Ripley + Facehugger in Alien Resurrection

[Scorpio]

So who is making stuff up?

Considering you're equating Paris destroyed = world is an abandoned wasteland.

I do not equate it that way, and never have.

The film tells us it's neither abandoned nor a wasteland.

It can be inhabited and abandoned at the same time.  Homeless people often occupy abandoned buildings, yet they are still 'abandoned'.

[SM]

It makes sense for USM to use Earth as a homebase as it is an abandoned wasteland just like how many military bases are in the desert.  Paris has been inhabited since 3rd Century BC, which is over 2000 years (Alien Resurrection is set in the 24th century, over 300 years from now), so there would have to be a major global catastrophe for Paris to become a ruined city.

[Scorpio]

I'm going by what's on screen.  This is movies, not real life.  You claim bizarrely that it isn't because it looks "green from space".

[SiL]

So you did claim it was a wasteland from the fact Paris is wrecked.

Considering they still give half a shit if the Aliens get there or not, it's clearly not abandoned.

[SM]

I'm going by what's on screen.  This is movies, not real life.  You claim bizarrely that it isn't because it looks "green from space".

So you can go by the movies (and not the actual official version), but if I go by the movies it's a 'bizarre claim'...?

Because of course 'Paris is trashed; must mean the whole world is too' is not at all a bizarre claim.

[Scorpio]

Pretend you are a director for a second and you only had one shot to depict future Earth.  Why would you choose to show ruins if you wanted to convey that Earth wasn't a wasteland?

It goes with Johner's comments earlier as well.

Why they didn't want aliens go there?  Many reasons.  There's still people there, the aliens would get out of control, etc.

[SiL]

There's still people there, the aliens would get out of control, etc.

If the former, then it's not abandoned; if the latter, who cares if they're contained on a place nobody seems to care about?

[SM]

Pretend you are a director for a second and you only had one shot to depict future Earth.  Why would you choose to show ruins if you wanted to convey that Earth wasn't a wasteland?

The director cut that scene.

[SiL]

And didn't write it ...

[Scorpio]

There's still people there, the aliens would get out of control, etc.

If the former, then it's not abandoned; if the latter, who cares if they're contained on a place nobody seems to care about?

Call the android does, and that's the only character that matters in this instance.

Pretend you are a director for a second and you only had one shot to depict future Earth.  Why would you choose to show ruins if you wanted to convey that Earth wasn't a wasteland?

The director cut that scene.

And put it in the extended cut. 

What's your point?

[SM]

No, he didn't.  He explicitly introduced the special edition of Resurrection as NOT a directors cut.

My point is you're talking rubbish.

[Scorpio]

It's not a director's cut because the theatrical is his preferred version, but he also said something like we put together this special edition to show the fans what we tried to make.

Either way, he was involved with the special edition cut.

Also, the comic Alien Vs Predator Vs Terminator was set post-Resurrection, and featured a post-apocalyptic Earth.

[SM]

The theatrical version - the one he was perfectly happy with and thus saying the special edition is not a directors cut - is what he tried to make.

[BigDaddyJohn]

I'm from Paris, and trust me, if the eiffel tower looked like that, that would probably mean some MAJOR shit happened, something in the level of a war

[SM]

Maybe it did.  Cities get trashed in wars all the time.  Doesn't mean whole planet has become and abandoned wasteland because of some global catastrophe.