Quote from: oduodu on Jul 06, 2023, 11:20:34 AMafaik "canon" is what we see in the threatrical releases of a movie. the only entity that has the right to add to it is the owner s of the ipo (intelectual property owner). hence books and other media added to the franchise by the ipo or anyone licensed by the ipo.
tr = "theatrical release"
so i se 4 types of canon:
1
mc = "(main) canon"
THEATRICAL RELEASE PLUS ADDED TO BY THE IPO
2
trc = "theatrical release canon"
AS IN WHAT WAS CONSIDER3D CANON AT THE TIME THE MOVIE WAS RELEASED -AND EXPLANATIONS BY THE DIRECTOR SCRIPTWRITERS ORIGINAL CONCEPT -CREATORS
DRAFT SCRIPT TO SHOOTING
IN A 1 YEAR PRIOR TO TR TO ABOUT 2 -3 YEARS AFTER .
(i feel that directors and writers change their view on stuff as time go by. you cant have a discussion about what happens in a movie if original intentions are not first discussed and understood. THEN you can further discusses changed perspectives.) (and also how the creators of euc media might interpret things in the tr) (for instance what cameron has to say about alien tr has as much weight as any one else licenswed to add to the franchise as he wasnt part of the original creative team he might add to it in his own movie but doesnt make him opinion more noteworthy on what happened in alien tr imho) (sometimes there there are things happening in the movie that has no meaning but did in the original script like ripley s nosebleed. she was bleeding because of the alien tail getting stuck in the airlock door and the ensuing depressurisation caused her nose to bleed. it has no meaning or sense in the movie but yest it there . you cam say that she bleed because of some internal trauma causing her blood pressure to raise and fall unexpectedly and sometime peoplewith poor blood clotting ability has such problems yet that has nothing to do with it originaly. yet it is in the movie. )(as was te case in Prey i always felt that the predator in it was showboating for the indian girl when he picked up the bear to show her how strong he was . the movie may not have reflected that
BUT
trachtenburg is on record saying in the podcast that there was originally an intention for a team up. it somehow "spiritually" felt conveyed at least to me. as in he was directly looking at the indian girl and body language saying "look how strong i am little girl and i know you are there but i dont care if you tag along". mkae of that what you will.)
3
euc = "extended universe canon"
any media added to the universe that is not considered explicitly mc by the ipo but is excepted by the ipo as part of the euc.
(feel free to correct me if i am talking shit. any help would be welcome)
4
hc = "head canon"
ANYTHING THAT YOU PERSONALLY CONSIDER TO BE PART OF THE FRANCHISE OR WOULD LIKED TO HAVE BEEN PART OF THE FRANCHISE.
point:
relying only on the ipo and mc is going to keep making it hard to have a conversation because the ipo will deliberately add stuff to mc so
THAT IT WILL DELIBERATELY NOT MAKE SENSE. WITH PROMETHUES BEING A PRIME EXAMPLE.
listen to some of the podcasts. fox on many ocasions tell writers not to explain how the alien biology works or see.
BECAUSE THEY KNOW EXPLAINING MYSTERIES ABOUT THE ALIEN DIMINSHES ITS "ALIENESS" AND PEOPLE WILL NO LONGER CARE .
it makes sense at the end of the day i guess.
i you destroy what fundamentally set peoples s imagination on fire then you a have a real problem. and the resulting movie covenant is what we got. as a back lash .
SCOTT DID NOT GET TO TELL THE STORY HE WANTED TO TELL.
ANYWAYS DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN DIFFERENT KIND S OF CANON MAKES IT POSSABLE TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT A MOVIE WITHOUT BEATING A DEAD HORSE. YOU HAVE AN OPINION . I HAVE AN OPINIO . BUT AT LEAST KNOW TO WHAT "CANON " YOU ARE REFERRING TO BECAUSE OTHER WISE THESE DISCUSSION
ARE REALLY POINTLESS IMHO.
so ralfy yes: you make many good "canon" points. i just dont understand some of the arguments you have about the movie.
do you read from the manual about the alien universe that is considered canon?
alien colonial marines manual?
didnt sm help in a manual written by perry 's daughter ? also sonsidered canon.
enjoying this discussion tremenduously.
btw ralfy: dont consider me as an expert om any of this . the people here are excellent at what they do. just trying to understand where are coming from.
just my 2 cents . probably wrong
The points I raise are mostly from the movie script, and they're not very hard to understand. To recap,
The claim to Bishop was working alone; reasons,
1. By claiming otherwise, one would depict W-Y as a "cartoonish villain";
2. Cameron says so.
My counter-arguments:
The OP starts his analysis with references to Reagan. The implication is that it's the opposite: when you think that one person can operate independently using resources from large groups like a mega-corporation with multiple divisions and the government, then you're essentially creating a "cartoonish villain." In contrast, what happened during the Reaganite era was multiple members of organizations were involved in deregulating (e.g., leading to the S&L scandal) and dirty tricks in other countries (e.g., Irangate). What's cartoonish is the attempt by the administration to argue that Ollie North was mostly responsible and that the President wasn't involved.
