I don't really like the sequels. I really used to when I was a kid but after the prequels, I will never look at them the same way again. There has been one problem in the franchise that has been the biggest, where do the eggs come from? I have thought long and hard and I am here to tell you it is impossible. The secret has been anticipated for so long and hyped up that it has achieved the level that it is impossible to be worthy and pleasing. There could be a sub-way to create eggs(I have a theory that you can check out in the forums) but the true way can never be known, and shouldn't. The only thing that can sastifie it is the unknown. So I think that it should remain a secret forever.
What?
Quote from: Xenomorph60 on Dec 25, 2018, 03:00:58 AM
I don't really like the sequels. I really used to when I was a kid but after the prequels, I will never look at them the same way again. There has been one problem in the franchise that has been the biggest, where do the eggs come from? I have thought long and hard and I am here to tell you it is impossible. The secret has been anticipated for so long and hyped up that it has achieved the level that it is impossible to be worthy and pleasing. There could be a sub-way to create eggs(I have a theory that you can check out in the forums) but the true way can never be known, and shouldn't. The only thing that can sastifie it is the unknown. So I think that it should remain a secret forever.
The origin of the eggs are still a mystery, because they show skeleton hands holding eggs on the mural.
A mystery?
David made the eggs, to begin with. The mural of the egg isn't clearly established on screen, even if it was, well, plans changed. Perhaps the engineers envisioned it, made artwork and created a mythology/religion surrounding the pathogen, etc, but David was the one to actually achieve the results. Being synthetic has its advantages.
Quote from: Necronomicon II on Dec 25, 2018, 04:15:33 AM
David made the eggs, to begin with. The mural of the egg isn't clearly established on screen, even if it was, well, plans changed. Perhaps the engineers envisioned it, made artwork and created a mythology/religion surrounding the pathogen, etc, but David was the one to actually achieve the results. Being synthetic has its advantages.
David definitely made an egg, but nowhere in convent did it said he made the first eggs.
Quote from: Huggs on Dec 25, 2018, 04:09:15 AM
A mystery?
Thats not the mural I am talking about.
Quote from: yhe1 on Dec 25, 2018, 04:53:37 AM
Thats not the mural I am talking about.
I know. It's just always bugged me.
Quote from: yhe1 on Dec 25, 2018, 04:53:37 AM
David definitely made an egg, but nowhere in convent did it said he made the first eggs.
It's the long scene where he explains how he made a whole new species by breeding goo mutants.
Quote from: SiL on Dec 25, 2018, 05:06:50 AM
Quote from: yhe1 on Dec 25, 2018, 04:53:37 AM
David definitely made an egg, but nowhere in convent did it said he made the first eggs.
It's the long scene where he explains how he made a whole new species by breeding goo mutants.
Just rewatched the entire Oram scene, David never said he made a whole new species. Unless you mean somewhere else?
Quote from: SiL on Dec 25, 2018, 05:06:50 AM
It's the long scene where he explains how he made a whole new species by breeding goo mutants.
Now we just need Xenomrph to show up...
And here we go.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Dec 25, 2018, 05:22:23 AM
Quote from: SiL on Dec 25, 2018, 05:06:50 AM
It's the long scene where he explains how he made a whole new species by breeding goo mutants.
Now we just need Xenomrph to show up...
YOU RANG????
Quote from: SiL on Dec 25, 2018, 05:06:50 AM
Quote from: yhe1 on Dec 25, 2018, 04:53:37 AM
David definitely made an egg, but nowhere in convent did it said he made the first eggs.
It's the long scene where he explains how he made a whole new species by breeding goo mutants.
That doesn't change what yhe1 said, but we've already been down this road a bajillion times anyway. :P
Everything David said still makes sense if you view it from the angle that he was recreating the Engineers' work
Quote from: yhe1 on Dec 25, 2018, 06:59:03 AM
Everything David said still makes sense if you view it from the angle that he was recreating the Engineers' work
And to get ahead of the inevitable reply, David doesn't need to know he's recreating anything for it to be the case.
Quote from: yhe1 on Dec 25, 2018, 05:21:40 AM
Just rewatched the entire Oram scene, David never said he made a whole new species.
It's the part where he started with a mutated wasp and selectively bred it into the Alien. With a distinct lack of "...based on my findings of other things the Engineers did", or any other indication he had some kind of blueprint other than his own sketches.
That's what the film itself says.
EDIT
As much as Xenomrph argues what
other films suggest,
Covenant does not say David is following a blue-print, intentionally or not, and makes no indication that he isn't creating the Alien anew. That's all outside of the film.
Quote from: Huggs on Dec 25, 2018, 04:09:15 AM
A mystery?
Watto did it ;D
People put to much stock in the murals. They where remenants of previous versions of the movie, the main mural depicting the not used ultra- or belugamorph, the facehugger concept art from way back and the other pictures are not even really visible for the audience. It is more of an easteregg than anything else. Especially the parts with Watto and the egg and the facehugger.
I also think David coincidently recreating the xenomorph through selective breeding, try and error and decades of very specific research is implausible.
The engineers clearly knew about xenolike creatures as black goo mutants like the neomorph share some characteristics. Which may explain the mural if you want to give it more than easteregg status.
Tldr: As long as the next movie does not tell us something else : David did it.
Quote
Tldr: As long as the next movie does not tell us something else : David did it.
Fingers crossed somebody says something.
Quote from: SiL on Dec 25, 2018, 08:37:44 AM
Quote from: yhe1 on Dec 25, 2018, 05:21:40 AM
Just rewatched the entire Oram scene, David never said he made a whole new species.
It's the part where he started with a mutated wasp and selectively bred it into the Alien. With a distinct lack of "...based on my findings of other things the Engineers did", or any other indication he had some kind of blueprint other than his own sketches.
That's what the film itself says.
EDIT
As much as Xenomrph argues what other films suggest, Covenant does not say David is following a blue-print, intentionally or not, and makes no indication that he isn't creating the Alien anew. That's all outside of the film.
Whether David is following a Blueprint or not is not important. The important thing is that his life cycle and the mural life cycle is still the same. And we know that the alien lifecycle is more consistent then the looks.
Quote from: yhe1 on Dec 25, 2018, 09:03:00 AM
The important thing is that his life cycle and the mural life cycle is still the same. And we know that the alien lifecycle is more consistent then the looks.
Whether he's following a blueprint or not, intentionally or not, is very important; it's entirely the point of people saying he isn't the original creator. The Deacon follows much the same life-cycle and isn't the Alien, so what the mural shows really isn't important. The mural also doesn't show David's facehuggers, but does show a Deacon.
The goo makes Alien-
like things; David refined it into
the Alien. That's what
Covenant says.
Quote
People put to much stock in the murals. They where remenants of previous versions of the movie, the main mural depicting the not used ultra- or belugamorph, the facehugger concept art from way back and the other pictures are not even really visible for the audience. It is more of an easteregg than anything else. Especially the parts with Watto and the egg and the facehugger.
Well, except those three engineers were really running away from something.
Quote
I also think David coincidently recreating the xenomorph through selective breeding, try and error and decades of very specific research is implausible.
A Neomorph, if it were black, would look really similar to a deacon. So its not that implausible.
Quote from: yhe1 on Dec 25, 2018, 09:14:41 AM
Well, except those three engineers were really running away from something.
Deacons, Neomorphs, whatever Fifield turned into -- any of the half dozen other goo monsters we see that aren't Aliens.
QuoteA Neomorph, if it were black, would look really similar to a deacon. So its not that implausible.
And neither a deacon nor a neomorph are xenomorphs.
Quote from: SiL on Dec 25, 2018, 09:12:21 AM
Quote from: yhe1 on Dec 25, 2018, 09:03:00 AM
The important thing is that his life cycle and the mural life cycle is still the same. And we know that the alien lifecycle is more consistent then the looks.
Whether he's following a blueprint or not, intentionally or not, is very important; it's entirely the point of people saying he isn't the original creator. The Deacon follows much the same life-cycle and isn't the Alien, so what the mural shows really isn't important. The mural also doesn't show David's facehuggers, but does show a Deacon.
The goo makes Alien-like things; David refined it into the Alien. That's what Covenant says.
So you are saying that looks are more important then the lifecycle.
I'm saying that it actually being the Alien, and not something that looks kind'a like it a bit, is most important.
Quote from: SiL on Dec 25, 2018, 09:38:45 AM
I'm saying that it actually being the Alien, and not something that looks kind'a like it a bit, is most important.
seems like you're still saying the same thing.
I define the mural creature as closer to xenomorph because of the lifecycle. You define it as closer to deacon because of the looks. I guess we will have to disagree because our definition of "alien" isn't the same.
"Closer to" still isn't the Alien.
Goo creates creatures with similar appearance and sometimes similar life cycles. But it doesn't make THE Alien. David did. That's what Covenant says.
The damn xenomorphs created the eggs as Christmas presents for the engineers. David only crossbred the things as half assed inbreeds. Also I'm certain he's just spitting out his ass because he is 'defective in the cpu'. David is clearly meant to be broken in Covenant. Probably even tortured the few engineers that survived the goo bombing by telling them that he is their creator and that Luke is Darth Vaders son. Just 1 more year until The Empire Strikes Back would have reached planet 4. Damn you David!
Don't forget that he said he found perfection before claiming that he created it. David is an unethical liar.
Quote from: SiL on Dec 25, 2018, 09:02:27 AM
Quote
Tldr: As long as the next movie does not tell us something else : David did it.
Fingers crossed somebody says something.
I have to agree. With both.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Dec 25, 2018, 06:50:59 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Dec 25, 2018, 05:22:23 AM
Now we just need Xenomrph to show up...
YOU RANG????
Hot damn, that was amazing LT! It's like you were summoning Beetlejuice or something!
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Dec 25, 2018, 04:18:29 PM
Quote from: SiL on Dec 25, 2018, 09:02:27 AM
Quote
Tldr: As long as the next movie does not tell us something else : David did it.
Fingers crossed somebody says something.
I have to agree. With both.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Dec 25, 2018, 06:50:59 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Dec 25, 2018, 05:22:23 AM
Now we just need Xenomrph to show up...
YOU RANG????
Hot damn, that was amazing LT! It's like you were summoning Beetlejuice or something!
I was thinking more of Addam's Family, when they summon Lurch with the bell.
Quote from: TheSailingRabbit on Dec 25, 2018, 04:40:58 PM
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Dec 25, 2018, 04:18:29 PM
Quote from: SiL on Dec 25, 2018, 09:02:27 AM
Quote
Tldr: As long as the next movie does not tell us something else : David did it.
Fingers crossed somebody says something.
I have to agree. With both.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Dec 25, 2018, 06:50:59 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Dec 25, 2018, 05:22:23 AM
Now we just need Xenomrph to show up...
YOU RANG????
Hot damn, that was amazing LT! It's like you were summoning Beetlejuice or something!
I was thinking more of Addam's Family, when they summon Lurch with the bell.
Ahh, so what you're saying is Xenomrph is AVPG's equivalent to Lurch!
Brilliant!(https://media0.giphy.com/media/nvr4mKdCoq2nS/giphy.gif?cid=19f5b51a5c2260a64a55596732ccd8e5)
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Dec 25, 2018, 04:56:26 PM
Quote from: TheSailingRabbit on Dec 25, 2018, 04:40:58 PM
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Dec 25, 2018, 04:18:29 PM
Quote from: SiL on Dec 25, 2018, 09:02:27 AM
Quote
Tldr: As long as the next movie does not tell us something else : David did it.
Fingers crossed somebody says something.
I have to agree. With both.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Dec 25, 2018, 06:50:59 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Dec 25, 2018, 05:22:23 AM
Now we just need Xenomrph to show up...
YOU RANG????
Hot damn, that was amazing LT! It's like you were summoning Beetlejuice or something!
I was thinking more of Addam's Family, when they summon Lurch with the bell.
Ahh, so what you're saying is Xenomrph is AVPG's equivalent to Lurch! Brilliant!
(https://media0.giphy.com/media/nvr4mKdCoq2nS/giphy.gif?cid=19f5b51a5c2260a64a55596732ccd8e5)
You and Huggs are Fester.
Quote from: TheSailingRabbit on Dec 25, 2018, 05:04:45 PM
You and Huggs are Fester.
How can two people both be Fester? And here I thought we were having an intellectual conversation.
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Dec 25, 2018, 06:16:40 PM
Quote from: TheSailingRabbit on Dec 25, 2018, 05:04:45 PM
You and Huggs are Fester.
How can two people both be Fester? And here I thought we were having an intellectual conversation.
You thought you were having an intellectual conversation with me? ;D
Jokes aside, I really can't decide which one of you is Fester.
Quote from: TheSailingRabbit on Dec 25, 2018, 06:28:39 PM
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Dec 25, 2018, 06:16:40 PM
Quote from: TheSailingRabbit on Dec 25, 2018, 05:04:45 PM
You and Huggs are Fester.
How can two people both be Fester? And here I thought we were having an intellectual conversation.
You thought you were having an intellectual conversation with me? ;D
Jokes aside, I really can't decide which one of you is Fester.
Jokes aside? LOL :laugh:
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Dec 25, 2018, 06:16:40 PM
Quote from: TheSailingRabbit on Dec 25, 2018, 05:04:45 PM
You and Huggs are Fester.
How can two people both be Fester? And here I thought we were having an intellectual conversation.
"...he likes to fish, but usually employs dynamite"
In other words, I'm fine being Fester.
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Dec 25, 2018, 06:29:47 PM
Quote from: TheSailingRabbit on Dec 25, 2018, 06:28:39 PM
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Dec 25, 2018, 06:16:40 PM
Quote from: TheSailingRabbit on Dec 25, 2018, 05:04:45 PM
You and Huggs are Fester.
How can two people both be Fester? And here I thought we were having an intellectual conversation.
You thought you were having an intellectual conversation with me? ;D
Jokes aside, I really can't decide which one of you is Fester.
Jokes aside? LOL :laugh:
It only gets intellectual if we make a thread debating what character each AvPGalaxy member is.
I meant how the Xenomorph reproduces by itself.
David made the eggs and going by Advent he may have been trying to create a Queen as a means of self replicating.
What is this Advent thing you guys always talk about?
Never you mind.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Dec 25, 2018, 09:59:23 PM
What is this Advent thing you guys always talk about?
Advent is a short film sequel to Alien: Covenant in which David sends a transmission from the Covenant to Weyland-Yutani on Earth, elaborating upon the genetic experimentation he has been conducting on Planet 4. It was directed by Matthew Thorne.
http://avp.wikia.com/wiki/Alien:_Covenant_short_films
Is it canon?
For now if you want. Ridley will probably retcon it during the development of the third movie.
Quote from: SiL on Dec 25, 2018, 10:22:55 AM
"Closer to" still isn't the Alien.
Goo creates creatures with similar appearance and sometimes similar life cycles. But it doesn't make THE Alien. David did. That's what Covenant says.
If the Alien lifecycle did not come from David, then all David could have done is tweaking the creatures. And for many people that is not enough to be the original creator.
"Many people" are desperately clutching at straws.
The Engineers may have created other creatures that look like the Alien or have similar aspects in their life cycle - but the Xenomorph, as we know it, was created by David.
Quote from: SM on Dec 26, 2018, 01:14:05 AM
"Many people" are desperately clutching at straws.
Would it be accurate to say that facts don't care about their feelings?
Were it not for the fact that Ben Shapiro continues to exist, yes it would.
Quote from: SM on Dec 26, 2018, 01:14:05 AM
"Many people" are desperately clutching at straws.
The Engineers may have created other creatures that look like the Alien or have similar aspects in their life cycle - but the Xenomorph, as we know it, was created by David.
Like I said, its a question of how one defines the xenomorph. The mural creature shares the same lifecycle with the xenomorph but does not look exactly the same (pointed head vs Penis head).
well, Xenomorph head shape is variable. So whether the mural creature is close enough is subjective.
No. We don't know what life cycle the mural creature has.
If people choose to redefine what a Xenomorph is - in terms of differentiating it from a Deacon or Neomorph - then I don't see how that is anything other than more desperate straw clutching.
Quote from: SM on Dec 26, 2018, 01:57:32 AM
No. We don't know what life cycle the mural creature has.
Like I said, you can keep saying that, But the different murals forming the complete alien lifecycle speaks for itself.
Quote from: SM on Dec 26, 2018, 01:57:32 AM
If people choose to redefine what a Xenomorph is - in terms of differentiating it from a Deacon or Neomorph - then I don't see how that is anything other than more desperate straw clutching.
The defining feature of the xenomorph is always the lifecycle. The look has never been consistent. Alien had smooth head while Aliens had ridged heads, remember.
-- wait how can you not know and still claim that you do know --
Quote
The defining feature of the xenomorph is always the lifecycle. The look has never been consistent. Alien had smooth head while Aliens had ridged heads, remember.
And yet we know they're all the same creature and to suggest otherwise is disingenuous (to put it mildly).
Quote
Like I said, you can keep saying that, But the different murals forming the complete alien lifecycle speaks for itself.
