Does it make it canon if the director says it is so?

I don't consider AvP and AvPR canon any longer due to the predalien being transsexual. Ever since that happened, i have no longer been an AvP movies fan, i'm now an Alien fan, a Predator fan, and an AvP games fan. However i do consider scenes that have been cut out of the other mvoies that do not contradict scenes that are a part of the movie as canon, for example the Superfacehugger, for counter example, the ox scene.

If this is a discussion about the AvP franchise canon, yes, it would have to be comsidered canon, it's in the mvoie, you can't just let it out because you don't like it. Well unless you wanna be an asshole, but then no one will like you. I don't like the punch either, but Pred fans complained about getting their ass kicking in AvP being biased and as an Alien fan i can't say it was unfair at all. And so i would understand if a Pred fan would consider it fair for an Alien to get his face punched and die, even though it seemes like bullshit to me. I don't like it, but it happened, so whatever.

Well they heavily contradict the original movies, so they may be canon, but that doesn't mean it is in the same universe as the original 2 sagas, maybe the Predator saga but not the Alien one, just watch the first Alien and then the AvP movies, nothing similar.

If contradictions do occur between movies, then the one that came first is right. However, whatever the director says goes. So say if the writer of Predators declared that preds have a set of concealed, folded up wings on their back that they use to fly around with, it becomes canon.

In terms of the AvP movies, as long as they don't contradict the originals everything they say is considered canon.

And, as the AvP movies contradict the original Alien movies even from the beginning, having Weyland in them, they can't be canon, no, no?

Well what happens when 2 different directors for different movies contradicts each other? In Predator 2, the director states that this Predator is a young Predator compared to the one in Predator 1 (which was supposed to be the more mature pred). Paul Anderson then goes and states that both of the first ones were young Predators and that the Preds need to kill Aliens as their "right-of-passage" into adulthood. This sounds okay until you realized that the one in Predator 2 had already killed an Alien (as evidenced by the Alien skull on its ship, joke or not it's there). So wouldn't it technically older than the one in AVP? And really are we going to believe that the Predators who took you a squad of trained commandos and the one who took out armed police/special forces are young compared to ones who can't even take out 1 Alien?

Yes and No,

You have to look at AVP and AVPR as separate movies on their own tangent. Sure, details do tend to over lap between them and the alien and predator films, including the use of the creatures.

As for what the directors say go, I tend to agree more with them than the fans, if you let the fans decide what is canon, you'll end up with a bunch of crazy bullshit.

Anderson's a pretty cool guy. Eh, likes make movies and doesn't afraid of anything.

+1 to Bloo

Should have been "Anderson's a pretty cool guy, eh lieks to make movies and doesn't afraid of anything" but i guess it's ok like that to.

The only people I trust regarding canonity in the Alien and Predator franchises are Dan O Bannon, Ron Shusett, Jim Thomas and John Thomes ;)

I don't think I need to explain why :)

'The only people I trust regarding canonity in the Alien and Predator franchises are Dan O Bannon, Ron Shusett, Jim Thomas and John Thomes ;)'

Yeah, but its also difficult to say because the director can imply whatever he wants whilst the film is in production and that becomes ....... cannon?

Ridley scott constructed space jockeys (officially) post-film completion. This is widely regarded cannon, then again look at blade runner, maybe Ridley just likes fighting over untied knots.

Ive grown to hate franchises in the past 2 years, real movies dont have issues like this. Il never turn my back on some of the movies i loved as a kid, but you have to admitt, this cannon, non cannon stuff is a bit of a piss take.

Canon, not cannon, cannon is that thing that shoots cannon balls at people... Sorry i keep correcting everyone, it just hurts my head if i don't do it.

haha apologies for that

and dont worry about it mate, every forum has an obnoxious little shit with nothing constructive to contribute to the topic at hand, your not the first.

Obviously, since i've already contributed to the thread and therefore i'm not it at all. But now that i return to this thread, i think i should put it another way, simpler... The direcor doesn't say what's canon and what isn't, the director makes the canon. It's like a painting, the painter makes the a pinting, just because you don't like one aspect of the painting you can't just say it's not there cos you want it not to be. It will still be part of the painting no matter how many whiny midgets bitch about it.

"Obviously, since i've already contributed to the thread and therefore i'm not it at all. But now that i return to this thread, i think i should put it another way, simpler... The direcor doesn't say what's canon and what isn't, the director makes the canon. It's like a painting, the painter makes the a pinting, just because you don't like one aspect of the painting you can't just say it's not there cos you want it not to be. It will still be part of the painting no matter how many whiny midgets bitch about it."

Id hardly call what your typing a "contribution" you dumb struck child. Thats a bit harsh actually but let me break down what youve just said.

