1
Quote from: Henry Ellis on Mar 26, 2012, 06:11:16 PM
..the hole that Kane discovers leading down to the eggs seems Acid burned as though the Alien that hatched from the Jockey burned through it, went down into the hold and laid the eggs that Kane discovers.
Acid burn or no acid burn, are we supposed to assume that the eggs in the ship's hold precede the Alien hatching from the jockey or were they there only after being created by the Alien that hatched from the jockey? If the latter is true that will totally nullify the blue mist as a containment field of sorts and the bio weapon theory. If they intend to explain this in Prometheus via the bio weapon theory they need to make sure it matches the first movie and that the sequence of presumed events makes sense. I hope that whatever we are supposed to assume about the "Alien" space jockey scene based on the events in Prometheus matches up to the state of things as depicted in the original movie. The Devil is in the details I hope Lindeloff did his homework.
If Lindeloff did his homework he's got a number of options, including that the eggs weren't 'laid' at all.
How do you produce an actual egg then without something laying it? After all, it is an egg..
Drop of primordial multicreation fluid! Of course.
Quote from: BioMechanical on Mar 26, 2012, 08:56:48 PM
How do you produce an actual egg then without something laying it? After all, it is an egg..
There are lots of theories that the Aliens were originally "designed" or "manufactured" by the Space Jockeys/Engineers.
Quote from: BioMechanical on Mar 26, 2012, 08:56:48 PM
How do you produce an actual egg then without something laying it? After all, it is an egg..
The egg as seen in the A L I E N cocoon scene is implied to be a secreted resin that is forming around Brett and Dallas whilst their bodies are absorbed by embryonic facehuggers. You could therefore reasonably argue that the question Lambert asks 'I wonder what happened to the rest of the crew?' is answered by the contents of the egg chamber. This is also implied in the novelisation with mention of the egg storage having no structure and a lot of wasted space.
If Prometheus touches on what the egg chamber is all about I guess it is likely that it will retcon this implication in some way as Ridley has long made a point that the eggs are weapons and the derelict is a bomber, but it's certainly a possible route, and one that's better than the queen IMHO.
Scott said the Queen was a very good idea and theres that crowned creature on the murals in Prometheus. I guess he may connect the two, the eggmoprhing and the egglayer in the movie. To be honest I really like both. Or he may not even touch either of those
Since Scott said that the ship was a weapon cargo, the weapons being the eggs i think it's safe to assume that the eggs were already there.
I posted this theory on another forum. All right. What if...the hundreds, if not thousands, of eggs found by Kane were former beings, not humans per se, but other space travelers. In Alien, Brett and Dallas are both 'changing' before Ripley puts them out of they're misery. Maybe the SJ's have been leaving these 'invitations' on hundreds of worlds. Maybe they need 'volunteers' for their bioweapons division.
They managed to created the aliens they could not create a host if needed?
Quote from: NGR01 on Mar 26, 2012, 09:26:36 PM
Since Scott said that the ship was a weapon cargo, the weapons being the eggs i think it's safe to assume that the eggs were already there.
Well, he suggested ideas without actually having a final word about it
He went back to unused concepts from the original ALIEN script so it's a safe bet that he has not changed his mind about this concept too.
It does also fits what the leak about the presence of the head, and of the pilot room, says about the use of the eggs (to clean out a planet). Scott definitly love the bioweapon aspect of the xeno.
Quote from: StrangeShape on Mar 26, 2012, 09:24:08 PM
Scott said the Queen was a very good idea and theres that crowned creature on the murals in Prometheus. I guess he may connect the two, the eggmoprhing and the egglayer in the movie. To be honest I really like both. Or he may not even touch either of those
I like the Queen way better than the egg-morphing.
It seems odd and inefficient to use a human twice in the Alien life cycle - once to make the egg, than a second time to incubate the chestburster. Cameron's solution is better, although he could have eliminated the egg and face hugger entirely (if we hadn't already seen them in Alien) and had the Queen directly implant the chestburster embryo herself.
It's interesting to reflect on how this odd life cycle came out of having Cameron put his own spin on the franchise. I hadn't thought about the possibility of the Queen not existing if Scott had directed Aliens.
Quote from: jeremy_ray on Mar 26, 2012, 11:07:53 PM
Quote from: StrangeShape on Mar 26, 2012, 09:24:08 PM
Scott said the Queen was a very good idea and theres that crowned creature on the murals in Prometheus. I guess he may connect the two, the eggmoprhing and the egglayer in the movie. To be honest I really like both. Or he may not even touch either of those
I like the Queen way better than the egg-morphing.
It seems odd and inefficient to use a human twice in the Alien life cycle - once to make the egg, than a second time to incubate the chestburster. Cameron's solution is better, although he could have eliminated the egg and face hugger entirely (if we hadn't already seen them in Alien) and had the Queen directly implant the chestburster embryo herself.
It's interesting to reflect on how this odd life cycle came out of having Cameron put his own spin on the franchise. I hadn't thought about the possibility of the Queen not existing if Scott had directed Aliens.
Yeah, well, he did say he thought the Queen was a very good idea, perhaps he wouldve come up with an egglayer as well, but since he seemed like it struck him like"hey, thats a very good idea", I doubt it would dawn on him
Either way both work for me, although I can understand why some of the people involved in the original disliked the idea
Quote from: Gash on Mar 26, 2012, 09:19:45 PMThe egg as seen in the A L I E N cocoon scene is implied to be a secreted resin that is forming around Brett and Dallas whilst their bodies are absorbed by embryonic facehuggers. You could therefore reasonably argue that the question Lambert asks 'I wonder what happened to the rest of the crew?' is answered by the contents of the egg chamber. This is also implied in the novelisation with mention of the egg storage having no structure and a lot of wasted space.
It never quite made sense to me that the crew were in the hold, transformed. Probably because of the layer of mist/laser that was described as a membrane warning system. Of course, the idea from the beginning (in O'Bannon's script anyway) was that the eggs were not transformed beings (he never mentioned that option at least); in Giler and Hill's early scripts the Alien was a man-made biological weapon; and then these two ideas seemed to be combined (alien-made weapon) in the finished script and film. I always took Lambert's line to be ominous in the regard that something killed 'em all due to some calamity, not morphing (in O'Bannon's concept, they starved).
Speculation. All I have :P
Quote from: Valaquen on Mar 26, 2012, 11:59:02 PMI always took Lambert's line to be ominous in the regard that something killed 'em all due to some calamity, not morphing (in O'Bannon's concept, they starved).
Her asking "what happened to the crew?" just before finding the egg chamber is very suggestive though. I have no idea if it was intentional, but considering that Scott went to the trouble of showing the transformation aspect it could easily have been. IMO Scott could well have intended the suggestion that the crew were 'appropriated' by the creatures.
I think that Scott's decision to edit out the egg transformation of Dallas and Brett was a good one. Obviously, he or someone else could tell ift didn't fit the story right. I tend to believe the eggs were being transported in the derelict as weapons. This makes more sense when you consider the containment field and the warning message.
It will be interesting to see how much of the derelict back story they tie up. I think they will give us clues but no neat and tidy answer and maybe that is a good thing.
The egg morphing makes one xeno that much more lethal IMO.
Dallas & Brett were NOT both being transformed into alien eggs, this was only happening to Brett while Dallas was the intended host of the face-hugger. For clarification, here's how to find out more in the U.K. version's Bonus Disk (U.S. version probably differs) from the Alien Quadrilogy Boxset.
Look up Alien_154>A1 in the Main Menu, goto Laser Disk Archive_445>LDA then Table of Contents.
Scroll through the contents to Part III: Post Production/Chapter 17: Editing and Music. This section contains pages from a booklet for the laser disk version, featuring various pictures and quotes about the films post production, including several deleted scenes it calls out-takes.
Continue through these (NOTE: it may take a while as you have to start each out-take).
Go past several production stills, then an interview with Scott about why the Cocoon scene was removed from the film, after which there are 4 more production stills relating to the cocoon scene.
Immediately after the 4th still is a page reading:
Since the concept of the sequence was that brett was being transformed into an egg containing a new face-hugger, with dallas as the intended host, one of Gigar's finished eggs was used to complete the construction as filmed.
After that is another still of Brett in the cocoon then the uncut sequence itself.
Dallas not turning into an egg doesn't make much sense in the context of the film it's from and even less in the series as whole.
Quote from: SM on Mar 27, 2012, 03:25:45 AM
Dallas not turning into an egg doesn't make much sense in the context of the film it's from and even less in the series as whole.
