Latest News

Jon Spaihts Talks Prometheus Draft

Empire Magazine has recently interviewed Prometheus writer Jon Spaihts about his involvement with film, a possible trilogy and the unused ideas that were included in his early drafts.  You can read the whole thing here.

“We tried different paths in that way. We imagined that there might be eight different variations on the xenomorphs – eight different kinds of Alien eggs you might stumble across, eight kinds of slightly different xenomorph creatures that could hatch from them. And maybe even a rapid process of evolution, still ongoing, in these Alien laboratories where these xenomorphs were developed. So Ridley and I were looking for ways to make the xenomorphs new.”

In case you missed it, you can find our preview of Jon Spaihts’ audio commentary for the film here. Thanks to Virgil for the link.



Post Comment
Comments: 91
« Newer Comments 12 Older Comments »
  1. fiveways
    Lord I hate the sex scene chest burster.  Stupidest, most cliched thing to come out of any of the ideas tossed around. So very very bad.  It's just so obvious for an alien film.

  2. Blacklabel
    Someone asked about the Engineer's mythology the other day. There's more on the Blu-ray in case you haven't watched it yet. Some type of "ascension" is mentioned there too which reminded me a lot of the Ancients in Stargate.

    https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi50.tinypic.com%2F5oy0kk.jpg&hash=c31074c70f27bb1233f952652b34d1c7

    Jon Spaihts dvd commentary clarifies a bit about that. He mentions playing with the notion that they see in a "clearer  spectrum" of light. Hence why their buildings and ship decoration have very little "light"
  3. Gazz
    Quote
    You reposting your comments isnt going to magically mean i want to oppose it.

    Your opinion already did oppose mine, whether you wanted it to or not. This being a discussion board I thought we could spark up a debate. Your response of counting minutes, snarkiness and all round pedantry clearly shows you have little desire to. I operated outside of your 'human interaction' rule book and you're clearly uncomfortable with it. That's perfectly fine, but you've really got to stop acting like I shit in your shoes.

    Quote
    You obviously care about mine

    No, I was simply surprised by the radically different response to the scene despite it reading like bond villain fodder.

    You have since proved your opinion simply isn't worth caring about.

    Quote

    Where exactly in this post are you supposed to be surprised?

    It sounds like an early and ridiculous Bond film moment. The type ridiculed by Austin Powers. David monologues away, toying with Shaw whilst cradling a facehugger, then high tails it back to the ship without seeing his dastardly plan through.

    My radically different approach to the scene is an expression of surprise, especially since it's in reference to a quote that stated the scene reads as 'beautiful' and 'moviemaking'. I'm sorry I did not simply write 'I AM SURPRISED' for your benefit.

    Quote
    This reads to me like you are goofing on the scene. You even put this  :P at the end of your post.

    I was goofing the scene, because it read as being goofy.
     
    Quote
    You fail to understand what makes that event happen, you refuse to understand that the FH is chilling BECAUSE there is nothing for it to react to.

    FH's do not 'chill' nor should they. That you even suggest as such is a misunderstanding of what the previous Alien films tell us. Again, I understand why David can handle the creature, I do not like how Spaiht's executes it (in it's current form).

    Quote
    I clearly dont have your strange idea that a wild animal when not sleeping must be flipping out like the Taz The Tasmanian Devil.

    Are you being purposely dense? To quote myself:

    'I made the comparison to a wild and untamed animal/ beast to convey an image of pure ferocity, in contrast to Spaihts evocation of the image of a harmless kitten like facehugger. I wasn't making a general point on the entire animal kingdom.'

    Quote
    The word harmless wasnt used either, yet another of you additions, just the word kitten.

    Kittens are harmless. It's the whole reason why the word 'kitten' is used as opposed to 'uncontrollable beast' or something similar. Spaihts wants us to picture a harmless housepet in our minds when David handles the creature. That's the point of using the word. You could at least try and keep up.

    Quote
    We are talking about the paragraph from the interview

    No, you said 'It's subdued because it does care about Dave. This is one of those words you decided to throw away as chaff.', I'm asking what important word in the sentence 'It's subdued because it does care about Dave' did I omit? You make mention of a single important word but fail to specify which one.
     
    Quote
    Oh good, instead of blaming Spaihts you are finally putting the blame on yourself.

    Whatever gave you that absurd and ridiculous idea. I guess whatever absurdity stops you from constructing a relevant response is an absurdity worth pursuing.

    Quote

    Ummm..... you DO know that you quoted yourself....right?

    A minor glitch in the ongoing quest to clean up the thread.

    Quote
    Remember, people think differently, your view of the scene does not constitute the standard. 

    And I understand that. Shame that you've provided very little in the way of a valid viewpoint since your responses don't much vary beyond 'not everyone thinks like you'.

    Quote
    Im done....

    Considering just how much you've dodged in the way of actually discussing what Spaiht's said, your penchant for misunderstanding the simplest of explanations, scenes and words or simply how you would continually ignore the bulk of a response (as you did the previous post) in favour of pedantry and general ignorance, well, you were done before you even got started.  :-\
  4. BANE
    So the engineers lost interest in having sex... and in having the other sex itself around. Damn. This dudes are hardcore. I guess feminism succeeded a bit too well.
    I'm reminded of Alan Rickman in Dogma.

    Can they at least have sex recreationally? No wonder everything they build is all 'vaginas' and 'penises': they miss f**king. They miss it. They probably set aside a day of the week to have sex, just to get reacquainted with it, if not to familiarize themselves with why they lost interest.

    Besides, how would they reproduce? Do they just split like amoebas? Are we going to see motherf**kers randomly splitting in two in Paradise? 'Oh, Hi, I'm Dr. Shaw, and this...BSSSHHHHHRRRRSSSSHHHHW WOOOOOP!...OK, now there's two David.'
  5. DaddyYautja

    Quote
    So you are telling me i need to know your opinion on something when you decided to ask me to elaborate on my opinion?

    Yes. My desire was to start an conversation (again these usually concern two opposing opinions) and so I provided you with the relevant information. I'm sorry you are unfamiliar with this common method of interaction and I will take the necessary precautions in future.

