Weyland Corporation and Weyland Industries

[Xenomrph]

Canon and continuity to hand in hand perfectly fine. In terms of Alien, it began a fresh in 2013 with Out of the Shadows. The canon is there clear as day. You ignoring it is fine, but it's not opinion at all.

Canon and continuity can work together, but that doesn't mean they always have to. That's the point, that they're not automatically synonyms and that something isn't automatically "not canon" because of an apparent continuity error.

You can believe that Newt's Tale isn't canon, but the author of River of Pain disagrees with you. Any changes he made from Newt's Tale to RoP were done intentionally by him, with full knowledge of what he was doing.
And like I said, both can be canon because canon and continuity are not synonyms. That's what allows Newt's Tale and RoP to coexist. Likewise, we can have two versions of all four Alien movies for the same reason.

[Local Trouble]

You can believe that Newt's Tale isn't canon, but the author of River of Pain disagrees with you. Any changes he made from Newt's Tale to RoP were done intentionally by him, with full knowledge of what he was doing.

What did he say?

[SM]

That a guy can be called both Draper and Drapers and be a Colonial Marine and not.

Quantumnuity.

[Xenomrph]

You can believe that Newt's Tale isn't canon, but the author of River of Pain disagrees with you. Any changes he made from Newt's Tale to RoP were done intentionally by him, with full knowledge of what he was doing.

What did he say?

AvPG – One of the biggest surprises for me came when you novelized sections from Dark Horse's Aliens – Newts Tale. How did that inclusion come about? Was that something Titan wanted or was it all you?

CG – Again, logic. I'd never read that story before I started working on the novel. Then I discovered that it had been published and realized I had no choice but to include and extrapolate on the version of those scenes that are in "Newt's Tale." It's official continuity, therefore I had to follow it.

AvPG – Was this something Fox told you? That Newt's Tale was "official continuity" – or as people might know it more commonly as – canon? They have never really commented on it until recently in regards to your trilogy – and Aliens: Colonial Marines.

CG – Not at all.  But nothing has been done subsequently to revise that continuity, therefore in my mind it's still official until someone says otherwise.

From: http://www.avpgalaxy.net/website/interviews/christopher-golden-2/

[TheBATMAN]

So what that excerpt essentially proves is that he just assumed it was official and therefore followed it. No one told him he had to. It means nothing.

It even reinforces the point that he obviously could not follow it exactly as the same as the original because key changes had to be made to certain elements to adhere to the new canon!

[Xenomrph]

So what that excerpt essentially proves is that he just assumed it was official and therefore followed it. No one told him he had to. It means nothing.

It even reinforces the point that he obviously could not follow it exactly as the same as the original because key changes had to be made to certain elements to adhere to the new canon!

No, it means he wrote his novel under the assumption that it was canon, and like he said, no one corrected him. The changes he made to Newt's Tale were ones he chose to make on his own, not ones he was mandated to make by FOX. It also shows that since Newt's Tale is still canon (according to him, since he wasn't told otherwise) and he was still able to make (minor) changes and FOX still okayed it, that canon and continuity aren't synonyms.

It also shows that canon is opinion, like I said. Christopher Golden thinks Newt's Tale is canon, and you think it isn't.

Hell, even SM's own timeline website points out continuity flubs that exist within the new EU materials themselves, by your standards none of it should be "canon" because it contradicts itself and other sources.
Not to mention the contradictions the movies have both internally and with each other. Like I said, canon and continuity aren't synonyms. If they were, nothing would be "canon".

[TheBATMAN]

Yes, he made an assumption which is therefore pointless because canon is not an opinion. And the mistakes SM points out are genuine continuity errors. There is a fundamental difference between a continuity mistake and a deliberate continuity change. Things like a wrong date for example, like in the prologue of Predator Incursion, can be easily overlooked because that error was obviously not intended. Likewise the clashes of dates between River of Pain and Fire and Stone. The mistakes are there sure, but they are not deliberate and therefore the canon is unaffected. Small continuity mistakes are just a given in any convoluted mythology. But when it comes to making deliberate changes to elements which have a ripple effect on the core plot of the story, that's an entirely different kettle of fish altogether and this is what leads to fanon arguments such as Weyland Corp and Weyland Industries somehow occupying the same universe. I get why people do it, they don't want to see their favourite movie or story made irrelevant, but it's still just fan fiction at the end of the day.

People are just ignoring the evidence that is put in front of them. Ridley Scott retconned the origins of Weyland because he didn't want AVP in his universe and Fox gave him full creative control to do what he wanted. The novels were rebooted in 2013 and set up stories and events that contradict the old EU. Entire comic books and novels have had to be revised so they do not clash with Alien Covenant. Then last year we had a sourcebook released that brings all of these elements together without referencing anything (outside the movies) prior to the 2013 reboot.

