After the explosion do you think the Derelict ship survived?
In the film it is never discussed how far away the ship is from Hadleys Hope....
Also, the mountainous terrain could have prevented the explosion from causing major destruction to the ship.
If anyone has the explosion scene could you please attach it as well?
It's quite possible, yes. We don't know what the distance was from the colony.
However, if 'Alien Resurrection' wasn't a dream, then we have the quote which pretty much dismisses it as a possibility. I also like to think Ripley would have preferred to be 100% thorough and made sure, with Bishop's assistance, that it had been destroyed.
On the other hand, it's been pointed out before that the egg chamber's dimensions are larger than the ship could technically support.... If it was a matter of the ship docking onto a subterranean cavern/facility, then Ripley could have wrongly assumed that, even if the derelict was clearly destroyed, that it meant the eggs also were.
Keep in mind that the early scripts for 'Alien' depicted the ship having docked onto a structure which was put there by an even older civilisation.
I like where this discussion is destined to go. ;D
Quote from: Xenomorphine on Mar 17, 2017, 10:41:36 PM
On the other hand, it's been pointed out before that the egg chamber's dimensions are larger than the ship could technically support.... If it was a matter of the ship docking onto a subterranean cavern/facility, then Ripley could have wrongly assumed that, even if the derelict was clearly destroyed, that it meant the eggs also were.
Wow. Never came across this before, this makes a lot more sense now when watching it....as I'm watching Alien right now of course.
But I also just caught the part where Ash says the planet is made of a Rock Lava Base (lava rock). So, now I'm wondering about LV 426 as well, because there must have been some volcanic activity of some sort...
Back to topic however, I do see the derelict surviving the blast the more I think about it. It may get disfigured and beat up but the amount of material that it's composed of would have definitely shielded the Alien eggs within, also taking in the fact that the eggs were 'underground' or underneath the ship just makes them less likely to be exposed.
....which means.....ALIENS remain on LV 426!
If you look in the background as well you can see how the 'ship' or alien chamber weaves way way way off into the distance.....not following the derelicts design pattern at all.
Instead of a U it seems more like an S on its side.
According to the Colonial Marines Tech Manual, it survived the blast. The Weyland Yutani Report does not contradict this (and according to the author, this was intentional).
As for the Derelict's wacky interior dimensions, I interpreted it more as a nod to its Lovecraftian inspirations, where otherworldly, inscrutable alien structures often have "impossible" geometry.
You know, kinda like a Tardis. It's bigger on the inside than it is on the outside.
Quote from: Xenomorphine on Mar 17, 2017, 10:41:36 PM
I also like to think Ripley would have preferred to be 100% thorough and made sure, with Bishop's assistance, that it had been destroyed.
This is the same Ripley who didn't take the time to check her own ship for stowaway eggs, therefore getting her friends killed and herself stranded on a prison planet. If she's willing to make a slip-up like that, I'm more than willing to accept her (erroneously) believing the Derelict was destroyed in the blast.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Mar 18, 2017, 04:44:28 AM
Quote from: Xenomorphine on Mar 17, 2017, 10:41:36 PM
I also like to think Ripley would have preferred to be 100% thorough and made sure, with Bishop's assistance, that it had been destroyed.
This is the same Ripley who didn't take the time to check her own ship for stowaway eggs, therefore getting her friends killed and herself stranded on a prison planet. If she's willing to make a slip-up like that, I'm more than willing to accept her (erroneously) believing the Derelict was destroyed in the blast.
This is why we need SM's FArT. :laugh:
I suggested the following as a compromise before and got nothing but crickets...
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 02, 2017, 10:39:30 PM
Another possibility is that the Sulaco was equipped with automated picket drones that could be deployed as satellites around a quarantined planet. These drones would then both transmit a warning beacon and report any violations of the quarantine back to the network.
In lieu of nuking the planet from orbit, maybe Bishop was able to assure Ripley that the company would never be able to plunder the derelict without exposing themselves.
The Derelict was not a viable source of eggs following the destruction of the AP.
Quote from: SM on Mar 18, 2017, 08:39:41 PM
The Derelict was not a viable source of eggs following the destruction of the AP.
that's correct, the derelict never contained them :D
well, that's what i find interesting from the theory above, that they actually not were aboard the ship anymore, but that the cargo hold was actually a subterrain facility.
Quote from: SM on Mar 18, 2017, 08:39:41 PM
The Derelict was not a viable source of eggs following the destruction of the AP.
But CMTM.
Quote from: cliffhanger on Mar 18, 2017, 08:51:20 PM
Quote from: SM on Mar 18, 2017, 08:39:41 PM
The Derelict was not a viable source of eggs following the destruction of the AP.
that's correct, the derelict never contained them :D
well, that's what i find interesting from the theory above, that they actually not were aboard the ship anymore, but that the cargo hold was actually a subterrain facility.
Hold, facility, whatever, it's still not a viable source of eggs.
Quote from: SM on Mar 19, 2017, 01:50:40 AM
Quote from: cliffhanger on Mar 18, 2017, 08:51:20 PM
Quote from: SM on Mar 18, 2017, 08:39:41 PM
The Derelict was not a viable source of eggs following the destruction of the AP.
that's correct, the derelict never contained them :D
well, that's what i find interesting from the theory above, that they actually not were aboard the ship anymore, but that the cargo hold was actually a subterrain facility.
Hold, facility, whatever, it's still not a viable source of eggs.
As with everything else in this franchise, this is only true until it isn't. :)
And for now it is, so pretending otherwise is pointless.
Quote from: SiL on Mar 19, 2017, 05:07:35 AM
And for now it is, so pretending otherwise is pointless.
I dunno about that. The author of the WY Report said she was told by FOX to word the bits about the Derelict the way she did because they "had plans" for the Derelict in other media.
Everything is proceeding as I have foreseen. ;D
Quote from: Xenomorphine on Mar 17, 2017, 10:41:36 PM
On the other hand, it's been pointed out before that the egg chamber's dimensions are larger than the ship could technically support.... If it was a matter of the ship docking onto a subterranean cavern/facility, then Ripley could have wrongly assumed that, even if the derelict was clearly destroyed, that it meant the eggs also were.
I actually said the same thing when i saw that scene, when kane is going down you see how VAST and MASSIVE the hallways are... there is no way in hell the ship is that big ?
Quote from: Xenomorphine on Mar 17, 2017, 10:41:36 PM
Keep in mind that the early scripts for 'Alien' depicted the ship having docked onto a structure which was put there by an even older civilisation.
Maybe in early scripts, but looking at the scene it's clearly obvious that ship is docked onto something like a hatch but not fully docked, as the ship looks like it's *tilting*
(while a dead xeno made that hole) possible killed by the jockey while he's still in the chair.
So...no takers on the quarantine theory?
*crickets*
Quote from: Local Trouble on Mar 19, 2017, 06:54:57 PM
So...no takers on the quarantine theory?
Elaborate dear sir...
I think it's a neat idea.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Mar 19, 2017, 10:01:07 AM
I dunno about that. The author of the WY Report said she was told by FOX to word the bits about the Derelict the way she did because they "had plans" for the Derelict in other media.
And until it materializes, it's a moot point.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Mar 19, 2017, 10:01:07 AM
I dunno about that. The author of the WY Report said she was told by FOX to word the bits about the Derelict the way she did because they "had plans" for the Derelict in other media.
Didn't know that. Interesting.
Can only think it was in relation to the Blomkamp concept art.
It was written sometime prior to the Blomkamp thing surfacing.
"Curiouser and curiouser..."
They've gone back to the derelict multiple times in various EU, so it's not surprising.
Quote from: SiL on Mar 20, 2017, 02:58:18 AM
They've gone back to the derelict multiple times in various EU, so it's not surprising.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-12ac6SLdR4g%2FVPTR49uD8VI%2FAAAAAAAACtk%2FQyXinwbUlPE%2Fs1600%2Fi-aint-even-surprised-meme.jpg&hash=5f1c1893833505c7921fc682b5d63de833f635a2)
Quote from: SiL on Mar 20, 2017, 02:58:18 AM
They've gone back to the derelict multiple times in various EU, so it's not surprising.
It's a visually and thematically interesting element of the first movie, which is why it always struck me as bizarre when I'd see fans defending its alleged (off-screen) destruction, especially when its in service to a throwaway line that only exists to support a plot where the writer wrote himself into a corner by being forced to include Ripley, in a movie that wasn't particularly well received to begin with.
As an aside, the levels where you explore the Derelict in AvPClassic, Colonial Marines, and (especially) Alien Isolation are some of my favorite levels in Alien-themed videogames.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Mar 18, 2017, 09:37:58 PM
Quote from: SM on Mar 18, 2017, 08:39:41 PM
The Derelict was not a viable source of eggs following the destruction of the AP.
But CMTM.
Doesn't mean the Derelict wasn't destroyed. Didn't AvP99 mention something about sterilized eggs or was that done on purpose and not related to the AP blast?