No, it doesn't.
Quote
And yet we know they're all the same creature and to suggest otherwise is disingenuous (to put it mildly).
So you agree that Xenomorph head shape and looks can vary.
Quote
Like I said, you can keep saying that, But the different murals forming the complete alien lifecycle speaks for itself.
Quote
No, it doesn't.
Then offer an more likely explanation on what the mural is depicting.
The mural doesn't show chest-bursting, incidentally. One of the areas shows an egg-like object, this section shows two worms with legs wrapping over a face and a Deacon in the middle:
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Falienseries.files.wordpress.com%2F2014%2F02%2F68996_468224086550706_1443539704_n.jpg&hash=5f8c41998289af4e15af5ee59d5a0d90e6bc25b3)
But there's no chestburster. So even the argument it shows the complete life cycle doesn't really hold up.
And incidentally the hands seen holding the egg match this bird-face thing, also seen in the chamber, also very much not an Alien:
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvignette.wikia.nocookie.net%2Favp%2Fimages%2F3%2F36%2FNormal_art-of-prometheus-002.PNG%2Frevision%2Flatest%3Fcb%3D20121201182918&hash=48951a02f7f5e111c83305054c85c359230081ec)
Yeah, but David's Alien had no chestburster either. An mini alien directly emerge from Oram.
Right, like the Bambi burster in Alien 3.
You miss the point, though -- the wall doesn't seem to show any chest-born organisms.
QuoteSo you agree that Xenomorph head shape and looks can vary.
Of course. But not to look like a Deacon or Neomorph.
But you already knew that.
QuoteThen offer an more likely explanation on what the mural is depicting.
Stations of the Cross? Work Health and Safety instructions? Graffiti? I don't know. But I don't have to know, to determine that "the different murals forming the complete alien lifecycle" isn't supported by what's on screen.
Quote from: SM on Dec 26, 2018, 03:42:37 AM
QuoteSo you agree that Xenomorph head shape and looks can vary.
Of course. But not to look like a Deacon or Neomorph.
But you already knew that.
QuoteThen offer an more likely explanation on what the mural is depicting.
Stations of the Cross? Work Health and Safety instructions? Graffiti? I don't know. But I don't have to know, to determine that "the different murals forming the complete alien lifecycle" isn't supported by what's on screen.
This is a picture of Bob. Can you tell me what's happening here? Bob f*cked with the black goo, and now he's dead. What can we learn from this? Don't touch...ANYTHING!
Quote from: SM on Dec 26, 2018, 03:42:37 AM
QuoteSo you agree that Xenomorph head shape and looks can vary.
Of course. But not to look like a Deacon or Neomorph.
But you already knew that.
So a crest is Possible, but a pointed head is totally out of the question.
Quote
Stations of the Cross? Work Health and Safety instructions? Graffiti? I don't know. But I don't have to know, to determine that "the different murals forming the complete alien lifecycle" isn't supported by what's on screen.
Face it, the reason you can't think of a good alternative explanation is because depicting the life cycle is the most logical one.
Quote from: SiL on Dec 26, 2018, 03:36:50 AM
Right, like the Bambi burster in Alien 3.
You miss the point, though -- the wall doesn't seem to show any chest-born organisms.
Well, if It was like Alien 3 or David's alien, what came out of the Engineer would just be a mini mural creature.
Considering the ones we've seen thus far - yes.
Quote from: yhe1 on Dec 26, 2018, 03:48:55 AM
Well, if It was like Alien 3 or David's alien, what came out of the Engineer would just be a mini mural creature.
Quote from: SiL on Dec 26, 2018, 03:36:50 AM
You miss the point, though -- the wall doesn't seem to show any chest-born organisms.
Quote from: SiL on Dec 26, 2018, 04:11:57 AM
Quote from: yhe1 on Dec 26, 2018, 03:48:55 AM
Well, if It was like Alien 3 or David's alien, what came out of the Engineer would just be a mini mural creature.
Quote from: SiL on Dec 26, 2018, 03:36:50 AM
You miss the point, though -- the wall doesn't seem to show any chest-born organisms.
Well, chestbursting is considered a unique stage because the chestburster form is unique. If what bursts out is a miniature adult, then its not really unqiue anymore is it?
Quote from: SiL on Dec 26, 2018, 03:17:16 AM
The mural doesn't show chest-bursting, incidentally. One of the areas shows an egg-like object, this section shows two worms with legs wrapping over a face and a Deacon in the middle:
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Falienseries.files.wordpress.com%2F2014%2F02%2F68996_468224086550706_1443539704_n.jpg&hash=5f8c41998289af4e15af5ee59d5a0d90e6bc25b3)
But there's no chestburster. So even the argument it shows the complete life cycle doesn't really hold up.
And incidentally the hands seen holding the egg match this bird-face thing, also seen in the chamber, also very much not an Alien:
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvignette.wikia.nocookie.net%2Favp%2Fimages%2F3%2F36%2FNormal_art-of-prometheus-002.PNG%2Frevision%2Flatest%3Fcb%3D20121201182918&hash=48951a02f7f5e111c83305054c85c359230081ec)
Maybe, somehow they believe they're seeing the Giger's mural while they're looking at the Deacon's low relief.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alien-covenant.com%2Faliencovenant_uploads%2F1_-_original.jpg&hash=6cec15d96fdd1eeb5df091d6dfcbc7283422d419)
Quote from: yhe1 on Dec 26, 2018, 04:22:37 AM
Well, chestbursting is considered a unique stage because the chestburster form is unique. If what bursts out is a miniature adult, then its not really unqiue anymore is it?
Deacon bursts from a chest, still not a xenomorph.
Quote from: SiL on Dec 26, 2018, 05:19:48 AM
Quote from: yhe1 on Dec 26, 2018, 04:22:37 AM
Well, chestbursting is considered a unique stage because the chestburster form is unique. If what bursts out is a miniature adult, then its not really unqiue anymore is it?
Deacon bursts from a chest, still not a xenomorph.
More like the deacon in Prometheus cannot be used as a basis because it was created through a series of random events.
Hardly random.
And since the mural doesn't show anything explode out of anything's chest, it's not showing the Alien's life-cycle -- and barely doing a good job of showing a Deacon or neomorph lifecycle since it's skipping the whole "being born" bit.
Quote from: SiL on Dec 25, 2018, 08:37:44 AM
Quote from: yhe1 on Dec 25, 2018, 05:21:40 AM
Just rewatched the entire Oram scene, David never said he made a whole new species.
It's the part where he started with a mutated wasp and selectively bred it into the Alien. With a distinct lack of "...based on my findings of other things the Engineers did", or any other indication he had some kind of blueprint other than his own sketches.
That's what the film itself says.
EDIT
As much as Xenomrph argues what other films suggest, Covenant does not say David is following a blue-print, intentionally or not, and makes no indication that he isn't creating the Alien anew. That's all outside of the film.
We've gone down this road in other threads - yes, in a vacuum, Covenant suggests that David made the Alien. Within the wider franchise, it's open to interpretation.
Quote from: The Kurgan on Dec 25, 2018, 08:47:51 AM
Tldr: As long as the next movie does not tell us something else : David did it.
As far as I'm concerned, unless a future movie reconciles David's creation and the Derelict, it's more like "David might have done it." :P
Quote from: SM on Dec 26, 2018, 05:46:57 AM
Hardly random.
Holloway deciding to have sex have Shaw was random.
Quote from: yhe1 on Dec 26, 2018, 06:02:03 AM
Holloway deciding to have sex have Shaw was random.
A man having sex with his wife is random?
Christ.
Quote from: SiL on Dec 26, 2018, 06:03:13 AM
Quote from: yhe1 on Dec 26, 2018, 06:02:03 AM
Holloway deciding to have sex have Shaw was random.
A man having sex with his wife is random?
Christ.
I think he means in the sense that it wasn't a predicted event. Like, Holloway could have waited a day and succumbed to the Black Goo, which means no trilobite which means no Neomorph.
Quote from: SiL on Dec 26, 2018, 05:54:31 AM
And since the mural doesn't show anything explode out of anything's chest, it's not showing the Alien's life-cycle -- and barely doing a good job of showing a Deacon or neomorph lifecycle since it's skipping the whole "being born" bit.
If there is no unique chestburster form, but only a mini mural creature, then the depiction of the mural creature already shows that it got out someway.
Quote from: yhe1 on Dec 26, 2018, 06:05:08 AM
If there is no unique chestburster form, but only a mini mural creature, then the depiction of the mural creature already shows that it got out someway.
There's no birth
at all. That's a crucial part of the "life" part of a life cycle you're insisting the mural is showing. And the mural creature it shows
isn't an Alien, so even if I let you have this point -- it still isn't proving the mural shows the Alien lifecycle and therefor suggesting Aliens existed before David.
Quote from: SiL on Dec 26, 2018, 06:03:13 AM
Quote from: yhe1 on Dec 26, 2018, 06:02:03 AM
Holloway deciding to have sex have Shaw was random.
A man having sex with his wife is random?
Christ.
lol, if holloway was feeling tired that night. He would have mutated into a fifield like monster and the deacon would have never existed. So yes.
Quote from: SiL on Dec 26, 2018, 06:06:49 AM
Quote from: yhe1 on Dec 26, 2018, 06:05:08 AM
If there is no unique chestburster form, but only a mini mural creature, then the depiction of the mural creature already shows that it got out someway.
There's no birth at all. That's a crucial part of the "life" part of a life cycle you're insisting the mural is showing. And the mural creature it shows isn't an Alien, so even if I let you have this point -- it still isn't proving the mural shows the Alien lifecycle and therefor suggesting Aliens existed before David.
You are looking at this the wrong way. All the pieces where around before David
Mural egg, mural hugger, engineer, mural creature.
David egg, David hugger, human, David Xeno
David did not add/change pieces, so thats why he is not qualified to be the original creator.
Oh dear...
QuoteYou are looking at this the wrong way. All the pieces where around before David
Mural egg, mural hugger, engineer, mural creature.
David egg, David hugger, human, David Xeno
David did not add/change pieces, so thats why he is not qualified to be the original creator.
That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works. Just because the carriage and combustion engine existed first, doesn't mean nobody invented the car.
Quote from: SiL on Dec 26, 2018, 06:35:34 AM
QuoteYou are looking at this the wrong way. All the pieces where around before David
Mural egg, mural hugger, engineer, mural creature.
David egg, David hugger, human, David Xeno
David did not add/change pieces, so thats why he is not qualified to be the original creator.
That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works. Just because the carriage and combustion engine existed first, doesn't mean nobody invented the car.
By the same reasoning, couldn't one argue that via multiple discovery (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_discovery), there could be independent "creators" of the Alien?
Of course I'm referring to the broader franchise, not Covenant in isolation.
Quote from: SiL on Dec 26, 2018, 06:35:34 AM
QuoteYou are looking at this the wrong way. All the pieces where around before David
Mural egg, mural hugger, engineer, mural creature.
David egg, David hugger, human, David Xeno
David did not add/change pieces, so thats why he is not qualified to be the original creator.
That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works. Just because the carriage and combustion engine existed first, doesn't mean nobody invented the car.
Putting the carriage and combustion engine together = facehugging?
The correct analogy would be that Engineers invented the car, and David made a car that looks slight different.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Dec 26, 2018, 06:37:54 AM
By the same reasoning, couldn't one argue that via multiple discovery (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_discovery), there could be independent "creators" of the Alien?
Sure, but you could also argue Aliens spontaneously pop into existence every twelve seconds if you wanted.
Quote from: yhe1 on Dec 26, 2018, 06:43:49 AM
The correct analogy would be that Engineers invented the car, and David made a car that looks slight different.
Based on the evidence, no, that's not a better analogy because that's now what either movie shows. Both movies show that the different parts pop under different, arbitrary circumstances, not that they all exist within a single, coherent organism.
Quote
Based on the evidence, no, that's not a better analogy because that's now what either movie shows. Both movies show that the different parts pop under different, arbitrary circumstances, not that they all exist within a single, coherent organism.
to use your carriage and combustion engine analogy, putting the two together would be equal to facehugging. Which the engineers have already done.
... Are you trying to not make sense or what?
Touch screen phones existed before the IPhone, but Apple still created the IPhone.
Quote from: SM on Dec 26, 2018, 06:59:15 AM
Touch screen phones existed before the IPhone, but Apple still created the IPhone.
If you are using that analogy, then you are basically admitting the David has nothing to be proud of.
No.
No, I am not.
David didn't create anything out of thin air. No one is suggesting he did.
He did however create the Xenomorph, no matter much you want to change the meaning of words to suit your agenda.
Quote from: SM on Dec 26, 2018, 08:21:17 AM
No.
No, I am not.
David didn't create anything out of thin air. No one is suggesting he did.
He did however create the Xenomorph, no matter much you want to change the meaning of words to suit your agenda.
Yes you are.
With your smartphone/iphone example, you just admitted most of the work was not done by David.
"The Beatles aren't creators of Sergeant Pepper because they didn't create music."
"Shakespeare didn't create any plays because he didn't create the English language."
Mediocre effort at shifting the goalposts.
There was no Xenomorph before David created it.
Quote from: SM on Dec 26, 2018, 08:34:32 AM
"The Beatles aren't creators of Sergeant Pepper because they didn't create music."
"Shakespeare didn't create any plays because he didn't create the English language."
The proper analogy would be that Shakespeare and The Beatles discovering that similar albums and plays already exists.
... so the makers of Alien didn't actually make Alien because It! The Terror From Beyond Space and Voyage of the Space Beagle exist?
Quote
Both movies show that the different parts pop under different, arbitrary circumstances, not that they all exist within a single, coherent organism.
Well, most human religious murals are connected to a form a story, and Engineers are just like Humans. You can view the murals as separate, but it is highly unlikely based on what humans do.
Quote from: yhe1 on Dec 26, 2018, 09:39:46 AM
Well, most human religious murals are connected to a form a story, and Engineers are just like Humans. You can view the murals as separate, but it is highly unlikely based on what humans do.
Even together the mural doesn't show the lifecycle. You keep ignoring the fact it doesn't show the birthing process because your claim doesn't work if you acknowledge it.
Quote
Even together the mural doesn't show the lifecycle. You keep ignoring the fact it doesn't show the birthing process because your claim doesn't work if you acknowledge it.
except that not every depiction of the lifecycle needs to have the chestbursting shown:
Example here:
But you're the one trying to argue it shows the life-cycle. You're now admitting it doesn't, and shifting the goal posts to say it doesn't need to.
This is beyond desperate.
The entire David creating the alien retcon is a disaster.
David created an alien but as of yet he hasn't created "the" alien. There are alien species at every corner. The trilobyte, deacon, neo, hammerpede, david xeno, mural aliens... and they seem to be connected to the "stuff". Hell all this talk about chestburster is ignoring the fact that the egg is in the mural and David either used it as inspiration or out right copyright fraud. :P
Hell there is almost no way to connect David's aliens to the eggs on the derelict without it being hated.
Quote from: SiL on Dec 26, 2018, 10:09:00 AM
But you're the one trying to argue it shows the life-cycle. You're now admitting it doesn't, and shifting the goal posts to say it doesn't need to.
This is beyond desperate.
You claim that showing the chestbursting is critical. My pic proves that it is not.
I wonder if on occasion Ridley Scott visits threads like this to laugh, reveling in the mayhem he has caused like some evil genius.
(https://media2.giphy.com/media/mSPevXqDPwqOI/giphy.gif?cid=19f5b51a5c235dbb7076394b51631e2e)
Quote from: yhe1 on Dec 26, 2018, 10:41:40 AM
You claim that showing the chestbursting is critical. My pic proves that it is not.
You claim that it shows the life-cycle. It doesn't, because it misses a major piece. Your rebuttal is
fan art, which is an
infographic including text which
makes mention of that crucial part.
Unlike the wall and mural.
And even still, if what you're trying to argue made the least bit of sense:
Quote from: SiL on Dec 26, 2018, 09:39:24 AM
the makers of Alien didn't actually make Alien because It! The Terror From Beyond Space and Voyage of the Space Beagle exist
Quote from: yhe1 on Dec 26, 2018, 10:04:48 AM
Quote
Even together the mural doesn't show the lifecycle. You keep ignoring the fact it doesn't show the birthing process because your claim doesn't work if you acknowledge it.
except that not every depiction of the lifecycle needs to have the chestbursting shown:
It is necessary in order to represent that we are dealing with the capital Alien instead of similar yet different species.
Quote from: yhe1 on Dec 26, 2018, 10:04:48 AM
Example here:
Treating fan art as evidence...
(https://i.imgur.com/KgC4FqB.jpg)
You better get something from people that work on the films, or better yet; from the films itself. Seriously, I think this reply from Sil is a mirrored image of your logic, and how wrong you're:
Quote from: SiL on Dec 26, 2018, 09:39:24 AM
... so the makers of Alien didn't actually make Alien because It! The Terror From Beyond Space and Voyage of the Space Beagle exist?
Quote
You claim that it shows the life-cycle. It doesn't, because it misses a major piece. Your rebuttal is fan art, which is an infographic including text which makes mention of that crucial part.