It's quite clear Fox are trying hard to set up a consistent continuity and are crafting a larger expanded universe that all ties together. Not at all surprising given the success of the Marvel cinematic universe and suchlike. All the old stuff, including the two AVP movies, have no place in it. They live on in an alternate universe. 

Canon being just opinion is a very misguided view which ironically only leads to more continuity problems. Look at Lennon's use of 'Yautja' for example. The context made no sense but he used it because he assumed it was canonical. But in actual fact he essentially canonised it himself so now we have 'Yautja' as an official meaning for Predator, despite his Predators being completely different both culturally and historically to the ones Perry presented all those years ago.

[Xenomrph]

Yes, he made an assumption which is therefore pointless because canon is not an opinion.

That is your opinion and you are welcome to it.

The mistakes are there sure, but they are not deliberate and therefore the canon is unaffected.

The canon is absolutely affected, the errors are still there whether they're deliberate or not. It's still an error.

But when it comes to making deliberate changes to elements which have a ripple effect on the core plot of the story, that's an entirely different kettle of fish altogether

Again, that's your opinion and you're welcome to it.

The point remains that you think Newt's Tale isn't canon, and the author of the very book you're using to "prove" that it isn't canon thinks it is. By definition, that's an opinion.

What difference does it make to you if Newt's Tale is canon? Or more importantly, if someone else thinks it's canon even if you think it isn't? Why is "official" canon more important than "head canon"? You're already abiding by "head canon" by saying Newt's Tale isn't canon - you can't prove that it's not canon, and the author of one of the canon books definitively says that it *is* canon and that's why he included it in his book (with some alterations). Him being able to make those alterations without it getting flagged by Fox shows that maybe, just maybe, "strict continuity" isn't quite as important as you think it is.
Likewise, Lebbon was using head-canon when he used the term Yautja. Or "Calpamos" as the name for the planet LV-426 orbits, that name was a fan construct. It's something every writer does when they write in a shared universe, they're informed by things they personally think are "true". That's head-canon.

[TheBATMAN]

Ah, I see again when you run out of things to say you just revert back to your default catchphrase, which is fitting as it makes no sense.

In that very quote you provided, Christopher Golden said no one from Fox told him to follow Newt's Tale, he just assumed it was official continuity. That's why he followed the story, but notice how he did not follow it 100% directly. He purposefully changed elements of it to incorporate the new canon continuity. He had to otherwise it would not make sense with the follow-up stories. So yes he believed Newt's Tale was canon, (again that's not the dispute here) but he still changed stuff regardless, thus revising that original continuity. In official canon you cannot have Draper the colonial marine and Drapers the colony worker occupying the exact same point in space and time carrying out the exact same actions. It has to be one or the other, ergo it's River of Pain. Newt's Tale has been retconned. This is not a difficult concept to grasp.

Yes, errors are errors, nobody is perfect. But errors are overlooked because that's exactly what they are. They are not meant to be there and are not deliberate changes to the story - therefore they don't matter. By your reasoning - are we to assume now then that the crew member flapping the smoke visible in shot when Sigourney Weaver runs past the corridor in Alien is now a canon character?  It's a mistake after all and the canon is absolutely affected - according to your mind. But to everyone else it's just a simple error that was overlooked. It happens all the time, especially when you have different writers participating in writing segments of one larger story.

Yes I believe Newt's Tale is not canon because it no longer is. It was at one point but no longer is because of Chris Golden himself and the simple conclusion you cannot have both. He assumed it was canon - so followed it but ultimately made significant changes that retcons the original out of existence for the very reasons I stated above. Simple logic to quote the man himself.

It makes no difference to me whatsoever whether Newt's Tale is canon or not. I have the graphic novel and I have River of Pain and I can enjoy them both equally, but I use it as an example to reinforce the point is that the official canon is there regardless. Again, your missing the point with Chris Golden believing Newt's Tale was canon - I don't dispute that, but what's important is that no one told him it was canon - he just assumed and the very fact he followed the story but still made changes is precisely because strict continuity is so important. If it wasn't, he could have just followed Newt's Tale verbatim.

Head-canon is pointless because every individual has there own and they all differ regardless. A typical example would be one fan who loves AVP desperately tries to keep that movie relevant to the series by declaring Guy Pearce's character is the son of Lance Henriksen's character, conveniently ignoring all the evidence from Prometheus and Weyland Industries that proves otherwise. That's fanon - and that's why it cannot be taken seriously. Now there's nothing wrong with fanon of course, everyone is entitled to their opinion (ha!) but that's all it is. It's there own personal little universe, but it's irrelevant at the end of the day.