The "its like a painting" phrase has me assuming your comparing the job of painting a picture to that of directing a film, which i feel is a ridiculous simile on your part.

You then go on to say "the painter makes the a pinting", i assume the "a pinting" is "the painting" in which case youve gone on to imply that the painter who paints the picture and decides what will go in the picture does indeed decide whats cannon and whats not. Obviously the painter probably wont be painting from a script (usually written by another individual entirely) but in order to use your simile effectively (difficult) you have to normalize and imagine that the painter has many ideas in which he narrows down for a single painting, like extracting weight from a movie script.

"no matter how many whiny midgets bitch about it." i dont actually know what that even means, were talking about weather or not content is canon if a director says so.

If i De-Fucktard what youve just attempted to say i think what you mean is once the painting is done, its done, the painter cant suddenly decide that a part of the painting dosent exist. Oh, and the obvious statement that you made (i assume whiney midgets are people like you and I on fan forums) that clearly "whiney midgets" <<(idiot) cant decide whats canon and whats not.

The conclusion here is, i completely disagree anyway. Youve missed the point and your an idiot. How often do directors attempt to extract from their movie? Ridley scott verbally ADDED space jockeys in post production. Like he verbally ADDED that Deckard was in fact a replicant. This is all additional backstory information we have to decide weather to treat as canon or not, im not sure but something tells me a director has never directly contradicted "actual existing content" from a movie. (with the acceptation of american psycho, thats what happens when woman direct movies) and im sure painters dont contradict what they've painted....... (basically what youve sade makes about as much sense as a (>>insert funny simile here<<<) )

Bar possible meaning, motivation and additional concepts i dont think a painter can really attempt to add to his painting and the latter are all completely acceptable anyway.

And you finally show how stupid you are. I've always thought that your anger and "everyone but me sucks" attitude were caused by your having been molested in childhood or something, but i see you're actually just stupid. I'm not going to actually ask you what kind of a retard you have to be to point out one of my typos while you fuck up like an idiot while using your mother language. So let's see...

Your failed to "De-Fucktard" what i said because apparently your level of fucktard is much higher than mine. I cannot possibly have meant to say that once the painter has finished the painting he can no longer change it, a painting is done by always adding to it and a painter can always decide to erase, modify or add details. It's not hard at all to compare one art to another since even you managed to do it eventually, but i'll try not to make too many analogies in threads you post in from now on, i don't want to fry your brain. And yes, "whiny midgets" was a metaphor for people like you and i, who uselessly dispute a movie's canon, because no matter what we say, the movie is as the director sells it.

And what is this about verbally adding details, if a painter makes a painting of an old woman looking with dismay to the left, he can then say she's looking at a disgusting slime, but that can't stop anyone from considering that she's looking at, for example, her retarded 40 year old son who has never had a friend in his life and likes to go on, for example, Freddie vs. Jason forums and call people idiots under the nickname, for example, killswap or killchange, could be anything. Just so, if a director wants to, he can say that before the movie started, all the characters were having an orgy and anyone can believe what they want.

Now for the probably easiest thing to udnerstand of everything i've said in this thread related to AvP, i was talking about the ox scene. I was saying that the release of a director's cut version of a movie, containing deleted scenes, would mean that those previously non-canon scenes would become canon as long as they don't contradict the plot of the originally released version of the movie. The originally released version of Alien 3 does not contain a "superfacehugger" but it appears in a deleted scene and so could be taken as canon. However the deleted scene of the alien bursting out of an ox would not be canon because the dog is the animal that the alien bursts out of in the originally released version of the movie. And as the movie only has one active alien in it, that alien can't have burst out of an ox as long as it burst out of a dog. Do you understand? Dog is yes, ox is no, both scenes of the same movie, both directed by the same person, contradicting eachother, does killswitch want banana?

In conclusion, your post was as dumb as that smile you kept trying to "insert". If you decide on answering to this as if you actually knew what you were talking about, please note that i will start reading with the impression that you are completely retarded and delusional. So either you try talking like a normal person with a complete brain or i will continue to lower myself to your level to make sure you understand what i'm talking about.

Quote
"And you finally show how stupid you are. I've always thought that your anger and "everyone but me sucks" attitude were caused by your having been molested in childhood or something, but i see you're actually just stupid. I'm not going to actually ask you what kind of a retard you have to be to point out one of my typos while you fuck up like an idiot while using your mother language. So let's see..."

mmm Dude the irony is beaming me in the face, i dont normally have a problem with typos, i simply responded with a complaint about a typo because you complained about my typo "cannon" << because my browser "apple safari" seems to decide when i want to select a recommended word and when i dont, (technically meaning it wasnt even a typo). If your not sure what the word is, fine, youl have to point that out to the user, if you clearly know what the word is and what its supposed to mean within the thread and still point it out your an obnoxious little shit....... as i stated before.... yes, thats you.

