Quote 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.