Official canon is important because it lays down the strict rules, guidelines and continuities that keep the structure of the Alien universe together that filmmakers and storytellers follow. It also prevents the spread of misinformation like the Weyland example I used above. Why do you think Ripley was cloned in Resurrection if you believe strict continuity isn't important and doesn't need to be followed? Why do you think so much of the fan base kicked up a stink about Colonial Marines and Hicks if they didn't care about canon? Just because you might not like it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Yautja was never a head canon term and no-one knows where Calpamos originated from. The idea it came from a fan is an urban myth and cannot be proved.

[Xenomrph]

In official canon you cannot have Draper the colonial marine and Drapers the colony worker occupying the exact same point in space and time carrying out the exact same actions. It has to be one or the other, ergo it's River of Pain. Newt's Tale has been retconned. This is not a difficult concept to grasp.

Again, this is only true if canon and continuity are synonyms. You yourself said you're willing to let other continuity errors slide (and that's your right to do so, it's your opinion).

This is not a difficult concept to grasp.

But to everyone else it's just a simple error that was overlooked. It happens all the time, especially when you have different writers participating in writing segments of one larger story.

By the same exact (arbitrary) standard, Newt's Tale and River of Pain can coexist.

Yes I believe Newt's Tale is not canon because it no longer is.

This is your opinion.

It was at one point but no longer is because of Chris Golden himself and the simple conclusion you cannot have both.

Chris Golden himself said that it is canon, which means that canon and continuity aren't synonyms if you can have multiple sources with seemingly contradictory information. Just like the multiple versions of each movie, or the magic changing cryotubes from 'Aliens' to 'Alien3', or any number of other changes from movie to movie (or within the same movie).
I can have both, because canon and continuity aren't synonyms.

It's not a difficult concept to grasp.

precisely because strict continuity is so important. If it wasn't, he could have just followed Newt's Tale verbatim.

The fact that he made changes and didn't get flagged for it proves that strict continuity isn't as important as you seem to think it is. He wasn't mandated to change things from Newt's Tale, he chose to do it himself because it suited the story he wanted to tell, and he wasn't bound by strict continuity to adhere to it. It's the same way other continuity errors have gotten past.

A typical example would be one fan who loves AVP desperately tries to keep that movie relevant to the series by declaring Guy Pearce's character is the son of Lance Henriksen's character, conveniently ignoring all the evidence from Prometheus and Weyland Industries that proves otherwise. That's fanon - and that's why it cannot be taken seriously. Now there's nothing wrong with fanon of course, everyone is entitled to their opinion (ha!) but that's all it is. It's there own personal little universe, but it's irrelevant at the end of the day.

Not exactly, seeing as how it's all fiction. You can tell someone that something is "official canon" until you're blue in the face, but if someone chooses to believe differently, there is nothing you can do about it.

Official canon is important because it lays down the strict rules, guidelines and continuities that keep the structure of the Alien universe together that filmmakers and storytellers follow.

If you really think the filmmakers are going to be beholden to something that someone wrote in a comic book, then I've got a bridge to sell you.
Likewise, if a comic book or novel author has a cool story to tell and it requires changing a detail from a prior source (example: River of Pain changing things from Newt's Tale), it's absolutely within their right to do so if FOX signs off on it.

It also prevents the spread of misinformation like the Weyland example I used above.

That's hardly misinformation. People can believe whatever they want to believe.

Why do you think so much of the fan base kicked up a stink about Colonial Marines and Hicks if they didn't care about canon?

Fans only kicked up a stink because Colonial Marines was bad - you don't see anyone complaining about Alien Isolation. Had Colonial Marines been good, no one would have complained if it was canon or not; "continuity" wouldn't have had anything to do with it.

Just because you might not like it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I know it exists, I just think it isn't important and isn't worth getting in pages-long discussions about. The books themselves show that the authors are going to write what they want and (likely) get away with it, and then those things become part of the "official canon". The official canon might say that 'Aliens: Labyrinth' or the AvP videogame for Atari Jaguar isn't "canon", but that's not going to stop me from personally believing that they are canon - and there is absolutely nothing you nor FOX nor anything else can do about it. It's also not going to stop a future author from, say, "reactivating" those things in the modern canon by referencing them (like Chris Golden did with Newt's Tale) or FOX arbitrarily telling future authors "hey, these old things are also canon now, too, because we can change our minds at the drop of a hat".

What's going to happen when Blomkamp's hypothetical movie contradicts 'Alien3'? According to Blomkamp in interviews, 'Alien3' is still going to be "canon", but he's still going to contradict it.

The crux of the matter here is you have a fundamentally different way of looking at canon than I do, and you're unwilling to see the concept from any other perspective than your own. The canonical Bible, the very thing from which the concept of "canon" is derived, is littered with continuity errors and things that contradict each other and don't make sense.
Different franchises have wildly different ways of looking at canon. Doctor Who straight up doesn't have a canon, period. Warhammer 40,000 has radically contradictory and often changing things which are still officially considered "canon", and when asked about continuity, Games Workshop has said "all of it is still true, continuity errors don't change that". Tolkien's canonical Legendarium is littered with continuity issues. Star Wars had canon "tiers", where certain things would override others in the event of a continuity error. There is no one singular way to look at canon.

