this is accurate. They talk about it a bit in some of the making-of stuff and audio commentaries.

*sees this thread* Yeah......... About expanded universe stuff....... Here's the way to look at it:

If it contradicts the movies it isn't canon, if it does not contradict the movies then it's canon.

Not sure why there needs to be an epic fuss although this debate looks more civil than the garbage that goes on at kaiju fandom boards.

The "Is Prometheus and/or AVP films canon" debate may now overshadow the "Is the EU canon" one.

What I'm wondering is...how'd a thread about not worrying about what is or isn't canon turn into a thread about what canon is or isn't?

Fans. We always find ways to argue.  ;)

Spoiler

Kidding, kidding, please don't kill me  :P

[close]

Somebody said in a thread, I read a few days ago (sounds like a poem)  :laugh: anyway, that in the future, these films will be kind of like the Universal Monster movies, i.e. Dracula, Frankenstein, The Wolf-man and so on, they had terrible continuity, but they where all tied in together, cross overs and so on, and I am sure at the time people had these kind of arguments, since the continuity was all over the place. Or maybe they didn't?

But these days days, nobody cares but counts them all together as canon, maybe? and just enjoys them all, even the not so good ones, so in about 20 or 30 years, I don't think this canon stuff will matter anymore, they will all be in one big box set on 'Hologram Definition' or something and just labeled as classics, even the AVP films.

But this is the distant future we are talking about, in which there might be more Predator films, Alien films, maybe another Prometheus and a retry at an AVP film that might go down better than the last two, but still not as good, who know what may happen.

Quote from: Peakius Baragonius on Mar 08, 2012, 02:48:46 PM
What I'm wondering is...how'd a thread about not worrying about what is or isn't canon turn into a thread about what canon is or isn't?

Fans. We always find ways to argue.  ;)

Spoiler

Kidding, kidding, please don't kill me  :P

[close]

Spoiler

(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhowimetyourotaku.files.wordpress.com%2F2011%2F05%2Fultimate-rage-face.jpg&hash=2bcbb6fa327371f46006b3c194ba094f5e650d51)

[close]

Don't ask me man, I only work here. :laugh:

Your last post was interesting, Mr. Weyland.  I hadn't thought about these movies in that way before.  I think to most people, you'll be right and the movies will just run together despite of their quality.  To the fans, though, I'm sure AvP:R will get worse over time.

When my children watch it for the first time, it's going to be right after seeing Alien, Aliens, and Predator, then I'm putting in AvP and telling them "remember kids, this was made twenty years later."  They will understand our pain.

QuoteTo the fans, though, I'm sure AvP:R will get worse over time.

I'm actually not sure on that - people hated 'Alien3' when it came out, and have warmed to it since. Likewise with Resurrection. Only time will tell how the AvP movies get treated.

Quote from: Xenomrph on Mar 08, 2012, 05:39:46 PM

QuoteTo the fans, though, I'm sure AvP:R will get worse over time.

I'm actually not sure on that - people hated 'Alien3' when it came out, and have warmed to it since. Likewise with Resurrection. Only time will tell how the AvP movies get treated.

They warmed to it because of the production problems which caused the film to be like it is, actually its a miracle it turned out as average as it did instead of garbage AVP-R was and had no justification.

No offence to the author of this thread but this should been closed the moment the debate turned into an argument, hell i would not of started it at all since the topic of "canon" always has arguments and flame wars.

This is how i see things: The films are canon and the E.U is not. (my opinion only, remember)
so since Prometheus and AVP are movies, then they are canon and i hope to devil that prometheus has no Predator references. (I prefer to consider them separate franchises, that way if one bombs only one franchise can be affected)

So yeah, Prometheus is canon. I am actually confused to why people are questioning that.

Arguing is good for you.

QuoteSo yeah, Prometheus is canon. I am actually confused to why people are questioning that.

Might have something to do with the fact that no one's seen it yet.

Quote from: Xenomrph on Mar 08, 2012, 05:39:46 PM
I'm actually not sure on that - people hated 'Alien3' when it came out, and have warmed to it since. Likewise with Resurrection. Only time will tell how the AvP movies get treated.

I think David finchers involvement may have something to do with that, he went on to an decent career after alien3, same with Jeunet the brothers went on to skyline ;).

Quote from: RagingDragon on Mar 08, 2012, 07:40:05 PM
Arguing is good for you.

No, arguing is ranting and when one is too emotionally involved and biased.

Debates are good because they are civil and are about reaching an agreement rather trying to prove who is right which is also what arguments are about, proving who is right.

Quote
Might have something to do with the fact that no one's seen it yet.

yes but so far as we know its in the alien universe and as a "film", it means its canon...or at least that is how see it since the movies came first.

Without knowing what the continuity issues are and whether they're reconcilable, Prometheus is nothing at the moment.

^This.

Well i personally hope they contradict AVP since that ruined things in my POV and with scott as director he has more say on what is canon than the anderson or the strause brothers since he is the original director.
But yeah nothing is seen yet but if Fans can take the craziness of the crap avp films as canon or even the E.U then obviously prometheus is likely canon or to be accepted as canon even if it features no aliens.

What happened in here took hours of critical analysis and emotional control.  At the end I threw up my hands, sure, but it wasn't some mindless rant.  There was a lot of contribution.

How many emotional arguments have you seen bring up philosophy, biology, and artistic theory?

Quote from: RagingDragon on Mar 08, 2012, 07:58:21 PM
What happened in here took hours of critical analysis and emotional control.  At the end I threw up my hands, sure, but it wasn't some mindless rant.  There was a lot of contribution.

How many emotional arguments have you seen bring up philosophy, biology, and artistic theory?

Lots, an argument doesn't mean the people in it are dumb.
one aspect of arguments (out of many) is that the people are trying to prove who is right rather than meet a middle ground, and so they pull out everything they know to help them.

when i said ranting i was not talking about you two (took it personally though didn't you?) that is just another aspect of arguments that i was telling. Fact is, canon subjects cause arguments.

Well hell yes I did, we were yelling at each other for pages in here. :laugh:  On display shamelessly for everyone to see.

I get what you're saying, and definitely agree.  Are you married, by chance?

Anyway, canon!

Quote from: RagingDragon on Mar 08, 2012, 08:06:39 PM
Well hell yes I did, we were yelling at each other for pages in here. :laugh:  On display shamelessly for everyone to see.

I get what you're saying, and definitely agree.  Are you married, by chance?

Anyway, canon!

Marriage i hear can be....dangerous  ;D

yes i believe its canon also, there is such a tight lid on the production details we don't know much other than it has the weyland logo on a helmet...i think and it has the same sort of designs on walls by giger and if i can recall correctly i saw lots of urn like objects in a picture, if one remembers the old concept then one would know that facehuggers original shot out from an urn.

Quote from: SM on Mar 05, 2012, 02:47:08 AM
*you're

And no, it's still not correct.

It is correct, it says in the documentary that the saga lives on through home video, comics, novels, and games, which means they are all in the Saga.

You have an obsession with trying to make the stories not fit and or have canon issues, well I will tell you this, the Alien movies themselves have a lot of continuity issues, Aliens more so than any other.

 

Quote from: KingAngel ofthe Outergulf on Mar 11, 2012, 07:41:15 AM

Quote from: SM on Mar 05, 2012, 02:47:08 AM
*you're

And no, it's still not correct.

It is correct, it says in the documentary that the saga lives on through home video, comics, novels, and games, which means they are all in the Saga.

You have an obsession with trying to make the stories not fit and or have canon issues, well I will tell you this, the Alien movies themselves have a lot of continuity issues, Aliens more so than any other.

Home video?  So you're saying that I can make my own movie now, and have it be canon?

:o

Fox has bestowed us with unimaginable power!

Home video as in DVD/VHS releases. You know, a video you watch at home rather than in the theatre. :P

I was pointing out the generalization.  That phrase seems randomly taken out of context, and to me simply means that an Alien EU exists.

As far as being a declarative statement about canon, no.  It says nothing about how coherent it is, if there are contradictions, what these contradictions mean to story continuity, etc...

Don't try and make it mean something it doesn't.  It's just a line on a DVD special feature, probably said in passing.

To be fair one could say that contradictions don't necessarily have a bearing on "canon" - just look at the Bible. It's chock-full of inconsistencies and contradictions, and yet it's all part of the biblical "canon".

Jesus Christ.

Quote from: Xenomrph on Mar 11, 2012, 07:13:57 PM
To be fair one could say that contradictions don't necessarily have a bearing on "canon" - just look at the Bible. It's chock-full of inconsistencies and contradictions, and yet it's all part of the biblical "canon".

...Holy Jesus...

(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffiles.sharenator.com%2F1269385664419_thumb_Are_You_a_Wizard-s465x619-66579-580.jpg&hash=9cfabf14d112f6af8dd34fe7c8ee1f719d3bfd8f)



(No pun intended)

Now all we need is someone to bring Hitler and the Nazi into this convo really round it out.

You realize the term "canon" originally referred to religious texts and what was considered "genuine", right?

yes but movie fans can't just kick people that opose them to another continent.

You are really going there?

Man all you had to say was "I like rocking the ganja and being high all dizzy day loooong," your posts make so much more sense now that I realize this.

Quote from: chupacabras acheronsis on Mar 11, 2012, 07:32:38 PM
yes but movie fans can't just kick people that opose them to another continent.

WANT A BET...

piss off and remove thineself ye puritan harpy

Quote from: chupacabras acheronsis on Mar 11, 2012, 08:08:29 PM
piss off and remove thineself ye puritan harpy

Sorry you are not the CO or XO, you have no authority here.

i have a shotgun.

Quote from: chupacabras acheronsis on Mar 11, 2012, 08:26:53 PM
i have a shotgun.

Means nothing to me.

That's because you take things literally.

Quote from: RagingDragon on Mar 11, 2012, 07:08:40 PM
I was pointing out the generalization.  That phrase seems randomly taken out of context, and to me simply means that an Alien EU exists.

As far as being a declarative statement about canon, no.  It says nothing about how coherent it is, if there are contradictions, what these contradictions mean to story continuity, etc...

Don't try and make it mean something it doesn't.  It's just a line on a DVD special feature, probably said in passing.

Actually the word Saga is a pretty powerful word to use when talking about a group of stories.  Saying they are in the "SAGA" or that the "SAGA lives on through such and such" is more official than going out stating which individual stories are canon and non-canon.  George Lucas recently allowed one of his  cronies to make a statement that "Everything in the end is in the SAGA."  He was talking about games, books, novels, toys, movies.   You will not find anything that is NOT canon that is also in a SAGA.

