Originally Posted by charl_huntress
BSinger meant for SR to be some sort of sequel to SII. He is the one who says it takes place 5 years after SII. I am positive I have read this quote from him. I'll try to find it.
My point is saying it's a stand alone is not true because the director meant for it to be tied to SII and STM. The director himself deliberately wanted the movie to be seen this way. Sure it can be viewed as a stand-alone, but that's not how BSinger wanted it to be seen.
In literary criticism (and applicable more broadly) there’s a school of thought that posits the author’s intentions as essentially irrelevant. (See “authorial intent” or “intentional fallacy.”)
This means that the text
(and not any external commentary about
the text) is the only basis for legitimate analysis/criticism. For example, if someone writes a blatantly misogynistic novel, we’re entitled to dismiss the author’s opinion that he did not
write a misogynistic novel (or didn’t intend it as such). The novel/text must (and does) speak for itself. Similarly, a movie “plot hole” that’s addressed in a deleted scene or a novelization doesn’t count as a “fix.” The intention
to address the problem may have been there; but if it didn’t end up in the final edit, it’s fair to ignore it.
In considering a film (or a critique of a film), our collective responsibility is to have seen the film
- not to have researched any and all external/extra-textual commentary by the author. (And what if the author/director gives conflicting quotes?
) Why bother with all this when the finished text - the thing that’s actually
under consideration - is unambiguously available for inspection?
Singer might claim (though I doubt he did) that the events of SR
literally take place 5 years after SII
. But the films - the texts, themselves
- say 1978 and 2006. So no sequel continuity can be reasonably inferred. And the text, ultimately
, takes precedence over any off-the-cuff comment from an interview.