Depends how you look at it I suppose. Since we don't know how those eggs on the derelict came about, if it's a case of survival it makes perfect sense the alien infects one host to breed from the other, plus if it's intention was to turn Dallas into an egg why kill off Parker and Lambert?
Same reason it killed Brett.
The real question is why it left them. Maybe it knew Ripley was coming with a flamethrower so it did a runner.
Quotesurvival it makes perfect sense the alien infects one host to breed from the other
Not if there's no more hosts and it follows the Riddles intention of only having a 24 hour lifespan.
Make more sense to morph all of them into eggs, which will be free to infect the boarding party when the Nostromo gets home. They can then spread.
Quote from: SM on Mar 27, 2012, 03:25:45 AM
Dallas not turning into an egg doesn't make much sense in the context of the film it's from and even less in the series as whole.
Why? I thought RoaryUK's information cleared up a puzzle, at least for me. I always wondered why the ALIEN would convert both Dallas and Brett into eggs/facehuggers...since the whole purpose of creating the egg/facehugger is to have a live biological host available, with which to continue the next stage of it's life cycle. Interestingly, the adult ALIEN klled it's very first victim, but deliberately left it's next victim alive. RoaryUK's info provides an answer for this motivation. It allowed Brett to become organic material from which it could make a new egg/facehugger, while keeping Dallas alive to serve as the next host.
Edit: Oops, corrected to replace "Kane" with "Brett".
And then what? Like I said, he births another Alien, and that's dead 24 hours later. If Parker got egged for Lambert to host, another Alien that's dead 24 hours later. And Ripley survives anyway simply be avoiding it for 24 hours.
Again, better for the whole crew to be egg morphed (like, potentially, the Derelict crew) and then when the ship gets home, you have five eggs to infect five new people. Those resulting Aliens then have a ready supply of hosts to egg morph and impregnate.
That aside - Kane wasn't a babbling barely coherent mess in order to be impregnated, so why was Dallas? He'd only been down there an hour or two tops. Brett wasn't a fully formed egg yet, so Dallas wasn't carrying at that point. So why couldn't Ripley save him (like she ultimately did for Newt)? Obvious answer is he was being turned into an egg.
Yep. He was in such agony because the alien had done something horrible to him, there's a reason why when he moans, Ripley says something like "what did it do?" And then she looks at what's left of Brett and says to herself (thus telling the audience) "Brett..." and then Dallas says "Kill me."
I mean, look at him. He looks like he's melting for God's sake.
And it does make more sense for the Alien to kill or convert all threats/hosts and then go somewhere to die. (As that was the original intent, short life span.) Why? Because that's what many insects do. They procreate as much as possible, and then they die, leaving the next generation to tend for themselves. This is very common with the wasp species that was the inspiration for some of the Alien's life cycle. Also I think Praying Mantis have a similar habit of breeding and then leaving the young to fend for themselves. It does make bilogical sense with a short life span. it ensures the longevity of the species.
Love the original transformation idea. Hate the Queen. I also love the 24 hour lifecycle.
And Ridley himself has said he cut the transformation because it threw off the pacing. I think if it was moved to before parker and lambert were killed it would have worked better. The flow would have went better and I think it would have fit the story better. Though I need to watch it again and see if I still think that way.
Quote from: RoaryUK on Mar 27, 2012, 03:20:00 AM
Dallas & Brett were NOT both being transformed into alien eggs, this was only happening to Brett while Dallas was the intended host of the face-hugger. For clarification, here's how to find out more in the U.K. version's Bonus Disk (U.S. version probably differs) from the Alien Quadrilogy Boxset.
Look up Alien_154>A1 in the Main Menu, goto Laser Disk Archive_445>LDA then Table of Contents.
Scroll through the contents to Part III: Post Production/Chapter 17: Editing and Music. This section contains pages from a booklet for the laser disk version, featuring various pictures and quotes about the films post production, including several deleted scenes it calls out-takes.
Continue through these (NOTE: it may take a while as you have to start each out-take).
Go past several production stills, then an interview with Scott about why the Cocoon scene was removed from the film, after which there are 4 more production stills relating to the cocoon scene.
Immediately after the 4th still is a page reading:
Since the concept of the sequence was that brett was being transformed into an egg containing a new face-hugger, with dallas as the intended host, one of Gigar's finished eggs was used to complete the construction as filmed.
After that is another still of Brett in the cocoon then the uncut sequence itself.
Whoever wrote those notes didn't do their homework and is simply speculating. A nest of new eggs makes far more sense. Plus Ripley asks Dallas what the Alien did to him, if it hadn't done what it had done to Brett she could have saved him.
The real question to me has always been why do the colonists in Aliens need to be cocooned? Especially when the facehuggers are shown as more than adequate at hiding and making jump attacks. The chestburster is an inescapable horror, and it's no more effective if imprisoned. It's really just a half hearted attempt to re-instigate the notorious cocooning sequence of ALIEN, without the more imaginative and horrifying aspect of it.
Quote from: SM on Mar 27, 2012, 03:46:13 AM
That aside - Kane wasn't a babbling barely coherent mess in order to be impregnated, so why was Dallas? He'd only been down there an hour or two tops. Brett wasn't a fully formed egg yet, so Dallas wasn't carrying at that point. So why couldn't Ripley save him (like she ultimately did for Newt)? Obvious answer is he was being turned into an egg.
Quote from: OpenMaw on Mar 27, 2012, 03:53:42 AM
Yep. He was in such agony because the alien had done something horrible to him, there's a reason why when he moans, Ripley says something like "what did it do?" And then she looks at what's left of Brett and says to herself (thus telling the audience) "Brett..." and then Dallas says "Kill me."
I mean, look at him. He looks like he's melting for God's sake.
All these are good points. If the source RoaryUK cites is not mistaken, then perhaps Dallas felt he was in too much pain, perhaps felt mortally wounded, and didn't wish to live. His body is contorted in a strange position, and at the very least his arms are broken. Perhaps his back has been broken, and he is paralyzed? Another possibility comes to mind. Perhaps he was unconscious for a certain period after the intial attack. When he woke up, he may assume he has already been "impregnated"...which is why he asks Ripley to kill him. As a character, in the context of the film, he didn't necessarily have knowledge as to how the ALIEN made the eggs/facehuggers.
But again, I concede that the writer's may have not had this all thought out, and your points are valid. The info. provided in the source RoaryUK cited may be in error. I agree that Dallas also looks to be at the beginning stages of morphing into an egg.
QuoteWhen he woke up, he may assume he has already been "impregnated"...which is why he asks Ripley to kill him.
Pretty big assumption. I don't know what's going on - so you better kill me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dS5MtzrW1vU# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dS5MtzrW1vU#)
Here's the cocoon scene. This is the original cut of the scene, not the DC version which has different sound and is abridged a bit. I think this version has much more suspense and horror in it.
Dallas is really, really messed up. I get why people want to try and make this fit into the canon with "Aliens" but it doesn't have to. This is an entirely different line, and it stands on it's own as a great untraveled road of horrors.
QuoteI get why people want to try and make this fit into the canon with "Aliens" but it doesn't have to.
Because it's really easy to make both lifecycles fit together.
Only problem comes up when trying to reconcile Ripley having no idea what the hive in Aliens is and where eggs come from.
Quote from: OpenMaw on Mar 27, 2012, 04:19:13 AM
Dallas is really, really messed up. I get why people want to try and make this fit into the canon with "Aliens" but it doesn't have to. This is an entirely different line, and it stands on it's own as a great untraveled road of horrors.
I concur.
Question. After Dallas requests to Ripley..."kill me", Ripley replies "What can I do?". Dallas' final moan is much louder. He is either saying "Ripley" (in order to empasize his demand)...or he may be saying "Quickly".
What are you folks hearing? Either case...it is sufficiently horrifying.
Quote from: SM on Mar 27, 2012, 03:35:37 AM
Same reason it killed Brett.
The real question is why it left them. Maybe it knew Ripley was coming with a flamethrower so it did a runner.
Quotesurvival it makes perfect sense the alien infects one host to breed from the other
Not if there's no more hosts and it follows the Riddles intention of only having a 24 hour lifespan.
Make more sense to morph all of them into eggs, which will be free to infect the boarding party when the Nostromo gets home. They can then spread.
But if ithe alien killed Brett your arguement makes no sense because, according to you, Dallas was also being morphed yet he was still ALIVE when Ripley discovers him, so Brett can't have been dead (technically) at any point!!
