Is Weyland Corporation Portrayed as Evil?

Started by Xenomorphine, Aug 18, 2015, 07:54:27 PM

Author
Is Weyland Corporation Portrayed as Evil? (Read 4,900 times)

Xenomorphine

Xenomorphine

Quote from: RakaiThwei on Aug 18, 2015, 02:13:58 AM
Wait... what?

First it's a retcon, then it's not a retcon, then it's a retcon again, now it's not a retcon again? The hell is going on?

Read the article this thread links to:

Quote...not sure if Biehn's assertions about it ignoring 3 & 4 are accurate. It's basically far too early to tell on that front right now.

Quote from: The Eighth Passenger on Aug 18, 2015, 01:26:09 PM
The "big bad company" is also a recurring motif in all three of Blomkamp's films. In District 9 we had the MNU, in Elysium it was Armadyne and in Chappie it was Tetravaal. All three of those companies were involved in weapons manufacturing and research and they all had an individual or individuals with questionable morals just like Weyland Yutani.

Part of what I liked about 'Chappie' was that it didn't go down that road. Weaver's character was in charge of the company and simply came across as pragmatic. It was a rogue employee within the company who was the villainous element, not the company, itself. I would like to think that's where we'd be with this.

That's how the first of the AVP films represented Weyland. Much less predictable than the 'Prometheus' interpretation of the company just being evil for the heck of it.

Burke was a good representation of that: Vested self-interest. It plays well into the proverb about roads to hell being paved with good intentions.

Alien³

Quote from: Xenomorphine on Aug 18, 2015, 07:54:27 PM
That's how the first of the AVP films represented Weyland. Much less predictable than the 'Prometheus' interpretation of the company just being evil for the heck of it.

How exactly did Prometheus show the company as evil? :-\

𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔈𝔦𝔤𝔥𝔱𝔥 𝔓𝔞𝔰𝔰𝔢𝔫𝔤𝔢𝔯

Peter Weyland, the founder and CEO had no qualms about shooting an unarmed and injured woman. His lackeys were also just blindly following his orders, ergo stereotypical evil company.

whiterabbit

Quote from: The Eighth Passenger on Aug 18, 2015, 08:38:03 PM
Peter Weyland, the founder and CEO had no qualms about shooting an unarmed and injured woman. His lackeys were also just blindly following his orders, ergo stereotypical evil company.
No offense but if I was just awakened with 2 days of life remaining and just spent a trillion dollars to talk to an alien I'd probably shoot the bitch myself for interrupting. Still that is just the CEO, from Vickers earlier speech it sounds like the rest of the board wasn't too keen on Wylands fishing expedition.

On topic I'm glad that Prometheus 2 is likely to happen first. I seriously want to see that sequel a lot more than alien 5. Also as others have already said, the extra time is a good thing. It does allow more time to write a coherent script that is not similar to that ACM video game... or to any of Bloomkamps other movies. Truthfully none of his movies have any staying power; translate that into rewatchability.

Alien³

Quote from: The Eighth Passenger on Aug 18, 2015, 08:38:03 PM
Peter Weyland, the founder and CEO had no qualms about shooting an unarmed and injured woman. His lackeys were also just blindly following his orders, ergo stereotypical evil company.

Still, not the entire company. Just the CEO and a couple of loyal men willing to go on a 4 year mission with him.

Mr. Clemens

Seriously, they've gotta drop this 'evil company' motif. It resonated beautifully in the yuppie-era 80's, but at this point it's just so tired, and so expected.

NickisSmart

Company's been evil since the 70s. Though Dan O'Bannon referred to Ash's character as the Russian Spy so there was a Cold War motif in the first Alien, from his point of view (he didn't approve of the idea of Ash, even though he thought Ian Holm killed it in the role). The yuppie 80s thing was more Paul Riser's character from Aliens.

I didn't see the company as strictly evil in Alien, though, now that I think about it. Ash was crazy enough but the company itself seemed indifferent. Things are rough for its employees, for sure, but it's not literally standing over them with a whip, either. More often than not, the employees do more harm to themselves once the Alien is lose than the company does. 

