My point is that a queen wasn't there, because it wasn't in Ridley Scott's mind (for reasons of mere pacing, he removed that different egg origin).
Yes, but the no. of things that aren't in a work at any given time stretch ad infinitum. The queen wasn't there, Ripley's message to Amanda wasn't there, the backstories of the crew weren't in the film itself, etc. All of these things have been added over time, nothing in the film is harmed by it.
Fiction can pretend to be retroactive, but they aren't in reality. In contrast, science is. Fiction is only retroactive if we play pretend, and actively decide to paint over the original reality. It's the opposite of science scraping off the paint of our beliefs to reveal a reality of the time.
Except the opposite is true.
Fiction can be retroactive in the sense that new facts can be installed into a setting in a retroactive manner. Prometheus is retroactive to Alien, Alien: Isolation is retroactive to Aliens, and so on, and so forth. In the real world, facts more or less exist that are unchangeable, even if our understanding of them changes. That a creature named Iguanadon existed is a fact, for all intents and purposes. Our understanding of Iggy has shifted over time (it was first thought to be quadrapedal with a nose horn for instance). There's nothing "retroactive" about this because new discoveries are always made in real-time. In fiction, if something is retroactive, the 'fact' was always there only from an in-universe standpoint.
But only the new movies require such a (ridiculous) stretch. The original trilogy didn't, because, at that time, Anakin was implicitely something else.
The reality (the historical reality, and by historical, I mean, real world author communicative intent) is that, until Phantom Menace, Kenobi hadn't meant whatever Phatom Menace forces us to retroactively shoehorn in bad faith. That was not the meaning of the dialogue. And erasing this reality is unkind to the movie.
This isn't the best example in the world - you're comparing something that's implicit with something that's explicit. But I've already said that films can, and should be judged on their own terms - any evaluation of A New Hope as a film would treat the film on its own terms. But canonically, there's no wriggle room left.
Also, it is not even a matter a quality, as a sequel can also "improve" the meaning of an original work. But just as falsely, historically. To stay in Star Wars, sequels have tried to rationalize the parsec unit in that kessel run thing. But you cannot rewrite the fact that it was a nonsensical sentence, a nice-sounding goof built on ignorance. And, forgivingly or not, that movie should be appreciated in awareness of that.
Except it
has been "rewritten" (I wouldn't even call it a rewrite).
Again, this is a false dichotomy. As a film, I can appreciate the goofy line, as canon, I'm aware that Han made the Kessel Run in less than 20 parsecs due to his navigational skills and whatnot.
Universe : the little fictional bubble. History, the real life sequence of events in the production of the fictions.
Okay, sure. And I'm guessing it's fair to say that you're more interested in the history than the universe?
That's fine, but I'm the opposite, so it's clear that there isn't a lot of common ground here.
Haven't watched much Space 1999 ? Many series can be split that way, around writing or production decisions, or redefining twists.
And? Is Space 1999 different series by virtue of its different writers?
In particular comics, after the death of the original author. Every time a character or event was described one way, and was that way for the author and public, and then gets redefined a different way by a different author.
None of which stops it from being the same series. Different writers work on comic series over time, it doesn't stop being the same series when there's a change in writing staff.
If it wasn't planned, then, until that point, the character was the original way. He had "always been different since the origin" only from the point of change.
Well, sure, from a production standpoint, but not from a canon standpoint. Any attempt to shift the in-universe reality is just rationalization.
Nope, and frankly, you should stop taking "canon" that seriously. "Canon" is at best a joke, at worst a commercial ploy.
...okay, I'm going to let Stargate speak for me.
"Never underestimate your audience. They're generally sensitive, intelligent people who respond positively to quality entertainment."
If you don't care about canon, that's your prerogative, but it's not a good writing strategy. Any setting, especially if it's a fictional one, needs ground rules and establishments. From Star Wars to the Simpsons, there's canon. In Star Wars, it's canonical that FTL travel is possible through hyperspace and there's a mystical energy field called the Force, in the Simpsons, it's canonical that the titular family live in a town called Springfield, Evergreen Terrace, and are a family of five with two pets. Canon is certainly much more important in Star Wars, but if canon doesn't matter, then there's little reason to get invested in a setting.