    That's the key here,bud, i didnt care for your opinion. If i would've i would have replied to it but i didnt.
    You reposting your comments isnt going to magically mean i want to oppose it. And it isnt going to magically going to make me understand you want to me to elaborate on mines

    You obviously care about mine so you should have just asked for it instead of inserting your ideas in the hope that i would react the way you wanted me to. Like you said, nobody reads minds here, i, and im pretty sure most people here, dont start conversations like it's a duel and we must stated our intentions.


    Quote
    I elaborated on an earlier post to clearly express surprise in regards to an opposing opinion, a commonly used attempt to provoke a conversation. If that wasn't clear enough then I really can't help you.

    Where exactly in this post are you supposed to be surprised?

    It sounds like an early and ridiculous Bond film moment. The type ridiculed by Austin Powers. David monologues away, toying with Shaw whilst cradling a facehugger, then high tails it back to the ship without seeing his dastardly plan through.

    This reads to me like you are goofing on the scene. You even put this  :P at the end of your post.

     

    Quote
    But my problem is not with why the scene is happening but the image conveyed to communicate how the scene is happening. Something which you have failed to grasp post after post.  Hence 'chaff'. Anything I omitted could be concluded in the salient quotes I posted.

    You fail to understand what makes that event happen, you refuse to understand that the FH is chilling BECAUSE there is nothing for it to react to. You are having some silly fanboy rage because the word kitten was used. It's silly.


    Quote
    What an absolute clusterf**k of a paragraph. Clearly you have no understanding of the point that was made. I suggest you take a step back and reread a few posts back for a better understanding. I made the comparison to a wild and untamed animal/ beast to convey an image of pure ferocity, in contrast to Spaihts evocation of the image of a harmless kitten like facehugger. I wasn't making a general point on the entire animal kingdom.

    I clearly dont have your strange idea that a wild animal when not sleeping must be flipping out like the Taz The Tasmanian Devil. The word harmless wasnt used either, yet another of you additions, just the word kitten. You think when the word kitten is used that means harmless? Well that's on you.


    Quote
    Which word in the sentence 'It's subdued because it does care about Dave' did I omit as chaff? You say this is one of the words, but bring no attention to a specific word.  ???

    We are talking about the paragraph from the interview, and you decided to ignore and call chaff the words that explain why the FH isnt doing anything. This whole THREAD is about this interview, this silly conversations between us is about that paragraph.... how did you all of a sudden not understand what is being discussed?
     
    Quote
    Again, completely devaluing the ferocity of a creature, relegating it to the role of a droids harmless pet, no longer spurred by it's 'perfect' desire to breed. Again (and again, and again, and again), I understand why, I simply do not not like how.

    Oh good, instead of blaming Spaihts you are finally putting the blame on yourself.

    Quote
    Quote
    But that's not the image Spaiht's sells at all.

    Exactly. That's my point. The image of a wild creature is something Spaiht's could have sold with the same reasoning but instead turns the creature into David's pet. You'll get it eventually.

    Ummm..... you DO know that you quoted yourself....right?
    This is the actual post

    Quote from: me
    Quote from: you
    But that's not the image Spaiht's sells at all. He doesn't say that it's a wild creature in David's hands. He instead says that David can handle it like a kitten (for various reasons) and that he uses it to toy with her before letting it take her.

    That's the image "sold" to me. Remember, people think differently, your view of the scene does not constitute the standard. Specially when you make up things that arent there. 

    Im done....
    Not only do you have some weird rules about asking people how to elaborate on something, but you make up stuff to critique that dont exists (monologing), you use information from a totally different thread like im supposed to know, and now you are quoting yourself and trying to make it seem like it was something i said.

    The goofiness levels have passed my limits.

  6. Gazz
    Quote
    So you are telling me i need to know your opinion on something when you decided to ask me to elaborate on my opinion?

    Yes. My desire was to start an conversation (again these usually concern two opposing opinions) and so I provided you with the relevant information. I'm sorry you are unfamiliar with this common method of interaction and I will take the necessary precautions in future.

    Quote
    Sorry but i do not function like that

    Clearly.

    Quote
    Guess what? I dont read minds either, so when some dude quotes a piece of my comment and replies by rewriting what
    he just wrote recently you know what i think? I think he just rewrote what he just posted recently.

    I elaborated on an earlier post to clearly express surprise in regards to an opposing opinion, a commonly used attempt to provoke a conversation. If that wasn't clear enough then I really can't help you.

    Quote
    That "chaff" is the key to explaining why the scene is happening.

    But my problem is not with why the scene is happening but the image conveyed to communicate how the scene is happening. Something which you have failed to grasp post after post.  Hence 'chaff'. Anything I omitted could be concluded in the salient quotes I posted.

    Quote
    How do yo think wild and untamed animals behave? I believe i did ask you where do you live because you have some strange ideas about how wild things should behave. Apparently where you live wild animals when not sleeping are running around screaming throwing poop randomly. Is that the case? Could you please tell me where you live? I mean..... you do have a TV right? There are endless nature shows showing people handling wild beast pretty much like i picture David doing it. You are on the internet! Go search for vids! This is true, i am not lying.

    What an absolute clusterf**k of a paragraph. Clearly you have no understanding of the point that was made. I suggest you take a step back and reread a few posts back for a better understanding. I made the comparison to a wild and untamed animal/ beast to convey an image of pure ferocity, in contrast to Spaihts evocation of the image of a harmless kitten like facehugger. I wasn't making a general point on the entire animal kingdom.

    Quote
    It's subdued because it does care about Dave. This is one of those words you decided to throw away as chaff.

    Which word in the sentence 'It's subdued because it does care about Dave' did I omit as chaff?  ???
     
    Quote
    He isnt allowing it to do anything, the creature is just hanging out because it doesnt see anything to attack, but when it does... it does.

    Again, completely devaluing the ferocity of a creature, relegating it to the role of a droids pet, no longer spurred by it's simple and 'perfect' desire to breed. Again (and again, and again, and again), I understand why, I simply do not not like how.

    Quote
    But that's not the image Spaiht's sells at all.

    Exactly. That's my point. The image of a wild creature is something Spaiht's could have sold with the same reasoning but instead turns the creature into David's pet. You'll get it eventually.

