 |
Lonelygirl15
Forum to post messages about Bree and Danielbeast
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
trainer101
Moderator Manager
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 2671
Location: Wasting away again ILLUMINATIVILLE...
|
 Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 2:24 am Post subject: Re: Canon vs. Non Canon??? |
 |
|
| zzfoxfirezz wrote: | | Has anyone noticed that on this site, each of the videos has a different URL (duh, but I actually have a point...) They go up in numerical order, but with a minor discrepency here and there. This is video 78, so why is it 111 in the URL? Every few videos there is a skip in the URL numbers! I only noticed this in the last two weeks or so, but the spaces could be a "guarantee" that the creators can upload currently non-canon vids that turn out to be cannon in order as they happened. And also, Gemma was not immediately made cannon, she put out two videos before the creators acknowledged her. |
True, but we suspected Gemma might be canon early on because we found her real myspace before she set it to private. It had pictures of her and Jessica Rose together.
_________________
It's STILL all connected... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
DontHaveAClue
Devoted Fan
Joined: 19 Sep 2006
Posts: 873
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 5:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I told you. Gemma is here to address all the questions we raise on this board! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
iamcool
The Order of Denderah
Joined: 01 Oct 2006
Posts: 5981
Location: England
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 5:31 am Post subject: Re: Canon vs. Non Canon??? |
|
|
| trainer101 wrote: | | zzfoxfirezz wrote: | | Has anyone noticed that on this site, each of the videos has a different URL (duh, but I actually have a point...) They go up in numerical order, but with a minor discrepency here and there. This is video 78, so why is it 111 in the URL? Every few videos there is a skip in the URL numbers! I only noticed this in the last two weeks or so, but the spaces could be a "guarantee" that the creators can upload currently non-canon vids that turn out to be cannon in order as they happened. And also, Gemma was not immediately made cannon, she put out two videos before the creators acknowledged her. |
True, but we suspected Gemma might be canon early on because we found her real myspace before she set it to private. It had pictures of her and Jessica Rose together. |
i'm on gemmas frend list 
_________________
my name is josh, not iamcool or iam or cool
cooltron5000 is also accepted
My lawyers told me to edit the content of this signature so i didn't get sued
Me and Oobles are 'TWAT's - 'The Worldwide Association of Threadjacking' |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
iqfrenzy
Lonely Fan
Joined: 05 Nov 2006
Posts: 201
Location: Louisiana
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 1:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| HyeMew wrote: | | With all they have going on with LG itself, is it really possible that the Creators are directly behind making OpAphid and now it seems NikkiBower as well? It seems kind of crazy that they could do ALL of that, though perhaps they have subcontracted to others? |
I have always thought that OpAphid was canon. And if Nikki Bower is canon, then so is CiW i.e. "come and get it".
_________________
Awakening from the slumber. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trainer101
Moderator Manager
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 2671
Location: Wasting away again ILLUMINATIVILLE...
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 2:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| iqfrenzy wrote: | | HyeMew wrote: | | With all they have going on with LG itself, is it really possible that the Creators are directly behind making OpAphid and now it seems NikkiBower as well? It seems kind of crazy that they could do ALL of that, though perhaps they have subcontracted to others? |
I have always thought that OpAphid was canon. And if Nikki Bower is canon, then so is CiW i.e. "come and get it". |
I guess it depends how you want to define "canon". I think canon means it's been accepted into the storyline whether or not it came from the Creators. So far, the only one disavowed has been CiW - only because it got too dark for the Creators liking.
That means you, me, anyone can be "canon" if the contribution is significant enough. (Though it seems that posting vlogs increases the chances)
_________________
It's STILL all connected... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Icaterus
Lonely Fan
Joined: 15 Sep 2006
Posts: 165
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 9:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| trainer101 wrote: | | iqfrenzy wrote: | | HyeMew wrote: | | With all they have going on with LG itself, is it really possible that the Creators are directly behind making OpAphid and now it seems NikkiBower as well? It seems kind of crazy that they could do ALL of that, though perhaps they have subcontracted to others? |
I have always thought that OpAphid was canon. And if Nikki Bower is canon, then so is CiW i.e. "come and get it". |
I guess it depends how you want to define "canon". I think canon means it's been accepted into the storyline whether or not it came from the Creators. So far, the only one disavowed has been CiW - only because it got too dark for the Creators liking.