But I tend to categorize evil as "direct, sadistic or cruel, voluntary action." This seems apropos for the Alien, but according to Ash, it is unclouded by "delusions of morality." It's just a killing machine. If the alien really is just a weapon, then it is neither good nor evil. I saw a horror film called The Guest where the character was programmed to be the perfect soldier. Once his directives crossed over into "kill territory" he couldn't stop himself. There was no choice involved. Neither was the Alien really choosing to do what it did.

The company probably had a choice, but there's such a huge disconnect. It isn't really one person, and the choices made by whatever committee dictated Ash's special order probably had never met Dallas or his crew. And they were all contracted, so who knows where they all came from before the Company picked them up. To the Company, Dallas and the other crew members of the Nostromo were just, as Dillan told Dutch, "expendable assets." Does that make the Company evil? How can it strictly be evil if the people it's harming it never sees?

Mr. Clemens

Quote from: NickisSmart on Aug 18, 2015, 10:23:40 PM
Company's been evil since the 70s. Though Dan O'Bannon referred to Ash's character as the Russian Spy so there was a Cold War motif in the first Alien, from his point of view (he didn't approve of the idea of Ash, even though he thought Ian Holm killed it in the role). The yuppie 80s thing was more Paul Riser's character from Aliens.

I didn't see the company as strictly evil in Alien, though, now that I think about it. Ash was crazy enough but the company itself seemed indifferent. Things are rough for its employees, for sure, but it's not literally standing over them with a whip, either. More often than not, the employees do more harm to themselves once the Alien is lose than the company does. 

But I tend to categorize evil as "direct, sadistic or cruel, voluntary action." This seems apropos for the Alien, but according to Ash, it is unclouded by "delusions of morality." It's just a killing machine. If the alien really is just a weapon, then it is neither good nor evil. I saw a horror film called The Guest where the character was programmed to be the perfect soldier. Once his directives crossed over into "kill territory" he couldn't stop himself. There was no choice involved. Neither was the Alien really choosing to do what it did.

The company probably had a choice, but there's such a huge disconnect. It isn't really one person, and the choices made by whatever committee dictated Ash's special order probably had never met Dallas or his crew. And they were all contracted, so who knows where they all came from before the Company picked them up. To the Company, Dallas and the other crew members of the Nostromo were just, as Dillan told Dutch, "expendable assets." Does that make the Company evil? How can it strictly be evil if the people it's harming it never sees?

I think you're agreeing with me here, though it doesn't sound like that's your intent. In Alien, the company (or whoever within the company put SO 937 into motion) wasn't evil - just callous and opportunistic. "Hmm, there might be something of interest over there, let's send these chumps out that way and see if they come up with something."

It was only in Aliens that corporate 'evil' took centre stage, and at the time, we all applauded it. These were the days when anyone with a mobile phone was a yuppie douchebag, and we all rejoiced when Burke got his comeuppance. But by the 3rd and 4th films, WY and USM were little more than moustache-twirling villains, and of course we've seen it repeated again and again in other sci-fi/action films.

It's getting as tired as 'one of us is secretly a robot!' in my opinion, and it's got to go. Get back to the creature!  ;D

NickisSmart

@Clemens: Just playing with ideas. I don't think anyone is right when it comes to interpretation. : )

One reason why I liked Prometheus, was because David was blatantly an android. There was no secrecy behind it. Though I guess the idea was that there was a second android was Ridley Scott jokingly saying that there might be two. But Prometheus was so truncated that I just didn't see it really suggested much in the film. As for the evil company. Well, again, the film had a lot of ideas that weren't fully developed and the evil company motif wasn't very developed in the film.

𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔈𝔦𝔤𝔥𝔱𝔥 𝔓𝔞𝔰𝔰𝔢𝔫𝔤𝔢𝔯

Quote from: Alien³ on Aug 18, 2015, 09:56:33 PM
Quote from: The Eighth Passenger on Aug 18, 2015, 08:38:03 PM
Peter Weyland, the founder and CEO had no qualms about shooting an unarmed and injured woman. His lackeys were also just blindly following his orders, ergo stereotypical evil company.

Still, not the entire company. Just the CEO and a couple of loyal men willing to go on a 4 year mission with him.

The CEO is the face of the company though. When the president of the United States says or does something it is seen as representative of the entire nation. Not everyone might agree with him but people will still tend to judge the nation based on his actions and words.