    Quote
    In your mind, but in my mind, as well as anyone reading this, your made up idea is just your made up idea.

    I guess if someone can misunderstand and blatantly overlook as much as you have they could reach a similarly ridiculous conclusion.

    Quote
    Let me get this straight............... you say you dont read minds yet you are having a conversation with me and making points using a post made in another thread? How the hell was i suppose to know this?

    Seriouly, EL OH EL.
    It's clear you are just fuming on this stuff. 

    So essentially, I'm cheating because i have previous knowledge of the scene? I wasn't aware it was a requirement for us to have  the exact same information before beginning a discussion. I thought discussion was a process of learning. Does your pedantry know no bounds? I wonder if you could write yet another inane paragraph without actually assessing any of the content posted. My vote is yes. Yes, you can... and will.

    Quote
    First, why are you replying to the same thing twice?

    A mistake. I imagine you can stretch that over another three of four posts.

    Quote
    In Aliens.....when Burke released the Facehuggers in that lab...... they clearly were not in an egg and they clearly werent actively jumping around trying to get into people's faces or else Ripley would have notice them...... so what where they doing? Could *GASP!* they have been relaxing in a corner because there were nothing to do?

     ;D

    Oh the pure terror of it.

    Do you not see how the very things you are suggesting devalue the pure terror of a creature solely motivated by a need to reproduce by showing it chillax in a corner.  Also the creatures in that scene had only just been released (hence the still rocking movement of the empty statsis tubes) and they're already on the search for a host. They're already in attack mode because their sole purpose is to reproduce via hostile means. There's a reason Ash refers to the species as 'perfect'.

    In relation to the Alien (and it's species):

    Ash: You still don't understand what you're dealing with, do you? Perfect organism. Its structural perfection is matched only by its hostility.
    Lambert: You admire it.
    Ash: I admire its purity. A survivor... unclouded by conscience, remorse, or delusions of morality.

    It has no need to relax or any need for emotion or any such unnecessary states. It's a hostile breeding machine and that alone. If it isn't attacking it's dormant (egg). It doesn't just wander aimlessly.   

    Quote
    *GASP!* What were they doing!

    Looking for a host. That is exactly what the scene tells you. Have you seen Alien or Aliens recently? I recommend you familiarise yourself with the content before posting again.
  7. Gilfryd
    However I do not mind seeing a comic or anime transposition of Spaiths script ... in summary:

    same shep:

    https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi46.tinypic.com%2F2zqsytu.png&hash=364ebde914592cebd4c95a2af19a20d0

    New facehugger:

    https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi47.tinypic.com%2Fac7qbs.jpg&hash=ad739af5373f4845e937860356bbb7c8

    New chestburster:

    https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi50.tinypic.com%2Fiogpq8.jpg&hash=04d086586d158425fa0079ff4e419e52

    sex scene with surprise

    https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi46.tinypic.com%2F312ifye.jpg&hash=35759b66960ec084cc5b1ecc8d32edb3

    Med-pod scene:

    https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi46.tinypic.com%2F244t9bk.jpg&hash=81a0cb05b3c117774ca4ae39bdf13dae

    New tipology of xenomorphs:

    https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi48.tinypic.com%2F25z77g6.jpg&hash=d2d99baa36b375c320a1d975a2b85f2c
    https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi47.tinypic.com%2F10wtp2p.jpg&hash=7c77c2d4a9ab2795edf9c72fd739bcf4

    Mutant crew member:

    https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi46.tinypic.com%2F2mfgaqd.jpg&hash=62bb48a4670510486becafc0cb0f6d3f

    "Jockalien":

    https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi50.tinypic.com%2F2llggnb.jpg&hash=6aa4794b116ef6c5f82bdf7c3fc86281

    I want this movie.  :'(
  8. DaddyYautja
    Quote
    Like i have repeatedly said, your opinion of what was written has zero relevance to you wanting me to elaborate on what i thought.

    Except it does. Let me break down a basic conversation start for you. You post your reaction to scene. I respond with surprise and a counter reaction to it. D I S C U S S I O N  I N I T I A T E D! The only reason it didn't go further is because you opted for snark and pedantry with the reasoning that I've operated outside of your rules of discussion.

    So you are telling me i need to know your opinion on something when you decided to ask me to elaborate on my opinion? How does me explaining my opinion further require the input of your opinion at all? My opinion was reached based solely on what i read.

    Sorry but i do not function like that, when i ask for some one to elaborate on something that's all i do.
    People dont all think like you do, and it's very clear that you do not understand this.

    Quote
    Quote
    If i cared about it i would have replied to it when you first made a post about it. Because, you know, people usually read other people's post in a forum.

    I do not posses mind reading abilities and nor was I assuming you had read the earlier post. You posted a reaction. I expressed surprise to said reaction with the explanation that it read like a Bond villain scene verging on parody (an elaboration on an earlier post). Rather than discuss this further, you counted minutes.

    Guess what? I dont read minds either, so when some dude quotes a piece of my comment and replies by rewriting what he just wrote recently you know what i think? I think he just rewrote what he just posted recently. There is nothing in that post that comes close to anything resembling a question to elaborate on my part. Rewriting what you just wrote means nothing to me, it has no context. It shows that you view the scene differently and guess what? I doesnt matter to me how you view it because i understand people DO think differently. If it mattered to me i would have replied to it when i read it.

    Quote
    Quote
    I love how you ignored several key words there.

    I emitted some chaff ( 'his breath isn't moist', 'It doesn't want him; it's not interested.'). Again, I understand why it isn't interested in David and the same conclusion can still be gathered in the salient quotes I posted. I thought that was obvious.

    That "chaff" is the key to explaining why the scene is happening.
    Like i said, you are just focusing on the words you want to focus on and ignoring the rest. Hell, you just devalued the key to the scene completely.

    From post to post you are clearly showing how you reached your conclusion, and let me say.... is really out there. You ignore things, focus on others, and make up stuff not included at all. You basically created something you wanted to argue against instead of actually replying to what is there.

    Quote
    Quote
    How does a creature not wanting to attack something make it seem harmless?