I don't think Brett was dead anyway, but Parker and Lambert were killed and I doubt it was over any worries over Ripley. Also, it could be argued if the alien didn't know how many humans it was dealing with, why explicably kill everything in sight leaving dead bodies behind after creating just 2 eggs, when it could have easily captured and cocconed a lot more!
As for Riddles' intention the alien has a 24 hour lifespan, whatever he intended has become a moot point now, since Cameron pretty much invented the creatures lifecycle in the first 30 mins of Aliens, but for me the notion such a creature could only live a short time never held up anyway, even less so after what Ash had to say about it, who clearly knew quite a lot.
QuoteBut if ithe alien killed Brett your arguement makes no sense because, according to you, Dallas was also being morphed yet he was still ALIVE when Ripley discovers him, so Brett can't have been dead (technically) at any point!!
Sure it makes sense. What does the host being alive or dead have to do anything? Other than being particularly unpleasant for the host.
QuoteI don't think Brett was dead anyway,
He had the front of his brain violently torn out. He would've been dead with seconds. Identical to Parker.
Quotewhy explicably kill everything in sight leaving dead bodies behind after creating just 2 eggs, when it could have easily captured and cocconed a lot more!
It could've come back for Parker and Lambert after it dealt with Ripley.
Quoteeven less so after what Ash had to say about it, who clearly knew quite a lot.
I don't think he knew much more than anyone else. He was just able to process it better.
QuoteWhat are you folks hearing?
Riiiiiipleeeyyyy.
Quote from: Deuterium on Mar 27, 2012, 04:28:36 AM
What are you folks hearing?
I think it's, a very struggled, "RIIIP-LEY."
Quote from: SM on Mar 27, 2012, 04:21:44 AM
QuoteI get why people want to try and make this fit into the canon with "Aliens" but it doesn't have to.
Because it's really easy to make both lifecycles fit together.
Only problem comes up when trying to reconcile Ripley having no idea what the hive in Aliens is and where eggs come from.
I really can't agree that it's easy, SM. For the very reason you just mentioned. You can't just ignore those two things and say "oh it fits easily." Simply because Cameron flat ignored it, and Ripley just didn't know. Belive me, i'd love to have it fit in there, but it cant unless you ignore Ripley's reaction in Aliens.
I meant the two life cycles can fit easily. Ripley witnessing one, then forgetting about it when it could've been really handy to know, not so much.
Quote from: SM on Mar 27, 2012, 04:35:38 AM
QuoteBut if ithe alien killed Brett your arguement makes no sense because, according to you, Dallas was also being morphed yet he was still ALIVE when Ripley discovers him, so Brett can't have been dead (technically) at any point!!
Sure it makes sense. What does the host being alive or dead have to do anything? Other than being particularly unpleasant for the host.
It has a lot to do with it if we're to believe the alien is a parasite, and if itsn't then why not just kill everything and get on with it....yet it doesn't!
QuoteI don't think Brett was dead anyway,
QuoteHe had the front of his brain violently torn out. He would've been dead with seconds. Identical to Parker.
Brett's brain is punctured not torn out, big difference considering one can be brain dead, yet still technically a living being for anything up to a few hours after a serious brain injury. At the end of the day we simply don't know he was dead, I agree his death looks identical to Parker, but for the alien to do what it does still requires a living host, something else that's also confirmed on the Quadrilogy, which is what my assumptions were always based on....until Alien3 special edition came along and screwed things up.
Quotewhy explicably kill everything in sight leaving dead bodies behind after creating just 2 eggs, when it could have easily captured and cocconed a lot more!
QuoteIt could've come back for Parker and Lambert after it dealt with Ripley.
True.... that's just something I don't buy.
Quoteeven less so after what Ash had to say about it, who clearly knew quite a lot.
QuoteI don't think he knew much more than anyone else. He was just able to process it better.
I think Ash knew a lot more than he was telling, the same as the company who sent him.... but hey, that's just my opinion.
QuoteWhat are you folks hearing?
QuoteRiiiiiipleeeyyyy.
....all I'm hearing is "kill me!" :)
Quote from: duckman5150 on Mar 27, 2012, 01:07:35 AM
I think that Scott's decision to edit out the egg transformation of Dallas and Brett was a good one. Obviously, he or someone else could tell ift didn't fit the story right. I tend to believe the eggs were being transported in the derelict as weapons. This makes more sense when you consider the containment field and the warning message.
To be honest, I've always believed Scott really reinserted the cocoon sequence just to please certain people, like the fans who knew about it anyway, most had even seen it, so he goes and puts it back in there so everyone's happy watching whatever version of the film they want. BUT, just to prove his point it didn't work, not only does he put it in the wrong place, but he also removes the dialogie that would add to the impact. I'm sure some will disagree, but as far as I'm concerned, ALIEN is such a slow paced film anyway the cocoon sequence never really did it any harm to begin with.
QuoteIt has a lot to do with it if we're to believe the alien is a parasite, and it if itsn't then why not just kill everything and get on with it....yet it doesn't!
Why would the Alien care though? It's not like Dallas was a threat. Plus as O'Bannon points out, it's only two hours old and has spent it's entire life in the bowels of a ship and air ducts. It's "ignorant". Why didn't it just kill Lambert and "get on with it". Took it's time with her. Took even longer with Dallas.
QuoteBrett's brain is punctured not torn out
Yeah, a large chunk of the brain is ripped out.
QuoteAt the end of the day we simply don't know he was dead
Shock, blood loss. He's dead. Let him go. ;D
Quoteuntil Alien3 special edition came along and screwed things up.
Not if you consider that the Ox was alive when the hugger attacked it.
Quote from: SM on Mar 27, 2012, 05:34:51 AM
Quoteuntil Alien3 special edition came along and screwed things up.
Not if you consider that the Ox was alive when the hugger attacked it.
Did SM just defend the AC in some capacity? :o
Spoiler
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgifs.gifbin.com%2F1238157980_scanners_-_head_explosion.gif&hash=652a0379122cf88e82f768b162ed945ce6f95de3)
Quote from: SM on Mar 27, 2012, 03:46:13 AM
And then what? Like I said, he births another Alien, and that's dead 24 hours later. If Parker got egged for Lambert to host, another Alien that's dead 24 hours later. And Ripley survives anyway simply be avoiding it for 24 hours.
WHY are you basing your theory on something that isn't even canon, Ridley by his own admission tossed out that theory before he was asked to make a sequel anyway??
It was all part of the same idea at the time. It went into the shuttle and crawled behind the console ostensibly to die.
Either way, I'm not "basing [my] theory on something that isn't even canon" - I'm basing it on what we see in the Directors Cut - the 24 hour lifespan thing is ancillary. If you don't consider that canon, then I guess we're kinda done.
Quote from: SM on Mar 27, 2012, 05:45:16 AM
It was all part of the same idea at the time. It went into the shuttle and crawled behind the console ostensibly to die.
Either way, I'm not "basing [my] theory on something that isn't even canon" - I'm basing it on what we see in the Directors Cut - the 24 hour lifespan thing is ancillary. If you don't consider that canon, then I guess we're kinda done.
Like you say it was all part of an idea at the time, but the script went through many changes, the alien dying was just one of many ideas left to the imagination. At the end there's absolutely nothing in the movie (or the script) suggesting this was the final outcome, further more subesquent films have gone on to explain otherwise, so why should I accept it is cannon in the first place!!
Not asking you to.
I meant 'if you don't conisder egg morphing canon'.
Quote from: SM on Mar 27, 2012, 06:11:09 AM
Not asking you to.
I meant 'if you don't conisder egg morphing canon'.
Let's get something straight here, I NEVER once said Egg Morphing isn't canon, of course it is, I said in my opinion it wasn't happening to Dallas and THAT'S ALL. I even offer proof in an earlier statement as to why this might happen. As far as I'm concerned the Queen and Egg Morphing are as much a part of the aliens life cycle as the unexplained Queen that appears inside Ripley in Alien3. As for your arguement on the Aliens supposed 24 hour life cycle where the creature would simply die, I'm well aware this was Scott's original intention but there is no evidence to support it would happen, the sequels clearly suggest otherwise and THAT'S the part where I don't agree and therefore to me it isn't canon, ok!
Quote from: RoaryUK on Mar 27, 2012, 12:05:58 PM
Quote from: SM on Mar 27, 2012, 06:11:09 AM
Not asking you to.
