- Maimum FEAR
- |
- Elder Mythic Member
Posted by: Dream053
There is something you need to amend:
Joe Staten's comment that I Love Bees is not canon was in 2004. In 2006, Frank O'Connor, via the 1UP video show, commented that I Love Bees, as well as other pieces of content were being "embraced as canon".
This was also contradicted, however, by a second interview with Joe Staten by the Halo Story Page, in which he stated the following:
HSP: The dialogue from the Halo 3 trailer bears obvious similarity to the Cortana Letters from the early Halo days. Given that they have been discouraged as canon over the years, are they now to be afforded greater consideration? Additionally, the Letters themselves were strongly reminiscent of the messages from Durandal, the rampant AI from Marathon. What are your thoughts on "rampancy," AIs in the Halo universe, and Cortana specifically?
JS: Canon is tricky (see my controversial statement about "I Love Bees" - believe it or not, we're actually working to answer the "is it, or isn't it?" question right now!). The Halo story has as many loose threads as influences. And we do our best to sew the former into canon as we find them - are reminded of their potential. The Cortana Letters are an excellent example of this phenomenon. For all sorts of reasons, they lingered in canonical purgatory for years. But when we needed some compelling dialog to remind folks what's at stake in Halo3: Bam! Newfound utility! Alas, I'd have to say that, as of now, the only canonized parts of the letters are the fragments we pulled for use in the announcement trailer.
The ultimate decision on whether I Love Bees was considered canonical or not is currently inconclusive, so you should probably edit the "I Love Bees is not canon" statement to reflect this.
Although it could be considered inconclusive I'm reasonably happy that I Love Bees can be said to not be canon. Firstly here's a quick quote from an article at Wired.com:
I Love Bees' lead designers said they were hired by Microsoft to make the game as part of the overall marketing push for Halo 2. But they, too, argue that I Love Bees stands entirely on its own.
"We're building a very different part of that world," said Puppetmaster 2. "In some cases, we're trying to recreate Casablanca with six main characters living their lives in the shadow of the events that are bearing down on them."
Regardless, as a serial, I Love Bees will eventually come to an end. And, not coincidentally, the final episode of the show is timed for the same day as the much-hyped release of Halo 2.
"Basically, the story is just going to lead into going and picking up your copy of Halo 2 and playing the game," said Thorne.
To me this demonstrates pretty effectively and clearly that I Love Bees was never intended to to be canon and that it was created totally to be a marketing device. To me that sends all tte signals that it shouldn't be taken to be anything more than a cool little game that helped fill the time until Halo 2 was released. Louis Wu of Halo.Bungie.org put it much better than me, here's what he had to say about this exact issue a while back (last year):
: It's not about who said it. It's about what evidence we have. Even though
: Frankie's statement came at a later date, he didn't provide any evidence
: to suggest that ILB is canon -- while Staten did (disregarding the time he
: said it). I have no doubt that things might have changed with the ILB
: issue, but from what evidence we have NOW, it's speculated that ILB isn't
: canon.
Okay, you've lost me.
The "evidence" we have from Joe, in 2004, is that he wasn't considering ILB 'canon' because aside from defining the boundaries of the world they had to work in, Bungie let 42 Entertainment 'do their own thing'.
Later on, though, Frankie does say "We're going to have this huge collection of canon, and things that we embrace as canon, like I Love Bees" - the way I read this is that he's clearly acknowledging that ILB wasn't written/overseen by Bungie, so it doesn't make the technical cut, but that there's nothing in it that BREAKS canon as Bungie sees it, so they're giving it the nod.
It's not as though one said "The sky is blue" and the other said "The sky is red" - it's more like Joe said "The sky is blue" and Frank said "sometimes, when the sun's going down, the sky is red"; he's not NEGATING what Joe said, he's expanding upon it.