Quote from: Xenomrph on Mar 20, 2017, 09:53:55 AM
It's a visually and thematically interesting element of the first movie, which is why it always struck me as bizarre when I'd see fans defending its alleged (off-screen) destruction
So was MUTHR and the Nostromo, but when shit's gone, shit's gone.
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Mar 20, 2017, 10:27:18 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Mar 18, 2017, 09:37:58 PM
Quote from: SM on Mar 18, 2017, 08:39:41 PM
The Derelict was not a viable source of eggs following the destruction of the AP.
But CMTM.
Doesn't mean the Derelict wasn't destroyed. Didn't AvP99 mention something about sterilized eggs or was that done on purpose and not related to the AP blast?
We don't know, it just says they're sterilized. I never considered that it could be in reference to the original AP blast, I figured it was just dialogue to justify why the eggs don't spring facehuggers at you like you'd expect when you put your face in them. And considering the first several levels of the Marine campaign take place on LV-426 and have Aliens running around, those Aliens had to have come from
somewhere.
Also the CMTM outright says the Derelict wasn't destroyed. :P
Quote from: SiL on Mar 20, 2017, 10:32:37 AM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Mar 20, 2017, 09:53:55 AM
It's a visually and thematically interesting element of the first movie, which is why it always struck me as bizarre when I'd see fans defending its alleged (off-screen) destruction
So was MUTHR and the Nostromo, but when shit's gone, shit's gone.
The difference being their destruction served the plot of the movie they're in, they had significant screen time and were thoroughly explored, and weren't eliminated off-screen in service of bad writing. You
think the Derelict is gone because Resurrection implies it because it's part of what makes the "cloning Ripley" contrivance make sense, but nowhere in any of the movies does it say it was destroyed.
Also I saw you kinda truncated what you quoted from my post, I didn't write those words by accident. :)
If the Derelict had been shown being destroyed in 'Aliens', we wouldn't even be having this conversation. The entire catalyst for its survival is straight out of the dialogue in the 'Aliens' special edition anyway - we're told it's "out past the Ilyum range". The CMTM's explanation for its survival is more than plausible given what the movie tells us.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Mar 20, 2017, 10:46:48 AM
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Mar 20, 2017, 10:27:18 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Mar 18, 2017, 09:37:58 PM
Quote from: SM on Mar 18, 2017, 08:39:41 PM
The Derelict was not a viable source of eggs following the destruction of the AP.
But CMTM.
Doesn't mean the Derelict wasn't destroyed. Didn't AvP99 mention something about sterilized eggs or was that done on purpose and not related to the AP blast?
We don't know, it just says they're sterilized.
Also the CMTM outright says the Derelict wasn't destroyed. :P
I mean saying the Derelict isn't a viable source doesn't mean that the Derelict was destroyed. Leaves wiggle room for radiation killing the eggs or some such.
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Mar 20, 2017, 10:48:14 AM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Mar 20, 2017, 10:46:48 AM
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Mar 20, 2017, 10:27:18 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Mar 18, 2017, 09:37:58 PM
Quote from: SM on Mar 18, 2017, 08:39:41 PM
The Derelict was not a viable source of eggs following the destruction of the AP.
But CMTM.
Doesn't mean the Derelict wasn't destroyed. Didn't AvP99 mention something about sterilized eggs or was that done on purpose and not related to the AP blast?
We don't know, it just says they're sterilized.
Also the CMTM outright says the Derelict wasn't destroyed. :P
I mean saying the Derelict isn't a viable source doesn't mean that the Derelict wasn't destroyed. Leaves wiggle room for radiation killing the eggs or some such.
In that case, don't you mean the Derelict not being a viable source doesn't mean the Derelict WAS destroyed?
Also I edited my earlier post to elaborate on the AvP99 thing, I think my edit went up after your latest post.
QuoteThe difference being their destruction served the plot of the movie they're in,
The derelict being destroyed served Ripley's journey of going back out there to wipe them all out.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Mar 20, 2017, 10:53:53 AM
In that case, don't you mean the Derelict not being a viable source doesn't mean the Derelict WAS destroyed?
I do. Edited my own post.
Was it ever talked about or confirmed the *Distance* from the Colony base to the ship? and how powerful the blast would be?
Because we did see newts family drive there and it seemed WAYYY OUT.
Quote from: SiL on Mar 20, 2017, 10:59:27 AM
QuoteThe difference being their destruction served the plot of the movie they're in,
The derelict being destroyed served Ripley's journey of going back out there to wipe them all out.
Wouldn't leaving the derelict intact have been a failure of Ripley's most basic reason for going back?
Yes.
That's it? You don't want to mull it over some more before coming to a final conclusion?
It's been mulled for a good decade or two.
You're not concerned that SM-of-the-future might look back on this thread and think that SM-of-the-present is being rash and impulsive?
Bishop with the bait and switch.
Quote from: SiL on Mar 20, 2017, 10:59:27 AM
QuoteThe difference being their destruction served the plot of the movie they're in,
The derelict being destroyed served Ripley's journey of going back out there to wipe them all out.
Probably might have been worth it to show that, or even acknowledge it in dialogue in some capacity. I mean the Special Edition outright shows us the Derelict, so it's not like the movie forgot it existed.
But the Special Edition also tells us the Derelict is nowhere near the colony, and behind a mountain range.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Mar 20, 2017, 05:13:09 PM
Quote from: SiL on Mar 20, 2017, 10:59:27 AM
QuoteThe difference being their destruction served the plot of the movie they're in,
The derelict being destroyed served Ripley's journey of going back out there to wipe them all out.
Wouldn't leaving the derelict intact have been a failure of Ripley's most basic reason for going back?
She may have had other things on her mind, or (erroneously) thought the blast would take it out. I mean when she gets to the planet, she makes no mention of the Derelict, doesn't ask where it is in relation to the colony, doesn't urge Gorman to use the Marines' arsenal to bomb the shit out of it, nothing.
I imagine it got mentioned in her briefing that none of the Marines read, and it was likely on the itinerary of things to check out after they secured the colony (which was priority #1), but Ripley's planned itinerary went right out the window the moment the Marines got ambushed and they lost the APC and the Dropship. I imagine "escape alive" was outweighing her desire to check everything off her Alien-killing bucket-list at that point.
And then she got back to the Sulaco, and either forgot about it (as she'd done for the entirety of the movie - like I said, she never brings the Derelict up again) or mistakenly thought the AP explosion took it out.
And then put herself and her friends into cryosleep without checking the ship for Alien eggs. :P
Quote from: Xenomrph on Mar 21, 2017, 01:13:49 AM
Probably might have been worth it to show that, or even acknowledge it in dialogue in some capacity.
Why show it in detail? They don't even show the colony being destroyed. They're flying away from a giant mushroom cloud. Big explosion, everyone happy, the end.
QuoteBut the Special Edition also tells us the Derelict is nowhere near the colony, and behind a mountain range.
If you want to be really anal -- and I know you do :P -- they just say "Illium range". A range can refer to a mountain range, but also a dozen other things.
QuoteWhy show it in detail? They don't even show the colony being destroyed. They're flying away from a giant mushroom cloud. Big explosion, everyone happy, the end.
Even a throwaway line of dialogue where Ripley confirms it's destroyed would have worked.
Literally anything :P
QuoteIf you want to be really anal -- and I know you do :P -- they just say "Illium range". A range can refer to a mountain range, but also a dozen other things.
The actual dialogue is "out past the Ilium range". Context clues are very helpful.
As an aside, the script literally says the Jordens are exploring in "the middle of nowhere", if that helps gauge how far from the colony they are. My copy of the novelization is currently packed while I'm moving so I can't really check it to see if it offers any insight.
This whole discussion strikes me as just a little bit post-hoc, which is the other really bizarre thing about it. Like, I'm not entirely sure you (or SM) would be arguing in favor of the Derelict's destruction if we were having this discussion, say, in 1996, prior to Resurrection seemingly forcing your hand.
I guess the bottom line is, for those who want to believe the Derelict was destroyed (for some reason), the movies don't contradict that conclusion, but for those who want to believe it survived, the movies don't contradict that conclusion, either. And if we venture into the EU, the CMTM confirms it survived, and the author of the WYR says she was instructed to not contradict that (be the eggs viable or otherwise).
Quote from: Local Trouble on Mar 20, 2017, 09:08:02 PM
You're not concerned that SM-of-the-future might look back on this thread and think that SM-of-the-present is being rash and impulsive?
No.
And "past" the Ilium Range doesn't automatically equate to "behind".
Quote from: SM on Mar 21, 2017, 03:54:22 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Mar 20, 2017, 09:08:02 PM
You're not concerned that SM-of-the-future might look back on this thread and think that SM-of-the-present is being rash and impulsive?
No.
And "past" the Ilium Range doesn't automatically equate to "behind".