    The fact that the handling of it is likened to the handling of a kitten makes it seem harmless, like an obedient pet. He does not say that David is handling a wild and untamed creature. In fact Spaihts sells the scene with an almost cuteness. 'David caresses an egg open', 'he can handles the thing like a kitten' and it renders the facehugger a threat only when David deems it so.

    How do yo think wild and untamed animals behave? I believe i did ask you where do you live because you have some strange ideas about how wild things should behave. Apparently where you live wild animals when not sleeping are running around screaming throwing poop randomly. Is that the case? Could you please tell me where you live? I mean..... you do have a TV right? There are endless nature shows showing people handling wild beast pretty much like i picture David doing it. You are on the internet! Go search for vids! This is true, i am not lying.

    Quote
    Quote
    How does the taunting convey he has any control?

    Because he's taunting Shaw whilst handling a subdued facehugger. He allows it to attack when he wants it to.

    'He toys with her for a bit and then lets it take her.'

    David is the figure of control in the scene given it's current description.
    [/quote]

    It's subdued because it does care about Dave. This is one of those words you decided to throw away as chaff.
    It's not subdued because Dave subdued it. He isnt allowing it to do anything, the creature is just hanging out because it doesnt see anything to attack, but when it does... it does.  This is yet another creation on your part.


    Quote
    Quote
    I just think he holds it back as the creature is going wild,

    But that's not the image Spaiht's sells at all. He doesn't say that it's a wild creature in David's hands. He instead says that David can handle it like a kitten (for various reasons) and that he uses it to toy with her before letting it take her.

    That's the image "sold" to me. Remember, people think differently, your view of the scene does not constitute the standard. Specially when you make up things that arent there. 

    Quote
    Quote
    How does your point still stands when nothing of what you are flipping out that deals with this exists in that description?

    Except it does.

    In your mind, but in my mind, as well as anyone reading this, your made up idea is just your made up idea.
    Dave isnt "monologing," the end.

    Quote
    Quote
    Where does it say that he leaves in that paragraph?
    Yet another thing you make up.

    ikarop posted a details on the Spaihts/ Lindelof writers commentary. Amongst that post were details of this scene.

    'When Shaw follows David into the vaults of the ship, he deliberately infected her with a Facehugger. He also took her helmet so she couldn’t run back to the ship and save her life by using the med pod. She still makes it back there by holding her breath and using compressed air.'

    David wants Shaw to die and not make it to the med pod. He leaves and Shaw survives by making it back to the med pod. Classic terrible Bond villain moment.

    http://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/index.php?topic=45642.0

    Let me get this straight............... you say you dont read minds yet you are having a conversation with me and making points using a post made in another thread? How the hell was i suppose to know this?

    Seriouly, EL OH EL.
    It's clear you are just fuming on this stuff. 


    Quote
    Quote
    Where did you get the idea that if something is dangerous it must be actively showing that 24/7?

    Because that is the creature that we know. It is driven by it's purpose. It either lies dormant or it's out for a host. It is not a droid petting zoo animal and nor do I want to see it relegated to such a status.

    Quote
    Where did you get the idea that if something is dangerous it must be actively showing that 24/7?

    I haven't. I clearly stated that the creature is dormant in egg form (a state that can last thousands of years). If it's outside of an egg it is attacking. There's a reason that derelict Ship in Alien is not full of facehuggers simply wandering about in a passive state, waiting to attack.

    First, why are you replying to the same thing twice?
    Secondly, let me ask you a question. In Aliens.....when Burke released the Facehuggers in that lab...... they clearly were not in an egg and they clearly werent actively jumping around trying to get into people's faces or else Ripley would have notice them...... so what where they doing? Could *GASP!* they have been relaxing in a corner because there were nothing to do? *DOUBLEGASP!!*

    Quote
    Quote
    So you dont know what happens when it fails but you refuse to think that it does anything but jump around or sit in an egg

    They have the ability to lie dormant in eggs for thousands of years and are shown to do so. If they're not in an egg, it's only because a potential host is nearby. If a potential host is nearby they attack until they succeed or die. This is the established nature of the creatures and it's terribly frightening without adding further states. The point is that they are perfect organisms, breeding machines, that have no need for emotion. They simply have drive. That drive is a desire to reproduce via terrifying means. Hence their two states. Dormant and Attack.

    *GASP!* What were they doing!
    Since you think they actively look for hosts do you think they were making signs to trick the people that were outside to come in?

    https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg844.imageshack.us%2Fimg844%2F2580%2Ffreehugsfacehugger.jpg&hash=2d133e88a495db83a57e5017376bddae
  9. RagingDragon
    Someone asked about the Engineer's mythology the other day. There's more on the Blu-ray in case you haven't watched it yet. Some type of "ascension" is mentioned there too which reminded me a lot of the Ancients in Stargate.

    https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi50.tinypic.com%2F5oy0kk.jpg&hash=c31074c70f27bb1233f952652b34d1c7

    Cooool...

    I find it funny that this description also fits the modern Ridley Scott with frightening accuracy
    . :laugh:
  10. Lord Freezer
    However I do not mind seeing a comic or anime transposition of Spaiths script ... in summary:

    same shep:

    https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi46.tinypic.com%2F2zqsytu.png&hash=364ebde914592cebd4c95a2af19a20d0

    New facehugger:

    https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi47.tinypic.com%2Fac7qbs.jpg&hash=ad739af5373f4845e937860356bbb7c8

    New chestburster:

    https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi50.tinypic.com%2Fiogpq8.jpg&hash=04d086586d158425fa0079ff4e419e52

    sex scene with surprise

    https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi46.tinypic.com%2F312ifye.jpg&hash=35759b66960ec084cc5b1ecc8d32edb3

    Med-pod scene:

    https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi46.tinypic.com%2F244t9bk.jpg&hash=81a0cb05b3c117774ca4ae39bdf13dae

    New tipology of xenomorphs:

    https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi48.tinypic.com%2F25z77g6.jpg&hash=d2d99baa36b375c320a1d975a2b85f2c
    https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi47.tinypic.com%2F10wtp2p.jpg&hash=7c77c2d4a9ab2795edf9c72fd739bcf4

    Mutant crew member:

    https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi46.tinypic.com%2F2mfgaqd.jpg&hash=62bb48a4670510486becafc0cb0f6d3f

    "Jockalien":

    https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi50.tinypic.com%2F2llggnb.jpg&hash=6aa4794b116ef6c5f82bdf7c3fc86281
  11. T Dog
    What i meant was he seems more interesting in crapping out movies on a production line than trying to achieve the artistic greatness he did earlier in his career.