I meant 'if you don't conisder egg morphing canon'.
Let's get something straight here, I NEVER once said Egg Morphing isn't canon, of course it is, I said in my opinion it wasn't happening to Dallas and THAT'S ALL. I even offer proof in an earlier statement as to why this might happen. As far as I'm concerned the Queen and Egg Morphing are as much a part of the aliens life cycle as the unexplained Queen that appears inside Ripley in Alien3. As for your arguement on the Aliens supposed 24 hour life cycle where the creature would simply die, I'm well aware this was Scott's original intention but there is no evidence to support it would happen, the sequels clearly suggest otherwise and THAT'S the part where I don't agree and therefore to me it isn't canon, ok!
Have to chip in at this point: this thread has got me wondering - how do we know Egg Morphing is canon? Was Cameron aware of the deleted scene and, even if he was, presumably he felt free to ignore it (this being the era before the "Director's Cut"). And I'm afraid I don't see how Cameron's life-cycle does fit with it; to me "canon" is the original movies, not deleted scenes that are put back in later.
One other question: I'm sure this has been done to death elsewhere but why IS the Alien so weird and sleepy at the end? Is that because it's supposed to be dying? (would make sense if the 24-hr lifecycle was Scott's original intention, not something I'd heard before). If it's not that, why? Always found that a bit weird.
On a slightly separate point - I do disagree about the scene affecting the pacing. I think it does affect it, badly; Alien is a slow movie but the final half hour is pretty non-stop intense. Something about the scene just doesn't quite work and Ridley IMO made the right decision. It's an interesting scene of course, but I think the movie is better without it; but each to their own!
Quote from: red_otter on Mar 27, 2012, 12:25:45 PM
Quote from: RoaryUK on Mar 27, 2012, 12:05:58 PM
Quote from: SM on Mar 27, 2012, 06:11:09 AM
Not asking you to.
I meant 'if you don't conisder egg morphing canon'.
Let's get something straight here, I NEVER once said Egg Morphing isn't canon, of course it is, I said in my opinion it wasn't happening to Dallas and THAT'S ALL. I even offer proof in an earlier statement as to why this might happen. As far as I'm concerned the Queen and Egg Morphing are as much a part of the aliens life cycle as the unexplained Queen that appears inside Ripley in Alien3. As for your arguement on the Aliens supposed 24 hour life cycle where the creature would simply die, I'm well aware this was Scott's original intention but there is no evidence to support it would happen, the sequels clearly suggest otherwise and THAT'S the part where I don't agree and therefore to me it isn't canon, ok!
Have to chip in at this point: this thread has got me wondering - how do we know Egg Morphing is canon? Was Cameron aware of the deleted scene and, even if he was, presumably he felt free to ignore it (this being the era before the "Director's Cut"). And I'm afraid I don't see how Cameron's life-cycle does fit with it; to me "canon" is the original movies, not deleted scenes that are put back in later.
One other question: I'm sure this has been done to death elsewhere but why IS the Alien so weird and sleepy at the end? Is that because it's supposed to be dying? (would make sense if the 24-hr lifecycle was Scott's original intention, not something I'd heard before). If it's not that, why? Always found that a bit weird.
On a slightly separate point - I do disagree about the scene affecting the pacing. I think it does affect it, badly; Alien is a slow movie but the final half hour is pretty non-stop intense. Something about the scene just doesn't quite work and Ridley IMO made the right decision. It's an interesting scene of course, but I think the movie is better without it; but each to their own!
I also take canon as what happens in the original movie, but you'll find some people take whatever was on film as canon, and so it becomes ones disgression. I believe Cameron was aware of the cocoon scene but chose to avoid it because it didn't fit with his story, the Queen was much more convenient and I doubt anyone would disagree it didn't work. But many have suggested egg morphing could also still work, because the first alien was alone, some have even theorised it might have become a Queen itself at some point, so maybe the creature was going through changes and not dying, (which makes no sense in the context of the saga anyway) so the possibilities are endless really... that's what makes it so alien. As for the subject of the cocoon scene being reinserted into the directors cut, well, it certainly is a distraction I won't argue that, but let's not forget in the directors cut the scene is in the wrong place anyway, it was supposed to happen before Ripley set the Nostromo for self-destruct not after. Yes it does affect pacing, and clearly Ridley Scott left it in there to prove his point. But if it's important and can at all be explained then it should be there, the coocon sequence shouldn't just be dismissed because of Camerons ideas, especially when there's so many other things the makers of thesemovies didn't even bother to explain but left in there.
Quote from: RoaryUK on Mar 27, 2012, 12:55:36 PM
Quote from: red_otter on Mar 27, 2012, 12:25:45 PM
Quote from: RoaryUK on Mar 27, 2012, 12:05:58 PM
Quote from: SM on Mar 27, 2012, 06:11:09 AM
Not asking you to.
I meant 'if you don't conisder egg morphing canon'.
Let's get something straight here, I NEVER once said Egg Morphing isn't canon, of course it is, I said in my opinion it wasn't happening to Dallas and THAT'S ALL. I even offer proof in an earlier statement as to why this might happen. As far as I'm concerned the Queen and Egg Morphing are as much a part of the aliens life cycle as the unexplained Queen that appears inside Ripley in Alien3. As for your arguement on the Aliens supposed 24 hour life cycle where the creature would simply die, I'm well aware this was Scott's original intention but there is no evidence to support it would happen, the sequels clearly suggest otherwise and THAT'S the part where I don't agree and therefore to me it isn't canon, ok!
Have to chip in at this point: this thread has got me wondering - how do we know Egg Morphing is canon? Was Cameron aware of the deleted scene and, even if he was, presumably he felt free to ignore it (this being the era before the "Director's Cut"). And I'm afraid I don't see how Cameron's life-cycle does fit with it; to me "canon" is the original movies, not deleted scenes that are put back in later.
One other question: I'm sure this has been done to death elsewhere but why IS the Alien so weird and sleepy at the end? Is that because it's supposed to be dying? (would make sense if the 24-hr lifecycle was Scott's original intention, not something I'd heard before). If it's not that, why? Always found that a bit weird.
On a slightly separate point - I do disagree about the scene affecting the pacing. I think it does affect it, badly; Alien is a slow movie but the final half hour is pretty non-stop intense. Something about the scene just doesn't quite work and Ridley IMO made the right decision. It's an interesting scene of course, but I think the movie is better without it; but each to their own!
I also take canon as what happens in the original movie, but you'll find some people take whatever was on film as canon, and so it becomes ones disgression. I believe Cameron was aware of the cocoon scene but chose to avoid it because it didn't fit with his story, the Queen was much more convenient and I doubt anyone would disagree it didn't work. But many have suggested egg morphing could also still work, because the first alien was alone, some have even theorised it might have become a Queen itself at some point, so maybe the creature was going through changes not dying, the possibilities are endless really... that's what makes it so alien. As for the subject of the cocoon scene, well, it certainly is a distraction I won't argue that, but let's not forget in the directors cut the scene is in the wrong place anyway, it was supposed to happen before Ripley set the Nostromo for self-destruct not after. Yes it does affect pacing, and clearly Ridley Scott left it in there to prove his point. But if it's important and can at all be explained then it should be there, the coocon sequence shouldn't just be dismissed because of Camerons ideas, especially when there's so many other things the makers of thesemovies didn't even bother to explain but left in there.
Fair enough - I hadn't realised it was supposed to be in a different place in the movie, that might alter things. Ridley can be very confusing with his comments. Hasn't he even said elsewhere he didn't really like the director's cut or want to do it, and only really did it because the studio asked him to?! All that said, I hadn't seen the original scene until this thread and I do prefer that to the DC version so who knows...
I agree the weird behaviour at the end makes the creature all the more alien. I've always loved the way it behaves in that final sequence, especially that very strange close up of its hands.
Quote from: RoaryUK on Mar 27, 2012, 12:55:36 PM
Quote from: red_otter on Mar 27, 2012, 12:25:45 PM
Quote from: RoaryUK on Mar 27, 2012, 12:05:58 PM
Quote from: SM on Mar 27, 2012, 06:11:09 AM
Not asking you to.
I meant 'if you don't conisder egg morphing canon'.