The rest of the company seen in Prometheus wasn't really nice people (or robots) either.

Vickers (a senior company executive) torched a man alive who may or may not have had an infectious disease when he could have been safely quarantined aboard the lifeboat. While David, the company's butler was happily using the hired help as guinea pigs.

Quote from: tmjhur on Aug 19, 2015, 12:32:38 PM
http://i60.tinypic.com/nbsowy.png

Interesting... so BD was talking bollocks?

HuDaFuK

Quote from: The Eighth Passenger on Aug 19, 2015, 12:35:57 PMVickers (a senior company executive) torched a man alive who may or may not have had an infectious disease when he could have been safely quarantined aboard the lifeboat.

Vickers pleaded with him to stop. You make it sound like she just opened up the first chance she got like a heartless bitch. She's clearly pretty traumatised by what happens in the film (although admittedly Scoot decided to cut the great scene that really showed this).

𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔈𝔦𝔤𝔥𝔱𝔥 𝔓𝔞𝔰𝔰𝔢𝔫𝔤𝔢𝔯

Quote from: HuDaFuK on Aug 19, 2015, 12:40:20 PM
Quote from: The Eighth Passenger on Aug 19, 2015, 12:35:57 PMVickers (a senior company executive) torched a man alive who may or may not have had an infectious disease when he could have been safely quarantined aboard the lifeboat.

Vickers pleaded with him to stop. You make it sound like she just opened up the first chance she got like a heartless bitch. She's clearly pretty traumatised by what happens in the film (although admittedly Scoot decided to cut the great scene that really showed this).

Holloway wasn't a threat. He didn't attack Vickers and both were safely sealed inside their suits with no risk of cross infection.

Quote from: HuDaFuK on Aug 19, 2015, 12:40:20 PMScoot
:laugh:

HuDaFuK

HuDaFuK

#12
Quote from: The Eighth Passenger on Aug 19, 2015, 01:00:46 PMHolloway wasn't a threat. He didn't attack Vickers and both were safely sealed inside their suits with no risk of cross infection.

How do they know he wasn't a threat? They have literally no clue what he's been infected with, only that it's likely some pretty horrendous alien virus or agent. Given what happened to Fifield later, Christ only knows what Holloway could've done, but even without that hindsight it's not unreasonable to think they wouldn't risk taking the chance.

But regardless, the implication of the scene is quite obviously that Holloway forced her into it. Your reading that it makes her seem "evil" is just way off the charts, I've no idea where you got that from.

Quote from: The Eighth Passenger on Aug 19, 2015, 01:00:46 PMScoot

:laugh:

Whoops...

𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔈𝔦𝔤𝔥𝔱𝔥 𝔓𝔞𝔰𝔰𝔢𝔫𝔤𝔢𝔯

Quote from: HuDaFuK on Aug 19, 2015, 01:05:14 PM
Quote from: The Eighth Passenger on Aug 19, 2015, 01:00:46 PMHolloway wasn't a threat. He didn't attack Vickers and both were safely sealed inside their suits with no risk of cross infection.

How do they know he wasn't a threat? They have literally no clue what he's been infected with, only that it's likely some pretty horrendous alien virus or agent. Given what happened to Fifield later, Christ only knows what Holloway could've done, but even without that hindsight it's not unreasonable to think they wouldn't risk taking the chance.

But regardless, the implication of the scene is quite obviously that Holloway forced her into it. Your reading that it makes her seem "evil" is just way off the charts, I've no idea where you got that from.

No-one knew if he was dangerous but the rest of the crew wanted to help Holloway. Vickers wanted him left outside without any hope of medical attention.

Granted, Ripley was in the same position in Alien and her actions while certainly cold were not necessarily evil.

HuDaFuK

Quote from: The Eighth Passenger on Aug 19, 2015, 01:17:09 PMGranted, Ripley was in the same position in Alien and her actions while certainly cold were not necessarily evil.

Exactly. So why does the exact same scenario automatically make Vickers evil?

AvPGalaxy: About | Contact | Cookie Policy | Manage Cookie Settings | Privacy Policy | Legal Info
Facebook Twitter Instagram YouTube Patreon RSS Feed
Contact: General Queries | Submit News