It kinda does, though. Like, that's what those words mean. Whether it's literally butted up right next to them or it's 50 miles beyond them, there's still a mountain range in between the colony and the Derelict, shielding it from the explosion.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Mar 21, 2017, 03:22:11 AM
Even a throwaway line of dialogue where Ripley confirms it's destroyed would have worked. Literally anything
And yet mostly people are fine without it. It's clearly not needed.
QuoteThis whole discussion strikes me as just a little bit post-hoc, which is the other really bizarre thing about it. Like, I'm not entirely sure you (or SM) would be arguing in favor of the Derelict's destruction if we were having this discussion, say, in 1996, prior to Resurrection seemingly forcing your hand.
Please stick with speaking for yourself and don't assume you know how others would think, it's really obnoxious.
I really do not have a shit to give about the derelict so no, I wouldn't care. I don't understand the hard on for it.
Add for the movies not supporting the idea is destroyed, they clearly do. If you're going to bring novels into it, they're even more explicit.
QuoteIt kinda does, though. Like, that's what those words mean. Whether it's literally butted up right next to them or it's 50 miles beyond them, there's still a mountain range in between the colony and the Derelict, shielding it from the explosion.
Only if it's a mountain range, which again, it might not be.
QuoteI really do not have a shit to give about the derelict so no, I wouldn't care. I don't understand the hard on for it.
I don't know why opinions are even a factor. People generally accept Prometheus and the four Alien films as canon, even if they don't like one or more of them.
Whether I want the Derelict back or not isn't going to make it so.
QuoteAnd yet mostly people are fine without it. It's clearly not needed.
Who, exactly, are "most people"?
Like I said, if the movie wanted to make it definitive that it had been destroyed, a simple line of dialogue would have been sufficient.
QuoteAdd for the movies not supporting the idea is destroyed, they clearly do.
No, I said the movies can support it either way, as demonstrated. :)
QuoteOnly if it's a mountain range, which again, it might not be.
That's an interesting reinterpretation, and you're welcome to it.
Just because I'm curious, what do you think "Ilium Range" means in that context? I'm not asking what you think it
could be for this argument's sake, I'm asking what you definitively, actually think it
is.
I'm just trying to gauge if you're playing Devil's Advocate (which is totally cool! I do it all the time and it can definitely facilitate interesting discussion) or if that's actually your opinion.
Ultimately it kinda doesn't matter because we're just having a discussion on the internet, but I'm still curious. Poe's Law and all that.
Like I said before:
Quote from: Xenomrph on Mar 21, 2017, 03:22:11 AM
I guess the bottom line is, for those who want to believe the Derelict was destroyed (for some reason), the movies don't contradict that conclusion, but for those who want to believe it survived, the movies don't contradict that conclusion, either. And if we venture into the EU, the CMTM confirms it survived, and the author of the WYR says she was instructed to not contradict that (be the eggs viable or otherwise).
Quote from: SM on Mar 21, 2017, 07:57:21 AM
QuoteI really do not have a shit to give about the derelict so no, I wouldn't care. I don't understand the hard on for it.
I don't know why opinions are even a factor. People generally accept Prometheus and the four Alien films as canon, even if they don't like one or more of them.
Whether I want the Derelict back or not isn't going to make it so.
Because whether you believe the Derelict is still around hinges on a lot of opinions, whether you choose to acknowledge them or not. The "fact" remains that the WYR is deliberately noncommittal at FOX's instruction, according to the author.
So yes, whether you believe the Derelict survived or not is actually a matter of opinion. This thread's very existence is evidence of that.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Mar 21, 2017, 08:12:50 AM
Who, exactly, are "most people"?
Most people who watch the film are satisfied that everything was wrapped up. As evidenced by these conversations being held pretty exclusively by tiny fractions of vocal fans every now and then.
Or more to the point, "most people" really, really don't care.
And the "throwaway line"
was added ... in a later film, confirming Ripley achieved her goal in
Aliens of effectively wiping them out. But you ignore/reinterpret it because you don't like it.
QuoteJust because I'm curious, what do you think "Ilium Range" means in that context?
Canyon range.
QuoteNo, I said the movies can support it either way, as demonstrated.
My bad, I misread -- but then why the hell are you throwing around lines like "for those who want to believe the Derelict was destroyed (
for some reason)"?
It just makes you sound like a smug jerk trying to talk down to other fans. If it's explicable through the movies, why would it be so inconceivable that people are perfectly fine with the thing being destroyed? Why would you even assume that so many people
must be interested in it?
QuoteSo yes, whether you believe the Derelict survived or not is actually a matter of opinion. This thread's very existence is evidence of that.
A thread about people arguing if the world is flat doesn't mean it's an opinion that it's round :)
Quote
Or more to the point, "most people" really, really don't care.
Can't disagree there. ;D
QuoteAnd the "throwaway line" was added ... in a later film, confirming Ripley achieved her goal in Aliens of effectively wiping them out. But you ignore/reinterpret it because you don't like it.
It was only added in the later film to facilitate the plot contrivance of bringing Ripley back from the dead, which is a big part of why I choose to reinterpret it.
The WYR evidently chooses to, at FOX's behest. :P
QuoteMy bad, I misread -- but then why the hell are you throwing around lines like "for those who want to believe the Derelict was destroyed (for some reason)"?
It just makes you sound like a smug jerk trying to talk down to other fans. If it's explicable through the movies, why would it be so inconceivable that people are perfectly fine with the thing being destroyed? Why would you even assume that so many people must be interested in it?
That's my bad, I apologize for wording it the way I did. I see how it can come across the way you're saying, I'm sorry about that.
QuoteA thread about people arguing if the world is flat doesn't mean it's an opinion that it's round
The difference is that one is a work of fiction and open to interpretation, and the other is not. :)
Quote from: Xenomrph on Mar 21, 2017, 08:48:08 AM
The difference is that one is a work of fiction and open to interpretation, and the other is not. :)
"If we're discussing it it's an opinion" is always incredibly specious logic :P
Quote from: SiL on Mar 21, 2017, 09:02:22 AM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Mar 21, 2017, 08:48:08 AM
The difference is that one is a work of fiction and open to interpretation, and the other is not. :)
"If we're discussing it it's an opinion" is always incredibly specious logic :P
Well yeah if you're talking about real-world stuff. Believe me, I live in Trump's America right now, complete with "alternative facts". :P
But with art or fiction, it's an entirely different beast.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Mar 21, 2017, 09:03:57 AM
But with art or fiction, it's an entirely different beast.
No, it's still specious. There's a thread in this very forum about a gay moment between Burke and Gorman. It doesn't exist. It's not an opinion, yet there's still a thread discussing it with people insisting it's real :P
Quote from: SiL on Mar 21, 2017, 10:11:07 AM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Mar 21, 2017, 09:03:57 AM
But with art or fiction, it's an entirely different beast.
No, it's still specious. There's a thread in this very forum about a gay moment between Burke and Gorman. It doesn't exist. It's not an opinion, yet there's still a thread discussing it with people insisting it's real :P
Ehhhh... if someone can reinterpret the movie and actually use the movie as evidence to support a conclusion, I'm not sure how specious it really is. Like, that's kinda how art works.
I'm not saying I
agree with every wacky interpretation or that they're all equally valid, mind you. :P
A strictly enforced quarantine of LV-426 could make the derelict a non-viable source for eggs as well.
Who's strictly enforcing a quarantine of a backwater planet?
Quote from: Local Trouble on Mar 21, 2017, 07:41:17 PM
A strictly enforced quarantine of LV-426 could make the derelict a non-viable source for eggs as well.
A quarantine enforced by the military, who could probably get around it is they were that desperate for specimens.
If not the USCM, then the USM. The same USM who went to the trouble of cloning a dead woman eight times in the hopes that they could get a specimen.
There's no hard evidence in the movies documenting the derelict's destruction. A mushroom cloud above a site where it wasn't even located and a piece of dialogue from a movie that takes place 200 years later is all that exists. It's ambiguous as it gets.
If Fox wants to pull the derelict out of its ass with a resounding 'POP!' and present it to the world once agaian in a new movie and say "There ya go, it wasn't destroyed after all", then they can. There's nothing to stop them from doing so.
-Windebieste.
There's nothing stopping them bringing back Ripley, Newt and Hicks for a cabaret show to replace A3, either.
Quote from: SM on Mar 21, 2017, 08:42:03 PM
Who's strictly enforcing a quarantine of a backwater planet?
Automated picket drones that could be deployed as satellites that would then both transmit a warning beacon and report any violations of the quarantine back to the network.
That might be just enough to deter the company from plundering the derelict.
Doesn't sound strict enough to deter Crew Expendable Inc.
I suppose that depends on how willing you believe the company is to incriminate themselves by openly breaking the law. As a wise man once said...
Quote from: SM on Nov 06, 2016, 08:53:48 PM
They weren't powerful enough to flout laws with impunity.
;D
Doesn't mean they won't try and get away with it if they think they can, and I'm not sure a few satellites will stop a company that somehow has access to military starship logs.