Let's get something straight here, I NEVER once said Egg Morphing isn't canon, of course it is, I said in my opinion it wasn't happening to Dallas and THAT'S ALL. I even offer proof in an earlier statement as to why this might happen. As far as I'm concerned the Queen and Egg Morphing are as much a part of the aliens life cycle as the unexplained Queen that appears inside Ripley in Alien3. As for your arguement on the Aliens supposed 24 hour life cycle where the creature would simply die, I'm well aware this was Scott's original intention but there is no evidence to support it would happen, the sequels clearly suggest otherwise and THAT'S the part where I don't agree and therefore to me it isn't canon, ok!
Have to chip in at this point: this thread has got me wondering - how do we know Egg Morphing is canon? Was Cameron aware of the deleted scene and, even if he was, presumably he felt free to ignore it (this being the era before the "Director's Cut"). And I'm afraid I don't see how Cameron's life-cycle does fit with it; to me "canon" is the original movies, not deleted scenes that are put back in later.
One other question: I'm sure this has been done to death elsewhere but why IS the Alien so weird and sleepy at the end? Is that because it's supposed to be dying? (would make sense if the 24-hr lifecycle was Scott's original intention, not something I'd heard before). If it's not that, why? Always found that a bit weird.
On a slightly separate point - I do disagree about the scene affecting the pacing. I think it does affect it, badly; Alien is a slow movie but the final half hour is pretty non-stop intense. Something about the scene just doesn't quite work and Ridley IMO made the right decision. It's an interesting scene of course, but I think the movie is better without it; but each to their own!
I also take canon as what happens in the original movie, but you'll find some people take whatever was on film as canon, and so it becomes ones disgression. I believe Cameron was aware of the cocoon scene but chose to avoid it because it didn't fit with his story, the Queen was much more convenient and I doubt anyone would disagree it didn't work. But many have suggested egg morphing could also still work, because the first alien was alone, some have even theorised it might have become a Queen itself at some point, so maybe the creature was going through changes not dying, the possibilities are endless really... that's what makes it so alien. As for the subject of the cocoon scene being reinserted into the directors cut, well, it certainly is a distraction I won't argue that, but let's not forget in the directors cut the scene is in the wrong place anyway, it was supposed to happen before Ripley set the Nostromo for self-destruct not after. Yes it does affect pacing, and clearly Ridley Scott left it in there to prove his point. But if it's important and can at all be explained then it should be there, the coocon sequence shouldn't just be dismissed because of Camerons ideas, especially when there's so many other things the makers of thesemovies didn't even bother to explain but left in there.
I'm pretty sure Cameron stated in an interview post release that he was glad Scott had cut the scene as it gave him the opening to add a new alien form - the queen - and use it to show something new and to drive the climax of his film.
At that time the cocoon scene was very well known as a famous "lost scene" and I believe did feature in the novelization so Cameron - even without the quote - would have known of the scenes existence.
TBH in terms of Prometheus I think Scott - much like Cameron wit Aliens - will decide what he wants to treat as cannon and what he doesn't. So if he doesn't want the queen then he'll simply ditch that and retcon his own preferred lifecycle.
I'm also pretty sure Scott has noted although he loved the Queen concept he preferred the alien to be more, well alien, and that he still preferred the closed loop lifecycle originally planned for Alien. I know post release of Alien Scott stated in his mind the creature had a very short, butterfly like lifecycle where it grew furiously fast, found prey and concooned them, then died. I'm believe he stated this was why, in his mind, the creature was so sluggish at the end of Alien until Ripley sprayed it with hot gas, and why it seemed to be covered in even more slime than ever.
So I guess unless Scott has either been pressured by the studio to include at least Cameron's stuff (which seems unlikely to me) or feels he owes some respect (which is more likely but I still think not enough to sway him) he will make his own fresh decisions based at most on what was in Alien with perhaps no more than a passing nod - if that - to any of the other films, even including Aliens.
QuoteTBH in terms of Prometheus I think Scott - much like Cameron wit Aliens - will decide what he wants to treat as cannon and what he doesn't. So if he doesn't want the queen then he'll simply ditch that and retcon his own preferred lifecycle.
This makes me laugh. They would be fools to exclude Aliens from the canon (and they wont). I guarantee you the majority of the fans that ritually and habitually spend money on anything "Alien" related are fans of Aliens first and Alien second. Aliens was a huge commercial success spawning much of the extended universe including a line of toys for younger kids. On top of that it catered to a younger audience by giving young kids someone to relate to within the story (Newt) who are nowadays the people that grew into die-hard adult fans of the series (I am one such kid).
Quote from: Henry Ellis on Mar 27, 2012, 07:01:04 PM
QuoteTBH in terms of Prometheus I think Scott - much like Cameron wit Aliens - will decide what he wants to treat as cannon and what he doesn't. So if he doesn't want the queen then he'll simply ditch that and retcon his own preferred lifecycle.
This makes me laugh. They would be fools to exclude Aliens from the canon (and they wont). I guarantee you the majority of the fans that ritually and habitually spend money on anything "Alien" related are fans of Aliens first and Alien second. Aliens was a huge commercial success spawning much of the extended universe including a line of toys for younger kids. On top of that it catered to a younger audience by giving young kids someone to relate to within the story (Newt) who are nowadays the people that grew into die-hard adult fans of the series (I am one such kid).
The line of toys came years later though. I was a teen by the time they hit. I believe early 90's.
And it is canon, as much as some of us wish it wasn't [i'm in that group]. Ridley quite liked Aliens.
1
Quote from: Henry Ellis on Mar 27, 2012, 07:01:04 PM
On top of that it catered to a younger audience by giving young kids someone to relate to within the story (Newt) who are nowadays the people that grew into die-hard adult fans of the series (I am one such kid).
Where did this "George Lucas" creative brain malfunction come from? I mean no offense, but seriously. Who did kids want to be, from say... Star Wars? Or Indiana Jones? Oh riiight... Having a kid around does not automatically equal kids will be more plugged into a story.
Heck, watching Jurassic Park as a kid, I was more vested in John Hammond, Dr. Malcolm, and Dr. Grant than I was the kids. I wished the Rex had eaten them to be perfectly honest. I didn't relate to them at all.)
( I refer to it as the "George Lucas" brain malfunction because he seemed to feel his SW prequel movies needed kids for a child audience... Never mind ANH, ESB, and ROTJ didn't need kids.)
Also, while it's true that Cameron's film was a much more general wide-stroke success... Alien is absolutely a classic, and Scott is man enough to be able to say, artistically "I have this vision, and i'm going to do it my way, and I don't give a damn about "canon" or whatever these internet people are talking about."
...And I hope he does. I hope Prometheus takes canon, bends it over a chair and has it's way with it. Canon can be a great thing, but it also seems to become the crux of just about every long running series for fans. Let it go I saw. Especially after 20 years. Especially after we know this film is going to go in a very different direction, possibly leading to it's own series of films as Scott has hinted he'd like to do another one now. :)
1
Quote from: Henry Ellis on Mar 27, 2012, 07:01:04 PM
QuoteTBH in terms of Prometheus I think Scott - much like Cameron wit Aliens - will decide what he wants to treat as cannon and what he doesn't. So if he doesn't want the queen then he'll simply ditch that and retcon his own preferred lifecycle.
This makes me laugh. They would be fools to exclude Aliens from the canon (and they wont). I guarantee you the majority of the fans that ritually and habitually spend money on anything "Alien" related are fans of Aliens first and Alien second. Aliens was a huge commercial success spawning much of the extended universe including a line of toys for younger kids. On top of that it catered to a younger audience by giving young kids someone to relate to within the story (Newt) who are nowadays the people that grew into die-hard adult fans of the series (I am one such kid).
From everything I've ever read from the lips of Ridley, I seriously doubt that matters to him. As I said the studio might try and influence but every design and look aspect of Prometheus so far, from guns to ships to costumes to sets, is clearly based on the Alien template (both what made the film and what didn't) and nothing else. Scott I'm sure is serious when he says no aliens as we know them becuase that's played out - so I doubt he's going to stick to having a Queen or anything from Aliens just because fans like to buy plastic figures of the Queen.
I believe you're totally right about the fans and the extended Universe but I honestly think you're dead wrong if you think Scott is going to factor any of that into his film beyond the odd cute reference.
Arrogance is the downfall of any successful director and Ridley Scott is far from infallible. If he thinks he can denounce things the fans of an idea hold as being precious and valuable then he will loose the very thing that has made it possible for him to make another Alien related movie in the first place and thats the fans, and their financial support. If the movie's shit, people won't go e.g. Robin Hood.
did you watch it on bluray or reg dvd?
IFC actually (on tv) they're showing Alien and Alien 3 to get people hyped up and ready for Prometheus, but I own the DVD also.