Quote from: KingAngel ofthe Outergulf on Mar 11, 2012, 08:39:39 PM

Quote from: RagingDragon on Mar 11, 2012, 07:08:40 PM
I was pointing out the generalization.  That phrase seems randomly taken out of context, and to me simply means that an Alien EU exists.

As far as being a declarative statement about canon, no.  It says nothing about how coherent it is, if there are contradictions, what these contradictions mean to story continuity, etc...

Don't try and make it mean something it doesn't.  It's just a line on a DVD special feature, probably said in passing.

Actually the word Saga is a pretty powerful word to use when talking about a group of stories.  Saying they are in the "SAGA" or that the "SAGA lives on through such and such" is more official than going out stating which individual stories are canon and non-canon.  George Lucas recently allowed one of his  cronies to make a statement that "Everything in the end is in the SAGA."  He was talking about games, books, novels, toys, movies.   You will not find anything that is NOT canon that is also in a SAGA.

Except, you know, the stuff that's not canon. Star Wars Infinities man. Star. Wars. Infinities.

Quote from: HybridNewborn on Mar 11, 2012, 08:41:49 PM

Quote from: KingAngel ofthe Outergulf on Mar 11, 2012, 08:39:39 PM

Quote from: RagingDragon on Mar 11, 2012, 07:08:40 PM
I was pointing out the generalization.  That phrase seems randomly taken out of context, and to me simply means that an Alien EU exists.

As far as being a declarative statement about canon, no.  It says nothing about how coherent it is, if there are contradictions, what these contradictions mean to story continuity, etc...

Don't try and make it mean something it doesn't.  It's just a line on a DVD special feature, probably said in passing.

Actually the word Saga is a pretty powerful word to use when talking about a group of stories.  Saying they are in the "SAGA" or that the "SAGA lives on through such and such" is more official than going out stating which individual stories are canon and non-canon.  George Lucas recently allowed one of his  cronies to make a statement that "Everything in the end is in the SAGA."  He was talking about games, books, novels, toys, movies.   You will not find anything that is NOT canon that is also in a SAGA.

Except, you know, the stuff that's not canon. Star Wars Infinities man. Star. Wars. Infinities.

It's canon alternate reality, starwars has a multiverse, but hey you prob didn't know this or even like Star Wars seeing how it is you were backing up one of your friends that made a statement like this.

Quotef**k. The Thing could even copy a Jedi and use the f**king force.

Yup you guys sure were unbiased.

was hybrid newborn the one who said that?

because this "you guys" or "your team" shit is getting on my nerves. i don't agree with that by the way.

Quote from: KingAngel ofthe Outergulf on Mar 11, 2012, 08:48:19 PM

Quote from: HybridNewborn on Mar 11, 2012, 08:41:49 PM

Quote from: KingAngel ofthe Outergulf on Mar 11, 2012, 08:39:39 PM

Quote from: RagingDragon on Mar 11, 2012, 07:08:40 PM
I was pointing out the generalization.  That phrase seems randomly taken out of context, and to me simply means that an Alien EU exists.

As far as being a declarative statement about canon, no.  It says nothing about how coherent it is, if there are contradictions, what these contradictions mean to story continuity, etc...

Don't try and make it mean something it doesn't.  It's just a line on a DVD special feature, probably said in passing.

Actually the word Saga is a pretty powerful word to use when talking about a group of stories.  Saying they are in the "SAGA" or that the "SAGA lives on through such and such" is more official than going out stating which individual stories are canon and non-canon.  George Lucas recently allowed one of his  cronies to make a statement that "Everything in the end is in the SAGA."  He was talking about games, books, novels, toys, movies.   You will not find anything that is NOT canon that is also in a SAGA.

Except, you know, the stuff that's not canon. Star Wars Infinities man. Star. Wars. Infinities.

It's canon alternate reality, starwars has a multiverse

1. Please stop with the snide personal remarks.

2. Star wars does not have a multiverse. Infinities is the official term for non-canon stories and material.

Quote from: HybridNewborn on Mar 11, 2012, 09:00:17 PM
1. Please stop with the snide personal remarks.

Stop talking to me then, I would prefer silence over you and your friends talking to me.

Quote from: HybridNewborn on Mar 11, 2012, 09:00:17 PM
2. Star wars does not have a multiverse. Infinities is the official term for non-canon stories and material.

Really

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Waru%27s_universe (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Waru%27s_universe)

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Waru (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Waru)

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Otherspace (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Otherspace)

Yeah he, uh, we don't really know each other.  Lol, keep pushing the friend idea.

I understand the definition of saga. 

You can tell by the surrounding context what the term saga is meant to imply.  Of course they're all in the same saga, they had to get a license to use said saga.  The most likely answer is that they were talking about the EU itself, not making any declarative statements.

You could be right, but you'll need some more evidence to back it up.  If they were trying to say something about canon (which they probably weren't) there should be some other quotes you could pick up from the conversation to support it. 

Dear lord is that the line that everybody uses to say that Fox has declared every last little thing canon?

Quote from: KingAngel ofthe Outergulf on Mar 11, 2012, 09:09:42 PM

Quote from: HybridNewborn on Mar 11, 2012, 09:00:17 PM
1. Please stop with the snide personal remarks.

Stop talking to me then, I would prefer silence over you and your friends talking to me.

Perhaps you shouldn't reply to me if you don't want to interact with me?

Quote

Quote from: HybridNewborn on Mar 11, 2012, 09:00:17 PM
2. Star wars does not have a multiverse. Infinities is the official term for non-canon stories and material.

Really

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Waru%27s_universe (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Waru%27s_universe)

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Waru (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Waru)

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Otherspace (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Otherspace)

I stand corrected. There is a star wars multiverse. Last i checked however, the infinities stories were stilled deamed non-canon while still being part of the overall star wars saga.

Yeah the Infinities stuff is non-canon. Waru (and Otherspace) are part of another universe/dimension, but Infinities stuff is literally non-canon (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Infinities). Lucasfilm and the Star Wars wiki are very clear (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Canon) on this point.

Everybody chill the f**k out. KingAngel & HybridNewborn, I suggest you check your PM's.

Quote from: Xenomrph on Mar 12, 2012, 12:01:07 AM
Yeah the Infinities stuff is non-canon. Waru (and Otherspace) are part of another universe/dimension, but Infinities stuff is literally non-canon (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Infinities). Lucasfilm and the Star Wars wiki are very clear (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Canon) on this point.

   

Quote"We've stuck to a very clear branding strategy for the past decade. This is Star Wars. Individual movies come and go, as do TV shows, video games, books. They all contribute to the lore of Star Wars, but in the end it is one saga and that saga is called Star Wars. We've wanted to send a clear message to our fans that everything we do is part of that overall saga."
    ―Jim Ward

Those stories happen in a different universe, perhaps if you red up on string theory and super-string theory you would understand that it is impossible for the infinities NOT to have happened in a parallel universe.

Quote from: RagingDragon on Mar 11, 2012, 09:13:11 PM
You could be right, but you'll need some more evidence to back it up.  If they were trying to say something about canon (which they probably weren't) there should be some other quotes you could pick up from the conversation to support it. 

Dear lord is that the line that everybody uses to say that Fox has declared every last little thing canon?

There are a bunch of other quotes, I'm really not sure why he focuses on that one so much. Hell, I never gave that one any credence at all, for the same reason you pointed out.

Quote from: KingAngel ofthe Outergulf on Mar 12, 2012, 12:19:53 AM

Quote from: Xenomrph on Mar 12, 2012, 12:01:07 AM
Yeah the Infinities stuff is non-canon. Waru (and Otherspace) are part of another universe/dimension, but Infinities stuff is literally non-canon (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Infinities). Lucasfilm and the Star Wars wiki are very clear (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Canon) on this point.

   

Quote"We've stuck to a very clear branding strategy for the past decade. This is Star Wars. Individual movies come and go, as do TV shows, video games, books. They all contribute to the lore of Star Wars, but in the end it is one saga and that saga is called Star Wars. We've wanted to send a clear message to our fans that everything we do is part of that overall saga."
    ―Jim Ward

Those stories happen in a different universe, perhaps if you red up on string theory and super-string theory you would understand that it is impossible for the infinities NOT to have happened in a parallel universe.

This really doesn't change the fact that LucasFilm has said that Infinities stuff is non-canon. Like you just cited the Star Wars wiki to point out that Star Wars has multiple "universes", but when someone uses the same wiki to point out that Infinities stuff is still non-canon, it's not good enough? What the f**k? ???

Quote from: RagingDragon on Mar 11, 2012, 09:13:11 PM
Yeah he, uh, we don't really know each other.  Lol, keep pushing the friend idea.

Don't worry about it.

Quote from: RagingDragon on Mar 11, 2012, 09:13:11 PM
I understand the definition of saga. 

You can tell by the surrounding context what the term saga is meant to imply.  Of course they're all in the same saga, they had to get a license to use said saga.  The most likely answer is that they were talking about the EU itself, not making any declarative statements.

You could be right, but you'll need some more evidence to back it up.  If they were trying to say something about canon (which they probably weren't) there should be some other quotes you could pick up from the conversation to support it. 

Dear lord is that the line that everybody uses to say that Fox has declared every last little thing canon?

You should watch the documentary it's in the blu-ray Alien set.  I will also point out this statement made by the team making Colonial Marines.

QuoteThat's exactly what we're looking to do. Fox has been great to work with and SEGA has been a good partner in building the bridges between developer and IP holder. Fox is a little more flexible with the canon than other companies out there, but they do have to be careful not to annoy directors – if you put together a proposition that assumes a particular film never happened, the director isn't going to like that very much and Fox may have plans to work with them again in the future.

We're able to introduce our own elements that we feel are right for the interactive space, whether that's weapons or new types of aliens, and we're aware that in doing so we're adding to the existing canon. 

http://blog.eu.playstation.com/2011/08/25/gearbox-on-creating-a-canon-with-aliens-colonial-marines/#more-46236 (http://blog.eu.playstation.com/2011/08/25/gearbox-on-creating-a-canon-with-aliens-colonial-marines/#more-46236)

I grantee that the other people that have worked in the other mediums have had to follow these rules.  Also in both the anthology and quadriliogy in the section dealing with the comics if you read every bit about every comic you will notice that they mention they had to rewrite comics to fit with the continuity.  Now if they were non-canon or even a;alternate reality the comics wouldn't have to be rewritten to fit with continuity.

I like that Gearbox quote, I hadn't heard that one before. Thanks.

QuoteNow if they were non-canon or even a;alternate reality the comics wouldn't have to be rewritten to fit with continuity.

