Posted by EJA
- May 27, 2020, 06:29:43 PMWould it hurt for the Predators to first encounter the Aliens in the timeframe of the Alien movies, after David has created them? I can think of such scenarios that could maybe work. Ultimately the only casualty is the whole "Aliens and Preds having a long history together" angle; but disposing of that does not mean crossovers between the two cannot be done.
Posted by SpaceKase
- May 27, 2020, 12:42:02 PMQuote from: SiL on May 27, 2020, 08:07:41 AM
Yeah dude hates humans.
And the films have a tendency of ignoring licensed material wholesale (Hicks and Newt, anyone?) so that's hardly a novel concept. I'm not about to ignore what AC says for the sake of licensed material any more than I'd ignore Hicks and Newt dying for the sake of the Earth War trilogy.
Yeah, i guess I can see that, his end goal is to, 'kill all humans', what I'm a little fuzzier on, is why he's going about doing that in the incredibly complicated and bizarrely specific way that he is... or really even how, in his mind, this crazy genetic mishmash of a star beast he's been cooking, and continues to ever-revise, will eventually lead to that goal in a way that's any more efficient then just using the black goo in it's natural form like he has before... But I digress and that's totally a topic for a different thread. I'm happy to take this convo out of this thread and elsewhere if you're enjoying it before I hijack poor EJA's original post topic anymore. Sorry EJA!
And dude, I just want to reiterate again that my dissection and analysis of how this stuff all lays out for different people is not in anyway meant to be a personal disrespect, or an insult, or an attempted invalidation of you or anyone that may share similar views to you regarding what they may like or don't like within the fandom.
I mean look at me, I'm an unapologetic fan of the theatrical cut of Alien 3, for me, there are just too many beautiful aspects of that film that I love and appreciate to ever personally shit on it. I get that other people may not value those things the way I do, and that's cool, I'm not going to vilify or demean them for that. And I love Ridley's productions too. I'm seriously not here to yuck anyone else's yums.
I assure you no one is claiming that your specific preferences are unprecedented or abnormal concepts. Well, I'm certainly not anyway. But I might be making you feel weird or attacked or something, I just want to let you know that I am in no way challenging your right to enjoy or do what you do. I encourage and embrace it, sir.
And chances are that I'm reading where you're coming from entirely wrong anyway, If so, then my embarrassment for laying all this crap out the way I have will be well earned.
Posted by SiL
- May 27, 2020, 08:07:41 AMYeah dude hates humans.
And the films have a tendency of ignoring licensed material wholesale (Hicks and Newt, anyone?) so that's hardly a novel concept. I'm not about to ignore what AC says for the sake of licensed material any more than I'd ignore Hicks and Newt dying for the sake of the Earth War trilogy.
And the films have a tendency of ignoring licensed material wholesale (Hicks and Newt, anyone?) so that's hardly a novel concept. I'm not about to ignore what AC says for the sake of licensed material any more than I'd ignore Hicks and Newt dying for the sake of the Earth War trilogy.
Posted by SM
- May 27, 2020, 08:01:56 AMWipe out humanity.
Posted by SpaceKase
- May 27, 2020, 07:20:53 AMQuote from: Stitch on May 26, 2020, 10:49:15 PM
I think the point is that the film deliberately shows that David is malfunctioning and is wrong, but believes himself to be right.
The film also implies that he is the creator of the aliens, but this is exposition that we get from David, whom it has been shown is an unreliable narrator.
You say that every time David is wrong, it is shown, and the information about the alien creation is not shown to be incorrect, and is thus more likely to be true. This makes sense, but, as a counterpoint, why show David's failings in the first place? Would it really have made much difference to his characterisation? We're not told that David's belief that he created the alien is false, but by including evidence that he is not reliable in general, it puts shade over anything and everything he says.
Yes, Ridley's intention is for David to be the creator. Yes, that is likely the current canon. No, it is not definitive, simply because of the way that David is characterised.
It's a smart move of Scott's part because it allows him to do whatever he wants with the next movie, if it ever happens.
I would say those observations seem logical to me, especially the ones that confirming my personal biases
, but certainly not excluding those that do not. But, that being said. and just for fun, in a hypothetical and geeky court of law taken solely within the context of the world as portrayed in the three films, if offered the evidence above regarding the reliability of David's narrative, the doubts would still appear reasonable. But I'm just a cavemen lawyer, the glitter and glitz of this, your modern world, confuse and terrify me. Therefore, i humbly admit that the figurative mileages of other judges or juries may, and probably will, be certain to vary.
And I concede if, from a production point of view, one bases their argument on the directorial choices of the three Scott films, then yes I do concur. Meta textually, Scott's choices in the final cut of AC lead the audience to believe that David has labored to cultivate the goo towards some undefined end goal.
And what's more, we are in fact lead to believe that David has successfully come one step further toward the completion of that unstated goal. If one does indeed elect to dismiss either some, or even all of the licensed material, and the entirety of the associated franchises if they so choose, then it is in fact their prerogative to do so. And if so, then yes, David's revelation with regards to his ongoing work goes unquestioned. The exact circumstances of the Derelict found on LV-426 in the first Ridley film, to date, remain a mystery and Capt Dallas' observations about the 'Jockey' found there should be regarded as simply mistaken ones.
I also concede that it's been quite a while since I've seen Covenant, can someone tell me again what the stated goal of David's work was exactly? I genuinely can't recall and I may need a refresher from someone.
