Jon Spaihts interview with Empire Magazine

Started by Virgil, Oct 08, 2012, 04:16:39 PM

Author
Jon Spaihts interview with Empire Magazine (Read 38,766 times)

SpeedyMaxx

I'm just waiting for the script to leak, since a copyright snafu apparently kiboshed the Blu-Ray add-on.

ikarop

Someone asked about the Engineer's mythology the other day. There's more on the Blu-ray in case you haven't watched it yet. Some type of "ascension" is mentioned there too which reminded me a lot of the Ancients in Stargate.


RagingDragon

Quote from: ikarop on Oct 09, 2012, 06:48:09 PM
Someone asked about the Engineer's mythology the other day. There's more on the Blu-ray in case you haven't watched it yet. Some type of "ascension" is mentioned there too which reminded me a lot of the Ancients in Stargate.



Cooool...

I find it funny that this description also fits the modern Ridley Scott with frightening accuracy
. :laugh:

SpeedyMaxx

Now I'm keen to see if they ever do cast women in Engineer roles in the future.

DaddyYautja

Quote from: Gazz on Oct 09, 2012, 10:45:09 AM
QuoteLike 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.

So you are telling me i need to know your opinion on something when you decided to ask me to elaborate on my opinion? How does me explaining my opinion further require the input of your opinion at all? My opinion was reached based solely on what i read.

Sorry but i do not function like that, when i ask for some one to elaborate on something that's all i do.
People dont all think like you do, and it's very clear that you do not understand this.

Quote
Quote
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.

Guess what? I dont read minds either, so when some dude quotes a piece of my comment and replies by rewriting what he just wrote recently you know what i think? I think he just rewrote what he just posted recently. There is nothing in that post that comes close to anything resembling a question to elaborate on my part. Rewriting what you just wrote means nothing to me, it has no context. It shows that you view the scene differently and guess what? I doesnt matter to me how you view it because i understand people DO think differently. If it mattered to me i would have replied to it when i read it.

Quote
QuoteI 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.

That "chaff" is the key to explaining why the scene is happening.
Like i said, you are just focusing on the words you want to focus on and ignoring the rest. Hell, you just devalued the key to the scene completely.

From post to post you are clearly showing how you reached your conclusion, and let me say.... is really out there. You ignore things, focus on others, and make up stuff not included at all. You basically created something you wanted to argue against instead of actually replying to what is there.

Quote
QuoteHow 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 do yo think wild and untamed animals behave? I believe i did ask you where do you live because you have some strange ideas about how wild things should behave. Apparently where you live wild animals when not sleeping are running around screaming throwing poop randomly. Is that the case? Could you please tell me where you live? I mean..... you do have a TV right? There are endless nature shows showing people handling wild beast pretty much like i picture David doing it. You are on the internet! Go search for vids! This is true, i am not lying.

Quote
QuoteHow 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.
[/quote]

It's subdued because it does care about Dave. This is one of those words you decided to throw away as chaff.
It's not subdued because Dave subdued it. He isnt allowing it to do anything, the creature is just hanging out because it doesnt see anything to attack, but when it does... it does.  This is yet another creation on your part.


Quote
QuoteI 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.

That's the image "sold" to me. Remember, people think differently, your view of the scene does not constitute the standard. Specially when you make up things that arent there. 

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

Except it does.

In your mind, but in my mind, as well as anyone reading this, your made up idea is just your made up idea.
Dave isnt "monologing," the end.

Quote
QuoteWhere 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

Let me get this straight............... you say you dont read minds yet you are having a conversation with me and making points using a post made in another thread? How the hell was i suppose to know this?

Seriouly, EL OH EL.
It's clear you are just fuming on this stuff. 


Quote
QuoteWhere 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.

QuoteWhere 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.

First, why are you replying to the same thing twice?
Secondly, let me ask you a question. In Aliens.....when Burke released the Facehuggers in that lab...... they clearly were not in an egg and they clearly werent actively jumping around trying to get into people's faces or else Ripley would have notice them...... so what where they doing? Could *GASP!* they have been relaxing in a corner because there were nothing to do? *DOUBLEGASP!!*

Quote
QuoteSo 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.

*GASP!* What were they doing!
Since you think they actively look for hosts do you think they were making signs to trick the people that were outside to come in?


Gilfryd

Quote from: Lord Freezer on Oct 09, 2012, 04:08:09 PM
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":



I want this movie.  :'(

Gazz

Gazz

#81
QuoteSo you are telling me i need to know your opinion on something when you decided to ask me to elaborate on my opinion?

Yes. My desire was to start an conversation (again these usually concern two opposing opinions) and so I provided you with the relevant information. I'm sorry you are unfamiliar with this common method of interaction and I will take the necessary precautions in future.