Unlike the wall and mural.
But you still understood what the picture was showing even without the text or the chestbursting. So why is the chestbursting crucial again?
Quote from: SiL on Dec 26, 2018, 09:39:24 AM
the makers of Alien didn't actually make Alien because It! The Terror From Beyond Space and Voyage of the Space Beagle exist
David made an alien, that is not disputed. This does not mean that Engineers couldn't have also made aliens or something similar before David.
Quote from: yhe1 on Dec 26, 2018, 12:01:09 PM
David made an alien, that is not disputed. This does not mean that Engineers couldn't have also made aliens
Without proper evidence, it's just wishful thinking. Even a fan myth.
Quote from: yhe1 on Dec 26, 2018, 12:01:09 PM
or something similar before David.
It has to be the same species so that we can be successful in concluding that the Engineers created the Alien before David. Yeah yeah, you can find Alien's building blocks before David, but the actual Xenomorph species is David invention until new canonical source material says otherwise.
Quote from: Immortan Jonesy on Dec 26, 2018, 12:12:06 PM
Quote from: yhe1 on Dec 26, 2018, 12:01:09 PM
David made an alien, that is not disputed. This does not mean that Engineers couldn't have also made aliens
Without proper evidence, it's just wishful thinking. Even a fan myth.
Quote from: yhe1 on Dec 26, 2018, 12:01:09 PM
or something similar before David.
It has to be the same species so that we can be successful in concluding that the Engineers created the Alien before David. Yeah yeah, you can find Alien's building blocks before David, but the actual Xenomorph species is David invention until new canonical source material says otherwise.
David never said He created a new species, or that he made the first eggs. All he said was that he engineered the xeno in his lab.
These threads highlight the terrible writing behind Prometheus and to a slightly lessor extent Covenant. It's weird since the production quality in all other aspects of the films was superb. The writing has created these nonsensical plot holes that fans now have to fix with their own imaginations.
Quote from: yhe1 on Dec 26, 2018, 12:29:21 PM
Quote from: Immortan Jonesy on Dec 26, 2018, 12:12:06 PM
Quote from: yhe1 on Dec 26, 2018, 12:01:09 PM
David made an alien, that is not disputed. This does not mean that Engineers couldn't have also made aliens
Without proper evidence, it's just wishful thinking. Even a fan myth.
Quote from: yhe1 on Dec 26, 2018, 12:01:09 PM
or something similar before David.
It has to be the same species so that we can be successful in concluding that the Engineers created the Alien before David. Yeah yeah, you can find Alien's building blocks before David, but the actual Xenomorph species is David invention until new canonical source material says otherwise.
David never said He created a new species, or that he made the first eggs. All he said was that he engineered the xeno in his lab.
David: No one understands the lonely perfection of my dreams. I found perfection here. I've created it. A perfect organism.Besides, the director says the same thing. That was his intention with this film and his words are more important than any fan theory/fanon, no matter how good it is.
Quote from: irn on Dec 26, 2018, 12:46:06 PM
These threads highlight the terrible writing behind Prometheus and to a slightly lessor extent Covenant. It's weird since the production quality in all other aspects of the films was superb. The writing has created these nonsensical plot holes that fans now have to fix with their own imaginations.
Depends on what do you understand by plot hole since there seem to be different definitions here in AVP Galaxy. The same goes for the word Canon.
Quote from: Immortan Jonesy on Dec 26, 2018, 01:37:59 PM
Quote from: yhe1 on Dec 26, 2018, 12:29:21 PM
David never said He created a new species, or that he made the first eggs. All he said was that he engineered the xeno in his lab.
David: No one understands the lonely perfection of my dreams. I found perfection here. I've created it. A perfect organism.
Besides, the director says the same thing.
Right there. That's it. Once Ridley Scott confirmed that David created the Xenomorph, nothing else but this is accurate, regardless of how we feel about it or can explore through plot holes and/or bad writing the way I see it.
This discussion can go on forever.
Quote from: yhe1 on Dec 26, 2018, 09:29:19 AM
Quote from: SM on Dec 26, 2018, 08:34:32 AM
"The Beatles aren't creators of Sergeant Pepper because they didn't create music."
"Shakespeare didn't create any plays because he didn't create the English language."
The proper analogy would be that Shakespeare and The Beatles discovering that similar albums and plays already exists.
Shakespeare didn't write original works. All of his stories were based on older tales, books, fables and plays. People back then didn't appreciate difference; they liked things being similar to classic exemplars (...This is all the good I can get out of my English degree right now.)
Quote from: SiL on Dec 26, 2018, 06:47:21 AM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Dec 26, 2018, 06:37:54 AM
By the same reasoning, couldn't one argue that via multiple discovery (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_discovery), there could be independent "creators" of the Alien?
Sure, but you could also argue Aliens spontaneously pop into existence every twelve seconds if you wanted.
You could, although we actually have evidence of multiple discovery re: the Alien by way of the Derelict.
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Dec 26, 2018, 11:03:05 AM
I wonder if on occasion Ridley Scott visits threads like this to laugh, reveling in the mayhem he has caused like some evil genius.
https://media2.giphy.com/media/mSPevXqDPwqOI/giphy.gif?cid=19f5b51a5c235dbb7076394b51631e2e
I don't know that he'd take the time to literally read threads like these, but he's gone on record saying that one of the things he enjoys most about making movies is sparking discussion and people sharing ideas about his work.
So, probably yes. :P
Quote from: Immortan Jonesy on Dec 26, 2018, 12:12:06 PM
It has to be the same species so that we can be successful in concluding that the Engineers created the Alien before David. Yeah yeah, you can find Alien's building blocks before David, but the actual Xenomorph species is David invention until new canonical source material says otherwise.
That new canonical source material has existed since 1979: 'Alien' shows an ancient Derelict full of Alien eggs, which would predate David's creation.
Quote from: Immortan Jonesy on Dec 26, 2018, 01:37:59 PM
David: No one understands the lonely perfection of my dreams. I found perfection here. I've created it. A perfect organism.
Besides, the director says the same thing. That was his intention with this film and his words are more important than any fan theory/fanon, no matter how good it is.
1. Just because David made something doesn't mean he was the first one to do so, whether he realizes that or not.
2. What Ridley Scott thinks doesn't matter - it's an interesting footnote into the mind of a creator, but it isn't "canon". The
films are "canon", and Ridley's Scott's stated intentions are not films - they exist outside of them.
Not to mention, there's a real big difference between "the movie is canon" and "how I interpret the movie is canon". There's an equally valid interpretation of 'Alien' that indicates that David wasn't the original creator of the Alien, whether he realizes it or not.
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Dec 26, 2018, 01:47:32 PM
Quote from: Immortan Jonesy on Dec 26, 2018, 01:37:59 PM
Quote from: yhe1 on Dec 26, 2018, 12:29:21 PM
David never said He created a new species, or that he made the first eggs. All he said was that he engineered the xeno in his lab.
David: No one understands the lonely perfection of my dreams. I found perfection here. I've created it. A perfect organism.
Besides, the director says the same thing.
Right there. That's it. Once Ridley Scott confirmed that David created the Xenomorph, nothing else but this is accurate, regardless of how we feel about it or can explore through plot holes and/or bad writing the way I see it.
Counterpoint: Ridley Scott's opinion doesn't matter, and he'd be the first person to tell you that.
Quote from: Samhain13 on Dec 26, 2018, 02:24:46 PM
This discussion can go on forever.
Nahh, only until the third movie gets released which is likely connect this to alien and tell us what is true or not. But never know with Ridley, he might just do his own thing and leave us clueless.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Dec 26, 2018, 04:03:05 PM
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Dec 26, 2018, 11:03:05 AM
Right there. That's it. Once Ridley Scott confirmed that David created the Xenomorph, nothing else but this is accurate, regardless of how we feel about it or can explore through plot holes and/or bad writing the way I see it.
Counterpoint: Ridley Scott's opinion doesn't matter, and he'd be the first person to tell you that.
Yes it 100% does, when he, the director, is confirming what most of us understand has occurred in the movie.
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Dec 26, 2018, 04:16:59 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Dec 26, 2018, 04:03:05 PM
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Dec 26, 2018, 11:03:05 AM
Right there. That's it. Once Ridley Scott confirmed that David created the Xenomorph, nothing else but this is accurate, regardless of how we feel about it or can explore through plot holes and/or bad writing the way I see it.
Counterpoint: Ridley Scott's opinion doesn't matter, and he'd be the first person to tell you that.
Yes it 100% does, when he, the director, is confirming what most of us understand has occurred in the movie.
This. It is far from an opinion. He confirmed what he showed in the movie.
Yep. Nor do I believe Ridley would agree with Xenomrph in this context. Otherwise why confirm it. He would say "It's up to you to decide".
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Dec 26, 2018, 04:16:59 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Dec 26, 2018, 04:03:05 PM
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Dec 26, 2018, 11:03:05 AM
Right there. That's it. Once Ridley Scott confirmed that David created the Xenomorph, nothing else but this is accurate, regardless of how we feel about it or can explore through plot holes and/or bad writing the way I see it.
Counterpoint: Ridley Scott's opinion doesn't matter, and he'd be the first person to tell you that.
Yes it 100% does, when he, the director, is confirming what most of us understand has occurred in the movie.
Ridley Scott himself has literally gone on record as saying that he much prefers when people make their own opinions about his work and share those opinions with each other, and that that's what he enjoys most about making movies.
His opinion exists outside of the movies, so by definition it isn't "canon".
Not to mention, his opinion doesn't jive with 'Alien', another movie that he himself created. :P
In other words:
Quote from: judge death on Dec 26, 2018, 04:12:05 PM
Quote from: Samhain13 on Dec 26, 2018, 02:24:46 PM
This discussion can go on forever.
Nahh, only until the third movie gets released which is likely connect this to alien and tell us what is true or not. But never know with Ridley, he might just do his own thing and leave us clueless.
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Dec 26, 2018, 04:20:09 PM
Yep. Nor do I believe Ridley would agree with Xenomrph in this context. Otherwise why confirm it. He would say "It's up to you to decide".
Because he's saying what
his opinion is - but that's all it is:
his opinion. Just because he said it doesn't mean anyone who disagrees with him is instantly "objectively wrong". There is no "objectively wrong" - this is art, and fiction.
It's his job to convey his opinion in a convincing manner, and given that 'Alien' directly contradicts David creating the Alien and 'Covenant' does nothing to resolve this, I'm not convinced. :P
Alien does not contradict David creating the creature.We just don't know the full story yet. And of course Ridley's word on the origin stands. It is not an opinion or an interpretation of a movie. It is literally what he wanted to show in the movie. Not his opinion what maybe is shown in the movie.
Quote from: The Kurgan on Dec 26, 2018, 04:31:51 PM
Alien does not contradict David creating the creature.We just don't know the full story yet.
It's what is shown in 'Covenant', sure, but that doesn't mean it's true for the broader franchise at large.
'Alien' contradicts David creating the creature because the ancient-looking Derelict contains Alien eggs that predate David's creation.
The movies have not reconciled this - any attempts to explain it are fan-theories.
Since, as you said, we don't know the full story, it's equally valid to say that David did create the Alien (based on 'Covenant') as it is to say that he didn't (based on 'Alien').
QuoteAnd of course Ridley's word on the origin stands. It is not an opinion or an interpretation of a movie. It is literally what he wanted to show in the movie. Not his opinion what maybe is shown in the movie.
The movies are canon. Ridley's word is not a movie. Therefore, his word is not canon.
Also, Ridley Scott says a lot of things. He, of all people, is a really unreliable source who changes his mind from film to film. I'll stick to what the movies show us. :)
What about ADF?
Quote from: Local Trouble on Dec 26, 2018, 04:40:05 PM
What about ADF?
I was sticking to the movies since this is the movies forum - if we want to expand the discussion to "officially licensed works" as a whole, then David
definitely didn't make the Alien. :P
Quote from: Xenomrph on Dec 26, 2018, 04:25:50 PM
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Dec 26, 2018, 04:16:59 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Dec 26, 2018, 04:03:05 PM
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Dec 26, 2018, 11:03:05 AM
Right there. That's it. Once Ridley Scott confirmed that David created the Xenomorph, nothing else but this is accurate, regardless of how we feel about it or can explore through plot holes and/or bad writing the way I see it.
Counterpoint: Ridley Scott's opinion doesn't matter, and he'd be the first person to tell you that.
Yes it 100% does, when he, the director, is confirming what most of us understand has occurred in the movie.
Ridley Scott himself has literally gone on record as saying that he much prefers when people make their own opinions about his work and share those opinions with each other, and that that's what he enjoys most about making movies.
His opinion exists outside of the movies, so by definition it isn't "canon".
Not to mention, his opinion doesn't jive with 'Alien', another movie that he himself created. :P
In other words:
Quote from: judge death on Dec 26, 2018, 04:12:05 PM
Quote from: Samhain13 on Dec 26, 2018, 02:24:46 PM
This discussion can go on forever.
Nahh, only until the third movie gets released which is likely connect this to alien and tell us what is true or not. But never know with Ridley, he might just do his own thing and leave us clueless.
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Dec 26, 2018, 04:20:09 PM
Yep. Nor do I believe Ridley would agree with Xenomrph in this context. Otherwise why confirm it. He would say "It's up to you to decide".
Because he's saying what his opinion is - but that's all it is: his opinion. Just because he said it doesn't mean anyone who disagrees with him is instantly "objectively wrong". There is no "objectively wrong" - this is art, and fiction.
Oh lordy. Okay everyone. Ripley was really a prototype synthetic. Parker was really James Hyderton, a wanted war criminal hiding under an assumed identity, Jonesy is not a cat but actually a hologram.
Remember, there is no objectively wrong in fiction!
Quote from: Xenomrph on Dec 26, 2018, 04:37:51 PM
Quote from: The Kurgan on Dec 26, 2018, 04:31:51 PM
Alien does not contradict David creating the creature.We just don't know the full story yet. And of course Ridley's word on the origin stands. It is not an opinion or an interpretation of a movie. It is literally what he wanted to show in the movie. Not his opinion what maybe is shown in the movie.
It's what is shown in 'Covenant', sure, but that doesn't mean it's true for the broader franchise at large.
'Alien' contradicts David creating the creature because the ancient-looking Derelict contains Alien eggs that predate David's creation.
Since, as you said, we don't know the full story, it's equally valid to say that David did create the Alien (based on 'Covenant') as it is to say that he didn't (based on 'Alien').
Sure we can get new information which states that the creature has been around before David. But until then David created it. Alien does not contradict Covenant. If you interpret Alien with the new info we got in Covenant it is save to assume the Derelict is not ancient and all fits. It is not like there is any evidence in Alien that the Derelict has to be ancient. Plus there is still Ridley stating David did it. He explained what he showed in the movie, which's content is canon. And again it is not an opinion.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Dec 26, 2018, 04:42:11 PM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Dec 26, 2018, 04:40:05 PM
What about ADF?
I was sticking to the movies since this is the movies forum - if we want to expand the discussion to "officially licensed works" as a whole, then David definitely didn't make the Alien. :P
Maybe not everyone knows about ADF though. Do you have the relevant quote from the novelization?
Quote from: The Kurgan on Dec 26, 2018, 04:47:25 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Dec 26, 2018, 04:37:51 PM
Quote from: The Kurgan on Dec 26, 2018, 04:31:51 PM
Alien does not contradict David creating the creature.We just don't know the full story yet. And of course Ridley's word on the origin stands. It is not an opinion or an interpretation of a movie. It is literally what he wanted to show in the movie. Not his opinion what maybe is shown in the movie.
It's what is shown in 'Covenant', sure, but that doesn't mean it's true for the broader franchise at large.
'Alien' contradicts David creating the creature because the ancient-looking Derelict contains Alien eggs that predate David's creation.
Since, as you said, we don't know the full story, it's equally valid to say that David did create the Alien (based on 'Covenant') as it is to say that he didn't (based on 'Alien').
Sure we can get new information which states that the creature has been around before David. But until then David created it. Alien does not contradict Covenant. If you interpret Alien with the new info we got in Covenant it is save to assume the Derelict is not ancient and all fits. It is not like there is any evidence in Alien that the Derelict has to be ancient. Plus there is still Ridley stating David did it. He explained what he showed in the movie, which's content is canon. And again it is not an opinion.
Actually, since there is no objectively wrong in fiction, the Nostromo was never in space. The crew was an unwillingly patricipant control group of expirmental hallucinogenary drugs, and the derelict was fabricated on a hologram deck.
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Dec 26, 2018, 04:46:49 PM
Oh lordy. Okay everyone. Ripley was really a prototype synthetic. Parker was really James Hyderton, a wanted war criminal hiding under an assumed identity, Jonesy is not a cat but actually a hologram.
Remember, there is no objectively wrong in fiction!
If one can offer evidence to support an interpretation, then I don't see the problem. Some people might not agree with that interpretation (case in point: this thread), but that doesn't make it "wrong".