Every fictional setting has canon to it, and it's one of the basic building blocks of writing. You may not care about canon, but the majority of people do.
It already barely makes sense in religion, and treating star trek or batman as a religion makes even less sense than jesus.
Difference being that people know Star Trek and Batman are fictional, while Christians genuinely believe their faith to be real (like every religion). One can certainly compare fandoms to religions, but I've never met anyone who doesn't know that their fandom is fictional.
The only interesting thing with "canon" is, for each new work in a franchise, knowing what other fictional events are supposed to be true (in the current author's view) within the narrative of that new work.
Except usually the current author doesn't have a fiat over canon. If I was comissioned to write for a pre-existing setting for instance, I can't simply make up canon willy nilly. At least not if the IP is properly managed. Heck, I write fanfic, and for multi-chaptered stories, a good portion of time is involved with fact-checking wikis, making notes in a separate document, etc. I'm not saying this to brag, this is basic writing practice (unless you're a hardcore pantser I suppose).
"Canon" is a vague tool to synchronize these things. But it's not magical, it's not serious, it doesn't weight more than history.
Well, no, canon doesn't weigh more than history, because canon is fictional, history isn't. Fiction doesn't have as much weight as reality by definition.
It's an arbitrary choice by an author or by a corporation. It is not historical, or scientific. It is not a thing that matters.
Well therein lies the rub, because to me and most people, canon does matter. This isn't even a personal thing, it's one of the fundamentals of writing. If I write a story where events take place in the land of Ood for chapters 1 to 3, and is on a Medieval level of technology then I start saying that the land is actually called Doo with starships that have appeared without reason or acknowledgement...I mean, sure, I
could do that, on the basis that Ood/Doo is fictional, but to do so would go against the tenents of good worldbuilding. Lord of the Rings has been brought up, do you think it would have been as beloved as it is without the amount of worldbuilding in it? The canon, if you will?
Yeah, but you can read the Hobbit for what it is, without treating The Rings or the Silmarillion as part of its "history"... Because these were created afterwards. And it really feels so in the tone and style of the writing. The Hobbit is a fun nice little tale that wasn't written as an intro to a gigantic self-serious epic, and it can be savoured as such.
...and?
All of what you said is true, that doesn't stop them from sharing a universe.
Not exactly, because precisely, my point is that we have the ability to recontextualize and appreciate things in abstraction of other things.
Yes, but that doesn't come naturally. If you watch the prequel trilogy first, then Vader's "I am your father" moment won't have nearly the same impact. It's part of why I recommend people watch the OT before the PT, because if you watch the PT first, a plot twist is no longer a plot twist for a first-time viewer.
You can appreciate Jaws, Elm Street or Halloween as a movie, and completely discard the series that it wasn't necessarily meant to be at that time. Even if you saw Jaws 4, Halloween 7 and Elm Steet 5 before.
Yes, you can, and I've already said that. None of that is relevant to what is and isn't canon.
It's just an example of films that feel differently when you import interpretations from sequels or other byproducts.
Just above you said that you have to view films in isolation, now you're saying that they can't be viewed in isolation?
Also, I still don't get how Aliens makes Alien feel different. The only retroactive element in Aliens compared to Alien is the existence of Amanda Ripley. That's it. You've used the queen as an example, but that isn't really retroactive.
To express it through notions I don't really like : each one happens in a different, distinct "universe" that includes the previous movies and not the subsequent ones.
By your own definitions this is false though. To quote your own post:
" Universe : the little fictional bubble. History, the real life sequence of events in the production of the fictions."
The Alien films all take place in the same universe, even by your own definition. I can look at a series of films independently as films, but the universe of those films is the same. There's a clear throughline from Alien to Resurrection, and Covenant is a clear sequel to Prometheus. There's no ambiguity here.