That means you, me, anyone can be "canon" if the contribution is significant enough. (Though it seems that posting vlogs increases the chances) |
Well heres the wikipedia definition of canon. One thing it says is "...considered to have inarguable existence within the fictional universe." We're all arguing over NikkiBower etc so I guess that means it's not canon... It's more something like apocrypha. Which is kind of a weird term but is closer what the big spin-offs are.
And HyeMew yea I think the creator's most likely have some involvment with OpAphid and NikkiBower. They're probably not actually making them, but I think they're still involved. But I also think they're never going to tell us because it'll ruin the fun 
_________________
The Last Love Song on This Little Planet.
Thanks for watching as I fall. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trainer101
Moderator Manager
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 2671
Location: Wasting away again ILLUMINATIVILLE...
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 9:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Icaterus wrote: | | trainer101 wrote: | | iqfrenzy wrote: | | HyeMew wrote: | | With all they have going on with LG itself, is it really possible that the Creators are directly behind making OpAphid and now it seems NikkiBower as well? It seems kind of crazy that they could do ALL of that, though perhaps they have subcontracted to others? |
I have always thought that OpAphid was canon. And if Nikki Bower is canon, then so is CiW i.e. "come and get it". |
I guess it depends how you want to define "canon". I think canon means it's been accepted into the storyline whether or not it came from the Creators. So far, the only one disavowed has been CiW - only because it got too dark for the Creators liking.
That means you, me, anyone can be "canon" if the contribution is significant enough. (Though it seems that posting vlogs increases the chances) |
Well heres the wikipedia definition of canon. One thing it says is "...considered to have inarguable existence within the fictional universe." We're all arguing over NikkiBower etc so I guess that means it's not canon... It's more something like apocrypha. Which is kind of a weird term but is closer what the big spin-offs are.
And HyeMew yea I think the creator's most likely have some involvment with OpAphid and NikkiBower. They're probably not actually making them, but I think they're still involved. But I also think they're never going to tell us because it'll ruin the fun |
I agree that they will never tell us. Primarily because they want to encourage interaction.
Also from Wiki: "The boundaries between canon, and apocrypha can often be blurred."
_________________
It's STILL all connected... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
iqfrenzy
Lonely Fan
Joined: 05 Nov 2006
Posts: 201
Location: Louisiana
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 1:25 pm Post subject: Re: Canon vs. Non Canon??? |
|
|
| zzfoxfirezz wrote: | | Has anyone noticed that on this site, each of the videos has a different URL (duh, but I actually have a point...) They go up in numerical order, but with a minor discrepency here and there. This is video 78, so why is it 111 in the URL? Every few videos there is a skip in the URL numbers! I only noticed this in the last two weeks or so, but the spaces could be a "guarantee" that the creators can upload currently non-canon vids that turn out to be cannon in order as they happened. And also, Gemma was not immediately made cannon, she put out two videos before the creators acknowledged her. |
This is a very overlooked and ingenious comment. In fact, I've been looking for it. Take this into consideration with the Nightline interview, and this may be where the "new" characters are coming from.
_________________
Awakening from the slumber. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Killthesmiley
The Order of Denderah
Joined: 30 Oct 2006
Posts: 4732
Location: Halifax NS Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 2:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ok i don't know if anyone noticed this or not.
But Gemma wasn't saying that she saw the eye on the watcher...
she said that in the book there is a picture of symbols on a persons body. And on the specific spot there is that symbol.
SHe didn't say that she saw that symbol on that person.
_________________
kelly
YOU: Who does that KTS think she is? Total bitch!
ME: I think I'm you, only better.
~Kelly, KMurr, and Kellylen <3~ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
iqfrenzy
Lonely Fan
Joined: 05 Nov 2006
Posts: 201
Location: Louisiana
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 2:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Killthesmiley wrote: | ok i don't know if anyone noticed this or not.
But Gemma wasn't saying that she saw the eye on the watcher...
she said that in the book there is a picture of symbols on a persons body. And on the specific spot there is that symbol.
SHe didn't say that she saw that symbol on that person. |
Very astute, Kelly. Good job!