Quote from: The Kurgan on Dec 26, 2018, 04:47:25 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Dec 26, 2018, 04:37:51 PM
Quote from: The Kurgan on Dec 26, 2018, 04:31:51 PM
Alien does not contradict David creating the creature.We just don't know the full story yet. And of course Ridley's word on the origin stands. It is not an opinion or an interpretation of a movie. It is literally what he wanted to show in the movie. Not his opinion what maybe is shown in the movie.
It's what is shown in 'Covenant', sure, but that doesn't mean it's true for the broader franchise at large.
'Alien' contradicts David creating the creature because the ancient-looking Derelict contains Alien eggs that predate David's creation.
Since, as you said, we don't know the full story, it's equally valid to say that David did create the Alien (based on 'Covenant') as it is to say that he didn't (based on 'Alien').
Sure we can get new information which states that the creature has been around before David. But until then David created it. Alien does not contradict Covenant. If you interpret Alien with the new info we got in Covenant it is save to assume the Derelict is not ancient and all fits. It is not like there is any evidence in Alien that the Derelict has to be ancient. Plus there is still Ridley stating David did it. He explained what he showed in the movie, which's content is canon. And again it is not an opinion.
As stated, 'Alien' contradicts Covenant by showing a Derelict with eggs older than David's creation. Until we get more information to reconcile this, it's entirely valid to interpret the Alien as predating David's work.
As you said,
"if you interpret it", you can get 'Alien' to fit. An equally valid interpretation is that the Derelict is old and David is wrong.
The "new information" saying whether or not David created what we saw on the Derelict doesn't exist yet. Once a hypothetical new movie comes out then we'll possibly have more info on the subject, but that new movie doesn't exist yet, and citing it as a source is pretty silly.
There's ample evidence in 'Alien' that the Derelict is ancient. Answer me this: prior to 'Covenant', did you think the Derelict was only a couple decades old? Be honest! :)
The Derelict being ancient was, you guessed it, the intent behind 'Alien' when it was created. That's conveyed by the visual evidence present in the movie, and the fact that we've got characters commenting on its age. Yeah you can say "Dallas doesn't know what fossilized means, he's not an expert", but it's still storytelling shorthand meant to convey to the audience "this is old" in a way that's immediately understandable, even if it's not literally true. Another example is Dallas' comment that the facehugger's blood is "molecular acid" - well no shit, all acids are molecular acids. But it's a way of phrasing it that the audience instantly understands. Likewise, in 'Terminator 2', when Arnold explains to John Connor that the T-1000 is "liquid metal", he's conveying it in a way that John (and the audience) understands; he's not saying that the T-1000 is
literally liquid metal.
Ridley says David did it, but Ridley says a lot of things.
The stated intent behind 'Alien' was that the Space Jockey was a skeleton, and in the Prometheus concept art book, Ridley Scott literally says, "yeah, but what if it wasn't?" He's actively going against and altering his own intent, and that's the problem with citing authorial intent - it changes, and it's unreliable.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Dec 26, 2018, 04:52:39 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Dec 26, 2018, 04:42:11 PM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Dec 26, 2018, 04:40:05 PM
What about ADF?
I was sticking to the movies since this is the movies forum - if we want to expand the discussion to "officially licensed works" as a whole, then David definitely didn't make the Alien. :P
Maybe not everyone knows about ADF though. Do you have the relevant quote from the novelization?
I do not. :(
Quote from: Xenomrph on Dec 26, 2018, 04:25:50 PM
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Dec 26, 2018, 04:20:09 PM
Yep. Nor do I believe Ridley would agree with Xenomrph in this context. Otherwise why confirm it. He would say "It's up to you to decide".
Because he's saying what his opinion is - but that's all it is: his opinion.
That big reveal in "Empire Strikes Back" that Darth Vader was Luke's father. It's just George Lucas' opinion. I've found plot holes to suggest he isn't really Luke's father.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Dec 26, 2018, 04:42:11 PM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Dec 26, 2018, 04:40:05 PM
Maybe not everyone knows about ADF though. Do you have the relevant quote from the novelization?
I do not. :(
Wh-what?! :o
Quote from: Xenomrph on Dec 26, 2018, 05:02:28 PM
Quote from: The Kurgan on Dec 26, 2018, 04:47:25 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Dec 26, 2018, 04:37:51 PM
Quote from: The Kurgan on Dec 26, 2018, 04:31:51 PM
Alien does not contradict David creating the creature.We just don't know the full story yet. And of course Ridley's word on the origin stands. It is not an opinion or an interpretation of a movie. It is literally what he wanted to show in the movie. Not his opinion what maybe is shown in the movie.
It's what is shown in 'Covenant', sure, but that doesn't mean it's true for the broader franchise at large.
'Alien' contradicts David creating the creature because the ancient-looking Derelict contains Alien eggs that predate David's creation.
Since, as you said, we don't know the full story, it's equally valid to say that David did create the Alien (based on 'Covenant') as it is to say that he didn't (based on 'Alien').
Sure we can get new information which states that the creature has been around before David. But until then David created it. Alien does not contradict Covenant. If you interpret Alien with the new info we got in Covenant it is save to assume the Derelict is not ancient and all fits. It is not like there is any evidence in Alien that the Derelict has to be ancient. Plus there is still Ridley stating David did it. He explained what he showed in the movie, which's content is canon. And again it is not an opinion.
As stated, 'Alien' contradicts Covenant by showing a Derelict with eggs older than David's creation. Until we get more information to reconcile this, it's entirely valid to interpret the Alien as predating David's work.
As you said, "if you interpret it", you can get 'Alien' to fit. An equally valid interpretation is that the Derelict is old and David is wrong.
The "new information" saying whether or not David created what we saw on the Derelict doesn't exist yet. Once a hypothetical new movie comes out then we'll possibly have more info on the subject, but that new movie doesn't exist yet, and citing it as a source is pretty silly.
There's ample evidence in 'Alien' that the Derelict is ancient. Answer me this: prior to 'Covenant', did you think the Derelict was only a couple decades old? Be honest! :)
The Derelict being ancient was, you guessed it, the intent behind 'Alien' when it was created. That's conveyed by the visual evidence present in the movie, and the fact that we've got characters commenting on its age. Yeah you can say "Dallas doesn't know what fossilized means, he's not an expert", but it's still storytelling shorthand meant to convey to the audience "this is old" in a way that's immediately understandable, even if it's not literally true. Another example is Dallas' comment that the facehugger's blood is "molecular acid" - well no shit, all acids are molecular acids. But it's a way of phrasing it that the audience instantly understands. Likewise, in 'Terminator 2', when Arnold explains to John Connor that the T-1000 is "liquid metal", he's conveying it in a way that John (and the audience) understands; he's not saying that the T-1000 is literally liquid metal.
Ridley says David did it, but Ridley says a lot of things.
The stated intent behind 'Alien' was that the Space Jockey was a skeleton, and in the Prometheus concept art book, Ridley Scott literally says, "yeah, but what if it wasn't?" He's actively going against and altering his own intent, and that's the problem with citing authorial intent - it changes, and it's unreliable.
An ancient Derelict was intended then and it looked the part, sure. But new info (Covenant) stated it was not. And that fits with what we see in Alien.There is no contradiction. While it looked ancient it did not have to be.We thought the eggs were ancient, they were not.You take ancient Derelict and David as the creator as equally viable and go from there. But they are not equal. David created the xenomorph, stated in Covenant and by Ridley therefore the Derelict can't be ancient. That may change in the future, but until then this is the story that is beeing told in the movies.
You also mix together opinion, authorial intent and simply confirming what we see on screen when they are different things.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Dec 26, 2018, 05:02:28 PM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Dec 26, 2018, 04:52:39 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Dec 26, 2018, 04:42:11 PM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Dec 26, 2018, 04:40:05 PM
What about ADF?
I was sticking to the movies since this is the movies forum - if we want to expand the discussion to "officially licensed works" as a whole, then David definitely didn't make the Alien. :P
Maybe not everyone knows about ADF though. Do you have the relevant quote from the novelization?
I do not. :(
I think Hicks mentioned it on his review, David calls the alien the Engineer greatest work or something. ADF talked about it on the podcast.
Quote from: The Kurgan on Dec 26, 2018, 05:29:34 PM
You also mix together opinion, authorial intent and simply confirming what we see on screen when they are different things.
inb4 "intent don't matter, is all opinion and interpretation!"
Quote from: The Kurgan on Dec 26, 2018, 05:29:34 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Dec 26, 2018, 05:02:28 PM
Quote from: The Kurgan on Dec 26, 2018, 04:47:25 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Dec 26, 2018, 04:37:51 PM
Quote from: The Kurgan on Dec 26, 2018, 04:31:51 PM
Alien does not contradict David creating the creature.We just don't know the full story yet. And of course Ridley's word on the origin stands. It is not an opinion or an interpretation of a movie. It is literally what he wanted to show in the movie. Not his opinion what maybe is shown in the movie.
It's what is shown in 'Covenant', sure, but that doesn't mean it's true for the broader franchise at large.
'Alien' contradicts David creating the creature because the ancient-looking Derelict contains Alien eggs that predate David's creation.
Since, as you said, we don't know the full story, it's equally valid to say that David did create the Alien (based on 'Covenant') as it is to say that he didn't (based on 'Alien').
Sure we can get new information which states that the creature has been around before David. But until then David created it. Alien does not contradict Covenant. If you interpret Alien with the new info we got in Covenant it is save to assume the Derelict is not ancient and all fits. It is not like there is any evidence in Alien that the Derelict has to be ancient. Plus there is still Ridley stating David did it. He explained what he showed in the movie, which's content is canon. And again it is not an opinion.
As stated, 'Alien' contradicts Covenant by showing a Derelict with eggs older than David's creation. Until we get more information to reconcile this, it's entirely valid to interpret the Alien as predating David's work.
As you said, "if you interpret it", you can get 'Alien' to fit. An equally valid interpretation is that the Derelict is old and David is wrong.
The "new information" saying whether or not David created what we saw on the Derelict doesn't exist yet. Once a hypothetical new movie comes out then we'll possibly have more info on the subject, but that new movie doesn't exist yet, and citing it as a source is pretty silly.
There's ample evidence in 'Alien' that the Derelict is ancient. Answer me this: prior to 'Covenant', did you think the Derelict was only a couple decades old? Be honest! :)
The Derelict being ancient was, you guessed it, the intent behind 'Alien' when it was created. That's conveyed by the visual evidence present in the movie, and the fact that we've got characters commenting on its age. Yeah you can say "Dallas doesn't know what fossilized means, he's not an expert", but it's still storytelling shorthand meant to convey to the audience "this is old" in a way that's immediately understandable, even if it's not literally true. Another example is Dallas' comment that the facehugger's blood is "molecular acid" - well no shit, all acids are molecular acids. But it's a way of phrasing it that the audience instantly understands. Likewise, in 'Terminator 2', when Arnold explains to John Connor that the T-1000 is "liquid metal", he's conveying it in a way that John (and the audience) understands; he's not saying that the T-1000 is literally liquid metal.
Ridley says David did it, but Ridley says a lot of things.
The stated intent behind 'Alien' was that the Space Jockey was a skeleton, and in the Prometheus concept art book, Ridley Scott literally says, "yeah, but what if it wasn't?" He's actively going against and altering his own intent, and that's the problem with citing authorial intent - it changes, and it's unreliable.
An ancient Derelict was intended then and it looked the part, sure. But new info (Covenant) stated it was not. And that fits with what we see in Alien.There is no contradiction. While it looked ancient it did not have to be.We thought the eggs were ancient, they were not.You take ancient Derelict and David as the creator as equally viable and go from there. But they are not equal. David created the xenomorph, stated in Covenant and by Ridley therefore the Derelict can't be ancient. That may change in the future, but until then this is the story that is beeing told in the movies.
You also mix together opinion, authorial intent and simply confirming what we see on screen when they are different things.
Word.
Ridley Scott/Covenant
says nothing about
LV-426's Derelict.
Or it's Eggs.
Quote from: Xenomorph60 on Dec 25, 2018, 03:00:58 AM
There has been one problem in the franchise that has been the biggest, where do the eggs come from?
The eggs, also called urns, also called spore casings, came from the pyramid/tomb according to the creator's universe. And O'Bannon is suzerain over all things Alien.
---------------------------------------
This time Standard, Roby, Melkonis, and Hunter are watching the sequence of photographs taken automatically by Broussard's datastick as he probed the tomb. The camera reveals the "urns."
MELKONIS: "At first I thought they were jars too, or artifacts anyway. But they're not. They're eggs, or spore casings."
That was completely removed, so it's irrelevant.
But equally the Derelict isn't proof of anything. It's a talking point and an issue to be resolved, but hardly the concrete proof Xenomrph is trying to make it out to be.
Quote from: SiL on Dec 26, 2018, 11:02:23 PM
That was completely removed, so it's irrelevant.
Interesting. I had always thought his 1976 script was the only version Dan wrote.
He wrote several drafts, but hey, if you want to act like those scripts are still relevant good luck arguing Ripley's name is actually Roby.
Quote from: SiL on Dec 26, 2018, 11:17:02 PM
He wrote several drafts, but hey, if you want to act like those scripts are still relevant good luck arguing Ripley's name is actually Roby.
It's not an argument, it's just a preference, no need for you to be defensive about it. The egg came from the tomb as stated by the creator of that universe. But I do find it intriguing you consider O'Bannon no longer relevant to the fictional universe he created. The rare times I've seen a fan dismiss the creator's contribution to his own fictional universe is often because that fan has fallen too much in love with his own fan fiction for that fictional universe.....not that I'm claiming that necessarily applies to you.
Most fans ignore contributions that were entirely removed from the story before the script was even finished, let alone filmed.
Again, not about to start thinking Ripley is Roby.
Quote from: SiL on Dec 26, 2018, 11:44:19 PM
Most fans ignore contributions that were entirely removed from the story before the script was even finished, let alone filmed.
Understood......that is, if the flow of this thread's conversation was contained strictly to what was shown on film in 79. But others here in this thread are referencing other material .....not shown in the original film....to make their points.......including you. And it's my understanding O'Bannon's 1976 script was his *finished* script, unless you are claiming that is incorrect.
So....... what better material to reference than the creator's contribution? Works for me, but good luck in your attempt to approve or dismiss what references members can use in this thread. You never know, someone here might actually buy into that impression of authority.
The better material is stuff that actually made it to screen, not ideas that were abandoned before filming even started.
Also there's really no need for your wierdly passive aggressive comments towards me personally.
Quote from: SiL on Dec 27, 2018, 12:09:38 AM
The better material is stuff that actually made it to screen, not ideas that were abandoned before filming even started.
Ahhh......"better material" is a personal preference. I gather then, you don't like that O'Bannon wrote that the egg came from the pyramid/tomb. Your prerogative to turn your nose up to that original content.
Quote from: SiL on Dec 27, 2018, 12:09:38 AM
Also there's really no need for your wierdly passive aggressive comments towards me personally.
Not nearly as weird as the fact I wasn't even talking to you, I was addressing the original thread creator and offering my input on his question when you nosed your way in, attempting to play thread monitor by foolishly thinking you decide what material can and cannot be referenced.
There was really no need for that......... ;)
Quote from: yhe1 on Dec 26, 2018, 03:20:34 AM
Yeah, but David's Alien had no chestburster either. An mini alien directly emerge from Oram.
If you look carefully it starts out as a chestburster but it's more of a skin sack that it sheds after bursting.
Quote from: judge death on Dec 26, 2018, 04:12:05 PM
Quote from: Samhain13 on Dec 26, 2018, 02:24:46 PM
This discussion can go on forever.
Nahh, only until the third movie gets released which is likely connect this to alien and tell us what is true or not. But never know with Ridley, he might just do his own thing and leave us clueless.
I wouldn't use the word "true" on it, its just the punctual vision that Ridley will have in that future moment in regards to the series, the guy is so random on his ideas that so much can happen and change until then. Its like butterfly effect, one little thought on Ridley's mind can change all his current plans for the next movie and retcon anything on his way.
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Dec 27, 2018, 12:23:19 AM
Ahhh......"better material" is a personal preference. I gather then, you don't like that O'Bannon wrote that the egg came from the pyramid/tomb. Your prerogative to turn your nose up to that original content.
What are you on about, seriously? I don't care what he wrote either way, it didn't make it into the film.
Quote
Not nearly as weird as the fact I wasn't even talking to you, I was addressing the original thread creator and offering my input on his question when you nosed your way in, attempting to play thread monitor by foolishly thinking you decide what material can and cannot be referenced.
You made a post and I responded to the point you made. That's how discussions work on public forums. If you're unable to have people respond to your input without getting defensive and making it personal then posting in public discussions maybe isn't the best use of your time.
Please address the points and stop trying to make this personal.
Even though I don't like to, we must consider the novilization is canon(I know how much you hate this word). David was merely recreating he found in the Engineer's archives (probably one that they got scared of and ditched). Actually this way both David is the creator and the Engineers are the creators, explaining their creation yet leaving mystery. Take that prequel haters.