If there was a single continuity that Fox enforced, the comics wouldn't have been rendered null and void amd therefore not needed re-writing in the first place.  And the second place.

I still think that they should have left the comics as an alternate universe where Newt and Hicks still lived; not only would it be a better story than we got in Alien 3 but a lot of the continuity problems are fixed right there (it all happens in an alternate universe).

There is no way AVP is connected to Prometheus.

It's like trying to mix oil with water.

Quote from: mastermoon on Mar 12, 2012, 04:16:12 AM
There is no way AVP is connected to Prometheus.

It's like trying to mix oil with water.

Personally i hope that is true and i also hope that prometheus contradicts or completely ignores the avp films and any reference to predators (as i personally like to view them as separate franchises) but with fox, you never can trust what they will do.

Most likely it will end up connected to avp because some fans don't care that it can ruin the franchise. Merging them is bad as when one film or media bombs, the entire alien and predator franchise gets stuck with the stain.
avp is good as a comic, novel and even a game because then one could just easily consider non-canon and thus not affect the main continuity and storyline and double points if they are good but as a film, what it does in film permanently alters things and its worse when they are bad unless they can be retconned out of existence.

I'm confident Prometheus will ignore AvP - the movie isn't going to waste valuable screentime outright contradicting it, though. I think I'd rather have Prometheus devote all of its energy being the best movie it could be rather than derailing itself in order to damage some other movie, cutting off its nose to spite its face.

Quote from: Xenomrph on Mar 12, 2012, 04:10:42 PM
I'm confident Prometheus will ignore AvP - the movie isn't going to waste valuable screentime outright contradicting it, though. I think I'd rather have Prometheus devote all of its energy being the best movie it could be rather than derailing itself in order to damage some other movie, cutting off its nose to spite its face.

I agree, this is a film that should be redemption for the franchise and thus should devote its time to trying to be the best it can plus its directed by the original director.

Guys, to reinforce the point of th before it descends into the crapstorm predicted on the first page, it doesn't matter whether or not not Infinites is multiverse, non-canon, or both, because you've got your own opinions and arguing them isn't going to change other peoples'.

Quote from: Nero the Jackal on Mar 12, 2012, 03:38:37 PM

Quote from: mastermoon on Mar 12, 2012, 04:16:12 AM
There is no way AVP is connected to Prometheus.

It's like trying to mix oil with water.

Personally i hope that is true and i also hope that prometheus contradicts or completely ignores the avp films and any reference to predators (as i personally like to view them as separate franchises) but with fox, you never can trust what they will do.

Most likely it will end up connected to avp because some fans don't care that it can ruin the franchise. Merging them is bad as when one film or media bombs, the entire alien and predator franchise gets stuck with the stain.
avp is good as a comic, novel and even a game because then one could just easily consider non-canon and thus not affect the main continuity and storyline and double points if they are good but as a film, what it does in film permanently alters things and its worse when they are bad unless they can be retconned out of existence.

It doesn't really matter because we'll just make up our own minds about it anyways. To me AVP did not ruin the franchise. To me, Alien Cubed did. AVPR, while horrible, frankly has no bearing on the rest of the series and so I don't view it as "ruining" it except for providing the series with its first truly awful movie (haven't seen Resurrection yet). But there's no way I can convince you that my opinions are right or that yours don't matter, and attempting to do so is futile.

That, if anything, was the point that I was trying to get across by creating this thread. It would appear that I've failed.

Sorry to have contributed to the shit show, but I like threads like these. :laugh:  I think you did well.

To progress, let's ask some questions of this freakshow you've assembled.

1 - Should a contradiction in canon eliminate the story that created it from belonging to that canon, or demand a fix so it can become canon?

2 - Some canon can have contradictions, like comedies.  Since the Alien/Predator canon has so many contradictions, but is still considered all canon by apparently Fox and many here, does that make it a comedy?

The answer to question 2 is yes. ;D

Quote from: Peakius Baragonius on Mar 12, 2012, 06:36:21 PM
Guys, to reinforce the point of th before it descends into the crapstorm predicted on the first page, it doesn't matter whether or not not Infinites is multiverse, non-canon, or both, because you've got your own opinions and arguing them isn't going to change other peoples'.

Quote from: Nero the Jackal on Mar 12, 2012, 03:38:37 PM

Quote from: mastermoon on Mar 12, 2012, 04:16:12 AM
There is no way AVP is connected to Prometheus.

It's like trying to mix oil with water.

Personally i hope that is true and i also hope that prometheus contradicts or completely ignores the avp films and any reference to predators (as i personally like to view them as separate franchises) but with fox, you never can trust what they will do.

Most likely it will end up connected to avp because some fans don't care that it can ruin the franchise. Merging them is bad as when one film or media bombs, the entire alien and predator franchise gets stuck with the stain.
avp is good as a comic, novel and even a game because then one could just easily consider non-canon and thus not affect the main continuity and storyline and double points if they are good but as a film, what it does in film permanently alters things and its worse when they are bad unless they can be retconned out of existence.

It doesn't really matter because we'll just make up our own minds about it anyways. To me AVP did not ruin the franchise. To me, Alien Cubed did. AVPR, while horrible, frankly has no bearing on the rest of the series and so I don't view it as "ruining" it except for providing the series with its first truly awful movie (haven't seen Resurrection yet). But there's no way I can convince you that my opinions are right or that yours don't matter, and attempting to do so is futile.

That, if anything, was the point that I was trying to get across by creating this thread. It would appear that I've failed.

AVP itself was fine, it was the films of it that contributed to all the franchises downfall, its even become a joke to some people.

Quote from: Nero the Jackal on Mar 12, 2012, 06:50:44 PM

Quote from: Peakius Baragonius on Mar 12, 2012, 06:36:21 PM
Guys, to reinforce the point of th before it descends into the crapstorm predicted on the first page, it doesn't matter whether or not not Infinites is multiverse, non-canon, or both, because you've got your own opinions and arguing them isn't going to change other peoples'.

Quote from: Nero the Jackal on Mar 12, 2012, 03:38:37 PM

Quote from: mastermoon on Mar 12, 2012, 04:16:12 AM
There is no way AVP is connected to Prometheus.

It's like trying to mix oil with water.

Personally i hope that is true and i also hope that prometheus contradicts or completely ignores the avp films and any reference to predators (as i personally like to view them as separate franchises) but with fox, you never can trust what they will do.

Most likely it will end up connected to avp because some fans don't care that it can ruin the franchise. Merging them is bad as when one film or media bombs, the entire alien and predator franchise gets stuck with the stain.
avp is good as a comic, novel and even a game because then one could just easily consider non-canon and thus not affect the main continuity and storyline and double points if they are good but as a film, what it does in film permanently alters things and its worse when they are bad unless they can be retconned out of existence.

It doesn't really matter because we'll just make up our own minds about it anyways. To me AVP did not ruin the franchise. To me, Alien Cubed did. AVPR, while horrible, frankly has no bearing on the rest of the series and so I don't view it as "ruining" it except for providing the series with its first truly awful movie (haven't seen Resurrection yet). But there's no way I can convince you that my opinions are right or that yours don't matter, and attempting to do so is futile.

That, if anything, was the point that I was trying to get across by creating this thread. It would appear that I've failed.

AVP itself was fine, it was the films of it that contributed to all the franchises downfall, its even become a joke to some people.

I was talking about the first film, but what you said of AVP the concept is true to. (Nice signature, by the way).

Quote from: Peakius Baragonius on Mar 12, 2012, 08:30:29 PM

Quote from: Nero the Jackal on Mar 12, 2012, 06:50:44 PM

Quote from: Peakius Baragonius on Mar 12, 2012, 06:36:21 PM
Guys, to reinforce the point of th before it descends into the crapstorm predicted on the first page, it doesn't matter whether or not not Infinites is multiverse, non-canon, or both, because you've got your own opinions and arguing them isn't going to change other peoples'.

Quote from: Nero the Jackal on Mar 12, 2012, 03:38:37 PM

Quote from: mastermoon on Mar 12, 2012, 04:16:12 AM
There is no way AVP is connected to Prometheus.

It's like trying to mix oil with water.

Personally i hope that is true and i also hope that prometheus contradicts or completely ignores the avp films and any reference to predators (as i personally like to view them as separate franchises) but with fox, you never can trust what they will do.

Most likely it will end up connected to avp because some fans don't care that it can ruin the franchise. Merging them is bad as when one film or media bombs, the entire alien and predator franchise gets stuck with the stain.
avp is good as a comic, novel and even a game because then one could just easily consider non-canon and thus not affect the main continuity and storyline and double points if they are good but as a film, what it does in film permanently alters things and its worse when they are bad unless they can be retconned out of existence.

It doesn't really matter because we'll just make up our own minds about it anyways. To me AVP did not ruin the franchise. To me, Alien Cubed did. AVPR, while horrible, frankly has no bearing on the rest of the series and so I don't view it as "ruining" it except for providing the series with its first truly awful movie (haven't seen Resurrection yet). But there's no way I can convince you that my opinions are right or that yours don't matter, and attempting to do so is futile.

That, if anything, was the point that I was trying to get across by creating this thread. It would appear that I've failed.

AVP itself was fine, it was the films of it that contributed to all the franchises downfall, its even become a joke to some people.

I was talking about the first film, but what you said of AVP the concept is true to. (Nice signature, by the way).

Thank you and yes i sort of agree, the first film did have potential, it just lacked character development among other things. It was better than the second one anyway  :laugh:

Prometheus has already contradicted AvP (possibly inadvertently) already by describing Peter Weyland as the founder of the company.

But I'm sure the 'Everything is Canon' crowd will make up some incongruous explanation.

Quote1 - Should a contradiction in canon eliminate the story that created it from belonging to that canon, or demand a fix so it can become canon?

The latter.

Quote2 - Some canon can have contradictions, like comedies.  Since the Alien/Predator canon has so many contradictions, but is still considered all canon by apparently Fox and many here, does that make it a comedy?

Any canon can have contradictions - canon and continuity aren't necessarily interchangeable terms.

Quote from: SM on Mar 12, 2012, 10:24:32 PM
Prometheus has already contradicted AvP (possibly inadvertently) already by describing Peter Weyland as the founder of the company.

But I'm sure the 'Everything is Canon' crowd will make up some incongruous explanation.

We'll see how the movie (and the rest of the ARG) plays out.

Quote from: SM on Mar 12, 2012, 10:24:32 PM
Prometheus has already contradicted AvP (possibly inadvertently) already by describing Peter Weyland as the founder of the company.

But I'm sure the 'Everything is Canon' crowd will make up some incongruous explanation.

Yeah, no offence to them but some of their explanations are downright insane.