The Alien series has always played it fast and loose with continuity, and the "new EU" is evidence that it's more of the same. Chris Golden explicitly stated that Newt's Tale is canon, and then made changes to it and got away with it. Tim Lebbon introduced a ton of continuity gaffes in Predator: Incursion and got away with it. Fire and Stone has even more. Out of the Shadows' very premise is based on a colossal retcon that itself introduced continuity problems. Chris Golden's upcoming Predator prequel novel is going to retcon the shit out of the first movie. 'Prometheus' contradicts the heck out of 'Alien' (and by all accounts it looks like Covenant is going to do even more), but it doesn't matter because Ridley Scott has a specific story he wants to tell. It's obvious that "strict continuity" isn't the priority, "interesting storytelling" is. Even the old EU, with its vastly disconnected one-off stories, was true of this.

You claim that strict continuity = canon, but you can't prove it when it comes to the Alien franchise - and the evidence straight from the authors' mouths indicates otherwise. It's your opinion, based on how you choose to view canon. And it's not the only way to view canon.

Yautja was never a head canon term

According to you it was - if the old EU got purged, it wasn't canon anymore but Tim Lebbon chose to incorporate it because it was part of his head-canon. He believed it was canon even though it "wasn't", or he knew it wasn't canon and chose to use it because it was the popular term. Either way, that's head-canon.

no-one knows where Calpamos originated from. The idea it came from a fan is an urban myth and cannot be proved.

I know it came from a fan because I was on the Xenopedia wiki when it originated, and the community couldn't find a source for it and concluded that a fan had made it up - and then Colonial Marines referenced it and it became something of a moot point.

Edit-- as a side note, Lebbon's Yautja being different from Perry's Yautja isn't a continuity issue. Just like humans, Predators are not a homogeneous species - some of them look, act, and believe differently from others. They have different groups and tribes and clans that do stuff differently from each other. This got established in the first two movies, it's hardly new. Predators ain't a Star Trek/Star Wars race where every single one adheres to the same archetypes. It's one of the things that makes them so refreshing and interesting, they're as unpredictable as humans.

Edit again-- canon canon canon canon canon canon canon canon canon canon canon canon canon canon

[SM]

Yes I believe Newt's Tale is not canon because it no longer is.

It had that many differences from the source material I doubt it ever was.

[TheBATMAN]

Again, this is only true if canon and continuity are synonyms. You yourself said you're willing to let other continuity errors slide (and that's your right to do so, it's your opinion).

Canon and continuity are synonyms. They go hand in hand together. You are failing to see the simple difference between a deliberate continuity change and a genuine error. If you cannot see past that then it's no wonder you don't get it.

By the same exact (arbitrary) standard, Newt's Tale and River of Pain can coexist.

No, because Golden did not write River of Pain and follow Newt's Tale by accident. It was purposefully done. A deliberate change. Are you wanting me to draw this for you in crayon?

This is your opinion.

No, it's not my opinion. It's part of the reboot that began in 2013. It's pretty clear. And again, you've skirted over how Draper the colonial marine and Drapers the colony worker can exist in the same space and time if they are both canonical to the story.

Chris Golden himself said that it is canon, which means that canon and continuity aren't synonyms if you can have multiple sources with seemingly contradictory information. Just like the multiple versions of each movie, or the magic changing cryotubes from 'Aliens' to 'Alien3', or any number of other changes from movie to movie (or within the same movie).
I can have both, because canon and continuity aren't synonyms.

Utter rubbish. The fact Golden believed it was canon does not matter, I repeat, does not matter. Newt's Tale was likely intended to be canon at the time, but his new story retconned it with new changes to incorporate the new canon. As soon as he completed River of Pain it became an official part of the universe and the changes he made were to ensure the continuity flowed seamlessly. You have such a strange view of all this. Tell me, how does a different looking cryotube in Alien 3 have any effect on the canonical story??? Aesthetical difference and conscious design decisions have nothing to do with canon and continuity in fictional storytelling. We are talking about the narrative continuity here.

The fact that he made changes and didn't get flagged for it proves that strict continuity isn't as important as you seem to think it is. He wasn't mandated to change things from Newt's Tale, he chose to do it himself because it suited the story he wanted to tell, and he wasn't bound by strict continuity to adhere to it. It's the same way other continuity errors have gotten past.

Why would he get flagged for changes he had to make? He changed things in Newt's Tale to fit the new continuity, otherwise he would have followed it verbatim. The fact he changed it and Fox didn't care is because Newt's Tale was of little importance to begin with. His mandate was to write a canonical story about the downfall of the colony on LV-426. By his own admission he was under no order to follow Newt's Tale. He just did it regardless because that particular story had already been told before and he felt duty bound to follow it - but he was never obliged to. He purposefully changed elements to fit the new canon and continuity. Simple logic.