Quote from: SiL on Dec 27, 2018, 12:32:57 AM
I don't care what he wrote either way, it didn't make it into the film.
Apparently you do, you seem driven to dismiss the creator's original contribution.
Quote from: SiL on Dec 27, 2018, 12:32:57 AM
You made a post and I responded to the point you made.
Incorrect. Please review my first post, I specifically addressed Xenomorph60, I even quoted his question to clarify I was addressing him. I did not address you. So you did not "respond," you interjected. Learn the difference. Right now in this thread Samhain is having a discussion with Judgedeath. I'm not interfering in their discussion.
Quote from: SiL on Dec 27, 2018, 12:32:57 AM
If you're unable to have people respond to your input without getting defensive and making it personal then posting in public discussions maybe isn't the best use of your time.
If you're unable to participate in a thread without the anal retentive need to play thread monitor, maybe public forums isn't the best use of your time.
Quote from: SiL on Dec 27, 2018, 12:32:57 AM
Please address the points.......
Ummmm......I did.......Directly to Xenomorph60.
Quote from: SiL on Dec 27, 2018, 12:32:57 AM
........ and stop trying to make this personal.
I know this may burst your bubble but everything AVPG is not all about you. Just let it go, sport.
Independently from any specifics discussed here, as a general rule, I do believe a film script containing scenes that did not make it into the final film can be used for answers... as long as those answers do not contradict what was made in the final movie. Actually I believe the script is truly the next relevant source to the movie itself, with each draft removed from the final draft equating to a degradation in relevance.
Quote from: Xenomorph60 on Dec 27, 2018, 12:51:53 AM
Even though I don't like to, we must consider the novilization is canon(I know how much you hate this word). David was merely recreating he found in the Engineer's archives (probably one that they got scared of and ditched). Actually this way both David is the creator and the Engineers are the creators, explaining their creation yet leaving mystery. Take that prequel haters.
I actually do not consider any novelization canon at all, nor do most of the movie going public. To me that's EU and nothing but EU.
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Dec 27, 2018, 12:55:18 AM
Quote from: SiL on Dec 27, 2018, 12:32:57 AM
I don't care what he wrote either way, it didn't make it into the film.
Apparently you do, you seem driven to dismiss the creator's original contribution.
Quote from: SiL on Dec 27, 2018, 12:32:57 AM
You made a post and I responded to the point you made.
Incorrect. Please review my first post, I specifically addressed Xenomorph60, I even quoted his question to clarify I was addressing him. I did not address you. So you did not "respond," you interjected. Learn the difference. Right now in this thread Samhain is having a discussion with Judgedeath. I'm not interfering in their discussion.
Quote from: SiL on Dec 27, 2018, 12:32:57 AM
If you're unable to have people respond to your input without getting defensive and making it personal then posting in public discussions maybe isn't the best use of your time.
If you're unable to participate in a thread without the anal retentive need to play thread monitor, maybe public forums isn't the best use of your time.
Quote from: SiL on Dec 27, 2018, 12:32:57 AM
Please address the points.......
Ummmm......I did.......Directly to Xenomorph60.
Quote from: SiL on Dec 27, 2018, 12:32:57 AM
........ and stop trying to make this personal.
I know this may burst your bubble but everything AVPG is not all about you. Just let it go, sport.
I tried to find it but where did you reply? I would like to see it.
Can we get back to talking about middens?
I thought this post would only get a few replys. Came back a few days later to see this.
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Dec 27, 2018, 01:01:02 AM
Independently from any specifics discussed here, as a general rule, I do believe a film script containing scenes that did not make it into the final film can be used for answers... as long as those answers do not contradict what was made in the final movie. Actually I believe the script is truly the next relevant source to the movie itself, with each draft removed from the final draft equating to a degradation in relevance.
I like the part where he says a script is relevant.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Dec 27, 2018, 01:33:10 AM
Can we get back to talking about middens?
Middens? We don't need no stinking middens.
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Dec 27, 2018, 01:01:02 AM
I tried to find it but where did you reply? I would like to see it.
Here you go.......
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Dec 26, 2018, 10:50:45 PM
Quote from: Xenomorph60 on Dec 25, 2018, 03:00:58 AM
There has been one problem in the franchise that has been the biggest, where do the eggs come from?
The eggs, also called urns, also called spore casings, came from the pyramid/tomb according to the creator's universe. And O'Bannon is suzerain over all things Alien.
---------------------------------------
This time Standard, Roby, Melkonis, and Hunter are watching the sequence of photographs taken automatically by Broussard's datastick as he probed the tomb. The camera reveals the "urns."
MELKONIS: "At first I thought they were jars too, or artifacts anyway. But they're not. They're eggs, or spore casings."
Thank you
Quote from: Xenomorph60 on Dec 27, 2018, 01:37:22 AM
I thought this post would only get a few replys. Came back a few days later to see this.
For all you know, this could be the new Egg on Sulaco thread. Also, what version of Alien 3 is best?
Quote from: Xenomorph60 on Dec 27, 2018, 01:37:22 AM
I thought this post would only get a few replys. Came back a few days later to see this.
It's like one of those fight balls in cartoons that sucks you in if you get too close.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Dec 27, 2018, 01:52:51 AM
Also, what version of Alien 3 is best?
Is that a thing too?
Quote from: Xenomorph60 on Dec 27, 2018, 12:51:53 AM
Even though I don't like to, we must consider the novilization is canon(I know how much you hate this word).
Except we don't.
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Dec 26, 2018, 05:12:50 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Dec 26, 2018, 04:25:50 PM
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Dec 26, 2018, 04:20:09 PM
Yep. Nor do I believe Ridley would agree with Xenomrph in this context. Otherwise why confirm it. He would say "It's up to you to decide".
Because he's saying what his opinion is - but that's all it is: his opinion.
That big reveal in "Empire Strikes Back" that Darth Vader was Luke's father. It's just George Lucas' opinion. I've found plot holes to suggest he isn't really Luke's father.
And at the time Empire Strikes Back came out, that could have been an entirely valid interpretation - that Vader was manipulating Luke and that when Luke says "that's impossible!", that he's right.
In the grander scheme of the franchise we see that that's not the case, because Return of the Jedi builds upon Vader being Luke's father.
Likewise, given the information presented, it's entirely valid to interpret that David created the Alien (based on Covenant) or that he didn't (based on Alien), and maybe a future movie will build upon it and swing it one way or the other. But that movie doesn't exist yet. :P
Quote from: The Kurgan on Dec 26, 2018, 05:29:34 PM
An ancient Derelict was intended then and it looked the part, sure. But new info (Covenant) stated it was not. And that fits with what we see in Alien.There is no contradiction.
The Derelict isn't in Covenant - the movie makes no attempt to address where it came from or how old it is. What we actually have is 'Alien', which features an old-looking Derelict which characters say looks old, and that's a contradiction with what we see in 'Covenant'.
Quote from: The Kurgan on Dec 26, 2018, 05:29:34 PMWhile it looked ancient it did not have to be.We thought the eggs were ancient, they were not.
Prove it.
Quote from: The Kurgan on Dec 26, 2018, 05:29:34 PMYou take ancient Derelict and David as the creator as equally viable and go from there. But they are not equal. David created the xenomorph, stated in Covenant and by Ridley therefore the Derelict can't be ancient. That may change in the future, but until then this is the story that is beeing told in the movies.
No, it's the story being told in 'Covenant' - where we go from there is unknown. Prometheus set us up for the continuing adventures of Shaw and David('s head) as she went to find the Engineer homeworld and get her answers. By your logic, the "correct" prediction would have been that Shaw would go to the homeworld and get her answers, because that's clearly what Ridley Scott "intended" and demonstrates on-screen.
Instead, Covenant kills Shaw off-screen and she never gets her answers. So much for that "correct" prediction, or Ridley's apparent "intent". :P
Nah, I'll stick with what is actually shown on-screen, rather than pretending that I know the future (especially when Ridley Scott of all people is involved).
Quote from: The Old One on Dec 26, 2018, 07:59:36 PM
Ridley Scott/Covenant
says nothing about
LV-426's Derelict.
Or it's Eggs.
Bingo.
Quote from: SiL on Dec 26, 2018, 11:02:23 PM
That was completely removed, so it's irrelevant.
But equally the Derelict isn't proof of anything. It's a talking point and an issue to be resolved, but hardly the concrete proof Xenomrph is trying to make it out to be.
It's concrete proof that it's not a "fact" that David created the Alien, and that it's open to interpretation because we have contradictory evidence from an equally-valid source. Will it be resolved? We'll have to wait and see.
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Dec 27, 2018, 01:01:02 AM
Independently from any specifics discussed here, as a general rule, I do believe a film script containing scenes that did not make it into the final film can be used for answers... as long as those answers do not contradict what was made in the final movie. Actually I believe the script is truly the next relevant source to the movie itself, with each draft removed from the final draft equating to a degradation in relevance.
For what it's worth, I happen to follow this belief as well to a certain point. I'm generally also willing to include other "in universe" materials (novelizations, adaptations, source books) and tackle apparent contradictions on a case-by-case basis.
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Dec 27, 2018, 01:06:02 AM
Quote from: Xenomorph60 on Dec 27, 2018, 12:51:53 AM
Even though I don't like to, we must consider the novilization is canon(I know how much you hate this word). David was merely recreating he found in the Engineer's archives (probably one that they got scared of and ditched). Actually this way both David is the creator and the Engineers are the creators, explaining their creation yet leaving mystery. Take that prequel haters.
I actually do not consider any novelization canon at all, nor do most of the movie going public. To me that's EU and nothing but EU.
Most of the movie-going public doesn't give a shit about "canon". :P
I've seen plenty of casual-fan discussions on non-AvP boards bring up novelizations and the like, or ask if novelizations clear up a plot point that the movie itself doesn't make clear.
If the EU "isn't canon", how do you feel about the license-holders and owners of the Alien franchise saying that EU materials *are* canon?
FOX made a blanket statement that anything published from 'Aliens: Out of the Shadows' onwards is "canon". The Alien Covenant novelization happens to fall under that umbrella.
I'm not saying that you *have* to accept the EU as canon - quite the opposite. :) I'm using you to demonstrate how, like my signature says, canon is, like, your opinion, man. ;)
Quote from: Xenomorph60 on Dec 27, 2018, 01:37:22 AM
I thought this post would only get a few replys. Came back a few days later to see this.
Quote from: SiL on Dec 27, 2018, 02:42:54 AM
Quote from: Xenomorph60 on Dec 27, 2018, 12:51:53 AM
Even though I don't like to, we must consider the novilization is canon(I know how much you hate this word).
Except we don't.
Well we
can, but we don't
have to. :P
It's only concrete proof if we start by assuming you're right.
Quote from: SiL on Dec 27, 2018, 05:34:19 AM
It's only concrete proof if we start by assuming you're right.
In what way? 'Alien' is a movie, it shows us one thing. 'Covenant' is another movie, which shows us something contradictory. I can choose to believe that what 'Alien' shows us is correct and that David is wrong (and doesn't know it), just like I can choose to believe that Covenant is correct, and the Derelict isn't as old as we thought. Either is a valid interpretation of the movies.
If it's that flimsy, then it's not "concrete". We'd have to agree the Derelict is old to say it's concrete proof Covenant is wrong.
The derelict is old. If humans and engineers can exist in this universes then so can the Alien and Davids brood.
The Derelict may be old, but unless Riddles changes things, it being full of eggs and/ or sat on LV-426 is not.
Oh hush with your polite and sensible clarifications :P
Right you are.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Dec 27, 2018, 05:26:39 AM
That big reveal in "Empire Strikes Back" that Darth Vader was Luke's father. It's just George Lucas' opinion. I've found plot holes to suggest he isn't really Luke's father.
And at the time Empire Strikes Back came out, that could have been an entirely valid interpretation - that Vader was manipulating Luke and that when Luke says "that's impossible!", that he's right.
In the grander scheme of the franchise we see that that's not the case, because Return of the Jedi builds upon Vader being Luke's father.
[/quote]
It would not have been a valid interpretation if somebody asked George after Empire if Vader is in fact Luke's father and he would have confirmed it. There can only be an interpretation if there is any room for it.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Dec 27, 2018, 05:26:39 AM
Quote from: The Kurgan on Dec 26, 2018, 05:29:34 PM
An ancient Derelict was intended then and it looked the part, sure. But new info (Covenant) stated it was not. And that fits with what we see in Alien.There is no contradiction.
The Derelict isn't in Covenant - the movie makes no attempt to address where it came from or how old it is. What we actually have is 'Alien', which features an old-looking Derelict which characters say looks old, and that's a contradiction with what we see in 'Covenant'.
Quote from: The Kurgan on Dec 26, 2018, 05:29:34 PMWhile it looked ancient it did not have to be.We thought the eggs were ancient, they were not.
Prove it.
It does not have to be in Covenant. It is part of the same overall story. And in that story David created the creature, making it impossible for the eggs on the Derelict to be older than that. As proof, we have the actual movie and Ridley confirming it. I don't know what more proof you need.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Dec 27, 2018, 05:26:39 AM
Quote from: The Kurgan on Dec 26, 2018, 05:29:34 PMYou take ancient Derelict and David as the creator as equally viable and go from there. But they are not equal. David created the xenomorph, stated in Covenant and by Ridley therefore the Derelict can't be ancient. That may change in the future, but until then this is the story that is beeing told in the movies.
No, it's the story being told in 'Covenant' - where we go from there is unknown. Prometheus set us up for the continuing adventures of Shaw and David('s head) as she went to find the Engineer homeworld and get her answers. By your logic, the "correct" prediction would have been that Shaw would go to the homeworld and get her answers, because that's clearly what Ridley Scott "intended" and demonstrates on-screen.
Instead, Covenant kills Shaw off-screen and she never gets her answers. So much for that "correct" prediction, or Ridley's apparent "intent". :P
Nah, I'll stick with what is actually shown on-screen, rather than pretending that I know the future (especially when Ridley Scott of all people is involved).
I don't get your point here.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Dec 27, 2018, 05:26:39 AM
Quote from: The Old One on Dec 26, 2018, 07:59:36 PM
Ridley Scott/Covenant
says nothing about
LV-426's Derelict.
Or it's Eggs.
Bingo.
It states David created the creature, so the eggs can not be older than that.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Dec 27, 2018, 05:26:39 AM
Quote from: SiL on Dec 26, 2018, 11:02:23 PM
That was completely removed, so it's irrelevant.
But equally the Derelict isn't proof of anything. It's a talking point and an issue to be resolved, but hardly the concrete proof Xenomrph is trying to make it out to be.
It's concrete proof that it's not a "fact" that David created the Alien, and that it's open to interpretation because we have contradictory evidence from an equally-valid source. Will it be resolved? We'll have to wait and see.
No it is not concret proof. "It looks ancient" is no evidence. Certainly not equal to David stating himself as the creator in the movie and Ridley stating that as correct. You can only interpret something that has room for interpretation.
BTW, i hope i do not come off as kinda dickish. English is not my first language and it is hard for me to find the right tone sometimes :P
The Eggs can be older than that.
Regardless of what Covenant currently suggests.
For the record, I do believe the intention in Covenant;
is that David is responsible for all things Xenomorph.
And stating otherwise for the purposes of canon or the film- is grasping at straws.
It would take another film to outright show that David isn't the creator...
for him, to not be the creator.
BUT
The Eggs STILL can be older than the ones David created,
but a new piece of media would have to firmly establish this.
Quote from: The Old One on Dec 27, 2018, 12:40:14 PM
The Eggs can be older than that.
Regardless of what Covenant currently suggests.
For the record, I do believe the intention in Covenant;
is that David is responsible for all things Xenomorph.
And stating otherwise for the purposes of canon or the film- is grasping at straws.
It would take another film to outright show that David isn't the creator...
for him, to not be the creator.
BUT
The Eggs STILL can be older than the ones David created,
but a new piece of media would have to firmly establish this.
Absolutely agree.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Dec 27, 2018, 05:26:39 AM
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Dec 26, 2018, 05:12:50 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Dec 26, 2018, 04:25:50 PM
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Dec 26, 2018, 04:20:09 PM
Yep. Nor do I believe Ridley would agree with Xenomrph in this context. Otherwise why confirm it. He would say "It's up to you to decide".
Because he's saying what his opinion is - but that's all it is: his opinion.
That big reveal in "Empire Strikes Back" that Darth Vader was Luke's father. It's just George Lucas' opinion. I've found plot holes to suggest he isn't really Luke's father.
And at the time Empire Strikes Back came out, that could have been an entirely valid interpretation - that Vader was manipulating Luke and that when Luke says "that's impossible!", that he's right.
In the grander scheme of the franchise we see that that's not the case, because Return of the Jedi builds upon Vader being Luke's father.
Umm ex-squeeze-me? How do we see it's not the case in Return of the Jedi, based on your continuing Alien arguements?. Was there a DNA test? Luke doesn't know what his Father looks like. Vader could still be lying or mistaken, and Obi-wan can be too. The Emperor could have Luke's real father locked in a cell somewhere and is manipulating the force in all of them, Vader, Luke, Yoda, make any force sensitive being feel that Luke is Vader's sibling, which subsequently draws Luke to surrender and into the Emperor's clutches. What an elaborate devious plan that is!