Quote from: SiL on Mar 21, 2017, 09:49:19 PM
There's nothing stopping them bringing back Ripley, Newt and Hicks for a cabaret show to replace A3, either.
True, but off topic. :P
Quote from: Local Trouble on Mar 21, 2017, 07:41:17 PM
A strictly enforced quarantine of LV-426 could make the derelict a non-viable source for eggs as well.
I meant to reply to your earlier message where you brought this up - I think it's a neat idea. :)
Quote from: SM on Mar 21, 2017, 08:43:44 PM
If not the USCM, then the USM. The same USM who went to the trouble of cloning a dead woman eight times in the hopes that they could get a specimen.
If they're operating off-the-books (but simultaneously can't leave the Solar System to do their crazy clandestine, morally-questionable science experiments) then perhaps violating said hypothetical quarantine isn't feasible without attracting too much attention.
Quote from: windebieste on Mar 21, 2017, 11:57:10 PM
True, but off topic. :P
Not really. Just because they
can do something doesn't indicate a lack of evidence that the stories say otherwise :P
How about the evidence that suggests Ripley, Newt and Hicks are dead is substantial. The evidence the derelict has been destroyed is not and is nothing but hearsay. If Fox want to revisit the site, they can and it won't lean heavily on breaking extant credibility.
That makes it off topic. ;D
-Windebieste.
Wasn't it said that the mountain ranges blocked most of the blast? or something like that.. Eh, if Aliens colonial marines is anything to go by for being Canon in the Alien verse then The Derelict is still intact (But Damaged) And wasn't most of the reactor underground? so that would have contained a big portion of the blast.
Maybe either the Blast was over exaggerated by Bishop due to the events happening around them at the time. The Blast was over exaggerated again for movie sake.. Like ohh go out with a cinematic explosion! Or maybe the blast just wasn't as big or as damaging as it Should.
QuoteWasn't it said that the mountain ranges blocked most of the blast?
That was said in the Colonial Marines Tech Manual before there was an Alien Resurrection.
QuoteEh, if Aliens colonial marines is anything to go by for being Canon in the Alien verse
It isn't.
QuoteAnd wasn't most of the reactor underground? so that would have contained a big portion of the blast.
The film didn't seem to indicate it was contained.
Oh as an aside, SiL, the phrase "canyon range" isn't a thing. :P
Like, try googling the phrase - you'll come back with a mix of responses like "do you mean mountain range?" and "info about mountain ranges that happen to have the word 'canyon' in their name".
Quote from: SM on Mar 22, 2017, 04:29:22 AM
QuoteWasn't it said that the mountain ranges blocked most of the blast?
That was said in the Colonial Marines Tech Manual before there was an Alien Resurrection.
QuoteEh, if Aliens colonial marines is anything to go by for being Canon in the Alien verse
It isn't.
QuoteAnd wasn't most of the reactor underground? so that would have contained a big portion of the blast.
The film didn't seem to indicate it was contained.
Film didn't but general logic says it should be. Also didn't Fix say A:CM was canon?
Gearbox said it was iirc. But Fox doesn't currently consider it canon.
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Mar 22, 2017, 09:40:17 AM
Gearbox said it was iirc. But Fox doesn't currently consider it canon.
They can say all they want, FOX has the last word.... why would GEARBOX think it's canon? for money? it obviously isn't canon.
Pretty sure everyone on here knows that.
Gearbox can't say it's canon without Fox's approval.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Mar 22, 2017, 05:12:07 AM
Oh as an aside, SiL, the phrase "canyon range" isn't a thing. :P
Cool.
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Mar 22, 2017, 09:40:17 AM
Gearbox said it was iirc. But Fox doesn't currently consider it canon.
Gearbox's community manager publicly stated that the game was considered canon by 20th Century Fox at PAX East 2012. Pitchfork and Neumann were also hyping that up in all their pre-release interviews.
I guess Fox probably decided it never happened after the game's reception. :laugh:
Quote from: Xenomrph on Mar 22, 2017, 01:07:38 AM
Quote from: SM on Mar 21, 2017, 08:43:44 PM
If not the USCM, then the USM. The same USM who went to the trouble of cloning a dead woman eight times in the hopes that they could get a specimen.
If they're operating off-the-books (but simultaneously can't leave the Solar System to do their crazy clandestine, morally-questionable science experiments) then perhaps violating said hypothetical quarantine isn't feasible without attracting too much attention.
That's kinda what I had in mind too, especially given the exchange between Perez and Elgyn about the under-the-table nature of the Auriga's "military operation."
Not sure of the relevance.
I feel like an idiot–I've been thinking Aliens Colonial Marines was canon for years now....this actually made my day :D When/where did it come out that it wasn't?
Couple of years back.
Quote from: SM on Mar 22, 2017, 07:42:21 PMNot sure of the relevance.
Going to LV-426 may not have been an option for Perez if doing so risked exposure of his operation.
Exposure to whom?
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.writethirty.com%2Fwp_content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F09%2Fgermans.jpg&hash=6eadf9541798b4aea4e56c450e36db8c5b8027cf)
Ultimately it's moot. The Resurrection novel tells what happened on LV-426.
"I'm thinking whatever you've got going on here, it ain't exactly approved by Congress."
Not publicly.
They financed pirates to hijack a ship and abduct the passengers for scientific experimentation. Not sure a few old satellites are going to pose much of an obstacle.
Quote from: Fanboy Ben on Mar 22, 2017, 07:47:49 PM
I feel like an idiot–I've been thinking Aliens Colonial Marines was canon for years now....this actually made my day :D When/where did it come out that it wasn't?
It was never part of film continuity anyway.
It was. Just not for very long.
It may have been canon, for whatever little that's worth, but as far as the films are concerned, it's non-existent. Movie fans never had a reason to fret.
Quote from: SM on Mar 22, 2017, 09:12:10 PM
Exposure to whom?
http://www.writethirty.com/wp_content/uploads/2009/09/germans.jpg
Ultimately it's moot. The Resurrection novel tells what happened on LV-426.
The novelization also tells us that WY was bought out by Wal-Mart, but apparently we can cherry-pick what is or isn't "canon" from the novelization. :P
Quote from: SM on Mar 22, 2017, 09:17:09 PM
Not publicly.
They financed pirates to hijack a ship and abduct the passengers for scientific experimentation. Not sure a few old satellites are going to pose much of an obstacle.
Yes, and they did so under-the-table, that's the point.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Mar 23, 2017, 10:14:47 AMThe novelization also tells us that WY was bought out by Wal-Mart, but apparently we can cherry-pick what is or isn't "canon" from the novelization. :P
How does SM usually decide which parts of the novelizations to cherry-pick?
Generally it depends on whether it's supported or contradicted by the films. When it comes to the Derelict, the novel supports the film. The WYR is an extra element that further clarifies things.
SM's discretion?
One has to have standards.
Go play A:CM.
No, one has to have standards.
Quote from: SM on Mar 23, 2017, 08:32:14 PM
When it comes to the Derelict, the novel supports the film.
Is it said in the novel that the Derelict was destroyed?
Quote from: SM on Mar 23, 2017, 08:32:14 PM
Generally it depends on whether it's supported or contradicted by the films. When it comes to the Derelict, the novel supports the film. The WYR is an extra element that further clarifies things.
The director's cut of Resurrection literally has the Weyland Yutani bought out by Walmart line, and the theatrical cut certainly doesn't contradict the existence of the line, but somehow that doesn't make the cut while the bit about the Derelict does. :P
It's a moot point anyway - the WYR is a more recent source and intentionally doesn't support what the novelization says (per FOX's request), according to the author.
Quote from: SM on Mar 23, 2017, 08:48:33 PM
One has to have double standards.
Fixed that for you. ;D
So by the time of Resurrection for whatever reason they couldn't get an Alien sample from it. This could be because it was destroyed at the end of Aliens, or at any point in the last c200 years. It could also be because there are no eggs left, they couldn't find it, some other group has total control over it etc.
Given what we saw in Prometheus with the ship ramming it directly and blowing up, it crashing down to surface I'd say it's pretty tough. I'm personally inclined to believe a spaceship could withstand extreme heat, and as such would have survived - although no doubt it would have been damaged to some extent.
I think the reason it wasn't directly addressed in Aliens was to leave it open for a sequel, in the end A3 didn't use it and then AR had to imply it was destroyed to lend credibility to it's plot.
With the new planet in Prometheus having loads of ships, and Paradise coming up the original derelict loses it's significance anyway - if they did a sequel in the timeline I'd expect they would get eggs from where else.
Now that you mention it, it seems even stranger that no one apparently revisited LV-223 even if LV-426 was "non-viable."
QuoteI think the reason it wasn't directly addressed in Aliens was to leave it open for a sequel, in the end A3 didn't use it and then AR had to imply it was destroyed to lend credibility to it's plot.
AR had to imply it was destroyed to make Ripley's sacrifice actually count for something.