So that is one contradiction, i am so hoping for more  ;D

Rule of thumb, when someone says "no offense, but", it generally means they're about to say something offensive. :P

Similar to if someone says "I'm not racist, but", it means they're about to say something racist.

Quote from: Xenomrph on Mar 13, 2012, 01:16:41 AM
Rule of thumb, when someone says "no offense, but", it generally means they're about to say something offensive. :P

Similar to if someone says "I'm not racist, but", it means they're about to say something racist.

Then you're very silly since it is not rule of thumb but more like a "sometimes"  which is when a person is just being a pretentious ass.
I am a sincere person and i mean what i say, if you want offensive then i can give it if provoked but i ain't the type to start trouble unlike some and i will remain as civil as i can.

So yeah, i believe their theories can be insane at times but i mean no ill towards them when i call it insane, its just how i think of it and its honest.

Now lets get back on topic...which is actually a ticking time bomb.

I figured the ":P" would be a hint that I wasn't being 100% serious, but apparently not.

Quote from: Xenomrph on Mar 13, 2012, 06:56:54 PM
I figured the ":P" would be a hint that I wasn't being 100% serious, but apparently not.

it never works, that's why i simply stopped caring.

heh you poke your tongue out in lots of posts xeno  :laugh: and i didn't care if you were serious or not, i was compelled to reply to the post as i needed to make a sort of point that being civil is what is needed in threads like these and one should not answer an insult back with an another insult.  :) The point i am making now, is that since this thread is a time bomb and some members can be offended easily with opinions (even though they are just opinions which we are all entitled to) one should not respond to them if they start to use insults or being disrespectful and rude as i noticed earlier a few pages back with someone who shall not be named. :laugh: well at least the thing thread got resolved before it closed.

Canon debates are like politics and religion, badness will ensue.

Quoteheh you poke your tongue out in lots of posts xeno

Well yeah, it's because I'm not being serious in a lot of my posts. :P

Quote from: Nero the Jackal on Mar 13, 2012, 08:21:15 PM
heh you poke your tongue out in lots of posts xeno  :laugh: and i didn't care if you were serious or not, i was compelled to reply to the post as i needed to make a sort of point that being civil is what is needed in threads like these and one should not answer an insult back with an another insult.  :) The point i am making now, is that since this thread is a time bomb and some members can be offended easily with opinions (even though they are just opinions which we are all entitled to) one should not respond to them if they start to use insults or being disrespectful and rude as i noticed earlier a few pages back with someone who shall not be named. :laugh: well at least the thing thread got resolved before it closed.

Canon debates are like politics and religion, badness will ensue.

Thank you almighty god of canon threads, may your words be heeded by the mob of blind, aggressive peasants waiting to insult each other in the name of canon.

Anyway, can we continue talking about the OP without someone coming in pointing out how unstable the thread is every five seconds?

Getting pretty annoying.  Why dont you let the mods do their jobs and stop trying to preach to people or act like you're above everyone who's tried discussing this topic?

see? members insulting each other all the time and there was no need for it or that accusation/comment.


The Mods should not have to be the ones to clean up the mess all the time, the mess should be avoided in the first place so drop the attitude and be civil.

Will we get to see a Predator in Prometheus? female, perhaps?  ;D

it's not a good debate until someone gets mad.

To predaker:
If there was, would you know the difference? :laugh: in the E.U there are female preds but in the comic avp the deadliest of the species, females look exactly the same as males.

I hope there are no predators in it or evidence of their existence in the alienverse.

and to chupa:
That is kind of immoral, only bullies and trolls etc enjoy seeing people tormented and have emotional outbursts, there is nothing good about behaviour like that on the forums, sites should not be brought down to lower standards by constant arguing and insult trading.
Forums have to be kept civil and respectful, debates are fine, arguments are not.

there's nothing good about emotional investment on the internet in the first place.

it's not anybody's holy crusade to convince people their way, and if they believe so they deserve what's coming. idiots will be idiots and rational, level headed people will be rational, level headed people. if you can't stop at any moment and asess if you really enjoy doing this, you should close your browser and do something else for a while.

trolling only exists because some people just won't quit.

Quoteit's not anybody's holy crusade to convince people their way

Whoa whoa whoa speak for yourself there buddy. >:(

And if you don't agree with me I will cut you.

come at me sprout

I am not trying to change people's ways and have never tried to, we all know everyone has a different temperament and snapping point, i am just putting down an opinion on the matter and maybe some advice to boot, for example, if someone is starting to get aggressive, just tell them if they have nothing nice to say to someone, don't say anything at all. Sound advice since one can be banned for not controlling themselves but it is up to them to take it.
but is losing your temper or insult someone worth getting banned? i think not, when i signed up, i read the rules and i take them seriously.

I know kung fu

Quote from: Nero the Jackal on Mar 13, 2012, 10:01:35 PM
see? members insulting each other all the time and there was no need for it or that accusation/comment.


The Mods should not have to be the ones to clean up the mess all the time, the mess should be avoided in the first place so drop the attitude and be civil.

Quote from: Nero the Jackal on Mar 14, 2012, 12:19:24 AM
I am not trying to change people's ways and have never tried to, we all know everyone has a different temperament and snapping point, i am just putting down an opinion on the matter and maybe some advice to boot, for example, if someone is starting to get aggressive, just tell them if they have nothing nice to say to someone, don't say anything at all. Sound advice since one can be banned for not controlling themselves but it is up to them to take it.
but is losing your temper or insult someone worth getting banned? i think not, when i signed up, i read the rules and i take them seriously.

Lol, nice posts there.

I hardly insulted you, though you seem to have a hyper-sensitive interpretation of things, especially ones you don't agree with.

If you tell people what to do and insinuate things about them, no matter how "vague," don't be surprised to get a response.  It's a pet peeve of mine, especially if it isn't your responsibility to check people but you act like it is.  That's being pompous, in my opinion.

You're not anybody's boss here, and I doubt you'll ever get a good reaction from acting like you're better than everyone.

Can we get back to the thread please?

Isn't THIS the thread?

Quote from: chupacabras acheronsis on Mar 14, 2012, 12:17:11 AM
come at me sprout

I'mma f**k you up. >:(

I am reassuming silent observer mode.

God this thread...

Fight started by someone talking about how a fight was going to start. :D

Spoiler

(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gonemovies.com%2Fwww%2FWanadooFilms%2FScienceFiction%2FAliensBurke.jpg&hash=cc2bdeef7fb7ef265da0989e2c31621da1a7201e)

[close]

I have never acted pompous or bossy and it was an insult, accusing me of thinking i'm better than everyone is slander/libel and so its insulting. I am no better than anyone else here and just in case you haven't noticed, i am trying to be civil, polite and nice which are good things not bad and i'm not telling people what to do, i am asking them at best and simply suggesting to them at the very least, its their choice to to take it or leave it.

having a thread that is civil is better than a thread full of insults...so why is that a problem?

if its a pet peeve than ignore it, not respond to it because that is how the drama/flame cycle starts.

Now if you want this thread back on track then stay on track and not respond in an off topic manner, I too am guilty of that with this post and so it shall be the last off-topic one, can you do the same so we can get back on track?

---

Quote from: SM on Mar 14, 2012, 12:24:48 AM
Isn't THIS the thread?

He means topic. it has gone off topic and actually became something of irony.

Word.

Yo.

Was just looking through this thread. Just reading some of this can cause a brain aneurysm. Jesus.

I solved everything by page 3. ;)

Oh shit a canon thread, this isn't going to be good.

Yeah, yourself and SM were among the voices of reason in this thread.

Quote from: RagingDragon on Mar 14, 2012, 06:32:05 PM
I solved everything by page 3. ;)

Oh shit a canon thread, this isn't going to be good.

Shit was solved on page 1, dawg.

the poll results say otherwise.

BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD

SKULLS FOR THE SKULL THRONE


But as far as Im concerned If ol' Riddles says AVP aint canon

then AVP aint canon

And for the EU shit, it would be nice for darkhorse to admit they f**ked up and officially make it all an alternate universe. It would be better for everyone.

Dark Horse didn't f**k up in terms of continuity.  They were paying attention to the continuity as it existed at the time.  Can't blame them when Fox says "Yeah, sure, create a 14 issue arc featuring Hicks, Newt and Ripley" when they're already developing a movie that is not going to pay attention to that arc in any way, shape or form.

And similarly, it's not Dark Horse's fault when Fox makes a fourth movie that negates nearly every comic they did after that 14 issue arc.

But otherwise, yeah.  I agree.  I think we should start referring to the comics etc as the AU, rather than EU.

Quote from: SM on Mar 15, 2012, 04:13:17 AM
I think we should start referring to the comics etc as the AU, rather than EU.

Thanks but no thanks on that one.

---

Quote from: Spaghetti on Mar 15, 2012, 03:52:31 AM
And for the EU shit, it would be nice for darkhorse to admit they f**ked up and officially make it all an alternate universe. It would be better for everyone.

Except for the people who like considering the EU to be "canon", I guess?

The only way to settle this is too make AVP3 sans the humans.

Quote from: SM on Mar 15, 2012, 04:13:17 AM
Dark Horse didn't f**k up in terms of continuity.  They were paying attention to the continuity as it existed at the time.  Can't blame them when Fox says "Yeah, sure, create a 14 issue arc featuring Hicks, Newt and Ripley" when they're already developing a movie that is not going to pay attention to that arc in any way, shape or form.

And similarly, it's not Dark Horse's fault when Fox makes a fourth movie that negates nearly every comic they did after that 14 issue arc.

Its Dark Horse's fault (and Fox) for not clearing all this up sometime after Earth War and the release of the omnibus (plenty of damn time). A statement in the fan letters of any of the other stories, in a little statement in the omnibus, or even on the A/P part of their website. SOMETHING. ANYTHING. GAH.

They just shoulda never gone the Ripely and newt path in the first place. I'm sure they got plenty of fan letters asking them where the hell the Ripley saving earth happens in relation to A3. Or how the books add more plotholes having her as a synthetic. So the movies, books AND comics are a different continuity? Guh. And they let the wound fester all these years eventually leading to threads like this happening.

Unless... never ending dumb fan arguments on forums were their master plan all along.

Those bastards.

Quote from: Xenomrph on Mar 15, 2012, 08:26:37 AM
Except for the people who like considering the EU to be "canon", I guess?

Oh no, especially for you guys. The EU can finally be canon as an AU.

QuoteIts Dark Horse's fault (and Fox) for not clearing all this up sometime after Earth War and the release of the omnibus (plenty of damn time). A statement in the fan letters of any of the other stories, in a little statement in the omnibus, or even on the A/P part of their website. SOMETHING. ANYTHING. GAH.