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Dec 27, 2018, 01:06:02 AM
Quote from: Xenomorph60 on Dec 27, 2018, 12:51:53 AM
I actually do not consider any novelization canon at all, nor do most of the movie going public. To me that's EU and nothing but EU.
Most of the movie-going public doesn't give a shit about "canon". :P
Au contraire mon frère. Movie canon they're very familiar with. Just the other day I brought up Phantom Menace to my wife (a casual movie goer - no in depth knowledge - would never be caught dead in a fan forum) in a rotten tomatoe discussion and I brought up Darth Maul, and she remembered him as the "red faced guy". I asked her if she knew he was still alive, and she answered 'no he isnt. He's dead. He was chopped in half".
My point is if people don't see it in the movies, it's not movie canon. Especially when we're talking events thst occurred in novelizations.
Luke confirmed it using the search your feelings crap with the Force. Besides Lucas is known for retconing his way through his work aka making up shit as things go along. Vader wasn't going to be Luke's father in New Hope, that wasn't even on The Empire Strikes Back original script, he added the line during the filming because well f**k it. Leia wasn't suppose to be Luke's sister, C3PO wasn't suppose to have been created by Anakin, the clones mentioned on New Hope weren't suppose to be the original stormtroppers, Obi-wan wasn't suppose to have fought on a war with R2D2, the Space Jockey wasn't suppose to be an albino squidward on steroids inside a suit... Oh kind of mixed the franchises right there.
Anyway, the 2 of them are known for retconing their own work, changing their original intentions when they feel like it. Well at least Ridley admitted he only thought about the David creator crap during Covenant, when he was making Prometheus he still had the idea on his mind that the Engineers were responsible for all xeno related creatures. Unlike Lucas who pretends he thought of everything from the start. Lucas's opinion aren't even taken that seriously by the SW fanbase, and he hold much more significance to that franchise than Ridley does to ALIEN. Ridley isn't even responsible for the things most people here became a fan of franchise for, you can thank the writers and Giger for that. Ridley didn't create ALIEN, he directed it.
Back when the AVP movies were a thing nobody cared about what Anderson or the Strauses said on interviews. Anderson said the Predators from the first 2 movies were kids because they didn't had the marking.
Quote from: Samhain13 on Dec 27, 2018, 02:42:11 PM
Luke confirmed it using the search your feelings crap with the Force. Besides Lucas is known for retconing his way through his work aka making up shit as things go along. Vader wasn't going to be Luke's father in New Hope, that wasn't even on The Empire Strikes Back original script, he added the line during the filming because well f**k it. Leia wasn't suppose to be Luke's sister, C3PO wasn't suppose to have been created by Anakin, the clones mentioned on New Hope weren't suppose to be the original stormtroppers, Obi-wan wasn't suppose to have fought on a war with R2D2, the Space Jockey wasn't suppose to be an albino squidward on steroids inside a suit... Oh kind of mixed the franchises right there.
All true. But does not change the fact that now Vader is Lukes father and the Engineers are swole,bald albinos. May change in the future, but for now that is how it is.
Quote from: Samhain13 on Dec 27, 2018, 02:42:11 PM
Anyway, the 2 of them are known for retconing their own work, changing their original intentions when they feel like it. Well at least Ridley admitted he only thought about the David creator crap during Covenant, when he was making Prometheus he still had the idea on his mind that the Engineers were responsible for all xeno related creatures. Unlike Lucas who pretends he thought of everything from the start. Lucas's opinion aren't even taken that seriously by the SW fanbase, and he hold much more significance to that franchise than Ridley does to ALIEN. Ridley isn't even responsible for the things most people here became a fan of franchise for, you can thank the writers and Giger for that. Ridley didn't create ALIEN, he directed it.
Why is it relevant that they like to retcon stuff or change their mind? Until they do, it stands as it is. Of course Ridley did not create Alien or the franchise alone, but why is this relevant?
Covenant (canon movie) showed David as the creator. People asked Ridley, did the canon movie in fact show David as the creator ? Did we understand that correct? Ridley confirms => canon movie shows David as the creator => David is creator of the alien in canon (for now)
Quote from: Samhain13 on Dec 27, 2018, 02:42:11 PM
Back when the AVP movies were a thing nobody cared about what Anderson or the Strauses said on interviews. Anderson said the Predators from the first 2 movies were kids because they didn't had the marking.
People cared a big deal about it. It just has been rectoned or ignored in the meantime.
Debate to your heart's content guys, but keep the personal snides out of it.
Quote from: Samhain13 on Dec 27, 2018, 02:42:11 PM
Luke confirmed it using the search your feelings crap with the Force.
But how do we know the Emperor wasn't manipulating their feelings through his ultimate power?
QuoteBesides Lucas is known for retconing his way through his work aka making up shit as things go along. Vader wasn't going to be Luke's father in New Hope
Yep. And Luke and Lea being siblings. You can tell Lucas was making it up as he went along.
Quotethat wasn't even on The Empire Strikes Back original script, he added the line during the filming because well f**k it.
Vader being Luke's father wasn't in the Empire script because he didn't want that whopper of a twist to
leak. Only Mark Hamill and James Earl Jones knew before the film's release.
Here's Mark describing how he found out Vader was Luke's father before filming that iconic scene:
- "The director ... took me aside and he said, 'I have to tell you something. I know it, George Lucas knows it and when I tell you, you'll know it. But if it leaks, we'll know it was you.' And he handed me the piece of paper that said, 'I am your father.' I was shocked."" At the screening when that happened, Harrison turned to me and said, 'Hey kid, you didn't f-----g tell me that"
QuoteLeia wasn't suppose to be Luke's sister, C3PO wasn't suppose to have been created by Anakin, the clones mentioned on New Hope weren't suppose to be the original stormtroppers, Obi-wan wasn't suppose to have fought on a war with R2D2, the Space Jockey wasn't suppose to be an albino squidward on steroids inside a suit... Oh kind of mixed the franchises right there.
Making it up as they go along isn't really an issue, other than it often creates cohesive problems throughout the narrative.
QuoteAnyway, the 2 of them are known for retconing their own work, changing their original intentions when they feel like it. Well at least Ridley admitted he only thought about the David creator crap during Covenant, when he was making Prometheus he still had the idea on his mind that the Engineers were responsible for all xeno related creatures. Unlike Lucas who pretends he thought of everything from the start. Lucas's opinion aren't even taken that seriously by the SW fanbase, and he hold much more significance to that franchise than Ridley does to ALIEN. Ridley isn't even responsible for the things most people here became a fan of franchise for, you can thank the writers and Giger for that. Ridley didn't create ALIEN, he directed it.
Again, I'm fine with Ridley or Lucas not having these story ideas in the beginning and making it up as they go along in regards to their credibility, but they do start losing credibility with me
at the point they begin changing past work, ala 'Han shot first'.
QuoteBack when the AVP movies were a thing nobody cared about what Anderson or the Strauses said on interviews. Anderson said the Predators from the first 2 movies were kids because they didn't had the marking.
Yeah, I don't think they had any credibility to lose where the fans were concerned. :-\
Quote from: Samhain13 on Dec 27, 2018, 02:42:11 PM
Luke confirmed it using the search your feelings crap with the Force. Besides Lucas is known for retconing his way through his work aka making up shit as things go along. Vader wasn't going to be Luke's father in New Hope, that wasn't even on The Empire Strikes Back original script, he added the line during the filming because well f**k it. Leia wasn't suppose to be Luke's sister, C3PO wasn't suppose to have been created by Anakin, the clones mentioned on New Hope weren't suppose to be the original stormtroppers, Obi-wan wasn't suppose to have fought on a war with R2D2, the Space Jockey wasn't suppose to be an albino squidward on steroids inside a suit...
Just to add a comment here, and let you carry on with Voodoo Magic. I would agree some elements added to a writer's fictional universe may come across as "tacked on" to me, but consider the alternative. What if they did not attempt to answer various story questions? Then...you are back to....who is Luke's father? Who created C3PO? Where did the egg come from in Alien? What's the story behind the Space Jockey species? Who/what were the Clones?
Writers seem to be in a damned if you do, damned if you don't eternal penalty box. Fans complain because they have questions with no answers. Writers attempt to answer those questions and their answers are found unsatisfactory by some fans. Some of this can be accounted for with fans who have in the meantime imagined their own fan fiction to answer those questions and when the original creator finally provides answers, it was nothing near what the fan imagined in his fan fiction. Therefore, in that fan's eyes, it's the writer's failure. I'm not saying in all cases, but not usual to see fans complain about how a long standing question is finally answered .
Quote from: Samhain13 on Dec 27, 2018, 02:42:11 PM
Obi-wan wasn't suppose to have fought on a war with R2D2
Luke Skywalker : You fought in the Clone Wars?
Ben Obi-Wan Kenobi : Yes. I was once a Jedi knight, the same as your father.
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Dec 27, 2018, 03:05:22 PM
But how do we know the Emperor wasn't manipulating their feelings through his ultimate power?
Can he do that too? :P
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Dec 27, 2018, 03:05:22 PM
Vader being Luke's father wasn't in the Empire script because he didn't want that whopper of a twist to leak.
I suppose that's what he said.
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Dec 27, 2018, 03:05:22 PM
Making it up as they go along isn't really an issue, other than it often creates cohesive problems throughout the narrative.
Kind of hate that.
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Dec 27, 2018, 03:05:22 PM
Yeah, I don't think they had any credibility to lose where the fans were concerned. :-\
But is it better to never have any credibility or lose it all by each decision you make...
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Dec 27, 2018, 03:27:25 PM
Just to add a comment here, and let you carry on with Voodoo Magic. I would agree some elements added to a writer's fictional universe may come across as "tacked on" to me, but consider the alternative. What if they did not attempt to answer various story questions? Then...you are back to....who is Luke's father? Who created C3PO? Where did the egg come from in Alien? What's the story behind the Space Jockey species? Who/what were the Clones?
I'm ok with Vader being Luke father, it was great, just it wasn't the original intention. A C3PO backstory wasn't necessary. The eggs were being transported by the space jockey, they were either native to an alien planet, or created by the jockey, that's what the fanbase though for the last decades. The space jockey species as a whole and the LV-426 incident are 2 different things but its not hard to find an answer that might not be loved by 80% of the fanbase, but not be completely hated by it. Ridley should have just focused on one or the other, kind of like how Lucas shouldn't have tried to explain so many origins on the prequels.
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Dec 27, 2018, 03:27:25 PM
Writers seem to be in a damned if you do, damned if you don't eternal penalty box. Fans complain because they have questions with no answers. Writers attempt to answer those questions and their answers are found unsatisfactory by some fans. Some of this can be accounted for with fans who have in the meantime imagined their own fan fiction to answer those questions and when the original creator finally provides answers, it was nothing near what the fan imagined in his fan fiction. Therefore, in that fan's eyes, it's the writer's failure. I'm not saying in all cases, but not usual to see fans complain about how a long standing question is finally answered .
The issue is when the answer is bad. Really bad and ends up ruining the subject in question through retconing the original material. But it seems writers and directors are great at having the worse ideas ever lately. Its not that hard to make a good answer. Just don't make the ALIEN a creation of a sexually frustrated android with daddy issues that mixed space goo with wasps because he couldn't knock Shaw up. Geez how did we get to this?
Quote from: Immortan Jonesy on Dec 27, 2018, 03:49:41 PM
Quote from: Samhain13 on Dec 27, 2018, 02:42:11 PM
Obi-wan wasn't suppose to have fought on a war with R2D2
Luke Skywalker : You fought in the Clone Wars?
Ben Obi-Wan Kenobi : Yes. I was once a Jedi knight, the same as your father.
Did you miss the last part of my post? I bolded it just for you. He had never seen R2D2 or owned any droids before.
Quote from: Samhain13 on Dec 27, 2018, 04:00:50 PM
I'm ok with Vader being Luke father, it was great, just it wasn't the original intention.
If my memory serves, seems like years ago Lucas said in an interview he had always intended Vader to be Luke's father. Not many fans bought it. He had also claimed he had intended for Luke's face to get mangled by the Wampa before Mark's face got mangled in a car wreck. Doesn't seem likely to me, but I guess we will never truly know.
Quote from: Samhain13 on Dec 27, 2018, 04:00:50 PM
Really bad and ends up ruining the subject in question through retconing the original material.
Yes, I would say retconning for me is the worst of the attempts to answer mysteries.
Quote from: Samhain13 on Dec 27, 2018, 04:00:50 PM
Just don't make the ALIEN a creation of a sexually frustrated android with daddy issues that mixed space goo with wasps because he couldn't knock Shaw up. Geez how did we get to this?
Heh....a humorous way to describe it.
Now in all fairness, you can take any plot element and spin a mocking description....i.e........
Just don't make ESB's Han Solo along with his rough and tumble space pirate image a creation of a love-sick frustrated wimp with a "could I marry a princess?" issues that mixed his pouty lip with stomping off in a tantrum because his princess didn't give him a goodbye kiss. Geez how did we get to this?
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Dec 27, 2018, 04:46:51 PM
Geez how did we get to this?
It's my fault. I got us here. I was debating back & forth with Xenomrph the importance of what Ridley Scott says and when Xeno said "
that's all it is: his opinion. Just because he said it doesn't mean anyone who disagrees with him is instantly "objectively wrong". There is no "objectively wrong" - this is art, and fiction"... and I went off on a silly tangent and replied if there is no objectively wrong in fiction then I say Parker is a war criminal, Ripley is a prototype synthetic and Darth Vader really isn't Luke's father (and it spiraled Star Wars from there).
So this one is 100% on me. Sorry!
Quote from: Samhain13 on Dec 27, 2018, 04:00:50 PM
Quote from: Immortan Jonesy on Dec 27, 2018, 03:49:41 PM
Quote from: Samhain13 on Dec 27, 2018, 02:42:11 PM
Obi-wan wasn't suppose to have fought on a war with R2D2
Luke Skywalker : You fought in the Clone Wars?
Ben Obi-Wan Kenobi : Yes. I was once a Jedi knight, the same as your father.
Did you miss the last part of my post? I bolded it just for you. He had never seen R2D2 or owned any droids before.
It was Anakin who fought on the war with R2D2 though. Obi Wan owned two droids during the war: R4-P17 (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/R4-P17) & R4-G9 (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/R4-G9). But yeah, there is a retcon over his claim that he never remembered owning a droid. Not a big deal however. But kinda similar is Leia's dialogue about her mother (although I guess one can explain it using the Force as excuse):
Leia: Luke, what's wrong?
Luke: Leia, do you remember your mother? Your real mother?
Leia: Just a little bit. She died when I was very young.
What do you remember?
Leia: Just... images really. Feelings.
Luke: Tell me.
Leia: She was... very beautiful. Kind, but sad. Why are you asking me this?
Luke: I have no memory of my mother. I never knew her.
Now going back to the Alien franchise, I don't see many contradictions between Alien and the prequels. I mean, leaving aside the contrasts related to human technology; there is nothing established in the film about the origins or non-origins of the Alien. Nor about the Jockey. The Space Jockey is, at best, a stunning movie prop. The only thing we have about the Jockey in the movie is a quote of a speculative nature by Dallas about its alleged antiquity. Yes, there are differences in size and proportion, but there is no lore about them in Alien, and for Alien I'm talking about the movie and nothing more. That excludes: behind scenes material, EU, fan theories, confirmation bias, etc.
Now, whether I like the new stories or not; that is something else. But it's different from denying reality (by the way, I'm not saying that you're doing the latter).
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Dec 27, 2018, 05:24:50 PM
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Dec 27, 2018, 04:46:51 PM
Geez how did we get to this?
It's my fault. I got us here. I was debating back & forth with Xenomrph the importance of what Ridley Scott says and when Xeno said "that's all it is: his opinion. Just because he said it doesn't mean anyone who disagrees with him is instantly "objectively wrong". There is no "objectively wrong" - this is art, and fiction"... and I went off on a silly tangent and replied if there is no objectively wrong in fiction then I say Parker is a war criminal, Ripley is a prototype synthetic and Darth Vader really isn't Luke's father (and it spiraled Star Wars from there).
So this one is 100% on me. Sorry!
Just to clarify, I was just giving an example to Samhain how you can spin a mocking description for any plot element. ....Which I used his mocking description as my model .....including his ending comment, Geez how did we get to this?
I was not asking geez how did we get to this, specifically regarding this thread's flow of conversation.
Okay. That sorted out. Carry on.
SM's iphone analogy shows why the debate will never settle. Yes, it is true that Apple made the Iphone, but in China, there are many iphones not made by Apple. And these iphones look identical to the ones made by apple. And people judge xenomorph by their looks. So while you can prove that David made an alien, you could never prove that all Xenomorphs are from David, just like you can't prove an iphone is made by apple by looking at it.