Not exactly, seeing as how it's all fiction. You can tell someone that something is "official canon" until you're blue in the face, but if someone chooses to believe differently, there is nothing you can do about it.

That's very weak. You could say that about literally anything in life, but that doesn't mean the canon doesn't exist regardless. People choose not to follow it, that's all well and good, but it's still there regardless.

If you really think the filmmakers are going to be beholden to something that someone wrote in a comic book, then I've got a bridge to sell you.

Really? You don't say...

Likewise, if a comic book or novel author has a cool story to tell and it requires changing a detail from a prior source (example: River of Pain changing things from Newt's Tale), it's absolutely within their right to do so if FOX signs off on it.

Yes, it's called furthering the canon.

That's hardly misinformation. People can believe whatever they want to believe.

It is misinformation because it's incorrect. Prometheus and the Weyland Timeline proved this definitively (said timeline is referenced in multiple other canonical stories). You put Lance and Peter being relatives of the same company in your wiki then you are spreading false information to fans. People believing whatever they want to believe is their own personal head canon, as I've already pointed out. It's irrelevant.

Fans only kicked up a stink because Colonial Marines was bad - you don't see anyone complaining about Alien Isolation. Had Colonial Marines been good, no one would have complained if it was canon or not; "continuity" wouldn't have had anything to do with it.

Fans also kicked up a stink because Colonial Marines took a dump over the Aliens and Alien 3 continuity and retconned several pointless details. There was no such problem with Alien Isolation. Creative Assembly went to great pains to follow the canonical continuity perfectly which surprise surprise, resulted in a fine narrative story.

I know it exists, I just think it isn't important and isn't worth getting in pages-long discussions about. The books themselves show that the authors are going to write what they want and (likely) get away with it, and then those things become part of the "official canon". The official canon might say that 'Aliens: Labyrinth' or the AvP videogame for Atari Jaguar isn't "canon", but that's not going to stop me from personally believing that they are canon - and there is absolutely nothing you nor FOX nor anything else can do about it. It's also not going to stop a future author from, say, "reactivating" those things in the modern canon by referencing them (like Chris Golden did with Newt's Tale) or FOX arbitrarily telling future authors "hey, these old things are also canon now, too, because we can change our minds at the drop of a hat".

Then why are you getting so uppity about it then? You say you know the canon exists, then why write page after page suggesting otherwise? Neither I nor anyone else is trying to take away anything that you enjoy. You are entitled to do what you want. That's your head canon after all. But as of right now, the canonical universe of the Alien saga is crystal clear, more so now than ever before. Obviously that will change at some point and the '2013 reboot' will eventually be kicked out, who knows. We as fans don't hold the creative keys to the franchise after all so there's nothing we can do to influence it. 

What's going to happen when Blomkamp's hypothetical movie contradicts 'Alien3'? According to Blomkamp in interviews, 'Alien3' is still going to be "canon", but he's still going to contradict it.

Well we can't answer that yet because we don't have concrete details. There are ways to have both. The clichéd Alien 3 being a dream is one example. But obviously you cannot canonically have both Ripley dying in Alien 3, then fighting through Alien 3.2, just as you can't have Draper and Drapers from River of Pain and Newt's Tale. Either 3.2 will be a hypothetical alternate 'what-if' story, or Alien 3 will be rendered non-canon. Personally, I think the latter will happen as 3 and 4 are obviously regarded as the weakest of the franchise. That will be a shame for me as I consider Alien 3 my favourite of the series in many respects – but just because it has been retconned doesn't mean I'll enjoy it any less. It will always be there in my head canon.

The crux of the matter here is you have a fundamentally different way of looking at canon than I do, and you're unwilling to see the concept from any other perspective than your own. The canonical Bible, the very thing from which the concept of "canon" is derived, is littered with continuity errors and things that contradict each other and don't make sense.
Different franchises have wildly different ways of looking at canon. Doctor Who straight up doesn't have a canon, period. Warhammer 40,000 has radically contradictory and often changing things which are still officially considered "canon", and when asked about continuity, Games Workshop has said "all of it is still true, continuity errors don't change that". Tolkien's canonical Legendarium is littered with continuity issues. Star Wars had canon "tiers", where certain things would override others in the event of a continuity error. There is no one singular way to look at canon.

Canon varies from franchise to franchise sure, but the crux of it in every single case is that continuity and canon go hand in hand. Russell. T Davies may not believe Dr. Who has a canon but he's no longer involved with the series. The Warhammer 40,000 quote 'all of it is still true, continuity errors don't change that' is exactly the point I was making several posts back. Errors are completely different to purposeful change. They don't have any impact on the canon. They are just mistakes at the end of the day, things that were simply overlooked.