QuoteSorry but i do not function like that

Clearly.

QuoteGuess what? I dont read minds either, so when some dude quotes a piece of my comment and replies by rewriting what
he just wrote recently you know what i think? I think he just rewrote what he just posted recently.

I elaborated on an earlier post to clearly express surprise in regards to an opposing opinion, a commonly used attempt to provoke a conversation. If that wasn't clear enough then I really can't help you.

QuoteThat "chaff" is the key to explaining why the scene is happening.

But my problem is not with why the scene is happening but the image conveyed to communicate how the scene is happening. Something which you have failed to grasp post after post.  Hence 'chaff'. Anything I omitted could be concluded in the salient quotes I posted.

QuoteHow do yo think wild and untamed animals behave? I believe i did ask you where do you live because you have some strange ideas about how wild things should behave. Apparently where you live wild animals when not sleeping are running around screaming throwing poop randomly. Is that the case? Could you please tell me where you live? I mean..... you do have a TV right? There are endless nature shows showing people handling wild beast pretty much like i picture David doing it. You are on the internet! Go search for vids! This is true, i am not lying.

What an absolute clusterf**k of a paragraph. Clearly you have no understanding of the point that was made. I suggest you take a step back and reread a few posts back for a better understanding. I made the comparison to a wild and untamed animal/ beast to convey an image of pure ferocity, in contrast to Spaihts evocation of the image of a harmless kitten like facehugger. I wasn't making a general point on the entire animal kingdom.

QuoteIt's subdued because it does care about Dave. This is one of those words you decided to throw away as chaff.

Which word in the sentence 'It's subdued because it does care about Dave' did I omit as chaff?  ???

QuoteHe isnt allowing it to do anything, the creature is just hanging out because it doesnt see anything to attack, but when it does... it does.

Again, completely devaluing the ferocity of a creature, relegating it to the role of a droids pet, no longer spurred by it's simple and 'perfect' desire to breed. Again (and again, and again, and again), I understand why, I simply do not not like how.

QuoteBut that's not the image Spaiht's sells at all.

Exactly. That's my point. The image of a wild creature is something Spaiht's could have sold with the same reasoning but instead turns the creature into David's pet. You'll get it eventually.

QuoteIn your mind, but in my mind, as well as anyone reading this, your made up idea is just your made up idea.

I guess if someone can misunderstand and blatantly overlook as much as you have they could reach a similarly ridiculous conclusion.

QuoteLet me get this straight............... you say you dont read minds yet you are having a conversation with me and making points using a post made in another thread? How the hell was i suppose to know this?

Seriouly, EL OH EL.
It's clear you are just fuming on this stuff. 

So essentially, I'm cheating because i have previous knowledge of the scene? I wasn't aware it was a requirement for us to have  the exact same information before beginning a discussion. I thought discussion was a process of learning. Does your pedantry know no bounds? I wonder if you could write yet another inane paragraph without actually assessing any of the content posted. My vote is yes. Yes, you can... and will.

QuoteFirst, why are you replying to the same thing twice?

A mistake. I imagine you can stretch that over another three of four posts.

QuoteIn Aliens.....when Burke released the Facehuggers in that lab...... they clearly were not in an egg and they clearly werent actively jumping around trying to get into people's faces or else Ripley would have notice them...... so what where they doing? Could *GASP!* they have been relaxing in a corner because there were nothing to do?

;D

Oh the pure terror of it.

Do you not see how the very things you are suggesting devalue the pure terror of a creature solely motivated by a need to reproduce by showing it chillax in a corner.  Also the creatures in that scene had only just been released (hence the still rocking movement of the empty statsis tubes) and they're already on the search for a host. They're already in attack mode because their sole purpose is to reproduce via hostile means. There's a reason Ash refers to the species as 'perfect'.

In relation to the Alien (and it's species):

Ash: You still don't understand what you're dealing with, do you? Perfect organism. Its structural perfection is matched only by its hostility.
Lambert: You admire it.
Ash: I admire its purity. A survivor... unclouded by conscience, remorse, or delusions of morality.

It has no need to relax or any need for emotion or any such unnecessary states. It's a hostile breeding machine and that alone. If it isn't attacking it's dormant (egg). It doesn't just wander aimlessly.   

Quote*GASP!* What were they doing!

Looking for a host. That is exactly what the scene tells you. Have you seen Alien or Aliens recently? I recommend you familiarise yourself with the content before posting again.

Gash

Gash

#82
Carry on  :)

whiterabbit

So the engineers lost interest in having sex... and in having the other sex itself around. Damn. This dudes are hardcore. I guess feminism succeeded a bit too well.