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Dec 27, 2018, 06:33:45 PM
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Dec 27, 2018, 05:24:50 PM
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Dec 27, 2018, 04:46:51 PM
Geez how did we get to this?
It's my fault. I got us here. I was debating back & forth with Xenomrph the importance of what Ridley Scott says and when Xeno said "that's all it is: his opinion. Just because he said it doesn't mean anyone who disagrees with him is instantly "objectively wrong". There is no "objectively wrong" - this is art, and fiction"... and I went off on a silly tangent and replied if there is no objectively wrong in fiction then I say Parker is a war criminal, Ripley is a prototype synthetic and Darth Vader really isn't Luke's father (and it spiraled Star Wars from there).
So this one is 100% on me. Sorry!
Just to clarify, I was just giving an example to Samhain how you can spin a mocking description for any plot element. ....Which I used his mocking description as my model .....including his ending comment, Geez how did we get to this?
I was not asking geez how did we get to this, specifically regarding this thread's flow of conversation.
Okay. That sorted out. Carry on.
Ah. Well then. Time to add 'oblivious' to my long list of character traits. ;D
(https://media0.giphy.com/media/Yl5aO3gdVfsQ0/giphy.gif?cid=19f5b51a5c251c3a424f4c62322a49d2)
Quote from: yhe1 on Dec 27, 2018, 06:46:18 PM
SM's iphone analogy shows why the debate will never settle. Yes, it is true that Apple made the Iphone, but in China, there are many iphones not made by Apple. And these iphones look identical to the ones made by apple. And people judge xenomorph by their looks. So while you can prove that David made an alien, you could never prove that all Xenomorphs are from David, just like you can't prove an iphone is made by apple by looking at it.
But you can prove who invented the iphone.
Ironically, there was a crappy phone that looks like the iphone that hit the chinese market even before the iphone was offically released. So you could never prove that xenomrophs weren't around before David
Quote from: yhe1 on Dec 27, 2018, 07:03:59 PM
Ironically, there was a crappy phone that looks like the iphone that hit the chinese market even before the iphone was offically released. So you could never prove that xenomrophs weren't around before David
Yes, that was a growing problem in the 2000s. Chinese manufacturing companies receiving skematics of 1stGen product out for manufacturing bids, and knockoff product resulted even before the legitimate product's release date, not beholden to copyright, trademark and patent law.
So I guess we're concluding as long as David handles his Xenomorph manufacturing internally, he'll be fine?
That would follow.
Problem is he released that book so is now a prime target for IP theft.
Ah, yes, the book.
That's the one.
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Dec 27, 2018, 06:46:38 PM
Ah. Well then. Time to add 'oblivious' to my long list of character traits. ;D
Natural misunderstanding. All's cool. I just didn't want you to think I was criticizing the flow of this thread.
Most of us employ the mocking description mode from time to time to convey our dissatisfaction with a given film or plot element. But I am curious about something......here's Samhain's mocking description.......
"Just don't make the ALIEN a creation of a sexually frustrated android with daddy issues that mixed space goo with wasps because he couldn't knock Shaw up. Geez how did we get to this?"
A challenge for any Prometheus/Covenant admirers here to pick up the gauntlet: Spin this prequel ALIEN description, but with a positive tone rather than Samhain's mocking tone.......Forum Word Game of the Day.
I don't admire either film but hey:
An advanced AI haunted by the awareness of its own limited, imperfect existence and obsessed with the idea of creation breeds terrifying life of its own that it can use against its former masters.
Excellent! Great description!
Quote from: Samhain13 on Dec 27, 2018, 04:00:50 PM
Just don't make the ALIEN a creation of a sexually frustrated android with daddy issues that mixed space goo with wasps because he couldn't knock Shaw up. Geez how did we get to this?
Quote from: SiL on Dec 27, 2018, 10:57:38 PM
An advanced AI haunted by the awareness of its own limited, imperfect existence and obsessed with the idea of creation breeds terrifying life of its own that it can use against its former masters.
I nominate these two quotes as the Forum's Yin Yang Descriptions of the Day.
I feel that David copied a ancient Engineer design but the original was different and it was scrapped before it when anywhere.
(https://dyn.media.titanbooks.com/pLbHFHMK46VHyumxmkLvke69ih8=/fit-in/600x600/https://media.titanbooks.com/catalog/products/DavidsDrawings-jacket.jpg)
David's Drawings/David's Alien Birth
@Voodoo Magic
Ohhh, that book. :)
Quote
So I guess we're concluding as long as David handles his Xenomorph manufacturing internally, he'll be fine?
Way too late for that now. Pussyface already crashed his party.
That wasp is actually a mote, up close, a shock troop.
Quote from: SiL on Dec 27, 2018, 06:32:59 AM
If it's that flimsy, then it's not "concrete". We'd have to agree the Derelict is old to say it's concrete proof Covenant is wrong.
By the same token, we'd have to agree that David is infallible to say the Derelict suddenly isn't as old as we believed it was for the past 30+ years.
Quote from: SM on Dec 27, 2018, 09:32:52 AM
The Derelict may be old, but unless Riddles changes things, it being full of eggs and/ or sat on LV-426 is not.
That bold part is really important.
The other really important part is that Covenant says nothing about the Derelict or its cargo, and interpreting the Derelict as "old" is just as valid as it was in 1979.
Quote from: The Kurgan on Dec 27, 2018, 10:37:13 AM
It does not have to be in Covenant. It is part of the same overall story. And in that story David created the creature, making it impossible for the eggs on the Derelict to be older than that. As proof, we have the actual movie and Ridley confirming it. I don't know what more proof you need.
That overall story still shows us a Derelict that looks old, and Covenant doesn't address this. It's impossible for David to have created the Alien *and* for the Derelict to be old, and right now
we don't know which one is correct because, again, Covenant doesn't address the Derelict in any way.
Quote from: The Kurgan on Dec 27, 2018, 10:37:13 AM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Dec 27, 2018, 05:26:39 AM
Quote from: The Kurgan on Dec 26, 2018, 05:29:34 PMYou take ancient Derelict and David as the creator as equally viable and go from there. But they are not equal. David created the xenomorph, stated in Covenant and by Ridley therefore the Derelict can't be ancient. That may change in the future, but until then this is the story that is beeing told in the movies.
No, it's the story being told in 'Covenant' - where we go from there is unknown. Prometheus set us up for the continuing adventures of Shaw and David('s head) as she went to find the Engineer homeworld and get her answers. By your logic, the "correct" prediction would have been that Shaw would go to the homeworld and get her answers, because that's clearly what Ridley Scott "intended" and demonstrates on-screen.
Instead, Covenant kills Shaw off-screen and she never gets her answers. So much for that "correct" prediction, or Ridley's apparent "intent". :P
Nah, I'll stick with what is actually shown on-screen, rather than pretending that I know the future (especially when Ridley Scott of all people is involved).
I don't get your point here.
The point is that you're basing on your conclusion on a movie that doesn't exist. We don't know what "the story being told" is because the dots haven't been connected from David creating an Alien to the Derelict in the first movie. Is David going to crash that ship on LV-426 or something? Is he going to have a revelation that he didn't make the Alien, when he finds an ancient Derelict full of Alien eggs? We don't know.
Quote from: The Kurgan on Dec 27, 2018, 10:37:13 AM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Dec 27, 2018, 05:26:39 AM
Quote from: The Old One on Dec 26, 2018, 07:59:36 PM
Ridley Scott/Covenant
says nothing about
LV-426's Derelict.
Or it's Eggs.
Bingo.
It states David created the creature, so the eggs can not be older than that.
It states that he created *an* Alien, the Derelict and its cargo aren't in 'Covenant'.
Quote from: The Kurgan on Dec 27, 2018, 10:37:13 AMQuote from: Xenomrph on Dec 27, 2018, 05:26:39 AM
Quote from: SiL on Dec 26, 2018, 11:02:23 PM
That was completely removed, so it's irrelevant.
But equally the Derelict isn't proof of anything. It's a talking point and an issue to be resolved, but hardly the concrete proof Xenomrph is trying to make it out to be.
It's concrete proof that it's not a "fact" that David created the Alien, and that it's open to interpretation because we have contradictory evidence from an equally-valid source. Will it be resolved? We'll have to wait and see.
No it is not concret proof. "It looks ancient" is no evidence. Certainly not equal to David stating himself as the creator in the movie and Ridley stating that as correct. You can only interpret something that has room for interpretation.
"It looks ancient" was evidence for over 30 years.
Just because David says something doesn't mean he's automatically correct, even if he doesn't realize it. The movie even lampshades this thematically by having David mess up the author of his favorite Ozymandias quote.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree that there isn't room for interpretation.
Quote from: The Kurgan on Dec 27, 2018, 10:37:13 AM
BTW, i hope i do not come off as kinda dickish. English is not my first language and it is hard for me to find the right tone sometimes :P
Nah you're cool. :) We're just talking on the internet, and for what it's worth I think your English is great.
Quote from: The Kurgan on Dec 27, 2018, 12:46:12 PM
Quote from: The Old One on Dec 27, 2018, 12:40:14 PM
The Eggs can be older than that.
Regardless of what Covenant currently suggests.
For the record, I do believe the intention in Covenant;
is that David is responsible for all things Xenomorph.
And stating otherwise for the purposes of canon or the film- is grasping at straws.
It would take another film to outright show that David isn't the creator...
for him, to not be the creator.
BUT
The Eggs STILL can be older than the ones David created,
but a new piece of media would have to firmly establish this.
Absolutely agree.
I agree, too - with a caveat. I believe 'Covenant' is saying David made the Alien, that's clear within the movie itself, but I don't feel that jives with what we saw in 'Alien' and I don't think that's by accident. Covenant is clear on its own, but it's when you apply it to the larger franchise that things get murky.
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Dec 27, 2018, 02:09:05 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Dec 27, 2018, 05:26:39 AM
Most of the movie-going public doesn't give a shit about "canon". :P
Au contraire mon frère. Movie canon they're very familiar with. Just the other day I brought up Phantom Menace to my wife (a casual movie goer - no in depth knowledge - would never be caught dead in a fan forum) in a rotten tomatoe discussion and I brought up Darth Maul, and she remembered him as the "red faced guy". I asked her if she knew he was still alive, and she answered 'no he isnt. He's dead. He was chopped in half".
My point is if people don't see it in the movies, it's not movie canon. Especially when we're talking events thst occurred in novelizations.
Has your wife seen 'Solo: A Star Wars Story'? :P
That's a movie that shows that Darth Maul is alive (somehow). Granted the "somehow" is explained pretty in-depth in non-movie stuff.
On the topic of Star Wars, Disney/Lucasfilm has been very open about everything being published post-EU-reboot being "canon" and on-par with the movies, regardless of medium.
What I'm getting here is I think you picked a bad example. :P
Speaking of casual moviegoers, I've seen a lot of people on non-AvP forums respond to 'Covenant' with "Wait, David couldn't have invented the Alien, there was that old ship in the first movie."
Anecdotal evidence, but I've seen it happen a lot.
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Dec 27, 2018, 03:27:25 PM
Quote from: Samhain13 on Dec 27, 2018, 02:42:11 PM
Luke confirmed it using the search your feelings crap with the Force. Besides Lucas is known for retconing his way through his work aka making up shit as things go along. Vader wasn't going to be Luke's father in New Hope, that wasn't even on The Empire Strikes Back original script, he added the line during the filming because well f**k it. Leia wasn't suppose to be Luke's sister, C3PO wasn't suppose to have been created by Anakin, the clones mentioned on New Hope weren't suppose to be the original stormtroppers, Obi-wan wasn't suppose to have fought on a war with R2D2, the Space Jockey wasn't suppose to be an albino squidward on steroids inside a suit...
Just to add a comment here, and let you carry on with Voodoo Magic. I would agree some elements added to a writer's fictional universe may come across as "tacked on" to me, but consider the alternative. What if they did not attempt to answer various story questions? Then...you are back to....who is Luke's father? Who created C3PO? Where did the egg come from in Alien? What's the story behind the Space Jockey species? Who/what were the Clones?
Writers seem to be in a damned if you do, damned if you don't eternal penalty box. Fans complain because they have questions with no answers. Writers attempt to answer those questions and their answers are found unsatisfactory by some fans. Some of this can be accounted for with fans who have in the meantime imagined their own fan fiction to answer those questions and when the original creator finally provides answers, it was nothing near what the fan imagined in his fan fiction. Therefore, in that fan's eyes, it's the writer's failure. I'm not saying in all cases, but not usual to see fans complain about how a long standing question is finally answered .
I think the answer to a lot of the hypothetical questions you offered as examples is "who cares"?
No, seriously. The origin of the Alien was an off-limits topic within the fiction for like 30 years and fans and audiences were completely okay with that - heck, I'd argue that a not-insignificant percentage (of not a majority) preferred not knowing where the Alien came from. The problem with Prometheus/Covenant (and with many prequels) is it answered questions nobody asked, or nobody wanted answered.
"Fans" are an unavoidable problem for popular media. Like you said, writers are damned if they do, damned if they don't; from a purely artistic standpoint, "ignore the fans, tell a good story" is the appropriate way to approach pretty much any project, but then you end up with 'Star Wars: The Last Jedi'. The flip-side is when you have projects helmed by people who are self-proclaimed fans and want to load their movie up with fanservice and callbacks and familiar stuff, but they forget to make a good, coherent movie while they're at it - then you end up with 'AvP: Requiem'.
The ideal middle-ground is really hard to do, where you tell a good, self-contained story that isn't using the prior movies as a crutch but still offers enough familiar material to engage "fans". Stuff like 'Aliens', 'Blade Runner 2049', the recent 'Halloween', 'Terminator 2', etc.
QuoteBy the same token, we'd have to agree that David is infallible to say the Derelict suddenly isn't as old as we believed it was for the past 30+ years.
We'd need proof he was lying. And as we've established in previous discussions, a
capacity to lie is not
proof of a lie.
The Derelict's existence and appearance, as I said, is a discussion point to be addressed -- but it's not
proof.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Dec 30, 2018, 08:05:27 AM
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Dec 27, 2018, 02:09:05 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Dec 27, 2018, 05:26:39 AM
Most of the movie-going public doesn't give a shit about "canon". :P
Au contraire mon frère. Movie canon they're very familiar with. Just the other day I brought up Phantom Menace to my wife (a casual movie goer - no in depth knowledge - would never be caught dead in a fan forum) in a rotten tomatoe discussion and I brought up Darth Maul, and she remembered him as the "red faced guy". I asked her if she knew he was still alive, and she answered 'no he isnt. He's dead. He was chopped in half".
My point is if people don't see it in the movies, it's not movie canon. Especially when we're talking events thst occurred in novelizations.
Has your wife seen 'Solo: A Star Wars Story'? :P
That's a movie that shows that Darth Maul is alive (somehow).
And that's basically my point. She will know Darth Maul is alive after seeing last year's Solo movie, not a novelization, not an animated show, not a video game or comic but a
movie, and not before.
QuoteSpeaking of casual moviegoers, I've seen a lot of people on non-AvP forums respond to 'Covenant' with "Wait, David couldn't have invented the Alien, there was that old ship in the first movie."
Anecdotal evidence, but I've seen it happen a lot.
The casual moviegoer is not on forums discussing movies.
Maybe, but a casual moviegoer could easily reach the same conclusion as the one in my anecdote.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Dec 30, 2018, 06:10:20 PM
Maybe, but a casual moviegoer could easily reach the same conclusion as the one in my anecdote.
Theoretically, but the discussion we were engaged in is me disagreeing with your statement that the "movie-going public doesn't give a shit about canon", and I argue strictly in regards to movie canon they do. Just not novelizations, comics, etc.
And reading your above reply, it suggests you've come around to my side of our debate. :)
I actually saw it more like you'd come around to my side, so I guess we both win? :P
My point was that casual moviegoers don't care what "canon" is as a concept - that which is considered "true". Like, it's not a topic that casual viewers even think about, let alone debate at length.
Canon is pointless the moment the original creators are no longer in direct control of the creation of content. Entertainment is a lot like life, once it's out of the bag it branches out into all directions, many of which are utterly pointless and doomed for extinction. So you can trace Prometheus to A|R on the alien tree of life but much like a tree, new nodes can spout up at any time, including from the roots and the trunk itself. However most importantly of all is that the alien tree is born from the same soil as all other content. Including the predator's tree and sometimes there roots intertwine.
The point is, movies are what, barely a hundred year old industry? The reality of canon died off a long, long time ago.
Totally agree with the tree analogy when it comes to an ongoing creation.
I do wonder if there's unrealistic view on francishes due to marvel film World, personally I enjoy different takes on a central theme and not having to much strict conformity which can lead to very dull thinking.
And indeed it might through up some questionably content but either some will love it or some will hate it so much it drives them to create their own take, after all once art leaves the hands of its creator its no longer only their property but that of the viewer.
I still look at the space jockey and then the engineers and see two different things. Suits or no suit.
So do I, honestly. At least until a future movie wants to expand on it more. The thing is, the original Space Jockey is such an iconic set piece of the first film that they can't believably retcon it, IMO. I mean, they can, but no one is going to like it as much. It's fair enough if people view them differently.
