Eva Yojimbo wrote:Because a sequel is another work of art that is related to and expands on the original. Something like The Philosophy of Time Travel feels like an instruction manual to the film. It exists solely to explain the mystery that the director presented to begin with. What's the point? The core idea would've been extremely easy to state in the film, so why make such an intriguing mystery that's all about tone and then produce something that just explains away all the mystery? It totally defeats the point of the film itself.
you're the type who wants to know everything about how everything works. The Philosophy of Time Travel
exists for that purpose. If you're not interested, don't bother reading about it. Just don't discount it if, for some reason, you end up debating canon.
Eva Yojimbo wrote:At what point does the work cease to become JUST the artist's to fuck with as they please and become something that the audience can experience and have the privilege of their own input that doesn't get overruled by something external to the work itself?
By definition, canon belongs to the creator(s) and will never
belong to you, unless you end up writing officially sanctioned expanded universe material (which indeed happens quite a bit in comic books and Star Wars
). If the creator ruins his work by screwing with the canon in ways you don't like, then the canon is ruined. You can't do anything about that. The previous two sentences are not expressing a relative opinion, but are inherently true by the definition of "canon". If you choose to ignore the creator's bungles, saying they're not canon because it ruins the artwork or for any other reason, then you're taking fanon and incorrectly calling it canon. But it doesn't matter if the canon is ruined, because fanon is what's important for the sake of enjoying it. Canon is only
important for the sake of discussing the creator's intentions with other people.
Eva Yojimbo wrote:The canon should be contained inside the work and nothing more. Simple as that.
That's your opinion that many creators don't share. If an author insists that your favorite chapter in a book was just a dream and never happened, then that may ruin the book for you, but canonically, it never happened. Because, again, "canon" is, by definition
, the creator's ideas and intentions. But it shouldn't
ruin the book for you even if you disagree with the canon, because it's not real anyway and your personal version of this fictional world can be whatever you want it to be and it's no more real than the creator's version
Eva Yojimbo wrote:The question is whether or not they should be considered by anyone and to what extent. It's not really fair that just because the majority chooses to accept it that means they are somehow official canon.
The majority doesn't
decide what's canon. If everyone hates a particular episode of a show and decides to pretend it didn't happen, then that's just popular fanon. The exception is if the creator(s) decide(s) to retcon the story because the fans don't like it (or the creator(s) do(es)n't like it). An example of this is the Star Trek Voyager
episode "Threshold", which the creators dislike to the point of deliberately contradicting it later on to show it isn't canon.
Eva Yojimbo wrote:And it's really that intention - of making a series that is about something personal; something that's deeper than just a fictional lie or entertainment - that I feel is being violated by things like the CI. I understand it, I can accept it to a certain extent, but I'll be damned if I'm going to sit by while people try to justify it as some kind of God's word on how the series should be approached.
If you want to keep NGE personal, that means that if spoonfeeding is presented to you, you should refuse it. Which is absolutely fine. Insisting other people shouldn't be spoonfed because it ruins the personal element that they may or may not care to maintain is stupid... not to mention hypocritical, as you're denying people a personal choice.
"Today?... hmm... today... right... Um... I'm just gonna wing it." -Guess who