Cloud and Angst

[Starling]

A writer cannot misinterpret their own writing. That's like saying a person misinterprets their own opinion. They can make a character into something you don't believe they are, but in the end, they are that character, because they are the ones who created them. Anything the creator makes is canon, and canon is the definition of said character. You, and others, may not like what they did with Cloud's character (and I agree, it's fucked up), but they did not misrepresent him, simply because they can't.

I might complain how some characters are portrayed by their authors, but I don't claim to understand the character better than the creator. Like it or not, whatever SE brings out on Cloud IS Cloud.

I beg to differ that it isn't possible to misrepresent your own character. Most franchises have more than one writer, who naturally will end up writing the same character differently if not properly coordinated or working with the character at different points in time, such as different games. Flanderization, for example, is when you take a trait peceived in a character and exaggerate it until that's all that's left of the character. For example, Sephiroth's obsession with Cloud.

 

[Dawnbreaker]

You see I think it's the word you're using, "misrepresentation", that I take issue with. You make it sound like the creators of the character didn't create Cloud, so much as discovered him and then portrayed him in a way that's inaccurate. That's simply not true. It doesn't matter what you think the character is, or how you interpreted him. It doesn't matter what Cloud was. It doesn't matter if they make poor choices in how to develop (or regress) his character. He is Cloud, because he is theirs.

Edit: I will concede, that if we're talking about multiple writers, it's possible for one writer not understand the intentions of the original writer. But I still maintain that it's silly for fans to suddenly jump up and tell the writer exactly "how it should be".

Yesterday I wrote a character that liked apples; the next day he didn't, even though I built up things to make it seem such. He's my fucking character, and therefore, I cannot "misrepresent" him and/or her. Same for SE.

 

[The Twilight Mexican]

Well, this is where you have to keep in mind as well, Dawn, that the construction of a story and characterization can be a collaborative effort between audience and author. In the absence of everything being spelled out encyclopedia-style, to whatever degree the author employs "show, don't tell," they're enlisting the audience to help construct the story.

For example, when Cloud has a flashback about Tifa in the no. 5 reactor, no one popped up on screen to tell us that Cloud was experiencing a flashback rather than actually seeing something that was happening in the present. The author of that scene had to rely on the audience to bring something into the mix to fully understand/tell the story there.

This is why you often see (entirely fair and valid) criticisms, especially with American comics (multiple writers abound), that a plot development didn't follow logically from pre-existing elements or a characterization was inconsistent.

Not that I'm saying Cloud's portrayal in AC/C isn't consistent with what was previously shown. It was an aspect of him they chose to highlight, and they built it up adequately through OtWtaS as Force in particular noted. I'm just pointing out that poor characterization/plot advancement is most certainly a possibility at the official level, and even within a single author's story.

 

[Dawnbreaker]

But you see, I'm very uncomfortable with that. That kind of thinking allows all kinds of fanboys and fangirls to interpet whatever they please. If I so wished, I could interpet that Sephiroth and Cloud have an semi-quasi-homo-erotic relationship simply based on the facts that Sephiroth spends a lot of time on Cloud and Cloud is obsessed with chasing Sephiroth (and imagines him shirtless, for yet unexplained reasons).

But I would be totally wrong to do this. That's not the writer's vision for the characters, no matter what it might seem like, or what I want. Once you go down the slippery slope of agreeing that fans have the right to dictate what the writing actually was, you basically have taken the characters away from the writer and given them to the reader. Aside from how bad that could turn up (have you seen fanfiction.net? *shudder*) it's a little sideways to take something someone created and pass it over another person simply because said person think they know the character better.*


*And I'm not even sure how that happens, tbh...



edit: I should also probably make it clear that I do NOT want a Sephiroth x Cloud pairing...as amusing as that would be, it would be terribly disturbing. xD

 

[Octo]

Basically what it is is yeah

1) Stuff that you could reasonably interpret from the given source that actually makes sense

2) Stuff you pulled out of your arse

3) There is no 3

And it seems to me, in far too many instances in far too many fandoms 2 is winning over 1. But I'm old fashioned. I like to know what is actually going on

 

[LicoriceAllsorts]

Like Dawn said, the word "misrepresentation" seems to be the root of the problem. Since Cloud is Square Enix's intellectual property, he is whatever they say he is, and therefore, as she observed, no "misrepresentation" on their part is possible. On the other hand, it's a pretty basic rule of characterization that a character needs integrity and consistency, and if your characterization differs noticeably from one iteration to the next, you've failed. Square flattened Cloud from three dimensional to two dimensional to one-dimensional (if that's possible), and though I have to assume this corruption of his original personality was deliberate, it's true that they sometimes give the impression that they don't really understand their own character.