DaddyYautja

Quote from: Gazz on Oct 09, 2012, 11:11:26 PM

QuoteSo you are telling me i need to know your opinion on something when you decided to ask me to elaborate on my opinion?

Yes. My desire was to start an conversation (again these usually concern two opposing opinions) and so I provided you with the relevant information. I'm sorry you are unfamiliar with this common method of interaction and I will take the necessary precautions in future.

That's the key here,bud, i didnt care for your opinion. If i would've i would have replied to it but i didnt.
You reposting your comments isnt going to magically mean i want to oppose it. And it isnt going to magically going to make me understand you want to me to elaborate on mines

You obviously care about mine so you should have just asked for it instead of inserting your ideas in the hope that i would react the way you wanted me to. Like you said, nobody reads minds here, i, and im pretty sure most people here, dont start conversations like it's a duel and we must stated our intentions.


Quote
I elaborated on an earlier post to clearly express surprise in regards to an opposing opinion, a commonly used attempt to provoke a conversation. If that wasn't clear enough then I really can't help you.

Where exactly in this post are you supposed to be surprised?

It sounds like an early and ridiculous Bond film moment. The type ridiculed by Austin Powers. David monologues away, toying with Shaw whilst cradling a facehugger, then high tails it back to the ship without seeing his dastardly plan through.

This reads to me like you are goofing on the scene. You even put this  :P at the end of your post.



Quote
But my problem is not with why the scene is happening but the image conveyed to communicate how the scene is happening. Something which you have failed to grasp post after post.  Hence 'chaff'. Anything I omitted could be concluded in the salient quotes I posted.

You fail to understand what makes that event happen, you refuse to understand that the FH is chilling BECAUSE there is nothing for it to react to. You are having some silly fanboy rage because the word kitten was used. It's silly.


Quote
What an absolute clusterf**k of a paragraph. Clearly you have no understanding of the point that was made. I suggest you take a step back and reread a few posts back for a better understanding. I made the comparison to a wild and untamed animal/ beast to convey an image of pure ferocity, in contrast to Spaihts evocation of the image of a harmless kitten like facehugger. I wasn't making a general point on the entire animal kingdom.

I clearly dont have your strange idea that a wild animal when not sleeping must be flipping out like the Taz The Tasmanian Devil. The word harmless wasnt used either, yet another of you additions, just the word kitten. You think when the word kitten is used that means harmless? Well that's on you.


Quote
Which word in the sentence 'It's subdued because it does care about Dave' did I omit as chaff? You say this is one of the words, but bring no attention to a specific word.  ???

We are talking about the paragraph from the interview, and you decided to ignore and call chaff the words that explain why the FH isnt doing anything. This whole THREAD is about this interview, this silly conversations between us is about that paragraph.... how did you all of a sudden not understand what is being discussed?

Quote
Again, completely devaluing the ferocity of a creature, relegating it to the role of a droids harmless pet, no longer spurred by it's 'perfect' desire to breed. Again (and again, and again, and again), I understand why, I simply do not not like how.

Oh good, instead of blaming Spaihts you are finally putting the blame on yourself.

Quote
QuoteBut that's not the image Spaiht's sells at all.

Exactly. That's my point. The image of a wild creature is something Spaiht's could have sold with the same reasoning but instead turns the creature into David's pet. You'll get it eventually.

Ummm..... you DO know that you quoted yourself....right?
This is the actual post

Quote from: me
Quote from: you
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.

That's the image "sold" to me. Remember, people think differently, your view of the scene does not constitute the standard. Specially when you make up things that arent there. 

Im done....
Not only do you have some weird rules about asking people how to elaborate on something, but you make up stuff to critique that dont exists (monologing), you use information from a totally different thread like im supposed to know, and now you are quoting yourself and trying to make it seem like it was something i said.

The goofiness levels have passed my limits.


BANE

Quote from: whiterabbit on Oct 10, 2012, 01:10:43 AM
So the engineers lost interest in having sex... and in having the other sex itself around. Damn. This dudes are hardcore. I guess feminism succeeded a bit too well.
I'm reminded of Alan Rickman in Dogma.

Can they at least have sex recreationally? No wonder everything they build is all 'vaginas' and 'penises': they miss f**king. They miss it. They probably set aside a day of the week to have sex, just to get reacquainted with it, if not to familiarize themselves with why they lost interest.

Besides, how would they reproduce? Do they just split like amoebas? Are we going to see motherf**kers randomly splitting in two in Paradise? 'Oh, Hi, I'm Dr. Shaw, and this...BSSSHHHHHRRRRSSSSHHHHWWOOOOOP!...OK, now there's two David.'

