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

[SM]

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.

[The PredBen]

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.

[Xenomrph]

I didn't say that.

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

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.

[SM]

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).

[Xenomrph]

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

[RagingDragon]

What 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.

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.

No, it's called 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.

But 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".

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.

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

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'.

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.

However 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.

[Xenomrph]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

[Valaquen]

No, 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 ( ).
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:

As 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

[RagingDragon]

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

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!

[SM]

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...

[Nero the Jackal]

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.

[Xenomrph]

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. 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?

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?

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.

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).

[SM]

Give it time.

[RagingDragon]

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.

No, 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 ( ).
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:

As 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."

[Xenomrph]

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.