The fact the A3 company guys went all the way to Fury to take the Queen instead of going the original site speaks by itself even without Alien: Resurrection
Well in Alien Lambert state that the diameter of the LV-426 is just 1200 km. Is that correct? Earth is about 10 times greater in diameter and has a horizon about 11 miles away, level ground or ocean. So...on LV-426 the horizon would be around a mile away. Hence the Derelict should have easily survived as it is likely more than 1 mile away from the atmosphere processing machine.
No?
Quote from: Stanley on Mar 25, 2017, 12:23:24 AM
Well in Alien Lambert state that the diameter of the LV-426 is just 1200 km. Is that correct?
Well, guys?
Quote from: Stanley on Mar 25, 2017, 12:23:24 AM
should have easily survived as it is likely more than 1 mile away from the atmosphere processing machine.
No?
Yea, because when they *Built* the centre, there was nothing and i mean nothing about that ship being found or recorded.
50+ years later when ripley mentioned it (they was all confused shocked) but we know Burke sent someone to investigate.
so when that *nuke* whatever you call it went off? i'm sure the ship survived.
Right?
Quote from: x-M-x on Mar 25, 2017, 12:42:47 AM
Quote from: Stanley on Mar 25, 2017, 12:23:24 AM
should have easily survived as it is likely more than 1 mile away from the atmosphere processing machine.
No?
Yea, because when they *Built* the centre, there was nothing and i mean nothing about that ship being found or recorded.
50+ years later when ripley mentioned it (they was all confused shocked) but we know Burke sent someone to investigate.
so when that *nuke* whatever you call it went off? i'm sure the ship survived.
Right?
Well maybe the LV-426 data got updated or I had it wrong. But at 1200 km diameter it had 0.86 of Earth gravity. Umm...that's tough to do cuz so much less mass. Dense place ha.
Blast radius was 30km.
Quote from: SM on Mar 25, 2017, 02:07:49 AM
Blast radius was 30km.
That's vague tho. Cuz mostly thru the atmosphere.
Plus the Juggernaut ships are astonishingly strong, as are the Alien creatures. I mean in "Prometheus" the ship stayed mostly intact after falling out of the sky following a direct hit, while huge energies were being controlled and dissipated. This is way past any known material science.
The Derelict was damaged by a lava flow.
Quote from: SM on Mar 24, 2017, 08:42:14 PM
QuoteI think the reason it wasn't directly addressed in Aliens was to leave it open for a sequel, in the end A3 didn't use it and then AR had to imply it was destroyed to lend credibility to it's plot.
AR had to imply it was destroyed to make Ripley's sacrifice actually count for something.
If AR cared about Ripley's sacrifice, it wouldn't have brought her back from the dead to keep her story going. :P
Quote from: Omegamorph on Mar 25, 2017, 12:15:26 AM
The fact the A3 company guys went all the way to Fury to take the Queen instead of going the original site speaks by itself even without Alien: Resurrection
According to the USCM Tech Manual, they did both. You know the phrase, "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush"?
Quote from: Stanley on Mar 25, 2017, 12:23:24 AM
Well in Alien Lambert state that the diameter of the LV-426 is just 1200 km. Is that correct? Earth is about 10 times greater in diameter and has a horizon about 11 miles away, level ground or ocean. So...on LV-426 the horizon would be around a mile away. Hence the Derelict should have easily survived as it is likely more than 1 mile away from the atmosphere processing machine.
No?
This is actually a pretty hilarious point - if LV-426 were 1200km in diameter (spoiler: it's not), then the Derelict would have been literally over the horizon and thus safe from the AP explosion. :D
I can't believe I didn't think of that myself.
Quote from: Stanley on Mar 25, 2017, 12:49:12 AM
Quote from: x-M-x on Mar 25, 2017, 12:42:47 AM
Quote from: Stanley on Mar 25, 2017, 12:23:24 AM
should have easily survived as it is likely more than 1 mile away from the atmosphere processing machine.
No?
Yea, because when they *Built* the centre, there was nothing and i mean nothing about that ship being found or recorded.
50+ years later when ripley mentioned it (they was all confused shocked) but we know Burke sent someone to investigate.
so when that *nuke* whatever you call it went off? i'm sure the ship survived.
Right?
Well maybe the LV-426 data got updated or I had it wrong. But at 1200 km diameter it had 0.86 of Earth gravity. Umm...that's tough to do cuz so much less mass. Dense place ha.
Congratulations, you just stumbled upon why Lambert's line about LV-426's size doesn't make sense, and isn't supported by what we actually see in the films. ;D
The Colonial Marines Tech Manual made the same conclusion you did and updated the diameter to ~12,000km, which makes a lot more sense.
Assuming those calculations are correct, this is an intriguing possibility.
QuoteIf AR cared about Ripley's sacrifice, it wouldn't have brought her back from the dead to keep her story going.
Except the story builds on her sacrifice and makes undoing it a part of the plot and characterisation. If it truly didn't care it would've had scientists just picking up the eggs somewhere.
12,000 km for LV-426 makes it basically Earth sized.
But.
Without substantial oceans like Earth, achieving the same kind of climate / atmosphere does not seem possible. Especially with all of the volcanic activity.
We really do have a sweet planet you know...
Quote from: SiL on Mar 25, 2017, 05:32:43 AM
QuoteIf AR cared about Ripley's sacrifice, it wouldn't have brought her back from the dead to keep her story going.
Except the story builds on her sacrifice and makes undoing it a part of the plot and characterisation. If it truly didn't care it would've had scientists just picking up the eggs somewhere.
Indeed. The 200 year gap plus the only way of getting an Alien being via Ripley both honours the sacrifice and allows them an avenue to bring them back.
Quote from: SiL on Mar 25, 2017, 05:32:43 AM
QuoteIf AR cared about Ripley's sacrifice, it wouldn't have brought her back from the dead to keep her story going.
Except the story builds on her sacrifice and makes undoing it a part of the plot and characterisation. If it truly didn't care it would've had scientists just picking up the eggs somewhere.
Could you elaborate on that? How did it make her sacrifice part of the plot and characterization?
Quote from: Stanley on Mar 25, 2017, 06:28:09 AM
12,000 km for LV-426 makes it basically Earth sized.
But.
Without substantial oceans like Earth, achieving the same kind of climate / atmosphere does not seem possible. Especially with all of the volcanic activity.
We really do have a sweet planet you know...
That's what the atmosphere processor is for. ;D
Did you miss the part where she sacrificed herself to kill the Aliens off and the only way to get them back was resurrect her or...?
If her sacrifice had meant nothing they would've found eggs elsewhere and moved on like she achieved nothing. The fact the Aliens were gone for 200 years shows Ripley's sacrifice achieved her goal and prevented anyone getting their hands on the Alien until they had the technology to bring her back from the dead. And her coming back from the dead didn't bring back Ripley as we know her, but something Else.
"That's what the atmosphere processor is for. ;D"
Would not be powerful enough
Quote from: Stanley on Mar 25, 2017, 02:33:33 PM
"That's what the atmosphere processor is for. ;D"
Would not be powerful enough
We dont know how powerful the atmosphere processor is do we?
Quote from: 426Buddy on Mar 25, 2017, 03:12:21 PM
Quote from: Stanley on Mar 25, 2017, 02:33:33 PM
"That's what the atmosphere processor is for. ;D"
Would not be powerful enough
We dont know how powerful the atmosphere processor is do we?
I think Bishop has some comments on it in Aliens.
Quote from: 426Buddy on Mar 25, 2017, 03:12:21 PM
Quote from: Stanley on Mar 25, 2017, 02:33:33 PM
"That's what the atmosphere processor is for. ;D"
Would not be powerful enough
We dont know how powerful the atmosphere processor is do we?
In a way we do, since there is only ONE of them and you can live next to it as it works. On Earth the weather and climate forces are simply IMMENSE. To do something comparable on LV-426 you would need many atmosphere processors spread out all over the world. You'd also want help from organic life in the the air, ground, or (missing from LV-426) vast oceans. It's a crummy candidate for terraforming. Unless WY knows things we don't...nah that would be impossible right?
Quote from: SiL on Mar 25, 2017, 12:08:36 PM
Did you miss the part where she sacrificed herself to kill the Aliens off and the only way to get them back was resurrect her or...?
If her sacrifice had meant nothing they would've found eggs elsewhere and moved on like she achieved nothing. The fact the Aliens were gone for 200 years shows Ripley's sacrifice achieved her goal and prevented anyone getting their hands on the Alien until they had the technology to bring her back from the dead. And her coming back from the dead didn't bring back Ripley as we know her, but something Else.
That's a fair enough assessment. I don't personally agree with all of it, but I can certainly see what you mean.
I stand by my assessment that A:R was written the way it was strictly in order to facilitate bringing Ripley back, and the 200 year time jump was merely a "more extreme" version of the 57 year jump from Alien to Aliens - it's a means to isolate Ripley from anyone or anything she could have possibly known. Any possible returning characters are long dead, the Company is gone, even the Colonial Marines are seemingly gone and replaced with an unfamiliar military.