Gazz

Gazz

#86
Quote
You reposting your comments isnt going to magically mean i want to oppose it.

Your opinion already did oppose mine, whether you wanted it to or not. This being a discussion board I thought we could spark up a debate. Your response of counting minutes, snarkiness and all round pedantry clearly shows you have little desire to. I operated outside of your 'human interaction' rule book and you're clearly uncomfortable with it. That's perfectly fine, but you've really got to stop acting like I shit in your shoes.

QuoteYou obviously care about mine

No, I was simply surprised by the radically different response to the scene despite it reading like bond villain fodder.

You have since proved your opinion simply isn't worth caring about.

Quote

Where exactly in this post are you supposed to be surprised?

It sounds like an early and ridiculous Bond film moment. The type ridiculed by Austin Powers. David monologues away, toying with Shaw whilst cradling a facehugger, then high tails it back to the ship without seeing his dastardly plan through.

My radically different approach to the scene is an expression of surprise, especially since it's in reference to a quote that stated the scene reads as 'beautiful' and 'moviemaking'. I'm sorry I did not simply write 'I AM SURPRISED' for your benefit.

QuoteThis reads to me like you are goofing on the scene. You even put this  :P at the end of your post.

I was goofing the scene, because it read as being goofy.

QuoteYou fail to understand what makes that event happen, you refuse to understand that the FH is chilling BECAUSE there is nothing for it to react to.

FH's do not 'chill' nor should they. That you even suggest as such is a misunderstanding of what the previous Alien films tell us. Again, I understand why David can handle the creature, I do not like how Spaiht's executes it (in it's current form).

QuoteI clearly dont have your strange idea that a wild animal when not sleeping must be flipping out like the Taz The Tasmanian Devil.

Are you being purposely dense? To quote myself:

'I made the comparison to a wild and untamed animal/ beast to convey an image of pure ferocity, in contrast to Spaihts evocation of the image of a harmless kitten like facehugger. I wasn't making a general point on the entire animal kingdom.'

QuoteThe word harmless wasnt used either, yet another of you additions, just the word kitten.

Kittens are harmless. It's the whole reason why the word 'kitten' is used as opposed to 'uncontrollable beast' or something similar. Spaihts wants us to picture a harmless housepet in our minds when David handles the creature. That's the point of using the word. You could at least try and keep up.

QuoteWe are talking about the paragraph from the interview

No, you said 'It's subdued because it does care about Dave. This is one of those words you decided to throw away as chaff.', I'm asking what important word in the sentence 'It's subdued because it does care about Dave' did I omit? You make mention of a single important word but fail to specify which one.

QuoteOh good, instead of blaming Spaihts you are finally putting the blame on yourself.

Whatever gave you that absurd and ridiculous idea. I guess whatever absurdity stops you from constructing a relevant response is an absurdity worth pursuing.

Quote

Ummm..... you DO know that you quoted yourself....right?

A minor glitch in the ongoing quest to clean up the thread.

QuoteRemember, people think differently, your view of the scene does not constitute the standard. 

And I understand that. Shame that you've provided very little in the way of a valid viewpoint since your responses don't much vary beyond 'not everyone thinks like you'.

QuoteIm done....

Considering just how much you've dodged in the way of actually discussing what Spaiht's said, your penchant for misunderstanding the simplest of explanations, scenes and words or simply how you would continually ignore the bulk of a response (as you did the previous post) in favour of pedantry and general ignorance, well, you were done before you even got started.  :-\

Blacklabel

Blacklabel

#87
Quote from: ikarop on Oct 09, 2012, 06:48:09 PM
Someone asked about the Engineer's mythology the other day. There's more on the Blu-ray in case you haven't watched it yet. Some type of "ascension" is mentioned there too which reminded me a lot of the Ancients in Stargate.



Jon Spaihts dvd commentary clarifies a bit about that. He mentions playing with the notion that they see in a "clearer  spectrum" of light. Hence why their buildings and ship decoration have very little "light"

RagingDragon

Quote from: Highland on Oct 09, 2012, 07:37:51 AM
Goddamn

#begins to read thread#

#Gets to DaddyYautja quote wars#

Leaves.

This made me laugh and feel like a dick simultaneously.

Go ahead and skip over my massive walls of text if you wander into Ridley Says No To Extended Cut thread.  We jerked the wheel back on the road in the end, though!

ChrisPachi

ChrisPachi

#89
"...long since learned to see in more dimensions than we do"

Metaphysical poppycock.

Quote from: BANE on Oct 10, 2012, 01:44:45 AMNo wonder everything they build is all 'vaginas' and 'penises': they miss f**king.

Poor Lambert, copping the sharp end of millions of years of sexual repression.

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