Yeah it woulda been nice, but beyond very basic statements that they were bringing the comics into line with Alien3, there was no real detail.  And they've never said anything about the Resurrection contradictions - probably a good thing since The Big Deletion thing stands up to no scrutiny whatsoever.

And even saying they were doing this - Female War was pretty sloppy with it's remastering (not read Book 1 and 2 versions), and Ripley's continued existance was never addressed.  And on top of this they still publish the orginal versions with Hicks and Newt.

Quote from: Spaghetti on Mar 15, 2012, 09:06:57 AM
Oh no, especially for you guys. The EU can finally be canon as an AU.

But the EU is already "canon", so how is this different? Besides there's nothing stopping you from considering it "AU" on your own anyway.

Quote from: Spaghetti on Mar 15, 2012, 09:06:57 AM
Its Dark Horse's fault (and Fox) for not clearing all this up sometime after Earth War and the release of the omnibus (plenty of damn time). A statement in the fan letters of any of the other stories, in a little statement in the omnibus, or even on the A/P part of their website. SOMETHING. ANYTHING. GAH.

One of the many reasons I was disappointed that the recent Alien, Predator, and AvP comics continued to follow the remixed/retconned/mashed-up continuity of the older Dark Horse Alien comics instead of just starting fresh. Each time they announce a new Alien comic, I'm hopeful that it will be a clean slate, something that isn't built on a broken base, and each time they choose to keep trying to build a house in the quicksand. :-\

Quote from: Xenomrph on Mar 15, 2012, 09:31:12 AM

Quote from: Spaghetti on Mar 15, 2012, 09:06:57 AM
Oh no, especially for you guys. The EU can finally be canon as an AU.

But the EU is already "canon", so how is this different? Besides there's nothing stopping you from considering it "AU" on your own anyway.

I thought you agreed it was still a matter of personal opinions xeno, no one should force it as canon or non-canon until there is solid 100% direct proof.


As for dark horse screwing up, i guess that is down to fox as SM said, they were already planning on make the third movie while given them licence to make those books, they did get altered later though. Still i can never imagine the crazy stuff in the EU being in a film as its way too over the top which is one of the reasons why i consider it non-canon other than the continuity problems.

What we need is two separate General A-P Discussion sections, one that allows EU to be discussed, and one that allows only movie canon, so we can avoid these canon debates altogether.

Well we all know the movies are canon, its just the EU that is forever getting mixed views and disagreements.

Quote from: Nero the Jackal on Mar 15, 2012, 01:36:34 PM

Quote from: Xenomrph on Mar 15, 2012, 09:31:12 AM

Quote from: Spaghetti on Mar 15, 2012, 09:06:57 AM
Oh no, especially for you guys. The EU can finally be canon as an AU.

But the EU is already "canon", so how is this different? Besides there's nothing stopping you from considering it "AU" on your own anyway.

I thought you agreed it was still a matter of personal opinions xeno, no one should force it as canon or non-canon until there is solid 100% direct proof.

Nobody should "force" anything, although FOX *does* consider the EU to be canon. What I'm saying is that even with FOX considering the EU to be "canon" that hasn't (and shouldn't have) stopped people from ignoring what FOX said and disregarding what they don't like from their "personal canon", just like if FOX went and said "all of this stuff is AU" it wouldn't stop people from ignoring FOX and considering it to be canon anyway. Spaghetti's solution wouldn't actually change or fix anything, at least not anything that needs fixing.

Quote from: kelgaard on Mar 15, 2012, 03:50:05 PM
What we need is two separate General A-P Discussion sections, one that allows EU to be discussed, and one that allows only movie canon, so we can avoid these canon debates altogether.

We already have that - there's a movies sub-forum where people can discuss the movies, and EU stuff is generally off-limits. They're even further segregated into Alien/Predator/AvP, so if people only want to talk about the Alien movies without AvP interference they can do that.

There's no such thing as personal canon.  That's the same as saying "I made it up."  It's an obvious concept that everyone is free to do whatever they want, but it makes no rules and has no bearing on anything besides personal opinion, so what's the point of using it in a canon debate?

QuoteFOX *does* consider the EU to be canon.

Is there a direct quote from FOX (not just the licensees saying they said it)?

Quotethere's a movies sub-forum where people can discuss the movies, and EU stuff is generally off-limits.

Where?

QuoteThey're even further segregated into Alien/Predator/AvP, so if people only want to talk about the Alien movies without AvP interference they can do that.

I know (although canon issues still pop up), which is why I specified a "General A-P Discussion" section (for movies only) in addition to the one we already have (which allows EU). :)

Quote from: kelgaard on Mar 15, 2012, 05:33:34 PM

QuoteFOX *does* consider the EU to be canon.

Is there a direct quote from FOX (not just the licensees saying they said it)?

Quotethere's a movies sub-forum where people can discuss the movies, and EU stuff is generally off-limits.

Where?

QuoteThey're even further segregated into Alien/Predator/AvP, so if people only want to talk about the Alien movies without AvP interference they can do that.

I know (although canon issues still pop up), which is why I specified a "General A-P Discussion" section (for movies only) in addition to the one we already have (which allows EU). :)

For AvP discussion involving only the movies, go here: http://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/index.php?board=14.0 (http://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/index.php?board=14.0)

---

Also check out the video game section for more AvP talk. It's hard to say let's talk AvP, but only the movies. AvP built up such a fan base from the E.U. and the AvP films are just afterthoughts (to me.) The AvP movies didn't add anything serious/deep to the mythology/franchise except for a monster wrestling action movie.

Quote from: RagingDragon on Mar 15, 2012, 04:57:02 PM
There's no such thing as personal canon.  That's the same as saying "I made it up."  It's an obvious concept that everyone is free to do whatever they want, but it makes no rules and has no bearing on anything besides personal opinion, so what's the point of using it in a canon debate?

Maybe the point is we shouldn't be having "canon" debates since the official matter has already been settled for quite some time now but the official matter doesn't matter since everyone can do whatever they like.

We've even got this forum segregated for ease of discussion - there's movies-only areas, and there's areas where the EU is free game.

QuoteIs there a direct quote from FOX (not just the licensees saying they said it)?

There are a few where they say it, although the licensee quotes (of which there are lots) are good enough. FOX has never outright made a public statement to the fans saying "THIS is canon. Behold our works, and despair", but when they say "This is canon" to the licensees, and then the licensees turn around and tell us what they said, that's essentially the same thing. They have made a few statements that said similar things - the special features on the blu-ray and Quadrilogy DVD sets mention the EU as being an extension of the movies and that they're "part of the same continuity" or something like that. I have the quotes at home.

Edit-- found them:
On the supplemental disc for the Alien Quadrilogy DVD set, in the cover gallery for the Aliens comics, it says:

"Dark Horse Comics started publishing Aliens comic books in 1988. All of the stories take place after the events of the second film [Xeno note - this isn't entirely accurate, but we all knew that already] and explore the rich universe visualized in the movies. The comics represent an amazing opportunity to go beyond the events in the Aliens movies and explore dozens of new stories featuring one of the most chilling species to grace the science fiction genre!

Following are cover images showcasing some of the amazing talents involved in the creation of this smash comic book series."

Also in the supplemental disc, FOX says:

"Dark Horse is going back through each of its past Aliens graphic novels and revising images and text to bring the entire story into a single line of continuity with the motion pictures and the wildly popular Bantam novels".

Bold emphasis is mine.

Granted their "continuity" efforts leave something to be desired, but their canon intent is pretty clear.

QuoteWhere?

Go hog-wild (http://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/index.php#c4). :)

How do people take some random quib from a DVD special feature that seriously, where it explains decades of story inconsistencies and complete silence from Fox on the issue?

What a joke.  they don't care, and that's obvious, so fans have to dig into the most obscure places possible to gleam any sort of acknowledgement from Fox on canon and the state of the Alien/Predator properties.

If it was that official, or really meant to explain anything or clean up any mess, they would've come out and said it to the fan community in some public way, not hidden it in some special feature that a lot of people may not even watch.

Those quotes sound like they were from 1993 anyway, specifically about the Earth War series of comics/novels that had Ripley in them.  Are you kidding me?

That's the ridiculous cherry on top of this sad, ridiculous debate.

QuoteHow do people take some random quib from a DVD special feature that seriously, where it explains decades of story inconsistencies and complete silence from Fox on the issue?

Because it's pretty clear on what FOX thinks. As stated, we don't need a signed, notarized document hand-delivered to the community by the CEO of FOX.

QuoteIf it was that official, or really meant to explain anything or clean up any mess, they would've come out and said it to the fan community in some public way, not hidden it in some special feature that a lot of people may not even watch.

Doesn't change the fact that the statement exists, no matter how "obscure" you think it is. Lucasfilm's statements about canon are equally "obscure" (in that only people who go looking for them will find them - your average viewer doesn't even know they exist, nor do they care) and they accomplish the same goal.
The obscurity of something has no bearing on its validity.

QuoteThose quotes sound like they were from 1993 anyway, specifically about the Earth War series of comics/novels that had Ripley in them.  Are you kidding me?

They're from 2003.

QuoteThat's the ridiculous cherry on top of this sad, ridiculous debate.

So are you trying to tell us you're going to stop posting in the thread? I mean really, do we need people shitting all over the topic? Your "this topic is ridiculous" posts are just as bad as Nero the Jackal's "these topics always get ugly" posts that you yourself were complaining about earlier.

If you don't like FOX's views on canon, by all means do what was suggested by several people on the first page of this thread: accept whatever you feel like as canon and be happy. It's fiction and entertainment - if you're getting upset over what other people say should or shouldn't be taken as gospel truth, you're doing it wrong.

That's the thing, it's not even a "debate" - people can do what they want regardless of any "official" statements, and the forum is even specifically set up to allow for that to happen. Go discuss whatever interests you in the parts of the forum that are appropriate without worrying about whether it's "officially canon". For the purposes of discussion, the EU is canon in the EU-sanctioned areas. Likewise, for the purposes of discussion the EU isn't canon in the movies-only areas. It's very easy. :)

Quote from: Xenomrph on Mar 15, 2012, 07:11:25 PM

QuoteHow do people take some random quib from a DVD special feature that seriously, where it explains decades of story inconsistencies and complete silence from Fox on the issue?

Because it's pretty clear on what FOX thinks. As stated, we don't need a signed, notarized document hand-delivered to the community by the CEO of FOX.

QuoteIf it was that official, or really meant to explain anything or clean up any mess, they would've come out and said it to the fan community in some public way, not hidden it in some special feature that a lot of people may not even watch.