The Alien series has always played it fast and loose with continuity, and the "new EU" is evidence that it's more of the same. Chris Golden explicitly stated that Newt's Tale is canon, and then made changes to it and got away with it. Tim Lebbon introduced a ton of continuity gaffes in Predator: Incursion and got away with it. Fire and Stone has even more. Out of the Shadows' very premise is based on a colossal retcon that itself introduced continuity problems. Chris Golden's upcoming Predator prequel novel is going to retcon the shit out of the first movie. 'Prometheus' contradicts the heck out of 'Alien' (and by all accounts it looks like Covenant is going to do even more), but it doesn't matter because Ridley Scott has a specific story he wants to tell. It's obvious that "strict continuity" isn't the priority, "interesting storytelling" is. Even the old EU, with its vastly disconnected one-off stories, was true of this.

You claim that strict continuity = canon, but you can't prove it when it comes to the Alien franchise - and the evidence straight from the authors' mouths indicates otherwise. It's your opinion, based on how you choose to view canon. And it's not the only way to view canon.

How are you not understanding this yet? Chris Golden chose to follow Newt's Tale. Big deal. He could have followed Labyrinth and Rogue too had he wanted. It matters not. But his story, replaces the original because his story is set in the new continuity where the others are not. Lebbon made gaffes in Predator – that's the key word here, gaffes. They are not purposeful mistakes. Out of the Shadows hasn't retconned anything and doesn't break canon in any way – it's just a ludicrous premise that defies belief. But it still canonically fits perfectly at the end of the day. You can't blame Lebbon for that. Fox wanted a Ripley story set between Alien and Aliens and he did what he had to to avoid breaking the canonical continuity. We don't know Chris Golden's Predator novel will retcon anything yet. Prometheus doesn't contradict Alien in any way either. Strict continuity is a priority for Ridley Scott because the whole point of his trilogy is to lead right up seamlessly to Alien. If you're gonna hit back that these 'contradictions' are the technology in Prometheus and the ships look too advanced etc then don't even bother because none of that is relevant to this discussion. Design aesthetics have nothing to do with the canon narrative.

I know it came from a fan because I was on the Xenopedia wiki when it originated, and the community couldn't find a source for it and concluded that a fan had made it up - and then Colonial Marines referenced it and it became something of a moot point.

So you couldn't find a source for it and concluded it came from a fan? That's it is it? Case closed. Some solid research there... Like I said, urban myth.

Edit again-- canon canon canon canon canon canon canon canon canon canon canon canon canon canon

Mature.

If you really believe canon is just opinion, then what is the point of sites like xenopedia? Are Wikis not designed to educate and help people learn about the series? Help people understand how the universe works, and clarify what events occurred with who - what, where, when and how? How to do you quantify a single page of that site as reliable information if it is all just about opinions and canon and continuity are not synonyms and therefore there is no structure because people can believe anything they want? Likewise the Weyland-Yutani Report. What is the point of releasing a collective source book for a franchise if canon is just opinion? Why hire fans like SM as consultants if continuity and canon do not matter?

And on that note, I'll leave it there thank you. An interesting discussion that is now just becoming incredibly tedious.

[Xenomrph]

Canon and continuity are synonyms.

That's one way of looking at canon, and it is not the only way.

You are failing to see the simple difference between a deliberate continuity change and a genuine error.

That's because there is no difference. An error is an error, regardless of where it comes from or why it happened.

No, because Golden did not write River of Pain and follow Newt's Tale by accident. It was purposefully done. A deliberate change.

Yes, and as I said, it doesn't matter.
Or at best, it's your opinion that it matters.

And again, you've skirted over how Draper the colonial marine and Drapers the colony worker can exist in the same space and time if they are both canonical to the story.

As stated, it's because canon and continuity aren't synonyms.

Utter rubbish. The fact Golden believed it was canon does not matter, I repeat, does not matter.

That is your opinion, and Chris Golden disagrees with you.

Tell me, how does a different looking cryotube in Alien 3 have any effect on the canonical story??? Aesthetical difference and conscious design decisions have nothing to do with canon and continuity in fictional storytelling. We are talking about the narrative continuity here.

There's more to continuity than just narratives, and if you believe otherwise, that's your opinion and you're welcome to it.
Likewise, there's more to canon than just continuity, narrative or otherwise. The fact remains that the cryotubes magically changed, and that's a continuity error whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.

That's very weak. You could say that about literally anything in life, but that doesn't mean the canon doesn't exist regardless. People choose not to follow it, that's all well and good, but it's still there regardless.

You're welcome to think it's weak, but it's still true. We're talking about fiction, and if people get bent out of shape over "official canon" and let it affect how they enjoy their fiction, then they're doing it wrong.

