The AVP vs. Prometheus Canon Debate, and all canon debates really

[SM]

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

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

[StrangeShape]

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

[Xenomrph]

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

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.

[StrangeShape]

Whats not separate, EU?

[Xenomrph]

That's correct.

[Valaquen]

Why 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.

[Xenomrph]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

[Valaquen]

No one is saying you have to ignore the author's intent

Barthes does. Have you read beyond the Wikipedia page?

merely 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.

But 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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

[Xenomrph]

Barthes does. Have you read beyond the Wikipedia page?

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

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.

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

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.

And what's the problem?

They'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?

[Valaquen]

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.

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?

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.

[StrangeShape]

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.

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

[RagingDragon]

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?

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.

[chrisr232007]

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

[Xenomrph]

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.

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

if 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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

That is exactly the point.

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.

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.

[Valaquen]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.