In which case, a more realistic and analytic view of what happened is that Burke wasn't working alone. The reasons from the movie:
The company and government, who had members in the board of inquiry, also knew about the landing location. Given references by Ripley and Burke, and by Ripley in the first movie, both are more than willing to see their personnel and assets as expendable for bio-weapons development, etc. To argue that they suddenly thought otherwise, which is why they didn't bother to check the landing location, makes them cartoonish.
What likely happened, then, is that they ordered Burke to act as their front man, and from which he would receive a percentage, as Ripley pointed out. Why would he receive a percentage and nothing more? Because he pointed out in the movie that the government granted the company mineral rights in exchange for building the colony and terraforming. That means the government retains surface rights, where the alien ship's located.
What about Burke's point about "exclusive rights"? My guess is that either the contents of surface rights is debatable, or that Burke is referring to exclusive rights for W-Y, on which he's operating on company time. That means the government is obliged to grant W-Y the right to exploit the alien ship and its organisms and not itself or any other company.
It's not mentioned in the movies, but I'm guessing that Burke, the colony manager, the Jordens, and Ripley have no means to exploit alien finds because those need company labs, scientists, legal teams, engineers and recovery specialists, manufacturers, etc. That's why like in the real world they'd get a percentage of profits as they wouldn't be able to pay for the assets needed to make those profits.
What about the reference to the author? I find that illogical because that would make this whole thread and any review of the movies, or any work of art, pointless. It implies that only the author is right even though one finds things in the work that he created that goes against his claim. I'll stop there because this argument is absurd.
I gave other points, and some of them are related to this one, but all come from the movie with a few that aren't:
It's very clear that Ripley had no evidence to present to show that her story is true except for the location of the alien ship, and yet for some weird reason she never raises it during the hearing. Instead, she does so after it, when it's too late. And then she accepts van Leuwen's excuse which is absurd: just because one didn't encounter aliens doesn't mean one has to investigate the alien ship landing site.
I think Burke knew about the need to smuggle alien organisms back to company labs, which is why he needed Bishop, who in turn follows him. But that looks risky; he could have come up with a more careful plan and without involving the colony. That is, send in teams to the alien ship location and secure it, probably even using armed company security and mercs.
One thing that's not from the movie is the point that Bishop works for the Marines, and it's from a manual. If that's the case, and he also works for Burke, then that means that the company and the government are in cahoots with each other. There's a realistic precedence to this, and it's shown in what the OP of this thread shared: the Reagan admin. It followed a decades-long policy involving a military industrial complex, where industry and government work together to power up the military, and for the gain of all three. That fits perfectly with Ripley's points about bio-weapons divisions. In which case, the Marines or some other military group could be used to aid Burke and W-Y secure the landing site.
Why the rush? My guess is Burke's reference to "exclusive rights". That is, given surface rights, the government could discover the alien ship itself and then award the right to exploit it to another company. There is no reference to the latter in the movie, but that's the only logical reason I can think of to explain the reference and given my previous points (which all come from the movie, too).
So, that's basically it: I hope my explanation is clearer. The gist is that Burke's and Ripley's remarks about mineral and exclusive rights, the only piece of evidence to support Ripley's story, the background of W-Y and the company given what happened in the first movie, Ash, Bishop's references to instructions from Burke, references to the bio-weapons division, and references to shares or percentages raised by Parker and others as well as Ripley in reference to Burke, all point to the argument that Burke wasn't working alone. And given the OP's reference to the Reagan era, etc., the implication is that by claiming otherwise one ends up with a cartoonish villain.
There is nothing in this that involves creative fan interpretations or requires trolling, using AI, or even hoping for some forum "hero" to make things right. It's just ordinary close reading of the dialogue and events from the movie.
Also, for anyone who wants to go beyond the basic things I did, which is close reading, check out the analysis shared by the OP here:
https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/index.php?msg=2271362with references not only to Reagan but even to Maggie Thatcher, feminism, and Rambo!
BTW, for anyone interested in similar, i.e., cultural references, let me know. I've a lot to say about those, too, but given several members' problems with even the basics, I don't think doing so will be worth it.