Quote from: Henry Ellis on Mar 27, 2012, 08:04:19 PM
IFC actually (on tv) they're showing Alien and Alien 3 to get people hyped up and ready for Prometheus, but I own the DVD also.
dude the 1st 2 on bluray are f**king amazing :) they increased my enjoyment all the way up to 11 :)
1
Quote from: Eagle-Fire on Mar 27, 2012, 08:06:09 PM
dude the 1st 2 on bluray are f**king amazing :) they increased my enjoyment all the way up to 11 :)
Agreed! :)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.inquisitr.com%2Fwp-content%2F2011%2F11%2Fspinal-tap.jpg&hash=4d30fa53c9227bd91826688bcbd469691f13cb23)
Just an observation regarding the purpored 24 hour life-span of the adult ALIEN.
Regardless if one considers this an established "fact" or "canon"...keep in mind that none of the characters in the film would have been aware of this. If they had this knowledge, the surviving crew would have barricaded themselves in an easily defended area of the ship, and wait out the "clock".
Quote from: Henry Ellis on Mar 27, 2012, 07:45:06 PM
Arrogance is the downfall of any successful director and Ridley Scott is far from infallible. If he thinks he can denounce things the fans of an idea hold as being precious and valuable then he will loose the very thing that has made it possible for him to make another Alien related movie in the first place and thats the fans, and their financial support. If the movie's shit, people won't go e.g. Robin Hood.
And in doing that he also wins back fans and makes new ones.
I haven't supported anything financially since renting Alien in 1986 beyond buying stuff related to the original film. If this was anyone else making this movie, I wouldn't be there. Neither would anyone I personally know. He is selling this movie to a lot of people. The Alien relation is secondary. It's Ridley Scott doing scifi that drives it to many.
1
Quote from: RoaryUK on Mar 27, 2012, 12:05:58 PM
Quote from: SM on Mar 27, 2012, 06:11:09 AM
Not asking you to.
I meant 'if you don't conisder egg morphing canon'.
Let's get something straight here, I NEVER once said Egg Morphing isn't canon, of course it is, I said in my opinion it wasn't happening to Dallas and THAT'S ALL. I even offer proof in an earlier statement as to why this might happen. As far as I'm concerned the Queen and Egg Morphing are as much a part of the aliens life cycle as the unexplained Queen that appears inside Ripley in Alien3. As for your arguement on the Aliens supposed 24 hour life cycle where the creature would simply die, I'm well aware this was Scott's original intention but there is no evidence to support it would happen, the sequels clearly suggest otherwise and THAT'S the part where I don't agree and therefore to me it isn't canon, ok!
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.smosh.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fbloguploads%2Fu-mad-1.jpg&hash=6f5d0f9a08d359faab386869d432de549864255d)
Am I the only one seeing the nod to Cameron with the APC's? Prometheus descending like the Drop Ship, and disgorging all the paramilitary hardware from it's belly hold, like Cameron's Drop Ship? Why does a science vessel have military trucks instead of moon buggies? Stuff that looks like a Mars Rover?
Then there's the Queen mural . . .
It looks to me like Ridley has wholeheartedly embraced Aliens. I see no reason to think he's going to wipe it from canon.
About the 24 hour life cycle, it does fit better with the initial idea of the Alien as a biological weapon, but altogether neither of these ideas are well developed. If you unleash the Alien on a planet, and it kills everyone and then all the Aliens die - you've got a planet with millions or hundreds of millions of eggs waiting for you to move in. The 24 hour life cycle doesn't help you if the egg doesn't die too. Apparently they last forever.
Prometheus looks to be setting up the Alien as a botched experiment, which may be the way this all makes sense. The egg morphing and the Queen can coexist because the life cycle was never finalized. The Scout may be production ready, with 24 hour life cycle, but they hadn't worked on the termination mechanism for the other Alien types yet.
QuoteAm I the only one seeing the nod to Cameron with the APC's? Prometheus descending like the Drop Ship, and disgorging all the paramilitary hardware from it's belly hold, like Cameron's Drop Ship? Why does a science vessel have military trucks instead of moon buggies? Stuff that looks like a Mars Rover?
Not as such. I'm seeing a lot of stuff born out of Ron Cobb's concept art for Alien though.
I like the Queen idea but i also think the egg-morphing is a awesome idea. When the Xeno don't have any eggs or a Queen around he can grow his own friend ;D
You're talking about the 24 hour (so to say) idea, but it can't be canon if you consider
Aliens, so...
QuoteI like the Queen idea but i also think the egg-morphing is a awesome idea. When the Xeno don't have any eggs or a Queen around he can grow his own friend
I've always thought that both could work together. The Queen would be the normal way of doing eggs, and the egg-morphing, the "emergency way". An alien that would not sense a queen in the vicinity could resort to this possibility in order to perpetuate its kind, but it would not be a normal process and it would require, I don't know, extra "power". I like this idea better than the transformation of the usual drone into a queen (it's easier, and maybe too easy).
The problem, if the Queen is the only one able to produce eggs, is that it lessens a bit the destructive significance of the xenomorph. If we have only in mind the first movie, one xenomorph alone is able to wreak havoc, which means one egg can be used discreetly so as to produce massive damages in good conditions. It's a bit harder when we take the Queen as sole progenitor. By the way, if the SJ are the creators and used them as weapons, they launched hundreds or thousands of eggs on a target, but I think of more localized targets and "infiltrations", of the kind that the Company or the military from AVP R could have done with xenomorphs.
Quote from: SM on Mar 27, 2012, 10:13:00 PM
Quote from: RoaryUK on Mar 27, 2012, 12:05:58 PM
Quote from: SM on Mar 27, 2012, 06:11:09 AM
Not asking you to.
I meant 'if you don't conisder egg morphing canon'.
Let's get something straight here, I NEVER once said Egg Morphing isn't canon, of course it is, I said in my opinion it wasn't happening to Dallas and THAT'S ALL. I even offer proof in an earlier statement as to why this might happen. As far as I'm concerned the Queen and Egg Morphing are as much a part of the aliens life cycle as the unexplained Queen that appears inside Ripley in Alien3. As for your arguement on the Aliens supposed 24 hour life cycle where the creature would simply die, I'm well aware this was Scott's original intention but there is no evidence to support it would happen, the sequels clearly suggest otherwise and THAT'S the part where I don't agree and therefore to me it isn't canon, ok!
http://cdn.smosh.com/sites/default/files/bloguploads/u-mad-1.jpg
lol... ^^now then, this guy defnately reminds me of somebody^^ :-\
No way they live only for 24 hours, or when the Marines arrived at Lv-426 would of just found a dead alien hive, plus they cant make hives in 24 hours...think people!! think !!! 8)
Quote from: B1-66ER on Mar 27, 2012, 07:38:33 PM
Yeah right ok, but you're wrong. Kids get written into the script in order to deal with themes that kids can relate to. Like the dialogue between Ripley and Newt when Newt says, "Mommy always said Monsters aren't real but they are." That line rips down into the psyche of a child and speaks to their imagination on its own level. Don't try to tell me that's just arbitrary dialogue when it is clearly aimed at the children Cameron is assuming he has enveloped in the world of "Alien". Oh and George Lucas wishes his star wars prequels were aimed at children, more like they're aimed at his wallet.
I'm not wrong. Most films that young boys (example) watch do not feature young boys in them. NEWT was not in ALIENS For KIDS. She was there for Ripley. She was part of Ripley's story arc. That whole maternal thing? Yes, Newt was a character of her own. She had a family that she lost, she was messed up mentally from the entire thing, but she was there entirely for Ripley to find a the strength to face her OWN nightmare. The line at the end of the movie? "Can I dream?" "Yes honey, I think we both can." Their arcs were connected, but Newt was never put there for kids. Newt's characterization in that scene IS for Ripley's sake. It's there so Ripley can step up and play parent to Newt. Cameron was setting up for future story lines where it would be Hicks, Newt, and Ripley. That never happened, but in any event it wasn't for kids that Newt existed at all. It was for Ripley.
Quote from: OpenMaw on Mar 28, 2012, 07:53:48 PM
Quote from: B1-66ER on Mar 27, 2012, 07:38:33 PM
Yeah right ok, but you're wrong. Kids get written into the script in order to deal with themes that kids can relate to. Like the dialogue between Ripley and Newt when Newt says, "Mommy always said Monsters aren't real but they are." That line rips down into the psyche of a child and speaks to their imagination on its own level. Don't try to tell me that's just arbitrary dialogue when it is clearly aimed at the children Cameron is assuming he has enveloped in the world of "Alien". Oh and George Lucas wishes his star wars prequels were aimed at children, more like they're aimed at his wallet.