    He has basically doubled his filmography in half the time it took him to make his first 10 films. I think the quality has suffered across the board.
  12. PRI. HUDSON
    I think they should have stuck to the tropes, modified them and added in a few new things instead of replacing them entirely with second rate versions of them.

    The idea of different types of eggs is simple but could have been effective.

    I bet the studio only wanted to change the creatures as a ploy to bring the rating down.

    Also Ridley Scott is a pussy. He seems more interested in making movie for the sake of making movies, instead of wanting to make exceptionally good ones.

    Yeah, Scott just makes movies to make movies.

    No one takes you seriously around here anymore.
  13. Gazz
    Quote
    Like i have repeatedly said, your opinion of what was written has zero relevance to you wanting me to elaborate on what i thought.

    Except it does. Let me break down a basic conversation start for you. You post your reaction to scene. I respond with surprise and a counter reaction to it. D I S C U S S I O N  I N I T I A T E D! The only reason it didn't go further is because you opted for snark and pedantry with the reasoning that I've operated outside of your rules of discussion.

    Quote
    If i cared about it i would have replied to it when you first made a post about it. Because, you know, people usually read other people's post in a forum.

    I do not posses mind reading abilities and nor was I assuming you had read the earlier post. You posted a reaction. I expressed surprise to said reaction with the explanation that it read like a Bond villain scene verging on parody (an elaboration on an earlier post). Rather than discuss this further, you counted minutes.

    Quote
    I love how you ignored several key words there.

    I emitted some chaff ( 'his breath isn't moist', 'It doesn't want him; it's not interested.'). Again, I understand why it isn't interested in David and the same conclusion can still be gathered in the salient quotes I posted. I thought that was obvious.

    Quote
    How does a creature not wanting to attack something make it seem harmless?

    The fact that the handling of it is likened to the handling of a kitten makes it seem harmless, like an obedient pet. He does not say that David is handling a wild and untamed creature. In fact Spaihts sells the scene with an almost cuteness. 'David caresses an egg open', 'he can handles the thing like a kitten' and it renders the facehugger a threat only when David deems it so.

    Quote
    How does the taunting convey he has any control?

    Because he's taunting Shaw whilst handling a subdued facehugger. He allows it to attack when he wants it to.

    'He toys with her for a bit and then lets it take her.'

    David is the figure of control in the scene given it's current description.

    Quote
    I just think he holds it back as the creature is going wild,

    But that's not the image Spaiht's sells at all. He doesn't say that it's a wild creature in David's hands. He instead says that David can handle it like a kitten (for various reasons) and that he uses it to toy with her before letting it take her.

    Quote
    How does your point still stands when nothing of what you are flipping out that deals with this exists in that description?

    Except it does.

    Quote
    Where does it say that he leaves in that paragraph?
    Yet another thing you make up.

    ikarop posted a details on the Spaihts/ Lindelof writers commentary. Amongst that post were details of this scene.

    'When Shaw follows David into the vaults of the ship, he deliberately infected her with a Facehugger. He also took her helmet so she couldn’t run back to the ship and save her life by using the med pod. She still makes it back there by holding her breath and using compressed air.'

    David wants Shaw to die and not make it to the med pod. He leaves and Shaw survives by making it back to the med pod. Classic terrible Bond villain moment.

    http://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/index.php?topic=45642.0

    Quote
    Where did you get the idea that if something is dangerous it must be actively showing that 24/7?

    Because that is the creature that we know. It is driven by it's purpose. It either lies dormant or it's out for a host. It is not a droid petting zoo animal and nor do I want to see it relegated to such a status.

    Quote
    Where did you get the idea that if something is dangerous it must be actively showing that 24/7?

    I haven't. I clearly stated that the creature is dormant in egg form (a state that can last thousands of years). If it's outside of an egg it is attacking. There's a reason that derelict Ship in Alien is not full of facehuggers simply wandering about in a passive state, waiting to attack.

    Quote
    So you dont know what happens when it fails but you refuse to think that it does anything but jump around or sit in an egg

    They have the ability to lie dormant in eggs for thousands of years and are shown to do so. If they're not in an egg, it's only because a potential host is nearby. If a potential host is nearby they attack until they succeed or die. This is the established nature of the creatures and it's terribly frightening without adding further states. The point is that they are perfect organisms, breeding machines, that have no need for emotion. They simply have drive. That drive is a desire to reproduce via terrifying means. Hence their two states. Dormant and Attack.
  14. Byohzrd
    Quote
    And so he was always pushing for some way in which that Alien biology could have evolved. We tried different paths in that way. We imagined that there might be eight different variations on the xenomorphs - eight different kinds of Alien eggs you might stumble across, eight kinds of slightly different xenomorph creatures that could hatch from them.

    This makes so much sense to me. I've always felt that the variations of the Xenos could be explained this way. It also goes a long way to explaining the inconsistencies in the portrayal of the Xenos throughout the series. Like say for example the differences in strength and intelligence between the Xenos in the various films of the series or why some have ridged heads and some have domes.




    And maybe even a rapid process of evolution, still ongoing, in these Alien laboratories where these xenomorphs were developed. So Ridley and I were looking for ways to make the xenomorphs new.

    I believe in the EU there are even 2 different "scientific names" given to the xenos, one being Internecivus raptus (, and the other being Lingua foeda acheronsis or something of those sorts. I always felt the first referred to the creatures seen from Resurrection on and the latter being a part of the Derelict egg clutch. Though the creatures in the first 3 films came from the same clutch of eggs i believe that combined with the age theory as well as the DNA Reflex theory it provides us with 2 unique creatures. The first being your standard drone alien as seen in Alien, then with age the dome like carapace recedes to create the ridged variation or "warrior". The second being the quadroped variation as seen in Alien 3 as a result of the DNA Reflex. The host in this case wouldn't matter, dog or ox, because both creatures being of the same body form. The creature wouldn't take that many traits from its host, just vaguely resemble the host creature. This is why the Runner wasn't born with oxen horns or a dog like snout.