The author-audience collaboration that Tres mentions is particularly strong in FFVII because the dialogue is so economical and the player has to do a lot of filling in the gaps with their own imagination.

 

[LicoriceAllsorts]

Basically what it is is yeah

1) Stuff that you could reasonably interpret from the given source that actually makes sense

2) Stuff you pulled out of your arse

Arses are generally involved.

 

[The Twilight Mexican]

But you see, I'm very uncomfortable with that. That kind of thinking allows all kinds of fanboys and fangirls to interpet whatever they please. If I so wished, I could interpet that Sephiroth and Cloud have an semi-quasi-homo-erotic relationship simply based on the facts that Sephiroth spends a lot of time on Cloud and Cloud is obsessed with chasing Sephiroth (and imagines him shirtless, for yet unexplained reasons).

But I would be totally wrong to do this. That's not the writer's vision for the characters, no matter what it might seem like, or what I want. Once you go down the slippery slope of agreeing that fans have the right to dictate what the writing actually was, you basically have taken the characters away from the writer and given them to the reader. Aside from how bad that could turn up (have you seen fanfiction.net? *shudder*) it's a little sideways to take something someone created and pass it over another person simply because said person think they know the character better.*


*And I'm not even sure how that happens, tbh...



edit: I should also probably make it clear that I do NOT want a Sephiroth x Cloud pairing...as amusing as that would be, it would be terribly disturbing. xD

Are we talking consistency and logic or no? If so, someone claiming CloudxSeph romance disqualifies themselves at the door.

Likewise, Genesis being a fucking celebrity in Crisis Core was made inconsistent by information in Dirge of Cerberus stating that all records of "G" were destroyed, that there aren't any concrete facts known about him and his very existence may be a complete fabrication.

And likewise with Red's whining in the original game about being the last of his kind. I call it "whining" because that's what shitty writing made of it when Before Crisis established that he not only wasn't the last, but that he also knew there was a female of his kind still alive -- and knew where she was!

It's all official but no less mischaracterizing in Red's case and contradictory in Genesis's.

 

[Airling]

You see I think it's the word you're using, "misrepresentation", that I take issue with.

Can it perhaps be better called - and I'm trying really hard to be diplomatic, because some of what they did (see Tres' Red example) is really, really silly - "Re-imagining" of the original concept?

 

[futurestoryteller]

A writer cannot misinterpret their own writing. That's like saying a person misinterprets their own opinion

Did someone mention The Phantom Menace?

I will pretend to know any character much, much, better than the author if their newest interpretation breaks narrative (or human) logic.

I'm not even a Star Wars fan, but I realized that portraying Darth Vader as slave is technically perfect, because he's a slave to his master anyway. "Yes, Master" how many times did I hear him say that in his deep robot/Jame Earl Jones voice? Then, for no apparent reason - from that point on - he's painted as an entitled, whiny brat, who's always gotten everything handed to him. He always gets what he wants, and doesn't have to listen to anybody. A typical "teenager" who's rebellious defiance of authority is only amplified by his inevitable pull to the "dark side". "Of course he has these qualities" We're supposed to think, "He's going to be the villain." As if a defiance of authority is an inherently bad thing... This behavior is not only inconsistent with his background as a slave, it's inconsistent with his future as a tyrant, where a final act of defiance against his only superior is considered a redemptive breakthrough! I can't say, "George Lucas obviously knows something I don't" because I don't know that he does, but it doesn't seem like he does, and it was his job to convey that convincingly to us.

Bad writing, is bad writing, and we should have the guts to say so. Fiction is still written by mere mortals, last time I checked, and they definitely have to check themselves from time to time.

Is Cloud's AC writing "bad" writing? Not really? They've sort of reduced him to a caricature of popular cultural interpretations of him. But since (in the Compilation) we mostly got Cloud's early days when he was kind of a loser (in Crisis Core) and his later days when he's kind of aloof and down about losing Aeris, and learning about his imaginary life, and being Geostigmata'd, I guess they're telling us this is who the real Cloud is? He has found himself - and he's a loser. Not the most fun way to approach it, but I guess it makes sense... Also you would think that saving the world from it's greatest threat, (the fallen childhood hero you thought you'd never live up to) getting to date your awesomely hot childhood crush, and then helping to rebuild society with your powerful, loyal, allies would be a confidence booster - but different strokes, I guess.