I'm not wrong. Most films that young boys (example) watch do not feature young boys in them. NEWT was not in ALIENS For KIDS. She was there for Ripley. She was part of Ripley's story arc. That whole maternal thing? Yes, Newt was a character of her own. She had a family that she lost, she was messed up mentally from the entire thing, but she was there entirely for Ripley to find a the strength to face her OWN nightmare. The line at the end of the movie? "Can I dream?" "Yes honey, I think we both can." Their arcs were connected, but Newt was never put there for kids. Newt's characterization in that scene IS for Ripley's sake. It's there so Ripley can step up and play parent to Newt. Cameron was setting up for future story lines where it would be Hicks, Newt, and Ripley. That never happened, but in any event it wasn't for kids that Newt existed at all. It was for Ripley.
^agreed^
on the lucas issue....
sooooo happy that my 2year old son gets to grow up in a world that has all 6 starwars movies and an awesome cartoon series all being part of the same thing.......:) because thats how i see them.....i love all 6 starwars movies....yes .....allll 6 of them :)
Quote from: OpenMaw on Mar 28, 2012, 07:53:48 PM
Quote from: B1-66ER on Mar 27, 2012, 07:38:33 PM
Yeah right ok, but you're wrong. Kids get written into the script in order to deal with themes that kids can relate to. Like the dialogue between Ripley and Newt when Newt says, "Mommy always said Monsters aren't real but they are." That line rips down into the psyche of a child and speaks to their imagination on its own level. Don't try to tell me that's just arbitrary dialogue when it is clearly aimed at the children Cameron is assuming he has enveloped in the world of "Alien". Oh and George Lucas wishes his star wars prequels were aimed at children, more like they're aimed at his wallet.
I'm not wrong. Most films that young boys (example) watch do not feature young boys in them. NEWT was not in ALIENS For KIDS. She was there for Ripley. She was part of Ripley's story arc. That whole maternal thing? Yes, Newt was a character of her own. She had a family that she lost, she was messed up mentally from the entire thing, but she was there entirely for Ripley to find a the strength to face her OWN nightmare. The line at the end of the movie? "Can I dream?" "Yes honey, I think we both can." Their arcs were connected, but Newt was never put there for kids. Newt's characterization in that scene IS for Ripley's sake. It's there so Ripley can step up and play parent to Newt. Cameron was setting up for future story lines where it would be Hicks, Newt, and Ripley. That never happened, but in any event it wasn't for kids that Newt existed at all. It was for Ripley.
I'm not sure what all Cameron intended, but when I watched Aliens as a child (lol) I definitely related to Newt in the story. Obviously Aliens isn't a kids movie... Also the maternal under currents with the queen, ripley and newt, etc.
Newt added depth to the story in a good way, but probably not intended to attract more children to the audience.
It was an R rated movie written for young adults. It was most definitively not for kids.
Yeah, a violent movie, with big black monsters and big gnashy teeth and spidery things is for kids... ::)
Quote from: AsapJockey on Mar 28, 2012, 07:48:00 PM
No way they live only for 24 hours, or when the Marines arrived at Lv-426 would of just found a dead alien hive, plus they cant make hives in 24 hours...think people!! think !!! 8)
...
We know...
read people!! read !!!
I don't like the idea of them only having a 24 hour life span, but maybe it could work. Perhaps the aliens go into stasis, effectively surviving for longer periods. When they become active again, they die off. Also the aliens could build the hive over several generations. I'm probably stretching this too far, who knows. Newt survived for more than one day on her own I think and the aliens didn't die off then.
The creatures in Aliens and Alien3 were older than 24 hours.
Leaked Prometheus "Space Jockey" concept art!!!!!!!!!!!
Spoiler
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FMDaUS.png&hash=d5af401637181b79d476d74154688f28bd8a5d37)
Quote from: Xenomrph on Mar 28, 2012, 10:50:13 PM
Leaked Prometheus "Space Jockey" concept art!!!!!!!!!!!
Spoiler
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FMDaUS.png&hash=d5af401637181b79d476d74154688f28bd8a5d37)
From what I've seen so far, I'm truly ready to believe.... :)
is that not a egg sat in front of dallas or is that his knees? looks to me to be an open egg.
Quote from: OpenMaw on Mar 28, 2012, 07:53:48 PM
Quote from: B1-66ER on Mar 27, 2012, 07:38:33 PM
Yeah right ok, but you're wrong. Kids get written into the script in order to deal with themes that kids can relate to. Like the dialogue between Ripley and Newt when Newt says, "Mommy always said Monsters aren't real but they are." That line rips down into the psyche of a child and speaks to their imagination on its own level. Don't try to tell me that's just arbitrary dialogue when it is clearly aimed at the children Cameron is assuming he has enveloped in the world of "Alien". Oh and George Lucas wishes his star wars prequels were aimed at children, more like they're aimed at his wallet.
I'm not wrong. Most films that young boys (example) watch do not feature young boys in them. NEWT was not in ALIENS For KIDS. She was there for Ripley. She was part of Ripley's story arc. That whole maternal thing? Yes, Newt was a character of her own. She had a family that she lost, she was messed up mentally from the entire thing, but she was there entirely for Ripley to find a the strength to face her OWN nightmare. The line at the end of the movie? "Can I dream?" "Yes honey, I think we both can." Their arcs were connected, but Newt was never put there for kids. Newt's characterization in that scene IS for Ripley's sake. It's there so Ripley can step up and play parent to Newt. Cameron was setting up for future story lines where it would be Hicks, Newt, and Ripley. That never happened, but in any event it wasn't for kids that Newt existed at all. It was for Ripley.
Yeah you are wrong or perhaps just a bit naive. You don't think that Cameron, in all his training as a screenwriter/filmmaker hasn't figured out that by introducing certain themes into his storys, (in this case the theme of a mother-child relationship), he can make them more viable to a wider audience (and as result make more money)? You really think an "R" rating stops kids from seeing movies, no, if accompanied by a parent-guardian a kid can see any R rated movie they want and after the VHS release even more so (and I had plenty of friends as a kid whose parents took them to R rated movies it was the 80s after all). You think the R rated Terminator 2 wasn't aimed at kids? HA! they had a T2 magic eye book in the grocery store when I was a kid (while it was in theatres) where you get the Red Lensed glasses and have to buy the stickers so you can see the pictures without the glasses. Yeah defenitely not aimed at kids...
A studio licencsing arm aiming merch at kids inappropriately does not automatically equate to a movie being aimed at kids.
Quote from: SM on Apr 04, 2012, 02:55:46 AM
A studio licencsing arm aiming merch at kids inappropriately does not automatically equate to a movie being aimed at kids.
Your operative word being "inappropriately". People did not always take as much stock in ratings as they do now. The rating system was a relatively new idea back when Aliens came out and defenitely did not affect the decision making process of the execs as much as it does now. The scariness of something is irrelevant, if it can be sold to kids it shall. And the merchandising may not automatically equate to the aim but its a pretty good indicator.
Alien wasn't aimed at kids in any sense - yet they produced toys aimed at children.
Wasn't any fault of the people making the film.
Quote from: B1-66ER on Apr 04, 2012, 02:59:22 AM
Quote from: SM on Apr 04, 2012, 02:55:46 AM
A studio licencsing arm aiming merch at kids inappropriately does not automatically equate to a movie being aimed at kids.
Your operative word being "inappropriately". People did not always take as much stock in ratings as they do now. The rating system was a relatively new idea back when Aliens came out and defenitely did not affect the decision making process of the execs as much as it does now. The scariness of something is irrelevant, if it can be sold to kids it shall. And the merchandising may not automatically equate to the aim but its a pretty good indicator.
All this noise and chaff aside. Your initial point is still wrong.
Newt, and most child characters in films for older audiences, are not there
for kids. Not in movies like Aliens. They're there to give the main characters something to react to.
Doctor. Grant in Jurassic Park didn't like kids. The kids in JP were there to help him learn to get over that and adapt, by the end of it, he has learned something because of the kids. They were not there for the children to relate to. They were there for Sam Neil's character to grow.
The same for Aliens. Newt was there for Ripley's sake. Newt was there to help Ripley come to terms with her nightmares, and to give her a purpose to keep on fighting.