_________________
Awakening from the slumber. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
iqfrenzy
Lonely Fan
Joined: 05 Nov 2006
Posts: 201
Location: Louisiana
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 2:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Icaterus wrote: |
Well heres the wikipedia definition of canon. One thing it says is "...considered to have inarguable existence within the fictional universe." We're all arguing over NikkiBower etc so I guess that means it's not canon... It's more something like apocrypha. Which is kind of a weird term but is closer what the big spin-offs are.
|
Very good point, Icaterus.
_________________
Awakening from the slumber. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thinkitthrough
Lonely Fan
Joined: 11 Oct 2006
Posts: 126
Location: In a bunker hiding from ICBM's
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 2:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| spaciegirl wrote: | | thinkitthrough wrote: | | I was told from reliable sources that they wish to do this indefinitely if at all possible. |
 For the love of god, WHO????? Who told you that? That's the efiin' question I've been asking and no one has an answer!! Don't say "reliable sources"...are you like Nikki?? WHO??
| tryon wrote: | | I'd be curious to hear more from those of you who think that the people in suits/watchers are not there to abduct Bree, but are waiting for her to come to a decision (apparently) freely. Were you referring specifically to her decision to participate in the ceremony? |
Not neccessarily....well, kind of. I think that when contact is made between her and them, they are going to manipulate her or trick her into doing what they want. I think it's more ideal, for all involved, if she "willingly" cooperates. Even if they have to bribe her...or blackmail her, they want her to think she has some power so that she'll be willing to negotiate with them. I think that if she is uncompromising and resistant, it's going to be messy for everyone...and they'd rather not have things escalate to that point. |
Spacie I was actually quoting Jacks and Douches on page thirteen and it came up like I wrote it... I must have cut out the end quote part. So ask him I was making a joke at the end of the comment, plus I am not very good at keeping secrets or am I. muwahahaha (suppost to be scary laugh) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thinkitthrough
Lonely Fan
Joined: 11 Oct 2006
Posts: 126
Location: In a bunker hiding from ICBM's
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 2:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| trainer101 wrote: | | Icaterus wrote: | | trainer101 wrote: | | iqfrenzy wrote: | | HyeMew wrote: | | With all they have going on with LG itself, is it really possible that the Creators are directly behind making OpAphid and now it seems NikkiBower as well? It seems kind of crazy that they could do ALL of that, though perhaps they have subcontracted to others? |
I have always thought that OpAphid was canon. And if Nikki Bower is canon, then so is CiW i.e. "come and get it". |
I guess it depends how you want to define "canon". I think canon means it's been accepted into the storyline whether or not it came from the Creators. So far, the only one disavowed has been CiW - only because it got too dark for the Creators liking.
That means you, me, anyone can be "canon" if the contribution is significant enough. (Though it seems that posting vlogs increases the chances) |
Well heres the wikipedia definition of canon. One thing it says is "...considered to have inarguable existence within the fictional universe." We're all arguing over NikkiBower etc so I guess that means it's not canon... It's more something like apocrypha. Which is kind of a weird term but is closer what the big spin-offs are.
And HyeMew yea I think the creator's most likely have some involvment with OpAphid and NikkiBower. They're probably not actually making them, but I think they're still involved. But I also think they're never going to tell us because it'll ruin the fun |
I agree that they will never tell us. Primarily because they want to encourage interaction.
Also from Wiki: "The boundaries between canon, and apocrypha can often be blurred." |
Except for the dates in which they were actually written? Correct me if I am wrong |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Killthesmiley
The Order of Denderah
Joined: 30 Oct 2006
Posts: 4732
Location: Halifax NS Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 3:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| iqfrenzy wrote: | | Killthesmiley wrote: | ok i don't know if anyone noticed this or not.
But Gemma wasn't saying that she saw the eye on the watcher...
she said that in the book there is a picture of symbols on a persons body. And on the specific spot there is that symbol.
SHe didn't say that she saw that symbol on that person. |
Very astute, Kelly. Good job! |
hehe thanks for noticing me
I've been watching those two videos ("The Watcher" and "Fleeing The Watcher") a lot. There are a lot of things in them that i think we are missing...
either way I know we were trying to figure out how she coul have seen it, then i just listened, instead of watching, the video. I was shocked at what i heard! Because I too thought she said I saw this on his hand.
I think that is the key to gemma's videos. We have to listen to the audio. Not watch it. Listen first, Watch second.
_________________
kelly
YOU: Who does that KTS think she is? Total bitch!
ME: I think I'm you, only better.
~Kelly, KMurr, and Kellylen <3~ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