Posted by 426Buddy
- May 27, 2020, 12:17:43 AMThinking about it I guess it's not even a big deal, half the casuals who saw A:C don't know what David is talking about and the other wouldn't know the previous films well enough to understand it's relevance. 
Anyway since release I've come to terms with David being the creator, plus I liked Covenant even on initial viewing. I try to just enjoy the films on there own and not overly think about the ancient aliens angle.
Anyway since release I've come to terms with David being the creator, plus I liked Covenant even on initial viewing. I try to just enjoy the films on there own and not overly think about the ancient aliens angle.
Posted by Immortan Jonesy
- May 26, 2020, 11:50:50 PMMaybe the dude was trying to open the most remote Sideshow Collectibles store in space. So he just wanted to sell some ridiculously expensive toys to all space travelers who made a stop on that planet.
Posted by SiL
- May 26, 2020, 11:36:16 PMDude's good with some charcoal.
Posted by Immortan Jonesy
- May 26, 2020, 11:28:28 PMWell, as someone who "wants him to be wrong" I have to admit that the boy has plenty of evidence to back up his claims.
That simple fact carries more weight than having him making a mistake, I'm afraid.
That simple fact carries more weight than having him making a mistake, I'm afraid.
Posted by SM
- May 26, 2020, 11:26:08 PMTherein lies the problem. If someone dislikes David being the creator, they'll cling to any way for it not to be so, no matter how illogical.
Posted by SiL
- May 26, 2020, 11:15:49 PMQuote from: Stitch on May 26, 2020, 10:49:15 PMTo show he is villainous and untrustworthy. In the previous film he was just following orders. Now he's actually broken.
You say that every time David is wrong, it is shown, and the information about the alien creation is not shown to be incorrect, and is thus more likely to be true. This makes sense, but, as a counterpoint, why show David's failings in the first place?
QuoteNo, it is not definitive, simply because of the way that David is characterised.Within the context of the story, it doesn't really make sense for him to be lying about his creation. "He's mad! He's deluded!" And? If he wanted to take credit for something, why not take credit for everything? Why the Alien specifically? Why not the neomorph? Why not the pathogen? The people he's talking to wouldn't know any better. The pathogen is able to create life, if we're sticking to his delusion of being a creator, why not take credit for that?
Outside of wanting him to be wrong, what about the film shows that he's lying about that? A capacity to be mistaken doesn't mean it's reasonable to assume every statement is a falsehood.
Remove "I don't like David being the creator" from the equation and ask yourself, honestly, what in the film suggests he's lying or deluded specifically about creating the Alien?
Posted by Stitch
- May 26, 2020, 10:49:15 PMQuote from: SiL on May 25, 2020, 10:01:54 PMI think the point is that the film deliberately shows that David is malfunctioning and is wrong, but believes himself to be right.Quote from: 426Buddy on May 25, 2020, 12:10:02 PMMy point is that the film isn't ambiguous about any other time he's wrong. It clearly treats his revelation very differently to the rest of his delusions and self aggrandizing.
Wouldn't you have to be the writer to know that? Or is there some writing rule that a character can only have been misleading or wrong if the film explicitly points it out by the end? Can it not be left ambiguos?
There's room for it to be wrong later, but it's very clear the film on its own is telling the audience David made the Alien.
The film also implies that he is the creator of the aliens, but this is exposition that we get from David, whom it has been shown is an unreliable narrator.
You say that every time David is wrong, it is shown, and the information about the alien creation is not shown to be incorrect, and is thus more likely to be true. This makes sense, but, as a counterpoint, why show David's failings in the first place? Would it really have made much difference to his characterisation? We're not told that David's belief that he created the alien is false, but by including evidence that he is not reliable in general, it puts shade over anything and everything he says.
Yes, Ridley's intention is for David to be the creator. Yes, that is likely the current canon. No, it is not definitive, simply because of the way that David is characterised.
It's a smart move of Scott's part because it allows him to do whatever he wants with the next movie, if it ever happens.
Posted by SpaceKase
- May 26, 2020, 07:42:58 AMQuote from: SiL on May 26, 2020, 07:32:17 AM
Super Facehugger is the big webbed bastard seen in the Extended Edition of Alien3.
I get ya, the action figures for them are really cool too, imho. I just think the name is funny and I love it.
"I've never seen a super facehugger. But I understand what you mean"
Posted by SiL
- May 26, 2020, 07:32:17 AMSuper Facehugger is the big webbed bastard seen in the Extended Edition of Alien3.
Posted by SpaceKase
- May 26, 2020, 07:07:40 AMQuote from: SiL on May 26, 2020, 12:53:25 AMQuote from: 426Buddy on May 25, 2020, 11:10:29 PMI think that's more thought than actually went into it
What if when Lindelof mentioned AvP to Ridley it planted a seed? Before going into AC he watches AvP and AvPR back to back. Afterwards he is sitting alone in his personal theater with a cigar in one hand and a glass of wine in the other. His face the picture of disgust, he thinks to himself " Oh god no, I'm going to nip this sh*t in the bud" he picks up the phone and calls John Logan " Lets make David the real creator of the beast instead!".
He sits back with an evil smile.
And I guarantee we're all putting more thought into this stuff than actually went into it. That's just nerdy love in the time of corona virus for ya.
On the real though, I'm going to be so sad when I level out of being a "Super Facehugger". Like, what does that even mean
Do I only hug super faces, or am I supernaturally good at hugging regular faces, or am I a regular facehugger that through some freak act of nature has gained powers and is now a champion fighting for the good of all facehuggers... hmmmn, my alter ego shall be called... "Dorian Scuttler".
