How has Alien: Covenant affected your personal canon?

Started by marrerom, Aug 03, 2017, 02:14:11 PM

Author
How has Alien: Covenant affected your personal canon? (Read 9,176 times)

Local Trouble


Immortan Jonesy

Quote from: razeak on Jan 06, 2024, 10:23:28 PMWhat I see on film in Convenant is open to interpretation on David being the creator.

Nope, but it's open to retcon🙃👎

SiL

Quote from: Immortan Jonesy on Jan 06, 2024, 11:01:23 PM
Quote from: razeak on Jan 06, 2024, 10:23:28 PMWhat I see on film in Convenant is open to interpretation on David being the creator.

Nope, but it's open to retcon🙃👎
This. The film is clear in its intent but you could undo it if you want to.

Xenomrph

Quote from: SiL on Jan 06, 2024, 11:18:13 PM
Quote from: Immortan Jonesy on Jan 06, 2024, 11:01:23 PM
Quote from: razeak on Jan 06, 2024, 10:23:28 PMWhat I see on film in Convenant is open to interpretation on David being the creator.

Nope, but it's open to retcon🙃👎
This. The film is clear in its intent but you could undo it if you want to.
Yep

Local Trouble

Quote from: Xenomrph on Jan 06, 2024, 11:42:00 PM
Quote from: SiL on Jan 06, 2024, 11:18:13 PM
Quote from: Immortan Jonesy on Jan 06, 2024, 11:01:23 PM
Quote from: razeak on Jan 06, 2024, 10:23:28 PMWhat I see on film in Convenant is open to interpretation on David being the creator.

Nope, but it's open to retcon🙃👎
This. The film is clear in its intent but you could undo it if you want to.
Yep

How would you do it?

razeak

razeak

#80
I'll be in the "he unlocked an old recipe" camp


I'm sticking my head in the sand lol. I simply don't care on this point. I'm fine with the foundation being built of sand. I'll just pretend, and I understand fully I'm pretending, that David is just the foster parent of the species and he inflicted terrible, fleshy, grasshopper attributes on it

If I had a magic wand, it would remain a mystery.

Dallas/Kane or whomever "it appears fossilized"

David "I created it.".


I'll choose the former in "personal" canon.

Xenomrph

Quote from: Local Trouble on Jan 06, 2024, 11:48:53 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jan 06, 2024, 11:42:00 PM
Quote from: SiL on Jan 06, 2024, 11:18:13 PM
Quote from: Immortan Jonesy on Jan 06, 2024, 11:01:23 PM
Quote from: razeak on Jan 06, 2024, 10:23:28 PMWhat I see on film in Convenant is open to interpretation on David being the creator.

Nope, but it's open to retcon🙃👎
This. The film is clear in its intent but you could undo it if you want to.
Yep

How would you do it?
David thought he created it. He was mistaken and accidentally recreated something that already existed, even if he didn't realize it.

Acid_Reign161

Sure, if you consider any of the creatures in 'Covenant' to be a true Xenomorph (they arent) and ignore the mural in 'Prometheus' which showed facehuggers existed prior. David has delusions of grandeur. The creature in AC was his creation, yes; he used his knowledge of genetics and used the native fauna of the planet in conjunction with the pathogen to create it.

But then, if I examined the trace- fossil of an extinct crab from the Cretaceous period, used my insane android knowledge of DNA, genetics, and clades of modern day crab species and switched certain genes on and off/crossbred etc until I had a pretty damn close match, I could call that my success story and still say I created it... even if the source inspiration existed several million years before I did. Regardless what Ridley intended with the movie, there's still enough to leave it open to interpretation based on what we know from other movies. (And that's the head-canon I'll continue to roll with) 😂

SiL

Quote from: Acid_Reign161 on Jan 07, 2024, 01:11:00 AMSure, if you consider any of the creatures in 'Covenant' to be a true Xenomorph (they arent)
Film doesn't say this.

Quoteand ignore the mural in 'Prometheus' which showed facehuggers existed prior.
Mural doesn't show facehuggers, and the movie shows that face-hugging things are made with goo.

razeak

Quote from: Acid_Reign161 on Jan 07, 2024, 01:11:00 AMSure, if you consider any of the creatures in 'Covenant' to be a true Xenomorph (they arent) and ignore the mural in 'Prometheus' which showed facehuggers existed prior. David has delusions of grandeur. The creature in AC was his creation, yes; he used his knowledge of genetics and used the native fauna of the planet in conjunction with the pathogen to create it.

But then, if I examined the trace- fossil of an extinct crab from the Cretaceous period, used my insane android knowledge of DNA, genetics, and clades of modern day crab species and switched certain genes on and off/crossbred etc until I had a pretty damn close match, I could call that my success story and still say I created it... even if the source inspiration existed several million years before I did. Regardless what Ridley intended with the movie, there's still enough to leave it open to interpretation based on what we know from other movies. (And that's the head-canon I'll continue to roll with) 😂
damn skippy. He creates those particular ones!  I love it.

The murals were a little bit of a sticking point for me too.
 

That being said, I actually love David as a villain. He's great.

It's actually funny to imagine he decided to create creature and likely drew them out with dicks or metaphorical dick actions. Haha. He's a teenager.

Director intent has been shot down on other topics vs what is in film.

SiL

Even if we ignore intent, it's right there in the film. It's not left open to interpretation: it has the guy walk through his working to get to the end result.

426Buddy

I like Covenant, a lot actually. Just as long as I don't try to slot it in with the wider lore of the franchise,  which is a mess anyway.

Hurst my brain that we ended up with this as the origin of the creature.

SM

What part of the film lore is a mess?

Acid_Reign161

Quote from: SiL on Jan 07, 2024, 01:14:56 AM
Quote from: Acid_Reign161 on Jan 07, 2024, 01:11:00 AMSure, if you consider any of the creatures in 'Covenant' to be a true Xenomorph (they arent)
Film doesn't say this.

Quoteand ignore the mural in 'Prometheus' which showed facehuggers existed prior.
Mural doesn't show facehuggers, and the movie shows that face-hugging things are made with goo.

Well, the movie doesn't say it *is* a Xenomorph either 😅 let's look at what the movies do show us (with some personal interpretation);

Neither 'Alien' nor 'Aliens' showed a Xenomorph hatching from a human host fully formed, translucent or with all limbs. Likewise, the adults didn't have a fleshy exterior, and elongated arms. Neither did they have a gestation period of minutes.

The derelict in 'Alien' was ancient. Even if Dallas made an unqualified assumption and was incorrect that the Jockey was fossilised, 'Prometheus' showed that Engineer helmets in similar state on LV-233 were at least a couple of thousand years old (carbon dated) meaning the eggs predate David.

The mural does indeed show 'some' face hugging creature comes from the goo as you say;  it also shows a very Xenomorph-esque creature front and centre. However the pathogen in the vases when unleashed as the weapon intended *doesnt* produce face-hugging creatures. Since the image doesn't show what the vases *do*, it could be implied that it shows where the goo came *from*

When the translucent burster hatches, David holds out his arms for it to mimic - not unlike the pose of the creature in the mural he saw on LV-233 - and smiles triumphantly; perhaps due to successfully creating the perfection he saw in the mural.

There's definitely room for interpretation within the movie.

SM

The script says it's a Xenomorph. Alien however does not.

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