    The creatures seen in the AvP franchise i feel are a slightly different subspecies, modified from the original creatures by the Yautja for their hunting purposes. What these creatures lack in intelligence they make up for it with slighty increased strength, faster growth and aging process, and a stronger DNA Reflex, this way the creatures can become further variations based on their hosts to allow for more engaging hunts. This would also allow for the creation of the Predalien, and would explain why the creature has mandibles and dreadlocks as opposed to being slightly larger than a normal warrior with a more muscular physique. I believe if a predator was infected with a facehugger from the derelict the resulting creature would resemble a more traditional warrior instead of what the fanbase has come to accept as a predalien.

    As for the deacon, i don't believe we have seen enough of this creature to conclude that it is the ancestor of the more familiar creatures, but due to the unusually perfect circumstances in which it was born, i feel that it is nothing more than an accident. Though the engineers have knowledge of the xenomorphs its still unclear if they were actually created by them or not. I mean don't get me wrong i believe the xenos are a creation BUT, it STILL has yet to be seen on film.

    just my 2 cents. on the whole variation and inconsistencies of the creatures design.
  15. marrerom
    Quote
    And so he was always pushing for some way in which that Alien biology could have evolved. We tried different paths in that way. We imagined that there might be eight different variations on the xenomorphs - eight different kinds of Alien eggs you might stumble across, eight kinds of slightly different xenomorph creatures that could hatch from them.

    This makes so much sense to me. I've always felt that the variations of the Xenos could be explained this way. It also goes a long way to explaining the inconsistencies in the portrayal of the Xenos throughout the series. Like say for example the differences in strength and intelligence between the Xenos in the various films of the series or why some have ridged heads and some have domes.



  16. DaddyYautja

    Again, I'm well aware of this "enlightening" fact you keep regurgitating but are you truly aware that conversations have more than one possible way of being initiated? By providing you with opposing information relevant to your original post I was attempting to engage in discussion. If the discussion was to grow further the next logical step would have been further elaboration of your point with a counter to mine. Instead, you opted for snark. I get it, I operated outside of your strict rules of engagement. I simply wasn't aware this conversation would become a game of pedantry.

    Sure, conversation can begin in several ways but are all those ways successful?
    Like i have repeatedly said, your opinion of what was written has zero relevance to you wanting me to elaborate on what i thought.

    If i cared about it i would have replied to it when you first made a post about it. Because, you know, people usually read other people's post in a forum.

    Quote
    And I don't believe I've responded to it as if 100% accurate to the final picture. I have however simply responded to the image the writer conveyed. Which is that of a facehugger being likened to a harmless infant housepet. If the writer did not wish to evoke that imagery he simply would not have said it.

    I dont believe you accurately summarized my point which is why i did it for you.
    And how does the FH not attacking something it doesnt care about makes it seem like it's harmless?

    Quote

    Actually i'm focusing on several:

    "David doesn't smell like a person... so he can handle the thing like a kitten...But then he exposes it to her and it goes for her like a shot. "

    And then this further quote:

    "He toys with her for a bit and then lets it take her."

    I love how you ignored several key words there.

    Quote

    Yes I do get that. I believe I've referenced it myself. It's how Spaiht's renders the creature harmless. It's likened to a kitten in his hands and then he uses it to toy with Shaw. I understand why the creature does not attack David but the writing conveys an image that translates as ridiculous and devalues the creatures natural ferocity. That he actually has so much control to use it in his taunting of Shaw further ruins the scene.

    How does a creature not wanting to attack something make it seem harmless?
    How does the taunting convey he has any control? What do you think happens at this point?
    I just think he holds it back as the creature is going wild, not that he any sort of police dog control over what the FH does.

    You are imagining all sorts of things here with little to no info at all. 


    Quote

    I saw the implication that he taunts by describing in further detail what is to happen (whether it be with the crew, with the facehugger, with the engineers etc.) rather than just holding it to her face silently. Monologuing is perhaps to strong of a word, but my point still stands nonetheless.

    How does your point still stands when nothing of what you are flipping out that deals with this exists in that description?

     
    Quote

    It was a combination of the creatures description, intentionally evoking the image of a harmless kitten in relation to a facehugger, and that the scene plays out like a failed Bond villain plot. He reveals his pet facehugger, taunts Shaw with it, lets it  impregnate her and leaves before seeing the entirety of his plan out.

    Where does it say that he leaves in that paragraph?
    Yet another thing you make up.

    I hope you are seeing this..... half of the stuff you are flipping out about doesnt exist in the paragraph shown.


    Quote
    You on the other hand seemed to have jumped at the idea we get to see facehugger in another state (one of complete harmlessness) as 'movie making' and 'beautiful'.

    I didnt jump to anything, it's clearly described in that paragraph that the FH is in some sort of passive state.
    And i still dont know how being passive means harmless. Where did you get the idea that if something is dangerous it must be actively showing that 24/7? Do you live in some part of the world where all animals have rabies and they are bugging out all day?

    Quote

    No, it simply continues until it impregnates someone or dies. Perhaps it returns back to the egg. Nonetheless the two states remain. Egg mode and attack mode. There's no limit on how long either of those natural states last, nor has there been in the films. Also by 'attack mode' I dont mean jumping at thin air constantly. It simply refers to the creatures constant desire to target a host. After all this is the whole purpose of it's existence. It's what the creature is bred to do.

    So you dont know what happens when it fails but you refuse to think that it does anything but jump around or sit in an egg.......................... .......awesome.

  17. Gazz
    Quote
    But i believe i already explained that if you wanted me to elaborate on a particular piece of a post you could have just asked. Like i've been saying for a bit, people do in fact not all think like you.

    Again, I'm well aware of this "enlightening" fact you keep regurgitating but are you truly aware that conversations have more than one possible way of being initiated? By providing you with opposing information relevant to your original post I was attempting to engage in discussion. If the discussion was to grow further the next logical step would have been further elaboration of your point with a counter to mine. Instead, you opted for snark. I get it, I operated outside of your strict rules of engagement. I simply wasn't aware this conversation would become a game of pedantry.