Why would he get flagged for changes he had to make? He changed things in Newt's Tale to fit the new continuity, otherwise he would have followed it verbatim. The fact he changed it and Fox didn't care is because Newt's Tale was of little importance to begin with. His mandate was to write a canonical story about the downfall of the colony on LV-426. By his own admission he was under no order to follow Newt's Tale. He just did it regardless because that particular story had already been told before and he felt duty bound to follow it - but he was never obliged to. He purposefully changed elements to fit the new canon and continuity.

That's your opinion and your interpretation of what happened. Fox didn't make him make any changes, he chose to do it on his own. He could have chosen to make up new characters and left the ones from Newt's Tale alone, and he didn't do that - and FOX didn't stop him. That shows how much FOX cares about "continuity", not to mention all the other errors they've let slip through the cracks.

It is misinformation because it's incorrect. Prometheus and the Weyland Timeline proved this definitively (said timeline is referenced in multiple other canonical stories). You put Lance and Peter being relatives of the same company in your wiki then you are spreading false information to fans.

It's not false information when it's all opinion anyway. It's not that complex.

Fans also kicked up a stink because Colonial Marines took a dump over the Aliens and Alien 3 continuity and retconned several pointless details. There was no such problem with Alien Isolation. Creative Assembly went to great pains to follow the canonical continuity perfectly which surprise surprise, resulted in a fine narrative story.

Retcons happen, deal with it. 'Aliens' retconned 'Alien', and 'Alien3' retconned 'Aliens'. People took issue with the quality of the final product Colonial Marines, and the perceived (often incorrect) "continuity issues" were just icing on the cake - just like the problems people had with the AvP movies.
The narrative story in Isolation had nothing to do with "following the continuity", especially since the game has its share of continuity issues and introduces other gaffes. But you don't hear people complaining about those (or at worst, they go to great lengths to handwave them). Why do you think that is?

Then why are you getting so uppity about it then? You say you know the canon exists, then why write page after page suggesting otherwise?

I'm not suggesting otherwise, re-read what I wrote.

Neither I nor anyone else is trying to take away anything that you enjoy.

Then why do you keep saying Newt's Tale "isn't canon" as if that's supposed to mean anything?

That will be a shame for me as I consider Alien 3 my favourite of the series in many respects – but just because it has been retconned doesn't mean I'll enjoy it any less. It will always be there in my head canon

If you're going to let your head-canon judge things, then maybe there's hope for you yet.

Canon varies from franchise to franchise sure, but the crux of it in every single case is that continuity and canon go hand in hand. Russell. T Davies may not believe Dr. Who has a canon but he's no longer involved with the series. The Warhammer 40,000 quote 'all of it is still true, continuity errors don't change that' is exactly the point I was making several posts back. Errors are completely different to purposeful change. They don't have any impact on the canon. They are just mistakes at the end of the day, things that were simply overlooked.

You didn't understand what I wrote, go back and re-read it.
I gave 5 examples off the top of my head where you have stories and worlds that have continuity issues and function just fine, because they don't think "continuity" and "canon" are synonyms. As stated, you can think canon and continuity are inextricably linked, but it isn't the only way to look at it.
Also the Games Workshop thing isn't just intentional changes - sometimes they've contradicted old stuff because they couldn't be bothered to keep track of it all, and they didn't realize they'd changed something. Fans with too much time on their hands who did keep track of it all have called them out on it, and their response has been "Oops. It's all still canon, though."

Lebbon made gaffes in Predator – that's the key word here, gaffes. They are not purposeful mistakes.

You don't know that, and it doesn't make a difference either way. They're still mistakes.
If you choose to hold different mistakes to different standards, that's totally your right to do so. It just helps if you acknowledge that it's your opinion (however internally consistent it may be), and demanding that others be beholden to it is pretty wacky and makes you look like an asshole.

Out of the Shadows hasn't retconned anything and doesn't break canon in any way – it's just a ludicrous premise that defies belief. But it still canonically fits perfectly at the end of the day. You can't blame Lebbon for that. Fox wanted a Ripley story set between Alien and Aliens and he did what he had to to avoid breaking the canonical continuity.

You must not have been paying attention when you read it, the book has plenty of continuity issues between itself and 'Alien' and 'Aliens'.
And FOX asking for changes just proves my point - clearly "strict continuity" isn't that important to them if they're going to hire authors to change it willy-nilly. Likewise if they're going to let so many changes and mistakes pass through the cracks - in every interview with authors, the authors talk about how hands-off FOX is but how FOX still vets stuff and "fact checks" things, and yet we still get all these mistakes.

Huh.

We don't know Chris Golden's Predator novel will retcon anything yet.

Its very premise of introducing a second Predator into the events of the movie 'Predator' is a retcon. Shit, it doesn't get much bigger than that.

Prometheus doesn't contradict Alien in any way either. Strict continuity is a priority for Ridley Scott because the whole point of his trilogy is to lead right up seamlessly to Alien.