Im obviously not going to address what you said about child molestation, how .... silly for lack of a better word. ahhh attack is the best form of defense.... :D, dont you worry about it mate, there are people you can go to to talk about this sort of thing, payed professionals. aliensvspredator2 is not the place.

I have to point out that im on this site "angry" because im not good at babysitting, i hate children. What goes around comes around, treat people as they treat you <<<(my belief anyway). Youl find me on sites like IMDB and Empire acting like the mature respectable individual that i am with an audience who seem educated in film and respect other peoples opinions. Though i will apologies to you because the site degraded completely about 2.5 years ago after the main roster of staff left, this has nothing to do with you, but 4/5 of the users on this site are quit silly in their ways.

In addition to that i am british/irish, swearing is kind of part of are culture and its different than it is in america, "your a f**king idiot mate" means i disagree with you, another of the disadvantages to a forum is you cant really gauge my mentality, im a very good humored person and im certainly not sitting here gritting my teeth at some kid 6,000 miles away.

Anyway, back to the thread...... i have to point out your calling me "stupid" which given what ive called you i wont be offended by of course (ive set the standards, i accept the aftermath) but your not really telling me which end of the stick i have incorrectly grabbed as i dont think you know. Your just insulting me because thats what silly americans resort to when their outwitted.

Quote
"Your failed to "De-Fucktard" what i said because apparently your level of fucktard is much higher than mine. I cannot possibly have meant to say that once the painter has finished the painting he can no longer change it, a painting is done by always adding to it and a painter can always decide to erase, modify or add details"

mmmmm so weve just concluded your "analogies" are indeed terrible........ because last i checked a director like Paul Anderson for example cant go back and .. i quote "always decide to erase, modify or add details" ... apparently its harder than you thought to compare the art forms....... ????

you then go on to insult me some more............ moving on moving on.....

Quote
"And what is this about verbally adding details, if a painter makes a painting of an old woman looking with dismay to the left, he can then say she's looking at a disgusting slime, but that can't stop anyone from considering that she's looking at, for example, her retarded 40 year old son who has never had a friend in his life and likes to go on, for example, Freddie vs. Jason forums and call people idiots under the nickname, for example, killswap or killchange, could be anything"

and some more insults....this paragraph is the most important part of the discussion weve been having which indeed concludes that we simply disagree with each other on the matter...... but obviously
for a child like yourself " that man disagrees with my theory" = Insults about child molestation, stupidity, my brain, my life e.c.t e.c.t... granted i called you an idiot because your analogies suck, your calling me stupid because i disagree with you, use your brain kid, whos being the "arrogant fool" here?

If i extract from my last-reply "Bar possible meaning, motivation and additional concepts i dont think a painter can really attempt to add to his painting and the latter are all completely acceptable anyway."

So what your old woman is looking at would certainly count as "motivation" i suppose.... I FEEL the painter/director should be aloud to add motivation.. even after the painting is complete, YOU DONT .. and i quote "if a painter makes a painting of an old woman looking with dismay to the left, he can then say she's looking at a disgusting slime, but that can't stop anyone from considering that she's looking at, for example" .... i feel it should. Thus wee disagree.

the alien 3 stuff you mentioned is all down to fans i guess... 3 or 4 years ago on this forum the vast majority decided only theatrical content was canon after intense arguments about the egg scene in Alien. Now years later as members have moved on the current crop seem more susceptible to this content, which is fine, all about opinion......... which is fine, no need for more ""that man disagrees with my theory" = Insults about child molestation, stupidity, my brain, my life e.c.t "" im sure on avp galaxy for example theyve code a different UCOC.

and finally your conclusion was........ juts more insults ... you attempted to jump down onto the morally lower platform im standing on and youve fallen through the floor boards and landed on your ass a couple of stair cases down.

Once again id like to point out i insult people when their being silly, not when they dont agree with me...... your "analogies" were silly.

just for the record, i know the mods are probably itching to come in and break this up........ This is extremely healthy debating and is exactly what this site needs (obviously with the subtraction of insults which i partly apologies for).

Im sure myself and DeathWraith can mutually agree to can that sort of behavior from this point on.

-the double posting rule is silly anyway :D

Mildly entertaining, although I'm going to have to ask you to stop, both of you. Too many people take advantage of this site's lack of activity by posting whatever pops into their heads in which ever thread they please.

That needs to end, stay on topic or don't post. There are plenty of other ways to carry on an argument or 'conversation' on the net.

Oh, you're irish too, i thought you were just british, well then i apologize for taking it too hard, but i'm romanian, our culture is mainly based on insulting eachother and hating hungarians. Also our political system.

And yeah, sorry, i'll stop, i'm not gonna continue if killswitch doesn't continue it.

Though we were actually talking about the thread's topic.