Doesn't change the fact that the statement exists, no matter how "obscure" you think it is. Lucasfilm's statements about canon are equally "obscure" (in that only people who go looking for them will find them - your average viewer doesn't even know they exist, nor do they care) and they accomplish the same goal.
The obscurity of something has no bearing on its validity.

QuoteThose quotes sound like they were from 1993 anyway, specifically about the Earth War series of comics/novels that had Ripley in them.  Are you kidding me?

They're from 2003.

QuoteThat's the ridiculous cherry on top of this sad, ridiculous debate.

So are you trying to tell us you're going to stop posting in the thread? I mean really, do we need people shitting all over the topic? Your "this topic is ridiculous" posts are just as bad as Nero the Jackal's "these topics always get ugly" posts that you yourself were complaining about earlier.

If you don't like FOX's views on canon, by all means do what was suggested by several people on the first page of this thread: accept whatever you feel like as canon and be happy. It's fiction and entertainment - if you're getting upset over what other people say should or shouldn't be taken as gospel truth, you're doing it wrong.

That's the thing, it's not even a "debate" - people can do what they want regardless of any "official" statements, and the forum is even specifically set up to allow for that to happen. Go discuss whatever interests you in the parts of the forum that are appropriate without worrying about whether it's "officially canon". For the purposes of discussion, the EU is canon in the EU-sanctioned areas. Likewise, for the purposes of discussion the EU isn't canon in the movies-only areas. It's very easy. :)

LMFAO cool story bro.  Keep flapping about, it's fun to watch.

Quote from: HybridNewborn on Mar 15, 2012, 01:25:50 PM

Quote from: Spaghetti on Mar 15, 2012, 09:06:57 AM
Its Dark Horse's fault (and Fox) for not clearing all this up sometime after Earth War and the release of the omnibus (plenty of damn time). A statement in the fan letters of any of the other stories, in a little statement in the omnibus, or even on the A/P part of their website. SOMETHING. ANYTHING. GAH.

One of the many reasons I was disappointed that the recent Alien, Predator, and AvP comics continued to follow the remixed/retconned/mashed-up continuity of the older Dark Horse Alien comics instead of just starting fresh. Each time they announce a new Alien comic, I'm hopeful that it will be a clean slate, something that isn't built on a broken base, and each time they choose to keep trying to build a house in the quicksand. :-\

From the few I've read, apart from recycling Machiko, the new comics and novels don't really make any reference to the old comics.  And it would seem they contradict them in some cases.  Even older ones like Music of the Spear seem to follow a continuity not consistent with other comics and novels.

QuoteBecause it's pretty clear on what FOX thinks

So when Fox says one thing then does the exact opposite that's "pretty clear"?  :laugh:

QuoteFrom the few I've read, apart from recycling Machiko, the new comics and novels don't really make any reference to the old comics.

"Criminal Enterprise" and "No Exit" name-drop a whole bunch of corporations from the earlier Dark Horse/Bantam stuff, like Grant Corp and some others I can't remember offhand.
Also the 'Aliens: More than Human' miniseries referenced the infestation of Earth.

QuoteEven older ones like Music of the Spear seem to follow a continuity not consistent with other comics and novels.

I recall MotS referencing the Grant Corp offhand.

It also mentioned 'Homeworld Wars' and had characters growing up on Earth when it was supposed to be infested with Aliens - and no mention of any such infestation.

Wait, are you referring to MotS? It's been years since I read the novel, and I actually don't think I ever read the comic - I got the novel first so I never bothered with the comic.

Also I'd take the term "homeworld wars" to refer to the infestation - Earth being humanity's homeworld (well maybe, we'll see if Prometheus changes that :P) and significant parts of the initial comic trilogy going to what was thought as the Alien homeworld, even if that got retconned later.

And therein lies the contradiction.  Earth's infested (referred to as "the Homeworld wars" for the first and only time) and yet people grew up on Earth when it clearly wasn't infested.

There were no 'Homeworld Wars' other than that.  Hicks and Newt went on a one mission to the "homeworld'.  Ripley went to another "homeworld".  Grant went back to the same world years (if not decades) later.  Where was the "war"?

I guess I wouldn't have a problem seeing it as a homeworld war - Earth was infested and Earth is humanity's homeworld, and there were several missions that went to (what were thought to be) the Alien "homeworld" and did important things there and killed a bunch of Aliens. Ripley and co. going to the "homeworld" and capturing the Queen Mother directly led to Earth being reclaimed from the Aliens, so I'd say it was pretty important.

Frankly I don't think it really matters what name they gave the infestation - it could be some sort of colloquial name or something similar, like how the American Civil War is sometimes called just "The Civil War" or "The War Between the States", and a whole bunch of other colloquial names (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naming_the_American_Civil_War). This happened with World War I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I#Etymology), too.

It is impossible to connect Prometheus with AVP, thats like mixing oil and water.

Predators was not even connected to AVP in anyway.

We'll see. :)

Also the merchandise for 'Predators', which FOX designed in-house, ham-fistedly referenced both AvP and the EU. It was pretty entertaining.

Quote from: Xenomrph on Mar 16, 2012, 05:33:28 PM
We'll see. :)

Also the merchandise for 'Predators', which FOX designed in-house, ham-fistedly referenced both AvP and the EU. It was pretty entertaining.

That was just the toys which are not canon but playthings otherwise you may as well add the kenner toys to the canon list. Adding a bio that involves the avp universe to the predators' packaging just makes it more interesting. Predators purposefully ignored avp but it remains to be seen if prometheus ignores it or outright contradicts it.

QuoteThat was just the toys which are not canon but playthings otherwise you may as well add the kenner toys to the canon list.

Frankly I wouldn't be opposed to this, with some adjustments.

The point was that even though 'Predators' didn't reference AvP, FOX went out of its way to make the merchandise reference both AvP *and* the EU.

For the money xeno, for the money and not continuity. Berserker being a bad-ass xenomorph killer has more chance of selling and making money than berserker, a predator that is bigger than other predators etc. Fox are the real life weyland-yutani  :laugh:

If you want to consider the kenner toys as "Canon," then what do you consider as E.U? How to debate Canon/E.U if we all use different definitions for the word "canon" and "E.U."

---

To consider stuff like toys and the little story on the toy package as "Canon" basically changes the very definition of terms like "expanded universe." Things that happen in those stories, or in video games, novels, etc are all part of the "expanded universe" by definition of the term. They "expand" on the movies. Picking and choosing what parts of the EU one accepts into the entire universe is where personal opinion fits.

Quote from: Nero the Jackal on Mar 16, 2012, 06:49:19 PM
For the money xeno, for the money and not continuity.

You don't know this, and even if you did it ultimately doesn't matter.

Quote from: Xenomrph on Mar 16, 2012, 07:33:50 PM

Quote from: Nero the Jackal on Mar 16, 2012, 06:49:19 PM
For the money xeno, for the money and not continuity.

You don't know this, and even if you did it ultimately doesn't matter.

It is for the money, though. Mixing EU with Canon causes continuity problems. If you want continuity stick to movies only. Even then, it gets sketchy. lol

Quote from: Predaker on Mar 16, 2012, 07:37:24 PM

Quote from: Xenomrph on Mar 16, 2012, 07:33:50 PM

Quote from: Nero the Jackal on Mar 16, 2012, 06:49:19 PM
For the money xeno, for the money and not continuity.

You don't know this, and even if you did it ultimately doesn't matter.

It is for the money, though. Mixing EU with Canon causes continuity problems. If you want continuity stick to movies only. Even then, it gets sketchy. lol

"EU" is a convenient term so people know you're referring to stuff that "isn't movies", but it doesn't automatically mean EU stuff is not or cannot be "canon".

Quote from: Xenomrph on Mar 16, 2012, 07:45:10 PM

Quote from: Predaker on Mar 16, 2012, 07:37:24 PM

Quote from: Xenomrph on Mar 16, 2012, 07:33:50 PM

Quote from: Nero the Jackal on Mar 16, 2012, 06:49:19 PM
For the money xeno, for the money and not continuity.

You don't know this, and even if you did it ultimately doesn't matter.

It is for the money, though. Mixing EU with Canon causes continuity problems. If you want continuity stick to movies only. Even then, it gets sketchy. lol

"EU" is a convenient term so people know you're referring to stuff that "isn't movies", but it doesn't automatically mean EU stuff is not or cannot be "canon".

Well said. Maybe in the future, we can debate prometheus toys and what they write on the back of them.

Are you familiar with Michael Bishop ("Bishop II") who shows up at the end of 'Alien3'? His name, "Michael Bishop", is originally sourced from the 'Alien3' trading cards, but fans didn't have a problem with accepting it as "truth" over time, and it's even been referenced in other EU sources.

Likewise, Bishop's model number (341-B) is originally from the packaging for his Kenner action figure.

Quote from: Xenomrph on Mar 16, 2012, 10:27:49 PM
Are you familiar with Michael Bishop ("Bishop II") who shows up at the end of 'Alien3'? His name, "Michael Bishop", is originally sourced from the 'Alien3' trading cards, but fans didn't have a problem with accepting it as "truth" over time, and it's even been referenced in other EU sources.

Likewise, Bishop's model number (341-B) is originally from the packaging for his Kenner action figure.

Good point. First names and model numbers don't have much impact on the A/P universe, though (in this instance.)

'341-B' is from Alien3.

Whoops, you're right.

Didn't they just create a timeline  for Weyland Industries that has stuff that refutes the Weyland Corporation we saw in AVP, such as the company's creation?

Not a timeline as such, but it says Peter Weyland is the founder of the company in the 21st century.  No mention of Charles Bishop Weyland founding it in the 20th century.

EDIT- Just read the new timeline.  It starts in Jan 2034.

Quote from: Sgt. Apone on Mar 17, 2012, 10:31:33 PM
Didn't they just create a timeline  for Weyland Industries that has stuff that refutes the Weyland Corporation we saw in AVP, such as the company's creation?

The timeline doesn't actually state when the company was started.

Quote from: SM on Mar 12, 2012, 12:54:34 AM

QuoteNow if they were non-canon or even a;alternate reality the comics wouldn't have to be rewritten to fit with continuity.

If there was a single continuity that Fox enforced, the comics wouldn't have been rendered null and void amd therefore not needed re-writing in the first place.  And the second place.

If they weren't a single continuity Fox wouldn't bother to have errors fixed.

---

Quote from: predxeno on Mar 12, 2012, 02:42:48 AM
I still think that they should have left the comics as an alternate universe where Newt and Hicks still lived; not only would it be a better story than we got in Alien 3 but a lot of the continuity problems are fixed right there (it all happens in an alternate universe).