    Quote
    My response is that the script gives a basic explanation on how the scene should play out and not something that needs to be reproduced with a 100% accuracy.

    And I don't believe I've responded to it as if 100% accurate to the final picture. I have however simply responded to the image the writer conveyed. Which is that of a facehugger being likened to a harmless infant housepet. If the writer did not wish to evoke that imagery he simply would not have said it.

    Quote
    You are focusing on one word and ignoring the whole explanation given.

    Actually i'm focusing on several:

    "David doesn't smell like a person... so he can handle the thing like a kitten...But then he exposes it to her and it goes for her like a shot. "

    And then this further quote:

    "He toys with her for a bit and then lets it take her."

    Quote
    The Facehugger is being handled like a cat because it has absolutely no interest on the robot.

    Yes I do get that. I believe I've referenced it myself. It's how Spaiht's renders the creature harmless. It's likened to a kitten in his hands and then he uses it to toy with Shaw. I understand why the creature does not attack David but the writing conveys an image that translates as ridiculous and devalues the creatures natural ferocity. That he actually has so much control to use it in his taunting of Shaw further ruins the scene.

    Quote
    By the way, where in the current description does it say that Dave is "monologuing"?

    "He toys with her for a bit and then lets it take her."

    I saw the implication that he taunts by describing in further detail what is to happen (whether it be with the crew, with the facehugger, with the engineers etc.) rather than just holding it to her face silently. Monologuing is perhaps to strong of a word, but my point still stands nonetheless.
     
    Quote
    It really looks like you totally flipped out once kitten was used and turned this scene into your worst nightmare.

    It was a combination of the creatures description, intentionally evoking the image of a harmless kitten in relation to a facehugger, and that the scene plays out like a failed Bond villain plot. He reveals his pet facehugger, taunts Shaw with it, lets it  impregnate her and leaves before seeing the entirety of his plan out.

    You on the other hand seemed to have jumped at the idea we get to see facehugger in another state (one of complete harmlessness) as 'movie making' and 'beautiful'.

    Quote
    What happens if it doesnt impregnate some one?

    It's adopted by a droid family and raised to be a faithful guard dog.

    No, it simply continues until it impregnates someone or dies. Perhaps it returns back to the egg. Nonetheless the two states remain. Egg mode and attack mode. There's no limit on how long either of those natural states last, nor has there been in the films. Also by 'attack mode' I dont mean jumping at thin air constantly. It simply refers to the creatures constant desire to target a host. After all this is the whole purpose of it's existence. It's what the creature is bred to do.
  18. DaddyYautja

    Was it not clear enough that I wanted you to? As I've said, discussions are usually sparked by two opposing opinions and I was providing you with the necessary information in order to move forward with a debate (it's usually a requirement for these things). Rather than respond accordingly you opted for snark and minute counting. Had I known the pedantry I would be faced with for simply attempting to engage in discussion I really don't think I would have bothered.

    Yes, yes, you already mentioned that you start conversations like it's some sort of duel and both parties have to mention their intentions and so on. But i believe i already explained that if you wanted me to elaborate on a particular piece of a post you could have just asked. Like i've been saying for a bit, people do in fact not all think like you.

    This bit cannot be any clearer at this point and this seriously does not need any further discussion. 


    Quote
    Your response is that when Spaiht's says 'David can handle the facehugger like a kitten' he does not mean that 'David can handle the facehugger like a kitten'. Flawless.

    My response is that the script gives a basic explanation on how the scene should play out and not something that needs to be reproduced with a 100% accuracy.


    Quote
    See I understand that script writers often use certain words and sentences to convey ideas or scenes (c'mon now, bear with me!). Although the facehugger does not resemble or move like a cat (as we know), Spaiht's still relates that scene to the handling of a harmless kitten because that is the image he wishes to create in the readers mind. And it's not an image I would like associate with a facehugger creature as it devalues the creature's ferocity.  Coupling this image with the actual content of the scene (David monologuing and tormenting Shaw with the facehugger) renders it completely ridiculous in my mind. At least in it's current description.

    You are focusing on one word and ignoring the whole explanation given. The Facehugger is being handled like a cat because it has absolutely no interest on the robot. To the Facehugger the robot might just be an unstable surface which is why he can be handled in such a way. The creature is passive because it doesnt see anything around that is creating a reaction for him to act on.

    By the way, where in the current description does it say that Dave is "monologuing"? Cause from that paragraph all that it says is that he gets the FH out and carries him for a bit, im guessing as he walks to Shaw, and then he introduces the beast to Shaw with a few taunts to start. I doesnt say that there is any sort of big speech happening.

    It really looks like you totally flipped out once kitten was used and turned this scene into your worst nightmare.

    Quote
    The facehugger creatures have two natural states. They're dormant in an egg and they attack when a potential victim is close, smothering and impregnating them. Here we see it 'caressed' out of an egg and handled like a kitten before being 'exposed' to Shaw. This ferocious creature is treated as and likened to a common (and harmless) household pet before being told/shown who to attack.

    What happens if it doesnt impregnate some one? Does it run aimlessly and while continuing to jump at the empty air? Pretty sure there is a third state in there somewhere for when something like this happens. And probably a fourth..... and a fifth. Maybe even a sixth. And if you combine those you could go on to many, many more.
  19. Gazz
    Quote
    I say again, if you wanted me to elaborate on my point you should have just asked. There is no need for me to know your view of the scene if you want to know my opinion about why i have such praise for that particular scene. And since your opinion on the scene has absolutely no bearing on what i think your coaxing served no purpose. So, one more time, you should've just asked.

    Was it not clear enough that I wanted you to? As I've said, discussions are usually sparked by two opposing opinions and I was providing you with the necessary information in order to move forward with a debate (it's usually a requirement for these things). Rather than respond accordingly you opted for snark and minute counting. Had I known the pedantry I would be faced with for simply attempting to engage in discussion I really don't think I would have bothered.