Quote from: OpenMaw on Apr 04, 2012, 03:05:38 AM
Quote from: B1-66ER on Apr 04, 2012, 02:59:22 AM
Quote from: SM on Apr 04, 2012, 02:55:46 AM
A studio licencsing arm aiming merch at kids inappropriately does not automatically equate to a movie being aimed at kids.
Your operative word being "inappropriately". People did not always take as much stock in ratings as they do now. The rating system was a relatively new idea back when Aliens came out and defenitely did not affect the decision making process of the execs as much as it does now. The scariness of something is irrelevant, if it can be sold to kids it shall. And the merchandising may not automatically equate to the aim but its a pretty good indicator.
All this noise and chaff aside. Your initial point is still wrong.
Newt, and most child characters in films for older audiences, are not there for kids. Not in movies like Aliens. They're there to give the main characters something to react to.
Doctor. Grant in Jurassic Park didn't like kids. The kids in JP were there to help him learn to get over that and adapt, by the end of it, he has learned something because of the kids. They were not there for the children to relate to. They were there for Sam Neil's character to grow.
The same for Aliens. Newt was there for Ripley's sake. Newt was there to help Ripley come to terms with her nightmares, and to give her a purpose to keep on fighting.
Your point of view is extremely Adult-centric whereas James Cameron's is not. If characters exist for the sole purpose of providing reactions for the "main" character they become extremely 2-D (just like the soldiers except hicks). What you don't seem to understand is that Aliens is about Ripley, Hicks,
and Newt as 3-D explored and developed characters. Apparently though, the writers of Alien 3 thought as you do and killed them off but that's another thread.
QuoteWhat you don't seem to understand is that Aliens is about Ripley, Hicks, and Newt as 3-D explored and developed characters.
No, it's about Ripley.
Hicks and Newt are there to mold Ripley - to cure her of her nightmares - not develop in and of themselves.
Quote from: SM on Apr 04, 2012, 03:16:28 AM
QuoteWhat you don't seem to understand is that Aliens is about Ripley, Hicks, and Newt as 3-D explored and developed characters.
No, it's about Ripley.
Hicks and Newt are there to mold Ripley - to cure her of her nightmares - not develop in and of themselves.
Oh? Then why was James Cameron so offended when he saw Alien 3. Obviously they were important enough to him to develop an attachment and no doubt he wanted to convey that same attachment to the audience. That's what main characters are for after all, to get you attached to something you can identify with within the film. So that, you may not be watching the movie to see Newt, you're more interested in Ripley Hicks (or maybe even Hudson) and the aliens, just like Newt, but you're watching the movie through Newt's eyes, from her point of view as a child because you are a child.
QuoteThen why was James Cameron so offended when he saw Alien 3.
Cambo building up this family unit to surround Ripley is irrelevant. Hicks and Newt exist solely to turn Ripley into the warrior/ mother. Well liked? Certanly. But they have no development as such. Same as any other female that Cameron writes ('cept blue thundercat girl). They need someone else - a man 99% of the time - in order for them to reach their true potential, and seem incapable of doing it on thier own. Cameron thought Ripley's place was being part of a family. Weaver and others thought otherwise.
"Hicks and Newt exist solely to turn Ripley into the warrior." Yeah but the fact that she needs someone to Love to turn into that automatically makes those characters equally important. Thats how Love works my man its never about "I" its about "Us". A family is defined by the equal worth of all of its members in relation to each other, with no one being more important to the other, if Cameron had denied this when writing it as you are saying he did, it wouldn't have resonated so well with the audience. Which brings me back to my original point, which is that he made Aliens for kids, not just kids, both kids, moms, and dads, but that still includes kids.
And your point is still rubbish. He wrote a movie to scare people. You don't make a movie for kids that ends up with an R rating.
QuoteThats how Love works my man its never about "I" its about "Us". A family is defined by the equal worth of all of its members in relation to each other, with no one being more important to the other, if Cameron had denied this when writing it as you are saying he did, it wouldn't have resonated so well with the audience.
:laugh:
When did I say that?
Ripley is the central character no matter what sort of definition you want to apply to it. Hicks and Newt are not developed characters. If Cameron had any desire to do Alien3 he no doubt would've pursued what he set up in Aliens. But he didn't.
"He wrote a movie to scare people."
Cameron has never written a movie to scare people. He writes movies about Love straight up with everything else being backdrop.
"When did I say that?"
You are implying it by declaring Ripley as the soul (mispelling intended) focus.
"Hicks and Newt are not developed characters."
Hicks is less developed than Newt, though you see Cameron wanting to develop him more in the special edition after he cuts the horribly sappy dialogue between Hicks and Ripley before she goes out to rescue Newt but this is unnecessary because Hicks is not the catalyst. Newt is the most developed character second to Ripley because she is the catalyst for Ripley facing her fear which sets the stage for the message of the movie which is, the most powerful weapon against your ultimate nightmare is Love (not guns, bravado, etc). And that's a message aimed at everyone kids included.
QuoteYou are implying it by declaring Ripley as the soul (mispelling intended) focus.
She is.
QuoteCameron has never written a movie to scare people. He writes movies about Love straight up with everything else being backdrop.
You're just trolling now.
"She is"
Yeah, that's why I said what I did.
"You're just trolling now."
What a cop out.
Quote from: B1-66ER on Apr 04, 2012, 02:42:43 AM
You really think an "R" rating stops kids from seeing movies, no, if accompanied by a parent-guardian a kid can see any R rated movie they want
R rating = US. Not the worldwide audience. Although admittedly I did manage to get in to see A L I E N aged 14, but it was an 18 cert in the UK ( X cert at the time ).
Quote from: SM on Apr 04, 2012, 03:16:28 AM
QuoteWhat you don't seem to understand is that Aliens is about Ripley, Hicks, and Newt as 3-D explored and developed characters.
No, it's about Ripley.
Hicks and Newt are there to mold Ripley - to cure her of her nightmares - not develop in and of themselves.
Couldn't agree more....
Quote from: B1-66ER on Apr 04, 2012, 02:59:22 AM
Quote from: SM on Apr 04, 2012, 02:55:46 AM
A studio licencsing arm aiming merch at kids inappropriately does not automatically equate to a movie being aimed at kids.
Your operative word being "inappropriately". People did not always take as much stock in ratings as they do now. The rating system was a relatively new idea back when Aliens came out and defenitely did not affect the decision making process of the execs as much as it does now. The scariness of something is irrelevant, if it can be sold to kids it shall. And the merchandising may not automatically equate to the aim but its a pretty good indicator.
Just to clarify something here.... are you talking about the UK rating system? Because if you are, the current system has been around since the 1950's, seeing only minor changes since it's inception in 1912 by the BBFC to bring our system up to date with other Europen countries. The only significant change was in 1951 when the
H certificate, the strictest at that time for over 16's, changed to certificate
X mainly through films like A Clockwork Orange and the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre, deemed as veiwable for over 18's only. The ratings for films like Alien (1979) and Aliens (1986) hasn't really changed at all, it was just updated,
X being changed to
18 in 1982 in line with other european countries, but it still meant the same thing.
The X certificate became quite a selling point in the UK, 1950s sci-fi horror films like 'The Quatermass Xperiment' (Hammer's earliest genre flick), and 'X - the Unknown' being titled to take full advantage of it's provocative implications.
Quote from: Gash on Apr 04, 2012, 11:14:04 PM
The X certificate became quite a selling point in the UK, 1950s sci-fi horror films like 'The Quatermass Xperiment' (Hammer's earliest genre flick), and 'X - the Unknown' being titled to take full advantage of it's provocative implications.
Yes indeed, I should have mentioned that. Obviously A Clockwork Orange and Texas Chainsaw Massacre came along a bit later, but certainly a few earlier Hammer Production's Films were largely responsibly for the change.
Also, do you remember the double X certificate? It mainly applied to porn films shown regularly at the cinema in those days, but if I remember right Caligular (Malcolm McDowell) was the first more mainstream film to get that certificate. Still banned in the UK I think, but easy enough to get hold of now lol
i see no orrery in there.... :-[
I can still clearly remember my father getting me into the theater back in 1979 when I was only 10 years old to see the original (and best!). It scared the shit outa me then and still does today but at the same time left me with so many questions. Regardless, I became a lifelong fan 33 years ago and absolutely cant wait for Prometheus. That said, I've always thought that the mark of a good movie is one that leaves you wondering long after you see the movie. Maybe some things shouldn't be answered!