Ripley thought she accomplished her goal in 'Aliens', but the opening credits of 'Alien3' make it clear she didn't succeed. That doesn't somehow invalidate her actions from 'Aliens', it's just another complication in her story because that's how life works - you move from one conflict to the next until you die (and then the conflicts continue without you).
I'd say bringing Ripley back *at all* invalidates her sacrifice just as much as having the Derelict contain viable eggs would have (or finding another, unrelated planet with a bunch of eggs, etc). The amount of time without Aliens doesn't matter, her goal was to eliminate the Aliens permanently and she failed at that because of circumstances outside her control.
But like the jump from 'Aliens' to 'Alien3', that doesn't invalidate the conflict, drama, or character growth of the prior movie. It all happened, and it all had meaning and weight in the moment, even if it didn't matter in the long term.
Quote from: Stanley on Mar 25, 2017, 04:00:55 PM
Quote from: 426Buddy on Mar 25, 2017, 03:12:21 PM
Quote from: Stanley on Mar 25, 2017, 02:33:33 PM
"That's what the atmosphere processor is for. ;D"
Would not be powerful enough
We dont know how powerful the atmosphere processor is do we?
In a way we do, since there is only ONE of them and you can live next to it as it works. On Earth the weather and climate forces are simply IMMENSE. To do something comparable on LV-426 you would need many atmosphere processors spread out all over the world. You'd also want help from organic life in the the air, ground, or (missing from LV-426) vast oceans. It's a crummy candidate for terraforming. Unless WY knows things we don't...nah that would be impossible right?
As we see in 'Alien', LV-426 already had an atmosphere - it just wasn't breathable.
If I remember right the CMTM breaks down exactly what the AP is doing. I'd look it up but my copy is boxed up right now while I'm moving.
QuoteI stand by my assessment that A:R was written the way it was strictly in order to facilitate bringing Ripley back
And
Aliens was strictly written as a way to get her back to shoot more Aliens, I'm not sure how this is actually relevant. If you want to go even deeper into stating obvious but meaningless observations, all of the movies were written strictly in order to facilitate people getting paid to make movies, does that really affect them? :P
Ripley killed herself trying to wipe out the Aliens once and for all. The only way to get
them back was to bring
her back. That's a much more profound connection and acknowledgement of what she did than "But wait, the eggs are still just there anyway so suck it, Ripley." They could have gone with the "lol, just joking! It was all a dream" option to bring her back, too, but instead they built off her actions and made undoing them a concerted part of the plot rather than a throwaway line to keep the dollars rolling in.
It's an eternal cycle of Ripley exposing people to these things through no real fault of her own, and then defeating them.
As as aside,in Aliens they had an idea that Ripley would crumble to dust when they opened the cryotube should Weaver not sign on.
QuoteAnd Aliens was strictly written as a way to get her back to shoot more Aliens, I'm not sure how this is actually relevant.
Because were it not for the studio steadfastly demanding Ripley be present, Whedon wouldn't have been backed into a corner where he
had to write a story that literally brings Ripley back from the dead just so they can keep her around, which involved coming up with conceits for why she'd be cloned in the first place.
Quote from: SM on Mar 26, 2017, 07:17:10 AM
It's an eternal cycle of Ripley exposing people to these things through no real fault of her own, and then defeating them.
That's an interesting recurring theme (for the sequels at least - 'Alien' doesn't quite fit unless the film were rewritten to have
Ripley be the one who detected the Derelict signal and re-routed the Nostromo or something).
Also 'Alien3' was
kinda Ripley's fault for not checking the ship for stowaway eggs. :P
Quote from: Xenomrph on Mar 26, 2017, 01:17:47 PM
Because were it not for the studio steadfastly demanding Ripley be present, Whedon wouldn't have been backed into a corner where he had to write a story that literally brings Ripley back from the dead just so they can keep her around, which involved coming up with conceits for why she'd be cloned in the first place.
Could you
please get to the point where you explain how
why a story was written has any bearing on the story's merits?
Like, do you hold the fact
Alien was written to get Dan O'Bannon off Ron Shussette's couch against it, or does that count
for the film, or what? 'I maintain it was just written to fund a homeless dude getting off his friend's couch, so it's ultimately insubstantial. '
What
possible relevance does it have to the end result that the story ultimately delivered a plot which acknowledged and made use of the sacrifice and didn't discard it as an afterthought? ???
I never said it wasn't studio motivated. I never said it wasn't there to bring back Weaver. But this is meta commentary and meaningless to the narrative.
You don't see how such meta-commentary can color ones perception of the narrative? Like, people were faulting the 'Alien: Out of the Shadows' book for Ripley's inclusion being FOX-mandated, regardless of the quality of the book's execution. Likewise, people were questioning if Amanda Ripley's inclusion in Alien: Isolation was studio mandated.
You don't see how that's the exact same thing as what I'm talking about? Or why people might care about it?
If the studio's mandated inclusion of Ripley in Resurrection forces the writer into a corner where he has to make plot concessions to accommodate it, that's a pretty fair criticism of the writing. Whedon himself has said he found writing the movie difficult because of the forced inclusion of Ripley.
If you want to talk about "the end result", bringing Ripley back undoes her sacrifice anyway, regardless of how much lip service you feel it pays to said sacrifice.
And people write off movies because they don't like particular actors, but we don't hold that up as a valid critique of a film's quality. Meta commentary is irrelevant.
The fact is AR pays a lot more respect to what happened at the end of Alien3 than any of the alternative concepts and portrayed the sacrifice as both successful and with far reaching consequences. The only way to undo what Ripley did was to bring her back from the dead along with them. That's how profound her dying was to the fate of these creatures.
You can disagree because of why it was done, but it holds as much weight as you criticising the film because you don't like Brad Dourif (not that you don't like him, but you get my point.)
One of the issues I've had with the older DH comics - even the good ones - is that they don't respect the sacrifice. With the pre-Alien3 stuff this obviously wasn't their fault, but comics continued a long time after that and Aliens were running amok across civilised space. The more self contained stories where the Aliens are contained to one particular spot work okay in this instance, but those stories are few.
QuoteAnd people write off movies because they don't like particular actors, but we don't hold that up as a valid critique of a film's quality. Meta commentary is irrelevant.
Not really, especially since(going from your chosen example) people have perfectly valid reasons for writing off movies because they don't like particular actors. Maybe they feel the actor is shit, or is always typecast, or always over-acts. If they feel that actor's performance drags down every movie they're in, that's certainly a criticism.
Meta-commentary is a pretty significant part of art, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. Ever talked about a deleted scene in a movie (and why it was deleted)? That's meta-commentary, as the deleted scene isn't part of the text. We've had plenty of discussions on this very forum about whether or not the deleted scenes from 'Prometheus' would have improved the movie, or whether the alternate Fifeld effects are better or worse than what we saw on-screen. All of that is meta-commentary.
Filmmaking gives us a more open-view of a lot of the meta-commentary because it's such a collaborative and generally more open process that's fairly easy to document.
QuoteThe fact is AR pays a lot more respect to what happened at the end of Alien3 than any of the alternative concepts and portrayed the sacrifice as both successful and with far reaching consequences. The only way to undo what Ripley did was to bring her back from the dead along with them. That's how profound her dying was to the fate of these creatures.
I can understand all of that, but I'm also of the opinion that tying the Aliens' fate to Ripley's so closely was a mistake and limited the potential for other interesting stories (as evidenced by the good stories we've gotten in the EU over the years). That ties right back into the meta-commentary -- if I feel that on-principle, having every story revolve around Ripley is an overall detriment to the storytelling and the overarching potential of the Alien concept, then criticizing a story for bending over backwards to accommodate Ripley at the expense of that potential is a pretty fair criticism.
Speaking of the EU, even the modern EU has thrown Ripley's "sacrifice" right out the window by having Aliens crop up in locations unrelated to the Derelict (the planets from Out of the Shadows, Sea of Sorrows, or the Rage War trilogy) or be unaffected by Ripley's genocide (the stowaways to LV-223 in the Fire and Stone comics). Hell, the entire premise of Aliens: Defiance is that there's potentially Aliens all over the damn place, and that's a huge potential threat that needs to be hunted down. They might not be swarming the galaxy or eradicating all life on Earth, but it's trivially easy for any writer to make up a new source for Aliens and not only would it be largely expected and accepted by an audience, but it's already the status quo.
I'm not saying Ripley's sacrifice is stupid or meaningless, just that I think it works just fine when it's narrower in scope than "total species genocide". Ripley did what she could to prevent the Company from getting an Alien, up to and including killing herself to stop them from getting a Queen. But she's not omniscient, and the Alien universe is a cold and harsh place where scary shit lurks in the dark where you least expect it.
QuoteIf they feel that actor's performance drags down every movie they're in, that's certainly a criticism.