Its good they are dead, it shows that the Alien Predator universe isn't full of plot armor.

---

Quote from: mastermoon on Mar 12, 2012, 04:16:12 AM
There is no way AVP is connected to Prometheus.

It's like trying to mix oil with water.

Yet the W.Y. corporation hasn't formed up until some point in THIS movie or after.  Also the Brothers did mention that with Wolfs plasma pistol they, W.Y., would make better engines for space travel. 

---

Quote from: Xenomrph on Mar 12, 2012, 12:21:46 AM
This really doesn't change the fact that LucasFilm has said that Infinities stuff is non-canon. Like you just cited the Star Wars wiki to point out that Star Wars has multiple "universes", but when someone uses the same wiki to point out that Infinities stuff is still non-canon, it's not good enough? What the f**k? ???

Yeah your SOURCE stating what is and isn't canon is incorrect, a good portion of the stories posted in your link ARE canon.

---

Quote from: Peakius Baragonius on Mar 12, 2012, 06:36:21 PM
Guys, to reinforce the point of th before it descends into the crapstorm predicted on the first page, it doesn't matter whether or not not Infinites is multiverse, non-canon, or both, because you've got your own opinions and arguing them isn't going to change other peoples'.

No one's opinions matter on what is and isn't canon except the people in charge.  You people treat canon the exact opposite the the StarWarses do, you are all a darkened mirror image of them, instead of enforcing what is canon you treat it like a salad bar.

---

Quote from: RagingDragon on Mar 12, 2012, 06:44:33 PM
Sorry to have contributed to the shit show, but I like threads like these. :laugh:  I think you did well.

To progress, let's ask some questions of this freakshow you've assembled.

1 - Should a contradiction in canon eliminate the story that created it from belonging to that canon, or demand a fix so it can become canon?

Lets hope not otherwise "Aliens" goes bye bye since it has the most contradictions of all the movies including within its own continuity let alone the whole saga.

Quote from: RagingDragon on Mar 12, 2012, 06:44:33 PM
2 - Some canon can have contradictions, like comedies.  Since the Alien/Predator canon has so many contradictions, but is still considered all canon by apparently Fox and many here, does that make it a comedy?

The answer to question 2 is yes. ;D

If its a comedy it bombed. 

---

Quote from: SM on Mar 12, 2012, 10:24:32 PM
Prometheus has already contradicted AvP (possibly inadvertently) already by describing Peter Weyland as the founder of the company.

But I'm sure the 'Everything is Canon' crowd will make up some incongruous explanation.

Viral videos are NOT CANON.  I have never seen a viral video show anything that was relevant to the actual movie, Terminator 4 viral videos is a good example of why viral videos are not canon.  Or the Thing preq viral videos.

---

Quote from: Spaghetti on Mar 15, 2012, 03:52:31 AM
SKULLS FOR THE SKULL THRONE

My your false entity die by the hands of the One True Living God.

Quote from: Spaghetti on Mar 15, 2012, 03:52:31 AM
But as far as Im concerned If ol' Riddles says AVP aint canon

Problem with this is Fox has the finale word on what is and isn't canon, he COULD say they are non-canon but Fox will label the movies as being set in the same universe as all the other movies, just like what they did with the AvP Total Destruction Collection.

Quote from: Spaghetti on Mar 15, 2012, 03:52:31 AM
And for the EU shit, it would be nice for darkhorse to admit they f**ked up and officially make it all an alternate universe. It would be better for everyone.

They didn't screw up, more than likely The script of Female Wars was approved as canon when compared too one of the earlier drafts of the Alien 3 script, but as we all know that script changed more than David Bowie in the Venture Brothers.  From my understanding the head directors of Fox weren't even up to speed on all the changes constantly made for the Alien 3 script.

As for Alien Resurrection it suffered a similar fate as Alien 3,  do not forget Joss Whedon wrote the story for Alien Resurrection, he is a comic book writer, he has worked on X-Men and stuff like that, for all we know he did write the story to fit with canon.  He did after all point out that what he wrote for the Alien Resurrection story barley had any resemblance to what was seen on screen.  The Director probable threw-out tidbits form the story that he didn't even know referenced the other mediums, hell do they even sell Aliens/Predator comics in Frances, that is where the Resurrection Director came from. 

The only thing we got in Resurrection that shows that past events did happen from the comics is the newer ending in the Resurrection Special edition.  I will add that I had a talk with one of the guys from Amalgamated dynamics, and he did say he felt that the special edition ending was in homage to the Female Wars.

---

Quote from: SM on Mar 15, 2012, 10:01:02 PM
And therein lies the contradiction.  Earth's infested (referred to as "the Homeworld wars" for the first and only time) and yet people grew up on Earth when it clearly wasn't infested.

There were no 'Homeworld Wars' other than that.  Hicks and Newt went on a one mission to the "homeworld'.  Ripley went to another "homeworld".  Grant went back to the same world years (if not decades) later.  Where was the "war"?

You are forgetting that people did live on earth when good portions of it were STILL under Xenomorph control.

---

Quote from: mastermoon on Mar 16, 2012, 04:06:35 PM
It is impossible to connect Prometheus with AVP, thats like mixing oil and water.

Predators was not even connected to AVP in anyway.

Except in AvP they used the phrase "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."  In Predators, they used the same phrase with a twist,

QuoteRoyce: No. That thing strung up at the camp might know. My guess is, it'd do just about anything to get free. Enemy of my enemy.
Isabelle: That doesn't make it a friend.

I swear that Predators is the weakest movie in the whole saga, it is nothing but one gigantic Easter egg.

---

Quote from: Xenomrph on Mar 16, 2012, 05:33:28 PM
We'll see. :)

Also the merchandise for 'Predators', which FOX designed in-house, ham-fistedly referenced both AvP and the EU. It was pretty entertaining.

The toys are not part of the SAGA ergo they are NOT canon.

QuoteAs for Alien Resurrection it suffered a similar fate as Alien 3,  do not forget Joss Whedon wrote the story for Alien Resurrection, he is a comic book writer

He is first and foremost a screenwriter.

QuoteHe did after all point out that what he wrote for the Alien Resurrection story barley had any resemblance to what was seen on screen. 

There's a number of script drafts that are widely available and all of them resemble the final film.

QuoteIf they weren't a single continuity Fox wouldn't bother to have errors fixed.

we could dicuss this again when those errors are actually fixed, rather than simply loosely addressed.

The rest of your post is simply your personal take on what is and isn't canon.

No different to anyone elses.

QuoteYeah your SOURCE stating what is and isn't canon is incorrect, a good portion of the stories posted in your link ARE canon.

Yeah this isn't true, especially since unlike the Xenopedia wiki, Wookiepedia is very good about citing its sources. Infinities stuff in Star Wars isn't canon and I'm blown away that there's people who don't comprehend this.

Quote from: SM on Mar 18, 2012, 07:55:46 PM
There's a number of script drafts that are widely available and all of them resemble the final film.

Obviously they are not the ones he wrote, otherwise he wouldn't have said the movie didn't match what he wrote.

Quote from: SM on Mar 18, 2012, 07:55:46 PM
we could dicuss this again when those errors are actually fixed, rather than simply loosely addressed.

No point in discussing it because the movie, game, comic, novel mediums are in a saga.

---

Quote from: Xenomrph on Mar 18, 2012, 08:12:00 PM

QuoteYeah your SOURCE stating what is and isn't canon is incorrect, a good portion of the stories posted in your link ARE canon.

Yeah this isn't true, especially since unlike the Xenopedia wiki, Wookiepedia is very good about citing its sources. Infinities stuff in Star Wars isn't canon and I'm blown away that there's people who don't comprehend this.

Yes this is true, you HAVE no references proving any of those things are non-canon.  I want everyone of your references right now.

Quote from: KingAngel ofthe Outergulf on Mar 18, 2012, 06:40:45 PM

Quote from: predxeno on Mar 12, 2012, 02:42:48 AM
I still think that they should have left the comics as an alternate universe where Newt and Hicks still lived; not only would it be a better story than we got in Alien 3 but a lot of the continuity problems are fixed right there (it all happens in an alternate universe).

Its good they are dead, it shows that the Alien Predator universe isn't full of plot armor.

i didn't know you were a comedian.

Quote

Quote from: Peakius Baragonius on Mar 12, 2012, 06:36:21 PM
Guys, to reinforce the point of th before it descends into the crapstorm predicted on the first page, it doesn't matter whether or not not Infinites is multiverse, non-canon, or both, because you've got your own opinions and arguing them isn't going to change other peoples'.

No one's opinions matter on what is and isn't canon except the people in charge.  You people treat canon the exact opposite the the StarWarses do, you are all a darkened mirror image of them, instead of enforcing what is canon you treat it like a salad bar.

and there's nothing wrong with that. this isn't a religious sect. we ain't gotta enforce shit. it's a film/movie/book franchise which has as it's purpose to profit by providing entertainment to the consumer. we are the consumer and if a product fails it's objective then we don't have to acknowledge it. if it's not good, it's has no relevance to the audience, which, again, is the only thing that matters.

Quote from: chupacabras acheronsis on Mar 18, 2012, 08:29:26 PM
i didn't know you were a comedian.

I wish I could block you.

Quote from: chupacabras acheronsis on Mar 18, 2012, 08:29:26 PM
and there's nothing wrong with that. this isn't a religious sect. we ain't gotta enforce shit. it's a film/movie/book franchise which has as it's purpose to profit by providing entertainment to the consumer. we are the consumer and if a product fails it's objective then we don't have to acknowledge it. if it's not good, it's has no relevance to the audience, which, again, is the only thing that matters.

Yeah their is somthing WRONG with that.  Because of your attitude toward canon, people that ALREADY hate Aliens, Predators, Colonial Marines, can just ignore canon to better fit there argument, kinda like what you and your team did... So when did the Thing infect a Jedi...?

so logic and common sense isn't canon. yup. gotcha.

Quote from: chupacabras acheronsis on Mar 18, 2012, 08:40:07 PM
so logic and common sense isn't canon. yup. gotcha.

If your comment is in regards to the Aliens vs Thing battle you and your team did not use logic and or common sense.  Hell you guys didn't even say a Thing about my comments about the Things combat incompetence, that right their is grounds for dismissal if you are not even going to defend against those facts.

I will ask you again, When does the Thing take over a Jedi and use the Force?

Quote from: KingAngel ofthe Outergulf on Mar 18, 2012, 08:46:16 PM

Quote from: chupacabras acheronsis on Mar 18, 2012, 08:40:07 PM
so logic and common sense isn't canon. yup. gotcha.