I can certainly see the argument for 'ILB != canon' from purists, and I can see a solid argument for 'ILB ~ canon' from less rigid thinkers (maybe even 'ILB = canon') - you're welcome to your opinion, but you should realize that it's not as cut-and-dried as you're trying to make it. That's all I was saying.
(I only spoke up because I felt like your wording was "This is the way it is, period." and I don't think it is.)
and
: I think you're missing the fact that two separate Bungie employees, at two
: separate times, said two distinctly different things about that particular
: bit of Halo lore.
: The interview you're referring to was posted in October, 2004. Frankie's
: quote comes from July, 2006 - two years later. In August, 2006, Staten
: acknowledges that his original statement was "controversial",
: and that at that point they were actually working on the "is it, or
: isn't it?" question - it's not NEARLY as cut-and-dried as you're
: suggesting it is.
: I'm not sure there's a consensus amongst Halo's writers about whether or not
: I Love Bees is canon (or Canon) or not - I'm DAMN sure they've never
: resolved the situation in any definitive way publicly.
I'm sorry, I'll taken Staten's word over Frankie's on the Halo story any day of the week. Meaning no respect to Frankie, he came on after Halo 1 and left for MS to follow the Halo IP, whereas Staten is a Bungie guy through and through and was there since before Halo started. That Frankie contradicted him two years later and that Staten backpedaled ever so slightly after that isn't particularly significant to me.
It cut and dried unless you have already made up your mind that for some reason you want ILB to be considered canon unless there is evidence to the contrary.
I think canon should be more conservative than that. Things should not be considered canon unless there is evidence that it is. Primary sources (the games) are obviously canon. Secondary materials produced directly by Bungie are canon (Staten's novel). Secondary materials produced with Bungie's direct involvement and approval are canon unless they contradict primary materials (the authorized novels).
ILB was made by a third party not as a standalone product but as promotional materials, from source given to the authors by Bungie but without further direct involvement and/or supervision from Bungie.
The ILB story does not rise to the same level of quality as the rest of the Haloverse. It was created primarily to advertise, was created primarily outside of Bungie, adds elements that are not followed up within primary sources and are not necessary for comprehending the primary plot arcs.
The first post and the second post by Louis Wu outline very clearly why although not completely decisive it it fairly appropriate and suitable to say that I Love Bees is not canon. I'm not going to change the original thread but I will link to your post and my reply. Thanks for posting your criticism nevertheless as no doubt other people will have had the same criticism and its been addressed. Thanks, if you want to discuss it further feel free to do so in the thread or give me a PM.
A quick note however. If I Love Bees was considered canon then it would be the lowest possible type as demonstrated by Joe Staten and shown in my original thread:
"Everything that Bungie has ever approved is canonical. But even then, certain things trump others. In order of canonical influence:
- The games rank first
- Published materials (books, comics, soundtrack liner notes etc.) rank second
- Marketing and PR materials third"
So anything in I Love Bees would be retconned immediately if anything from the Halo universe such as novels, graphic novels, books and films contradicted it or put forward different information. So regardless, it is fairly unimportant. Also, sorry for the delay in the response.
Posted by: Dream053
Posted by: Blake Packbornne
Here's a good question.
When it comes to weapon physics, what's more Canon, the game, or the book?
Assuming that the differences aren't incredibly substantial, I would say the book, or fail that, the arsenal descriptions that Bungie tend to create articles about prior to game releases.
Actually it would be exactly the other way around. As shown above the Halo universe operates in a similar manner to the Star Wars universe, with various "levels" of canon. In the case of Halo, the games rank first, books and other published works second, and marketing and PR third [NOTE: see above for the quote or the original thread right at the top]. So in this case, if one of the novels says something about a weapon and then one of the games contradict it, take the game as the "correct" version.
Also be aware that new work usually ranks above older material. So if Halo 3 says something that contradicts Halo 2, take Halo 3 as the canonical source for that piece of information.
Unless a Bungie employee has stated specifically that a piece of information in the game is incorrect or should be considered canon, always take games as canon and always take newer games over older games.