I mean people who dislike them just because of who they are (Tom Cruise gets this shit a lot. He actually has some decent performances but people won't touch the films just because he's that crazy scientologist guy). Some of the examples you gave -- bad acting, overacting -- are relevant to what's in the final film. Who the person is in real life is not.
QuoteEver talked about a deleted scene in a movie (and why it was deleted)? That's meta-commentary, as the deleted scene isn't part of the text. We've had plenty of discussions on this very forum about whether or not the deleted scenes from 'Prometheus' would have improved the movie, or whether the alternate Fifeld effects are better or worse than what we saw on-screen. All of that is meta-commentary.
Apples and oranges. Wondering if a scene would've been better left in or out is very different to ignoring or downplaying a creative decision or the meaning of a plot point because you have a personal beef with why it was included.
I often avoid Tom Cruise because I find him to be an appalling over actor.
But he was great in Edge of Tomorrow.
And that's a perfectly legitimate reason to void him! My mother, on the other hand, just thinks he's a nutjob. And too short to be Jack Reacher.
I despise him... but he was brilliant in collateral.
Yes it colours the opinion at the start of a flick, but I noticed that seems to fade while the movie progresses.
You can hate the actor, but if his or her performance is solid and convincing I tend to forget that I want to defecate on the persons eyeballs.
I can't bring myself to hate Tom Cruise. He should star in the next Alien movie.
Collateral
Great movie
I like a lot of his work, but i understand why people dont like him.
Quote from: SiL on Mar 27, 2017, 11:38:00 AM
And that's a perfectly legitimate reason to void him! My mother, on the other hand, just thinks he's a nutjob. And too short to be Jack Reacher.
Well he is indeed crazy.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Mar 27, 2017, 06:01:20 PM
I can't bring myself to hate Tom Cruise. He should star in the next Alien movie.
No thanks, I'd rather not have that over rated cultist anywhere near my beloved franchise.
Quote from: SiL on Mar 27, 2017, 09:23:06 AM
QuoteIf they feel that actor's performance drags down every movie they're in, that's certainly a criticism.
I mean people who dislike them just because of who they are (Tom Cruise gets this shit a lot. He actually has some decent performances but people won't touch the films just because he's that crazy scientologist guy). Some of the examples you gave -- bad acting, overacting -- are relevant to what's in the final film. Who the person is in real life is not.
I agree. My mom doesn't like certain actors and just refuses to watch any movie they're in. I take them on a case by case basis.
On the topic of Tom Cruise, he's an actor I consistently enjoy in practically every role he's in, although there are elements of his personal life that I'm not as big a fan of. From many accounts I've heard he gives to charity a lot, is super-cool towards his fans, and is pleasant to work with, but I'm not real big on his Scientology stuff or the seemingly endless drama with his myriad marriages/divorces.
I still like his movies though. :)
Quote from: SiL on Mar 27, 2017, 09:23:06 AM
QuoteEver talked about a deleted scene in a movie (and why it was deleted)? That's meta-commentary, as the deleted scene isn't part of the text. We've had plenty of discussions on this very forum about whether or not the deleted scenes from 'Prometheus' would have improved the movie, or whether the alternate Fifeld effects are better or worse than what we saw on-screen. All of that is meta-commentary.
Apples and oranges. Wondering if a scene would've been better left in or out is very different to ignoring or downplaying a creative decision or the meaning of a plot point because you have a personal beef with why it was included.
I'm not so sure it's as apples and oranges as you think. Criticising a creative decision for why a plot was written a certain way seems just as valid as talking about a deleted scene. They're both looking at the creative process and how it shaped the end product.
And I'm not downplaying a plot point, I'm attributing different meaning to it than you are.
Also it's not "a personal beef", it's an opinion on the utilization of the Alien concept. It's no different than SM's "personal beef" with the EU for, in his view, not respecting Ripley's sacrifice.
I mean like I get that you don't think my opinion in this case is valid
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs2.quickmeme.com%2Fimg%2F71%2F71bf4186f2fd86fe7990f814bb956dd6d77d68ee46e6de9d981f02268d87422f.jpg&hash=66845d6c56e8d990ce833c0fe0d6f96043fc5619)
QuoteAnd I'm not downplaying a plot point, I'm attributing different meaning to it than you are.
You're trying to say a connection isn't there in the plot -- or downplay it -- because of what went on when it was written. That's very different to discussing how a scene might have changed the narrative if it had been left in the film -- or taken out, whichever you choose. A scene being in or out of the film adds information directly into the narrative that affects the narrative.
Why a scene was written does not. All that matters is the edit.
Yeah I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Discussing the filmmaking/storytelling process and what shapes it is a very common and valid form of criticism (and it happens all the time on this very forum), regardless of how narrowly you personally choose to define it. The scriptwriting process is just as much a part of the filmmaking process as editing is, and we've had plenty of threads talking about the myriad Alien3 scripts (to name an example), which got changed or rejected for myriad reasons. Films are shaped by its circumstances, both in front of and behind the camera.
It's like discussing history - you can't discuss history in a vacuum of just "these are the events that took place". There are things like context that shape how history is interpreted.
I'm saying Ripley's sacrifice is important, but it needn't be the all-encompassing motivation for the entire franchise that you and SM attribute to it. If a narrative puts (in my opinion) undue emphasis on a particular plot point at the expense of everything else, following from the belief that the only reason that plot point exists is because of a studio mandate that backed the writer into a corner, then that's absolutely a valid criticism of the narrative. If you don't see how this is literally exactly the same as SM's stated reason for criticising a bunch of the EU stories, then I don't know what to say.
Kind of a moot point anyway, since FOX has been actively walking back the impact of "Ripley's sacrifice" pretty much non-stop since Resurrection was released. Even the WYR, which could have totally hammered home that Ripley (and Ripley8) had successfully wiped the Aliens out, instead specifically sidestepped the Derelict's fate at FOX's specific request.
Why do you keep thinking that discussing behind the scenes material is synonymous with judging a film by it?
Yes, we talk about old scripts, deleted scenes - but people don't judge the movies based on production notes. ???
Quote from: SiL on Mar 28, 2017, 09:36:42 AM
Why do you keep thinking that discussing behind the scenes material is synonymous with judging a film by it?
Yes, we talk about old scripts, deleted scenes - but people don't judge the movies based on production notes. ???
Because we absolutely do judge the movies by them, you're just not recognizing it. If you're saying a movie would have been better/worse had a deleted scene been included, or preferring a script draft over what was ultimately used, you're judging the movie.
I mean, I can name specific examples. Discussions about the alternate Fifeld effects in 'Prometheus', where people were saying "oh man, the alternate effects look better, they should have used those", or saying that the deleted scenes in 'Prometheus' would have improved the movie and should have been included. Discussions on this board about which versions of the Alien movies people prefer. When people talk about what design of the Alien creature they prefer, pretty much 100% of the time it's done in comparison to the original Alien. People judged 'Prometheus' because they didn't like what it did to the Space Jockey. That's just off the top of my head.
People have judged 'Aliens' because they didn't like how the Alien creature was handled and felt making them insect-like was a bad idea.
People have judged 'Alien3' because they didn't like that Hicks and Newt were killed off in the opening credits. James Cameron himself famously disliked 'Alien3' because of that. Blomkamp intends to make an entire movie just to undo it.
As I've said multiple times and you've opted to ignore, SM has said
in this very thread that he judges a lot of the older EU because of how it treats Ripley's sacrifice, because he feels that aspect of the overarching Alien narrative is important. I, on the other hand, choose to judge Alien Resurrection because I feel it gives undue weight to Ripley as a character, and that leads to a bunch of narrative constraints to make the plot work. It's literally the same thing. ???
If you're honestly not seeing how we judge movies based on behind the scenes material or preconceived personal opinions, then like I said before I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.
You are so far off track I have no idea how you got there ???
I explained how A:R made a point out of Ripley's sacrifice. Your counter argument was, "because it was written for another reason, I don't agree that it actually makes a point of her sacrifice."
You're now trying to use examples of people judging what was in the movies -- Aliens having an insect social structure, Hicks and Newt being killed off -- as examples of people judging a plot based on behind the scenes trivia.
These are not the same thing. At all. You can't claim that the story as presented in the finished presentation of Alien Resurrection doesn't turn Ripley's sacrifice into a focal point in both the plot and character development of the story on the grounds of not liking why it was written. Why it was written is utterly irrelevant.
That's why I have no issue with what SM said. He's responding to the plots of the stories not making story points out of the sacrifice, rather than writing them off because of why they chose to do that. He doesn't like what they did, not why they did it, which was the original point I was arguing against with you.
It's very simple, you feel Ripley (and her sacrifice) is a point worth focusing on at the expense of other narrative elements, and I don't. Even if you choose to ignore the studio mandate that caused this to come about, it's still a valid reason for judging the movie.
You were saying the focus doesn't exist within AR because of why it was written.
For All intensive purposes the ship Probably survived the blast, But it didn't survive all of the Lava flow. I'd imagine a nuke Explosion only made the Ground split open even more. Thus speeding up the Ships Destruction within the own Environment. It probably melted away or sunk below the Ground.