If your comment is in regards to the Aliens vs Thing battle you and your team did not use logic and or common sense.  Hell you guys didn't even say a Thing about my comments about the Things combat incompetence, that right their is grounds for dismissal if you are not even going to defend against those facts.

I will ask you again, When does the Thing take over a Jedi and use the Force?

what combat incompetence?

Quote from: Sgt. Apone on Mar 18, 2012, 08:53:50 PM

Quote from: KingAngel ofthe Outergulf on Mar 18, 2012, 08:46:16 PM

Quote from: chupacabras acheronsis on Mar 18, 2012, 08:40:07 PM
so logic and common sense isn't canon. yup. gotcha.

If your comment is in regards to the Aliens vs Thing battle you and your team did not use logic and or common sense.  Hell you guys didn't even say a Thing about my comments about the Things combat incompetence, that right their is grounds for dismissal if you are not even going to defend against those facts.

I will ask you again, When does the Thing take over a Jedi and use the Force?

what combat incompetence?

This is between me and the guy that threatened me with a shotgun.

oh, NOW you take offense. you pretty much said that you had some almighty authority on what is canon and what isn't and you keep refusing to accept the word of creators when it isn't convenient to you, and you dare to complain when people do the same about media? just admit some things DO NOT WORK.

and

Quote from: KingAngel ofthe Outergulf on Mar 18, 2012, 08:46:16 PM
I will ask you again, When does the Thing take over a Jedi and use the Force?

why are you even asking me this shit? i didn't say it, there's no f**king team, there's no espionage network going over the PMs, we are really trying to get an argument out of you and all you do is dodge and make claims and outright refuse to elaborate. all your magic words mean f**k all, you have to make sense with what you say.

Quote from: chupacabras acheronsis on Mar 18, 2012, 09:10:03 PM
oh, NOW you take offense. you pretty much said that you had some almighty authority on what is canon and what isn't and you keep refusing to accept the word of creators when it isn't convenient to you, and you dare to complain when people do the same about media? just admit some things DO NOT WORK.

I am the only one here defending what has been established by Fox, if this were a StarWars website  the canon pick and choosers would be a minority.

Quote from: chupacabras acheronsis on Mar 18, 2012, 09:10:03 PM
why are you even asking me this shit? i didn't say it,

You and your team didn't rebuke the comment when it was first made, ergo said comment is approved by you.

Quote from: chupacabras acheronsis on Mar 18, 2012, 09:10:03 PM
there's no f**king team,

I had four people on the Xenomorph team, one is on here, he really didn't say anything directly to you people, but I can understand why, after all any topic he made you guys would shot them and him down or not even give him a direct answer.

Quote from: chupacabras acheronsis on Mar 18, 2012, 09:10:03 PM
there's no espionage network going over the PMs,

On your team no, you guys are not quote unquote "espionage network going over the PMs."

Quote from: chupacabras acheronsis on Mar 18, 2012, 09:10:03 PM
we are really trying to get an argument out of you and all you do is dodge and make claims and outright refuse to elaborate.

I did, but you used fallty logic and when I did give you a complex answer your response was "To long didn't read"  which is a cop out, I red everyone elses crazy comments like "The thing can take over a Jedi and use the force"  "The Thing can sneez on people and or food and infect them, " The Thing can infect trees"  "The Thing can infect anything with just a finger print"  so on and so forth.

Quote from: chupacabras acheronsis on Mar 18, 2012, 09:10:03 PM
all your magic words mean f**k all, you have to make sense with what you say.

Ergo you forfeited because you could not except that the creature has Bio-Imperative and powerful mental abilities.  And I love the bit when you tired to de-canonize the bio-imperative, how did that plan work out for you...?   :D

Ok here's your one chance to redeem yourself, explain why the Thing is dangerous even though it made these mistakes. 

con pm>

QuoteYes this is true, you HAVE no references proving any of those things are non-canon.  I want everyone of your references right now.

It's all on the canon page I linked earlier. Infinities is non-canon -- this is very widely accepted. Show me any Star Wars community that thinks infinities is canon. By definition and by design it's not canon - the entire point of Infinities is to give authors the freedom to write stories that can be totally crazy and won't be hamstrung by "canon" requirements.

I... I cannot believe I'm having to explain this.

Also you're really trying to bring the Thing debate up in this thread? Really?
That thread was closed for a reason, if you try to hijack other topics the odds of you getting banned or something are pretty good.

i don't even have enough space on my PM inbox to do this.

To do what?

Quote from: KingAngel ofthe Outergulf on Mar 18, 2012, 09:28:48 PM

Quote from: chupacabras acheronsis on Mar 18, 2012, 09:10:03 PM

Ok here's your one chance to redeem yourself, explain why the Thing is dangerous even though it made these mistakes. 

con pm>

Well, explain why the alien is dangerous even though it made mistakes.

Don't encourage him.

QuoteI... I cannot believe I'm having to explain this.

You should by now.

QuoteObviously they are not the ones he wrote, otherwise he wouldn't have said the movie didn't match what he wrote.

He did write all of them.  No one has ever been mentioned as co-writing or doctoring scripts for Resurrection.  It was all Whedon.

He was pissed that the film was disappointing and blamed everyone but himself.

Quote from: Xenomrph on Mar 18, 2012, 10:06:50 PM
It's all on the canon page I linked earlier. Infinities is non-canon -- this is very widely accepted.

No it is not.

Quote from: Xenomrph on Mar 18, 2012, 10:06:50 PM
Show me any Star Wars community that thinks infinities is canon. By definition and by design it's not canon - the entire point of Infinities is to give authors the freedom to write stories that can be totally crazy and won't be hamstrung by "canon" requirements.

Show me a comment that G.L. or the keeper of the Holocron has said those stories are non-canon. 

Quote from: Xenomrph on Mar 18, 2012, 10:06:50 PM
Also you're really trying to bring the Thing debate up in this thread? Really?
That thread was closed for a reason, if you try to hijack other topics the odds of you getting banned or something are pretty good.

Yup it was closed because 1) you made one to many personal insults, 2) Ignored facts

---

Quote from: chupacabras acheronsis on Mar 18, 2012, 10:10:43 PM
i don't even have enough space on my PM inbox to do this.

Cop out.

---

Quote from: SM on Mar 18, 2012, 10:19:37 PM
He did write all of them.  No one has ever been mentioned as co-writing or doctoring scripts for Resurrection.  It was all Whedon.

He was pissed that the film was disappointing and blamed everyone but himself.

Do you have prof he wrote those scripts.

Quote from: KingAngel ofthe Outergulf on Mar 18, 2012, 06:40:45 PM

Lets hope not otherwise "Aliens" goes bye bye since it has the most contradictions of all the movies including within its own continuity let alone the whole saga.

Such as?

Quote from: KingAngel ofthe Outergulf on Mar 18, 2012, 06:40:45 PM
Viral videos are NOT CANON.  I have never seen a viral video show anything that was relevant to the actual movie, Terminator 4 viral videos is a good example of why viral videos are not canon.  Or the Thing preq viral videos.

---

Perhaps in the terminator franchise they aren't - but that doesn't mean that they aren't in the alien franchise.

Besides - what if the fox said they were canon?

Quote from: Sgt. Apone on Mar 18, 2012, 10:12:47 PM
Well, explain why the alien is dangerous even though it made mistakes.

com pm>

Quote from: KingAngel ofthe Outergulf on Mar 18, 2012, 10:41:59 PM

Do you have prof he wrote those scripts.

Look at the credits.

Quote from: stephen on Mar 18, 2012, 10:47:41 PM

Quote from: KingAngel ofthe Outergulf on Mar 18, 2012, 10:41:59 PM

Do you have prof he wrote those scripts.

Look at the credits.

:laugh:
Indeed.

If someone makes a claim, then they should provide proof.

QuoteNo it is not.

Prove it. :)

QuoteYup it was closed because 1) you made one to many personal insults, 2) Ignored facts

Actually you were the one who was making insults, that's likely why it got closed. If you don't believe me I imagine it wouldn't be difficult to get a mod or two in here to clarify it.

QuoteDo you have prof he wrote those scripts.

His name is at the top of them.

He's almost disowned the film, but never denied writing it.  Quite the contrary.

Does anyone notice that the weylandindustries.com timeline almost goes out of the way to not contradict the AVP films?

I did, yeah.

I also noticed it had stuff happen on October 1st, 2004, a mere 9 days before the events of 'AvP'. When picking random dates for stuff to happen, they sure came close to picking a date for AvP. :P

Yeah, and the mention of Weyland Industries winning a patent against the Yutani Corporation happened only 1 year before the 2 companies merged in Predator Concrete Jungle.

Well evidently they're not merged as of 'Prometheus', but that's not too hard to explain. Maybe the merger deal hinted at in "Concrete Jungle" fell through and never actually happened, or perhaps they split off only to re-merge again later (like what happened with AT&T (http://www.freepress.net/files/att_history.jpg)).

As was pointed out by Xenomrph in a different topic, the Timeline that has been posted on the Weyland Industries page doesn't actually state when the company was founded, and while Peter is referred to as the founder elsewhere it is a bit more unclear in the Timeline.

The Timeline does in fact, upon further inspection, seem to be going out of its way to accommodate the other films, and some of the games, even in subtle ways.

The penal colonies from Alien 3.
The Marines, Power Loaders, the Holographic Jungle thingy Ripley was sitting in, Archeron (yes I spelled that correctly, go check the site) being the name of LV-426, and more from Aliens.
Yutani Corporation is first (and only) mentioned at 2029, which is one year before Predator Concrete Jungle, in which they begin talks of some sort of partnership with Weyland Industries.
The date of AvP is in the timeline, given as the date of Peter's twelfth patent, which is not otherwise significant unless you take the date into account.

Quote from: predxeno on Mar 18, 2012, 10:59:12 PM
Yeah, and the mention of Weyland Industries winning a patent against the Yutani Corporation happened only 1 year before the 2 companies merged in Predator Concrete Jungle.

They don't actually merge in CJ. Yutani proposes they begin looking into some form of partnership. This makes more sense given that they just lost the lawsuit the year before.

Ok guys, I've contacted most of you by PM by now regarding this little 'beef' that seems to exist. I've asked you to individually to drop it, and yet it continues. So, in the interest of clarity, I'm going to lock this thread, and leave it here to state exactly where I stand.

The next time a thread descends into an insult-fest between you, you will ALL be banned from posting for 7 days. If it continues following that, you will be banned permanently. Contrary to popular opinion, it's not something I do lightly, but you all have assured me this would stop and it hasn't.

EDIT: Just want to clarify that those concerned know who they are.