That is to say that even if it makes some sense, it may not be the most reasonable interpretation of his character, or the development that he underwent in the original game. Then again, where does he have to go in Advent Children if he's well adjusted now? Square's decision could be based on something as simple as that.

 

[Clement Rage]

Are we talking consistency and logic or no? If so, someone claiming CloudxSeph romance disqualifies themselves at the door.

Likewise, Genesis being a fucking celebrity in Crisis Core was made inconsistent by information in Dirge of Cerberus stating that all records of "G" were destroyed, that there aren't any concrete facts known about him and his very existence may be a complete fabrication.

And likewise with Red's whining in the original game about being the last of his kind. I call it "whining" because that's what shitty writing made of it when Before Crisis established that he not only wasn't the last, but that he also knew there was a female of his kind still alive -- and knew where she was!

It's all official but no less mischaracterizing in Red's case and contradictory in Genesis's.

G stands for Gillian, remember? Or, if not, there's not any known link between G, basis of Deepground, and Genesis, first class SOLDIER. As far as anyone knows, he's just some kid from Banora with some skills, even Genesis didn't know he was a Shinra project.

On Red, I got nothing.

 

[Roger]

G stands for Gillian, remember? Or, if not, there's not any known link between G, basis of Deepground, and Genesis, first class SOLDIER. As far as anyone knows, he's just some kid from Banora with some skills, even Genesis didn't know he was a Shinra project.

On Red, I got nothing.

In dirge of cerberus "G" is referred too as a rogue SOLDIER.

 

[The Twilight Mexican]

And also as the prototype for "S" (Sephiroth), the progenitor of the Tsviets (Genesis's genes were mapped onto them), and as the mysterious person sleeping beneath Midgar (who is definitely revealed as Genesis).

"G" is unquestionably Genesis.

 

[Clement Rage]

True.

 

[Lex]

I think the main point is that SE are shit and don't know their own canon, let's be real here. I will defend Cloud as a character to the death because I don't hold the universe (original game) and Advent Children (that wayward planet kind of orbiting something over yonder) equally. Maybe I should, but I don't.

 

[Ite]

You kinda lost me at Gillian. :Mon:

Just popping in to say that once the Folk have a myth, it is just as much theirs as it is the Tellers. If your sequel doesn't speak to me I will pay it no mind.

Remember in Matrix 2 when they implied that the whole Matrix consisted of one city, one highway, and a mountain? Remember midichlorians? The Pale Orc?

 

[Ⓐaron]

I've only skimmed parts of this thread, but it seems like a lot of the disagreement in this thread is over Death of the Author (see TV Tropes for a more thorough explanation of this) and how much it should apply to FFVII and its sequels. There are some people who will argue that the author's intentions in writing the piece are completely irrelevant and only the text itself matters in interpreting it. There are others who will argue that authorial intent is the most important factor in interpreting a piece. This is a complicated enough debate as it is, but it becomes worse when dealing with works that are written by committee, as video games often are. When multiple people with differing intents work on a piece, whose intent matters the most? When different works in the same series are written by subsets of the original authors, does that count as canon or is it merely fan fiction? And so on.

I don't know that I have an answer to any of these questions. I'm not even sure I have a consistent answer to the question of whether to disregard sequel works you don't like. I mostly forget that the Matrix sequels even exist but the terrible writing in the Compilation has degraded my opinion of the original game. Granted, some of that is because I admin a FFVII-related message board but even in cases where I don't, I mean, it's difficult to forget the many things that were terrible about the Star Wars prequels.

I will say this: The characterisation in many of Square Enix' sequels and side stories is completely inconsistent with the games to which they are expansions. Characters routinely completely forget epiphanies they have or behave in ways that they would never have considered in the original games without believable explanations for the changes in behaviour. Sometimes a handwave explanation is given (amnesia seems to be the excuse du jour in Dissidia) but that doesn't make the character derailment any less egregious.

Cloud has been Flanderised by the fans to a certain extent too (to listen to critics of the original game you'd think he was moping or crying the entire game rather than just a couple of scenes in it) but Square Enix' treatment of him in Advent Children and elsewhere hasn't done his character any favours.

 

[Starling]

I find there often seems to be a disconnect between the original installment of a franchise and whatever comes afterwards. The original will always be the most important as far as determining what's canon when consistency between installments within a franchise is an issue. If characterization doesn't follow logically from the original source, then the only way there isn't a problem is if the change can objectively be considered an improvement.