I hate when those purposes get intensive...
Quote from: SM on Mar 24, 2017, 08:42:14 PM
QuoteI think the reason it wasn't directly addressed in Aliens was to leave it open for a sequel, in the end A3 didn't use it and then AR had to imply it was destroyed to lend credibility to it's plot.
AR had to imply it was destroyed to make Ripley's sacrifice actually count for something.
I tend to disagree, it potentially scales up her sacrifice for sure, or does it count for more if she did it knowing that she was taking out one queen rather than the whole race? Why does her sacrifice need to count for anything?
I personally think it's meaningful enough that she had to choose to kill herself rather than risk trusting Bishop 2, to turn down the option of having a life. Her stated belief was that one queen would end up killing everything, it didn't need to be the last Alien in the galaxy to make her jump and to make the sacrifice worthwhile.
Additionally, and this is my opinion, in the AC of A3 we see that she's struggling with the decision of whether to jump or not, if she genuinely thought that the Alien in her was the last one ever I think it would have been an easier choice.
She doesn't struggle with the decision in the AC. She does in the Workprint, but the AC is cut the same as the Theatrical Version.
QuoteWhy does her sacrifice need to count for anything?
Is that a serious question?
Quote from: Xenoscream on Mar 29, 2017, 07:14:45 AM
Quote from: SM on Mar 24, 2017, 08:42:14 PM
QuoteI think the reason it wasn't directly addressed in Aliens was to leave it open for a sequel, in the end A3 didn't use it and then AR had to imply it was destroyed to lend credibility to it's plot.
AR had to imply it was destroyed to make Ripley's sacrifice actually count for something.
I tend to disagree, it potentially scales up her sacrifice for sure, or does it count for more if she did it knowing that she was taking out one queen rather than the whole race? Why does her sacrifice need to count for anything?
I personally think it's meaningful enough that she had to choose to kill herself rather than risk trusting Bishop 2, to turn down the option of having a life. Her stated belief was that one queen would end up killing everything, it didn't need to be the last Alien in the galaxy to make her jump and to make the sacrifice worthwhile.
Additionally, and this is my opinion, in the AC of A3 we see that she's struggling with the decision of whether to jump or not, if she genuinely thought that the Alien in her was the last one ever I think it would have been an easier choice.
I see it this way also dude.
On a side note. I am listening to the Aliens Audiobook. On the way to work this morning, the part where Burke is trying to get them to not exterminate the Aliens and Ripley points out that Hicks has authority at that juncture. In the movie she says "I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure". In the novelisation she adds to this something along the lines off also nuking the region where the derelict is located.
So she wanted to further be sure in the novelisation.
Quote from: SiL on Mar 29, 2017, 05:03:46 AM
You were saying the focus doesn't exist within AR because of why it was written.
And now I've reframed it in a way you should be able to understand. :)
Quote from: Xenoscream on Mar 29, 2017, 07:14:45 AM
Quote from: SM on Mar 24, 2017, 08:42:14 PM
QuoteI think the reason it wasn't directly addressed in Aliens was to leave it open for a sequel, in the end A3 didn't use it and then AR had to imply it was destroyed to lend credibility to it's plot.
AR had to imply it was destroyed to make Ripley's sacrifice actually count for something.
I tend to disagree, it potentially scales up her sacrifice for sure, or does it count for more if she did it knowing that she was taking out one queen rather than the whole race? Why does her sacrifice need to count for anything?
I personally think it's meaningful enough that she had to choose to kill herself rather than risk trusting Bishop 2, to turn down the option of having a life. Her stated belief was that one queen would end up killing everything, it didn't need to be the last Alien in the galaxy to make her jump and to make the sacrifice worthwhile.
Exactly.
Quote from: Russ840 on Mar 29, 2017, 09:42:18 AM
In the novelisation she adds to this something along the lines off also nuking the region where the derelict is located.
So she wanted to further be sure in the novelisation.
That's pretty neat, thanks for the info. Interestingly enough, that bit isn't in the script, it looks like ADF added it himself.
It was A.C Crispin who wrote the Resurrection novelization. :)
Quote from: Xenomrph on Mar 29, 2017, 12:03:16 PM
And now I've reframed it in a way you should be able to understand. :)
No, you haven't. Saying that Resurrection doesn't make a point of her sacrifice because of why it was written isn't like any of your examples. It's more akin to saying you can't say
Alien really has any rape themes in it because it was written to get O'Bannon off the couch.
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Mar 29, 2017, 12:22:51 PM
It was A.C Crispin who wrote the Resurrection novelization. :)
Aliens, not
AR.
Quote from: SiL on Mar 29, 2017, 12:28:08 PM
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Mar 29, 2017, 12:22:51 PM
It was A.C Crispin who wrote the Resurrection novelization. :)
Aliens, not AR.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nofrackingway.us%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F09%2Fegg-on-face.jpg&hash=e8336e6cc3f29af5003e0113a5d2096efaa9da03)
It doesn't matter, though: ADF only wrote it for the money so it's not really an adaptation of the movie.
Quote from: SiL on Mar 29, 2017, 12:28:08 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Mar 29, 2017, 12:03:16 PM
And now I've reframed it in a way you should be able to understand. :)
No, you haven't. Saying that Resurrection doesn't make a point of her sacrifice because of why it was written isn't like any of your examples. It's more akin to saying you can't say Alien really has any rape themes in it because it was written to get O'Bannon off the couch.
I think you two are having another battle. ;D
Quote from: SiL on Mar 29, 2017, 12:28:08 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Mar 29, 2017, 12:03:16 PM
And now I've reframed it in a way you should be able to understand. :)
No, you haven't. Saying that Resurrection doesn't make a point of her sacrifice because of why it was written isn't like any of your examples. It's more akin to saying you can't say Alien really has any rape themes in it because it was written to get O'Bannon off the couch.
No, I did, I'll quote it for you:
Quote from: Xenomrph on Mar 28, 2017, 01:47:01 PM
I, on the other hand, choose to judge Alien Resurrection because I feel it gives undue weight to Ripley as a character, and that leads to a bunch of narrative constraints to make the plot work.
I don't need to use meta-commentary stuff to show what my opinion is. Any other questions? :)
Also I didn't say Resurrection doesn't make a point of her sacrifice, I said that that point was made because of narrative constraints placed on Whedon when the studio told him to make the movie about Ripley. Had Ripley not been required, the emphasis wouldn't have been put on her "sacrifice" (just like in the bulk of the EU) because, as you pointed out, the plot makes less sense if they had other, easier options to get Aliens and still bent over backwards to clone Ripley.
My earlier point was that you can trace that plot point (the return of Ripley) back to a singular external cause (the studio demanding Ripley's return), and it had repercussions on the overall narrative (emphasis on her sacrifice at the expense of other things, including diminishing the overall Alien threat to being solely related to, and solved by, Ripley). You can take out that middle part (the studio's demands) and just look at the plot point and it's effect, and my opinion is still the same. I just noted the meta-commentary part because I feel it's noteworthy - it's a part of the creative process for better or for worse.
I will say that your unwillingness/inability to recognize the effect meta-commentary has on the artistic process and on people's perceptions of said art is kind of incredible though, but it's probably a discussion best had in a dedicated thread for it because it's not just specific to this one topic. But hey if you (or anyone else) wants to continue talking about it, I don't have a problem with that. If you just want to agree to disagree then I'm cool with that, too.
I'm sorry, but the only one who's unable to get the argument here is you. All of your examples have been irrelevant to the point I was making. You ignored every analogy I did give to harp on about totally unrelated points I never questioned. You never addressed a single one. This is beyond frustrating, I'm out.
Quote from: SiL on Mar 30, 2017, 03:05:42 AM
I'm sorry, but the only one who's unable to get the argument here is you. All of your examples have been irrelevant to the point I was making. You ignored every analogy I did give to harp on about totally unrelated points I never questioned. You never addressed a single one. This is beyond frustrating, I'm out.
I made my point without talking about meta-commentary too. The quote's right there in the post above yours. :)
But hey, agreeing to disagree is cool too.
Quote from: SM on Mar 29, 2017, 09:14:09 AM
She doesn't struggle with the decision in the AC. She does in the Workprint, but the AC is cut the same as the Theatrical Version.
QuoteWhy does her sacrifice need to count for anything?
Is that a serious question?
Was the workprint the cut on the old quadrilogy?
It's a serious question on the sacrifice.
No, the AC was on both the Quad (where it debuted) and the Anthology. The Workprint has never had an official release.
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Apr 12, 2017, 10:51:00 AM
No, the AC was on both the Quad (where it debuted) and the Anthology. The Workprint has never had an official release.
I must have just seen it as a deleted scene then I guess.
I could swear that the Assembly cut is called Directors Cut on the quarilogy
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Apr 12, 2017, 10:51:00 AM
The Workprint has never had an official release.
That needs to be addressed one day.