Jon Spaihts interview with Empire Magazine

[SM]

It's the Prometheus forum remember?  Takes a lot less than a hour.

[Gazz]

I keep a copy of AvP-R close to hand to maintain the appropriate levels of anger.

[ChrisPachi]

I really like the treatment of David that comes across in this - he sounds creepy as hell. Not so sure about the squishy xenos though.

[SM]

I keep a copy of AvP-R close to hand to maintain the appropriate levels of anger.

I heard dat!

[LarsVader]

I think those are Carlos Huante's. The Deacon with its original color scheme.

Yep, definitive Huante.

[DaddyYautja]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What happens if it doesnt impregnate some one? Does it run aimlessly and while continuing to jump at the empty air? Pretty sure there is a third state in there somewhere for when something like this happens. And probably a fourth..... and a fifth. Maybe even a sixth. And if you combine those you could go on to many, many more.

[Gazz]

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

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

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

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

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

Actually i'm focusing on several:

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

And then this further quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What happens if it doesnt impregnate some one?

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

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

[DaddyYautja]

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

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

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

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

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

Actually i'm focusing on several:

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

And then this further quote:

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

I love how you ignored several key words there.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[marrerom]

And so he was always pushing for some way in which that Alien biology could have evolved. We tried different paths in that way. We imagined that there might be eight different variations on the xenomorphs - eight different kinds of Alien eggs you might stumble across, eight kinds of slightly different xenomorph creatures that could hatch from them.

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

[Byohzrd]

And so he was always pushing for some way in which that Alien biology could have evolved. We tried different paths in that way. We imagined that there might be eight different variations on the xenomorphs - eight different kinds of Alien eggs you might stumble across, eight kinds of slightly different xenomorph creatures that could hatch from them.

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




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

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

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

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

just my 2 cents. on the whole variation and inconsistencies of the creatures design.

[Highland]

Goddamn

#begins to read thread#

#Gets to DaddyYautja quote wars#

Leaves.

[Gazz]

Like i have repeatedly said, your opinion of what was written has zero relevance to you wanting me to elaborate on what i thought.

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

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

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

I love how you ignored several key words there.

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

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

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

How does the taunting convey he has any control?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Except it does.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[PRI. HUDSON]

I think they should have stuck to the tropes, modified them and added in a few new things instead of replacing them entirely with second rate versions of them.

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

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

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

Yeah, Scott just makes movies to make movies.

No one takes you seriously around here anymore.

[T Dog]

What i meant was he seems more interesting in crapping out movies on a production line than trying to achieve the artistic greatness he did earlier in his career.

He has basically doubled his filmography in half the time it took him to make his first 10 films. I think the quality has suffered across the board.

[Lord Freezer]

However I do not mind seeing a comic or anime transposition of Spaiths script ... in summary:

same shep:



New facehugger:



New chestburster:



sex scene with surprise



Med-pod scene:



New tipology of xenomorphs:




Mutant crew member:



"Jockalien":