The reason the compilation has so many consistency issues is that they've lost sight of what was conveyed in the original story and let skewed fan perceptions dictate how they presented things in a bid for fanservice at the cost of quality storytelling. It seems to be a more common problem than it should.

Edit:

Generally, anything that's official content tends to be canon unless otherwise stated. Of course, there's also such a thing as canon discontinuity. Once inconsistencies get bad enough, continuity is loose enough to debate what elements of canon should be respected and what should be ignored.

Dissidia, being a fighting game, kinda BSed its way through an excuse plot to explain why everyone would fight each-other while re-enacting parts of their original games and dispense fanservice, since fighting games rarely have what I'd consider a tangible plot to begin with.

The flanderization issue is a vicious cycle, as it often is. I'm not really sure what can be done to repair the damage it does to characterization, if that's even possible at this point.

 

[LicoriceAllsorts]

[/URL][/IMG]

from Obstinatemelon's comic

You know, Disney does this too. Its straight to DVD sequels to its big hits are not only more poorly animated but often screw around with the characterization. Dr Who is another good example of a character whose very inconsistency has become an essential part of his characterization. Characters in long running TV series often undergo gradual changes in personality as one writer takes over from another.

 

[Ⓐaron]

Generally, anything that's official content tends to be canon unless otherwise stated. Of course, there's also such a thing as canon discontinuity. Once inconsistencies get bad enough, continuity is loose enough to debate what elements of canon should be respected and what should be ignored.

Well, yes. But there's also such a thing as fanon discontinuity - fans just disregard parts of a series they don't like. Such as Randall Munroe with the Matrix sequels:

[img="I actually remember being entertained by both the sequels while in the theater. They just don't hold up nearly as well in later comparison."]http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/matrix_revisited.png[/img]

Other than that I basically agree with everything in your post

You know, Disney does this too. Its straight to DVD sequels to its big hits are not only more poorly animated but often screw around with the characterization. Dr Who is another good example of a character whose very inconsistency has become an essential part of his characterization. Characters in long running TV series often undergo gradual changes in personality as one writer takes over from another.

Doctor Who arguably justifies this: regeneration actually changes his personality. Each Doctor is, in some ways, a completely different person, who simply retains the memories of the previous Doctors. For whatever reason, that to me is a lot more acceptable than straight up Flanderising a character and inventing excuses to do it, which is what I feel Square Enix has done with a lot of their characters. (And yes, I get that Square Enix' excuses could be considered justification too. The difference here is that in this case I don't think the justification is any good).

 

[Kuja9001]

I will say this: The characterization in many of Square Enix' sequels and side stories is completely inconsistent with the games to which they are expansions. Characters routinely completely forget epiphanies they have or behave in ways that they would never have considered in the original games without believable explanations for the changes in behavior.

I only know at least two characters with believable explanations for their behavior in sequels.

 

[Obsidian Fire]

To be honest though, how many people actually complained about the way Cloud was developed in ACC? 'Cause if the majority of fans don't complain, then it'll appear to whoever decided to go that route that they were right to develop his character like that.

Time is also a factor too. ACC wasn't developed right after the OG; it was developed years later which is plenty long enough for fans to vocalize how they are most accustomed to seeing Cloud's character and for the devs to latch on to that.

 

[Starling]

The thing is, it's impossible to please an entire fanbase. Just look at the state of the Sonic fandom. Trying to please as many people as possible can backfire pretty badly. Might as well focus on churning out something of better quality than appealing to popularity. After all, sometimes what people voice desire for isn't actually what's best for the franchise or even what will get positive feedback once made.

What they did with AC might as well have been taking fan opinions based on scrolling through fanfiction.

 

[jazzflower92]

The thing is, it's impossible to please an entire fanbase. Just look at the state of the Sonic fandom. Trying to please as many people as possible can backfire pretty badly. Might as well focus on churning out something of better quality than appealing to popularity. After all, sometimes what people voice desire for isn't actually what's best for the franchise or even what will get positive feedback once made.

What they did with AC might as well have been taking fan opinions based on scrolling through fanfiction.

The bad fan fictions from the look of it.

 

[Starling]

Well, at least they didn't revive Aerith, though I suppose what they did fall just short of that.

It's amazing how readily fanfic writers ate up AC's excuse for making Cloud angsty and then launched it to even further extremes.