    Quote
    So when he says " so he can handle the thing like a kitten. It doesn't want him; it's not interested." it doesnt mean he ACTUALLY handles it the same exact way a person would handle a cat and it's not movie around like a cat. Those are just descriptions to aid in the making of the visual.

    Your response is that when Spaiht's says 'David can handle the facehugger like a kitten' he does not mean that 'David can handle the facehugger like a kitten'. Flawless.

    See I understand that script writers often use certain words and sentences to convey ideas or scenes (c'mon now, bear with me!). Although the facehugger does not resemble or move like a cat (as we know), Spaiht's still relates that scene to the handling of a harmless kitten because that is the image he wishes to create in the readers mind. And it's not an image I would like associate with a facehugger creature as it devalues the creature's ferocity.  Coupling this image with the actual content of the scene (David monologuing and tormenting Shaw with the facehugger) renders it completely ridiculous in my mind. At least in it's current description.

    Quote
    And can you elaborate how it "devalues the ferocity"?

    The facehugger creatures have two natural states. They're dormant in an egg and they attack when a potential victim is close, smothering and impregnating them. Here we see it 'caressed' out of an egg and handled like a kitten before being 'exposed' to Shaw. This ferocious creature is treated as and likened to a common (and harmless) household pet before being told/shown who to attack.
  20. DaddyYautja

    You clearly don't and that's fine since normally conversations start with two opposing opinions. I thought by re-establishing and elaborating on my previous comment (which I didn't know if you'd read) in reference to your 'movie making scene' statement, it would coax out an elaboration of your own. I guess that was just a little too much to ask.

    Except I countered that the scene in which you had labelled 'movie making' was verging on parody. It was a clear response to your comment and expressed surprise at the notion it could be viewed in such a radically different light. 

    Rather than argue otherwise you felt it more appropriate to count minutes and make a somewhat confusing point that I should have assumed your knowledge of Bond and that actions of it's villains... despite the fact we're posting on an unrelated website and I have no idea if you've seen a Bond film in your life  ;D

    I say again, if you wanted me to elaborate on my point you should have just asked. There is no need for me to know your view of the scene if you want to know my opinion about why i have such praise for that particular scene. And since your opinion on the scene has absolutely no bearing on what i think your coaxing served no purpose. So, one more time, you should've just asked.
     

    Quote
    Except Spaihts does not describe the Facehugger as moving about in it's natural state. Spaiht's refers to it as being 'caressed' out of an egg to be handled as if a 'kitten', as a way to toy with an immobile Shaw. That terribly devalues the ferocity of the creature in my eyes. Besides the creatures already have a 'natural state'. It's how we first see them in Alien.

    Here is some more knowledge for you; A screen writer has to write the screenplay in a language that can be understood by all the people working on them film. That basically means describing things in a way that people who dont necessarily know anything about the world *gasp* can understand.

    So when he says " so he can handle the thing like a kitten. It doesn't want him; it's not interested." it doesnt mean he ACTUALLY handles it the same exact way a person would handle a cat and it's not movie around like a cat. Those are just descriptions to aid in the making of the visual.

    Seriously as an exercise why dont you read a script of a movie you know very well and see if what is written in exactly word for word what is in the script 100% of the time.

    And can you elaborate how it "devalues the ferocity"? Cause the scene does include ferocity when the facehugger is exposed to Shaw. 
  21. Gazz

    E L A B O R A T I O N

    Summer, 2015

    James Bond films just celebrated their 50 year anniversary....
    I think we all know what a Bond villain moment means.

    Hence my immediate surprise that one could find a scene that currently reads like a verging on a parody Bond villain moment, 'beautiful' or 'movie making'. I elaborated on my earlier statement in the hope that you would elaborate on yours. I guess that was too much to ask of a discussion board.  :(

    I dont know if anyone has told you this but.... not everyone thinks like you. This is whyi didnt not see this scene like some Bond villain thing.

    You clearly don't and that's fine since normally conversations start with two opposing opinions. I thought by re-establishing and elaborating on my previous comment (which I didn't know if you'd read) in reference to your 'movie making scene' statement, it would coax out an elaboration of your own. I guess that was just a little too much to ask.
     
    Quote
    Saying it again isnt really going to drive me to explain my post since it really had nothing to do with it.

    Except I countered that the scene in which you had labelled 'movie making' was verging on parody. It was a clear response to your comment and expressed surprise at the notion it could be viewed in such a radically different light. 

    Rather than argue otherwise you felt it more appropriate to count minutes and make a somewhat confusing point that I should have assumed your knowledge of the Bond series and the actions of it's villains... despite the fact we're posting on an unrelated website and I have no idea if you've seen a Bond film in your life  ;D

    Quote
    Anyway, the way i picture the scene has the facehugger moving about in a natural state not seen in movies and i think that would be an awesome sight.

    Except Spaihts does not describe the Facehugger as moving about in it's natural state. Spaiht's refers to it as being 'caressed' out of an egg to be handled as if a 'kitten', as a way to toy with an immobile Shaw. That terribly devalues the ferocity of the creature in my eyes. Besides the creatures already have a 'natural state'. It's how we first see them in Alien.
  22. DaddyYautja

    E L A B O R A T I O N

    Summer, 2015

    James Bond films just celebrated their 50 year anniversary....
    I think we all know what a Bond villain moment means.

    Hence my immediate surprise that one could find a scene that currently reads like a verging on a parody Bond villain moment, 'beautiful' or 'movie making'. I elaborated on my earlier statement in the hope that you would elaborate on yours. I guess that was too much to ask of a discussion board.  :(

    I dont know if anyone has told you this but.... not everyone thinks like you. This is whyi didnt not see this scene like some Bond villain thing.

    If you wanted to know why i said what i wrote you could've just asked instead of repeating your Bond thing. Because, like i said, i think pretty much everyone knows what that mean. Saying it again isnt really going to drive me to explain my post since it really had nothing to do with it.

    Anyway, the way i picture the scene has the facehugger moving about in a natural state not seen in movies and i think that would be an awesome sight. In movies all they do is run or jump on people's faces and that's it. Seeing an Alien with some different behavior patterns is something interesting to me. 
« Newer Comments 12 Older Comments »
Facebook Twitter Instagram Steam RSS Feed