Holy shit are you serious?
Ridley Scott himself says in his introduction to the Prometheus concept art book that originally the Space Jockey was a skeleton, and then he chose to go back and retcon it to be a guy in a space suit. And his Engineer in a suit has different proportions, dimensions, and details from the Space Jockey he's supposedly meant to be. He places LV-223 in the same orbit as LV-426, but somehow the Prometheus doesn't detect the Derelict signal.

If he's trying to "seamlessly lead into Alien" (and he's never said that that's what he's trying to do), then the latest round of spoilers that have cropped up for Covenant indicate that he's gearing up to retcon the shit out of 'Alien' in ways that will be difficult to explain. I mean, I hope his movie does explain them, don't get me wrong, but he's still gonna be changing things if those spoilers end up playing out.

If Ridley Scott cared so much about "strict continuity" (LOL), why did he disregard AvP at the drop of a hat? Find me a quote from him where he says he cares about continuity. Please, find literally anything.

So you couldn't find a source for it and concluded it came from a fan? That's it is it? Case closed. Some solid research there... Like I said, urban myth.

A fan edited the wiki and no one could find a source for it despite having the limitless power of Google and the Wayback Machine at our disposal to find where it might have come from, which indicates that a fan fabricated it from whole cloth. It's a wiki, that kind of shit happens all the time and slips through the cracks. How is this surprising to you?

If you really believe canon is just opinion, then what is the point of sites like xenopedia? Are Wikis not designed to educate and help people learn about the series? Help people understand how the universe works, and clarify what events occurred with who - what, where, when and how?

Why does Xenopedia include pages for things from "non canon" sources, like the Kenner toys? Why does the Dwayne Hicks page have entire paragraphs dedicated to 'Aliens: Colonial Marines'?
Because it's a fan wiki and its goal is to show an all-encompassing look at the franchise, and that means including everything. Also, just maybe, those who run the wiki understand that strict continuity isn't what the wiki needs, or what people are looking for.
You're acting like it's the end of the world if Xenopedia, a fan-operated wiki, doesn't have accurate information. It's had questionable information for years (Calpamos, anyone?), why don't we have fans flooding to this forum in a panic because they don't know who or what to trust? Why don't we have irate fans complaining at every turn that they've been led astray by lies and deception?

Maybe, just maybe, it's because people (FOX included) don't give nearly as much of a shit about "strict continuity" as you choose to believe.

Likewise the Weyland-Yutani Report. What is the point of releasing a collective source book for a franchise if canon is just opinion?

Because the "collective source book" isn't a collective source book - it's a retelling of the Alien movies (and Prometheus) with a light sprinkling of some EU stuff thrown in (and even that's not entirely accurate, due to the timing of when the book was written and what EU stuff had been released up to that point). I know this is true because I literally asked SD Perry about it and that's literally what she said the book's purpose is - it's a creative retelling of the movies, targeted at casual-to-moderate fans. The WYR is already out of date because new stuff has come out, and if it's meant to be a definitive source book for the franchise, why is there no mention of Predators or any AvP-related anything? AvP and Predator Fire and Stone are still "canon", Predators still exist within the same "universe". It's because the book isn't meant to be about those things, it's a book about the Alien series movies.

Why hire fans like SM as consultants if continuity and canon do not matter?

It's simple: continuity matters until it doesn't. If an author wants to be hardcore-strict about continuity, then SM and the fandom and Xenopedia or whatever are useful resources so he or she can achieve their goals. But if the author doesn't care, or the strict continuity doesn't fit the story they want to tell (or that FOX wants them to tell), and FOX is going to sign off on all of it and give it the stamp of approval, then continuity clearly doesn't matter so much.

Like I said, you have a radically different paradigm on what "canon" means, and it's not necessarily what the Alien series actually follows. You're acknowledging that different franchises have different things that "are canon", but you're not actually recognizing what that means for canon as a concept. There is not one singular way to look at canon, and different franchises count different things as canon whether they cause continuity problems or not because strict continuity isn't always the goal of "the canon". Sometimes the point is the individual stories and not how they interlock with each other, or to show that their "universe" is chaotic, unpredictable, and unknowable, or that the point is the emotional or artistic messages of the stories rather than how seamlessly it fits together. It's all fiction.

You choose to believe that canon is solely reliant on strict continuity, and that's not the only way to look at things. The evidence from FOX's mandates, from the authors writing the EU, from the EU itself, and from people like Ridley Scott making new movies that retcon their own movies, show that "strict continuity" isn't the goal, and if you're fixating on strict continuity above all other things, then I think you're missing the point that all these creators are trying to show you with their stores.
And that's kinda a shame.

[Xenomrph]

Stumbled across a really great article about canon as a concept (and why it doesn't matter), figured it was worth sharing here.

[HuDaFuK]

(and why it doesn't matter)

Well, it kinda does to a degree, because otherwise your series is just a mess of contradictions.