QuoteSpeaking of casual moviegoers, I've seen a lot of people on non-AvP forums respond to 'Covenant' with "Wait, David couldn't have invented the Alien, there was that old ship in the first movie."
Anecdotal evidence, but I've seen it happen a lot.
Casual fans are always confused by these odds and ends. I've heard people wonder who Weyland in Prometheus is when Weyland was already in AvP. But none of it changes the intentions of the films.
So do I since the thing sitting in the chair in Alien looks substantially different in a once perceived organic vitality from the mechanical and very much dead, suits in Prometheus.
^ a-ha!!
Quote from: whiterabbit on Dec 31, 2018, 12:15:30 AM
Canon is pointless the moment the original creators are no longer in direct control of the creation of content. Entertainment is a lot like life, once it's out of the bag it branches out into all directions, many of which are utterly pointless and doomed for extinction. So you can trace Prometheus to A|R on the alien tree of life but much like a tree, new nodes can spout up at any time, including from the roots and the trunk itself. However most importantly of all is that the alien tree is born from the same soil as all other content. Including the predator's tree and sometimes there roots intertwine.
The point is, movies are what, barely a hundred year old industry? The reality of canon died off a long, long time ago.
Exactly. Canon is a useless concept from the fan level, and only marginally useful from a creator level.
For more fun articles about canon (and why it's not good), check out the links in my signature! :)
Quote from: Xenomrph on Dec 31, 2018, 09:51:44 PM
For more fun articles about canon (and why it's not good), check out the links in my signature! :)
Good read.
One thing we should differentiate between is "canon" and "lore."
Case in point (and I'm sure someone can help me out here): The stage at which it became canon that the xenomorph inherits traits from its chestburster host was Alien 3, right? But the idea existed as fan lore for years prior to that.
What is the earliest reference in official material (i.e. not fan speculation) that this was so? I remember an interview in which Scott mentioned it, but I think this was well after Aliens (1986). Anyone know?
TC
It was actual canon/ lore/ whatever people want to call it to cope with the things they don't like, prior to Alien. It was mentioned in the Official Alien Movie Mag.
Quote from: TC on Jan 01, 2019, 01:11:49 AM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Dec 31, 2018, 09:51:44 PM
For more fun articles about canon (and why it's not good), check out the links in my signature! :)
Good read.
One thing we should differentiate between is "canon" and "lore."
Case in point (and I'm sure someone can help me out here): The stage at which it became canon that the xenomorph inherits traits from its chestburster host was Alien 3, right? But the idea existed as fan lore for years prior to that.
What is the earliest reference in official material (i.e. not fan speculation) that this was so? I remember an interview in which Scott mentioned it, but I think this was well after Aliens (1986). Anyone know?
TC
I think I can see where you're going with that distinction - fan theory vs "official" intent - but I think that can be more of an interesting footnote in the creative process and not much else.
That said, as SM pointed out, the idea of the Alien taking host traits dated back to the original movie - even though it wasn't made explicitly part of the plot until the third. It actually provides some interesting ramifications, especially if you factor in the behavior of, say, the PredAlien from AvP: Requiem.
Quote from: SM on Jan 01, 2019, 01:33:45 AM
whatever people want to call it to cope with the things they don't like
Lmao, passive-aggressive much? :D
QuoteLmao, passive-aggressive much?
I mean, he's not
wrong...
We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. :P
...but it's exactly what you do, why would you disagree? ???
Quote from: SiL on Jan 01, 2019, 10:43:09 AM
...but it's exactly what you do, why would you disagree? ???
Didn't you do the same when AVPR came out?
No (I argued the film's ideas were shit, not that it wasn't Canon because I didn't like it) but even if I did - I clearly agree with SM.
Quote from: SiL on Jan 01, 2019, 10:43:09 AM
...but it's exactly what you do, why would you disagree? ???
Because SM is framing it like there is One Truth, and anyone who disagrees is delusional and resorting to some kind of coping mechanism or whatever.
Like, lol.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jan 01, 2019, 04:14:21 PM
Quote from: SiL on Jan 01, 2019, 10:43:09 AM
...but it's exactly what you do, why would you disagree? ???
Because SM is framing it like there is One Truth, and anyone who disagrees is delusional and resorting to some kind of coping mechanism or whatever.
Like, lol.
That's typical SM.
He Always wants you to rethink your argument
Quote from: Vermillion on Jan 01, 2019, 05:13:42 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jan 01, 2019, 04:14:21 PM
Quote from: SiL on Jan 01, 2019, 10:43:09 AM
...but it's exactly what you do, why would you disagree? ???
Because SM is framing it like there is One Truth, and anyone who disagrees is delusional and resorting to some kind of coping mechanism or whatever.
Like, lol.
That's typical SM.
He Always wants you to rethink your argument
Like when Huggsy said a peanut is his favorite nut, and SM told him a peanut is not really a nut, but a bean. It changed his whole perspective on life that day.
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Jan 01, 2019, 05:37:59 PM
Quote from: Vermillion on Jan 01, 2019, 05:13:42 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jan 01, 2019, 04:14:21 PM
Quote from: SiL on Jan 01, 2019, 10:43:09 AM
...but it's exactly what you do, why would you disagree? ???
Because SM is framing it like there is One Truth, and anyone who disagrees is delusional and resorting to some kind of coping mechanism or whatever.
Like, lol.
That's typical SM.
He Always wants you to rethink your argument
Like when Huggsy said a peanut is his favorite nut, and SM told him a peanut is not really a nut, but a bean. It changed his whole perspective on life that day.
Where's that conversation? I need to read it.
I think you have me confused with someone else there Voodoo.
Quote from: Huggs on Jan 01, 2019, 06:05:15 PM
I think you have me confused with someone else there Voodoo.
Sorry, I messed up. It's fixed now:
Like when Huggsy said a Tomato is his favorite vegetable, and SM told him a Tomato is not really a vegetable, but a fruit. It changed his whole perspective on life that day.
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Jan 01, 2019, 06:11:43 PM
Quote from: Huggs on Jan 01, 2019, 06:05:15 PM
I think you have me confused with someone else there Voodoo.
Sorry, I messed up. It's fixed now:
Like when Huggsy said a Tomato is his favorite vegetable, and SM told him a Tomato is not really a vegetable, but a fruit. It changed his whole perspective on life that day.
A tomato? When the heck was this? It's certainly not my favorite vegetable.
Quote from: Huggs on Jan 01, 2019, 06:20:41 PM
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Jan 01, 2019, 06:11:43 PM
Quote from: Huggs on Jan 01, 2019, 06:05:15 PM
I think you have me confused with someone else there Voodoo.
Sorry, I messed up. It's fixed now:
Like when Huggsy said a Tomato is his favorite vegetable, and SM told him a Tomato is not really a vegetable, but a fruit. It changed his whole perspective on life that day.
A tomato? When the heck was this? It's certainly not my favorite vegetable.
Sorry, I messed up. It's fixed now:
Like when Hicks said a peanut is his favorite nut, and SM told him a peanut is not really a nut, but a bean. It changed his whole perspective on life that day.
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Jan 01, 2019, 06:34:27 PM
Quote from: Huggs on Jan 01, 2019, 06:20:41 PM
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Jan 01, 2019, 06:11:43 PM
Quote from: Huggs on Jan 01, 2019, 06:05:15 PM
I think you have me confused with someone else there Voodoo.
Sorry, I messed up. It's fixed now:
Like when Huggsy said a Tomato is his favorite vegetable, and SM told him a Tomato is not really a vegetable, but a fruit. It changed his whole perspective on life that day.
A tomato? When the heck was this? It's certainly not my favorite vegetable.
Sorry, I messed up. It's fixed now:
Like when Hicks said a peanut is his favorite nut, and SM told him a peanut is not really a nut, but a bean. It changed his whole perspective on life that day.
You know, it took me a while to realize he wrote Hicks instead of Huggs. I thought he was making a deja vu trip.
Clearly you are.
Quote
Because SM is framing it like there is One Truth, and anyone who disagrees is delusional and resorting to some kind of coping mechanism or whatever.
Like, lol.
That just sounds like you getting insecure and defensive more than anything :P
Quote from: SiL on Jan 01, 2019, 09:08:08 PM
Quote
Because SM is framing it like there is One Truth, and anyone who disagrees is delusional and resorting to some kind of coping mechanism or whatever.
Like, lol.
That just sounds like you getting insecure and defensive more than anything :P
SM's flippant comment was stupid and unnecessary and far from constructive (even if the rest of his post was on-topic and helpful) and I called him out on it, even if you think he's right.
Like I said, we'll have to agree to disagree. :)
Sure, it was flippant and not constructive -- he's still not wrong. ;D
People get too worked up over Canon.
Sometimes a director just shoehorns things in there, and it doesn't quite mesh with what's been going on. It's just an attempt at innovation. If it seems incorrect, fuhgeddaboudit.
I think sometimes some people mistake 'breaking the canon' with 'changing things we assumed were a thing'.
Particularly when it comes to stuff like the Jockeys or the creation of the Alien. We assumed certain things, and they were firmly entrenched for decades, so it's naturally hard to let them go when they turn out not to be the case.
A third prequel movie with some solid answers is needed to put an end to these discussions/arguments.
First film annoyed people when Jockeys = Engineers. Second film annoyed people when David = Alien creator.
Third film 'break' something else. ;D
The importance of canon is that it maintains consistency. When a story is self-consistent, it's more realistic and therefore easier to believe in. IOW, canon assists the suspension of disbelief.
The other thing is that in a multi-part story like a franchise or TV show, the audience's use of prior knowledge from previous episodes (especially character histories) is an essential part of the way we interpret and digest new developments. Each new story builds upon the historical stuff we already know, creating (hopefully, interesting) connections and greater complexity. We enjoy piecing these things together.
But as is mentioned in one of the links in Xenomrph's signature, these stories are works of fiction, not fact. Sometimes authors make honest mistakes and cock things up; sometimes their artistry make them intentionally breach established canon, usually because they think they have a better take on something and they feel the misdirection is not objectionable. Whether the retcon is subtle and helps more than it harms, or corrupts the entire story 'verse, is a matter of subjectivity. Fiction is made of malleable stuff like subjectivity. Real life fact is not. Let's differentiate between the two and cut fiction a bit of slack.
If that means the line the author walks is no longer a tightrope but a noose, well, let's at least applaud his or her courage for making the attempt, not rally a lynch mob to finish the job off (via a YouTube call to arms - something that's all to common these days).
TC
Quote from: SiL on Jan 02, 2019, 12:53:48 AM
Sure, it was flippant and not constructive -- he's still not wrong. ;D
And I believe this is where we must part ways on this particular mental journey, for I must beg to differ on this one. ;D
Quote from: SM on Jan 02, 2019, 02:19:07 AM
First film annoyed people when Jockeys = Engineers. Second film annoyed people when David = Alien creator.
Third film 'break' something else. ;D
You could almost make the meta-textual conclusion that Ridley Scott's purpose is to show the audience/fans, "if you go looking for answers, you might not like what you find".
Shaw isn't just the audience surrogate, she is
literally the audience, raging against gods who have f**ked up everything she thought she knew. And when she asks "why?", the answer ends up being "f**k YOU, that's why" and she gets turned into a grotesque science experiment.
The difference is, I like to think Alien fans had enough forethought to
not ask for the curtain to be pulled back (as Shaw did), and that means that in this meta-textual interpretation, Ridley Scott is just a spiteful asshole - akin to an adult telling a small child that Santa Claus isn't real just to see them get upset.
Quote from: TC on Jan 02, 2019, 03:13:49 AM
The importance of canon is that it maintains consistency. When a story is self-consistent, it's more realistic and therefore easier to believe in. IOW, canon assists the suspension of disbelief.
The other thing is that in a multi-part story like a franchise or TV show, the audience's use of prior knowledge from previous episodes (especially character histories) is an essential part of the way we interpret and digest new developments. Each new story builds upon the historical stuff we already know, creating (hopefully, interesting) connections and greater complexity. We enjoy piecing these things together.
But as is mentioned in one of the links in Xenomrph's signature, these stories are works of fiction, not fact. Sometimes authors make honest mistakes and cock things up; sometimes their artistry make them intentionally breach established canon, usually because they think they have a better take on something and they feel the misdirection is not objectionable. Whether the retcon is subtle and helps more than it harms, or corrupts the entire story 'verse, is a matter of subjectivity. Fiction is made of malleable stuff like subjectivity. Real life fact is not. Let's differentiate between the two and cut fiction a bit of slack.
If that means the line the author walks is no longer a tightrope but a noose, well, let's at least applaud his or her courage for making the attempt, not rally a lynch mob to finish the job off (via a YouTube call to arms - something that's all to common these days).
TC
Consistency is useful, and details and acknowledgements to other materials in a shared "universe" can be fun, but slavish devotion to "canon" is arguably really problematic. Not to mention, "canon" and "continuity" aren't synonyms. The Bible, the very document from which the concept of "canon" originates, is littered with continuity errors and inconsistencies. The Marvel comic universe has been in existence for like 50 years and is chock-full of contradictory stuff, but every new Marvel comic that comes out each week contributes to "the canon".
Quote from: SM on Jan 02, 2019, 01:22:08 AM
I think sometimes some people mistake 'breaking the canon' with 'changing things we assumed were a thing'.
Re: "breaking the canon", it always seemed silly to me when people said that in reference to, say, a new movie in a movie series. If the movies are considered "canon", and a new movie comes out, that movie is automatically part of "the canon" by its mere existence and the fact that it's a movie. It can't break canon - it
is canon. :P
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jan 02, 2019, 08:46:27 AM
And I believe this is where we must part ways on this particular mental journey, for I must beg to differ on this one. ;D
I can't take this seriously from someone who argues that David didn't make the Aliens fundamentally because he doesn't like the idea :P
Good god this reminds of the star wars prequels where there is a jedi council but the only ones who ever talk are Yoda and Windu. The damn council should have just been called yo-mace.
Quote from: whiterabbit on Jan 02, 2019, 01:17:37 PM
Good god this reminds of the star wars prequels where there is a jedi council but the only ones who ever talk are Yoda and Windu. The damn council should have just been called yo-mace.
Hey! Door guards are not allowed to speak when the council is in session. ;D
I don't like the idea of David as creator. It's not the end of the world either. It looks like a contradiction to Alien though.
It's not a contradiction until information actually exists to contradict it.
It is a contradiction to what the original film hinted at as well as the EU lore.
Which changes nothing.
Quote from: Frosty Venom on Jan 03, 2019, 02:25:22 AM
It is a contradiction to what the original film hinted at as well as the EU lore.
Leaving aside Dallas' speculations about the antiquity of the Derelict ("looks like it's been dead a long time, fossilized") I don't see any
in-universe contradiction at all ???
That because, until such a time as the origin of the Derelict is explored and contradicts something, there isn't any.
That recent Alien novel trilogy that was labelled as canon has Xenomorphs existing before David though right?
Quote from: SM on Jan 03, 2019, 03:12:07 AM
That because, until such a time as the origin of the Derelict is explored and contradicts something, there isn't any.
Well you heard it here first, the derelict is still Alien.
Quote from: Frosty Venom on Jan 03, 2019, 06:57:43 AM
That recent Alien novel trilogy that was labelled as canon has Xenomorphs existing before David though right?
They're books written prior to Covenant.
I can't wait for the third prequel film to either be scrapped or be released but still not answer this question so that people like you and I will forever have this discussion :laugh:
No doubt. ;D
@SM
Does that automatically
in your opinion make said trilogy
non-canon? /Not part of
the official continuity.
They need to film a short video called "Ridley Scott Defines Canon".
Ridley just stands in some guys yard. There's a large object next to him covered in a blanket.
"Ridley Scott? It's an honor sir. But what are you doing here?"
"I'm here to explain the concept of canon in the Alien universe."
"You see, canon is...(tears blanket away, revealing a large cannon)...what I say b*tch!"
He pulls a long string and the canon fires, destroying the dude's house. As the place burns, the camera is just behind Scott. While the guy is running around in his yard screaming hysterically and trying to fight the flames with his garden hose, Scott slowly turns his head back towards the camera, with a mischievous smile on his face. We then see the famous "end transmission" animation from the films, before everything fades out.
Quote from: Huggs on Jan 03, 2019, 03:01:31 PM
They need to film a short video called "Ridley Scott Defines Canon".
Ridley just stands in some guys yard. There's a large object next to him covered in a blanket.
"Ridley Scott? It's an honor sir. But what are you doing here?"
"I'm here to explain the concept of canon in the Alien universe."
"You see, canon is...(tears blanket away, revealing a large cannon)...what I say b*tch!"
He pulls a long string and the canon fires, destroying the dude's house. As the place burns, the camera is just behind Scott. While the guy is running around in his yard screaming hysterically and trying to fight the flames with his garden hose, Scott slowly turns his head back towards the camera, with a mischievous smile on his face. We then see the famous "end transmission" animation from the films, before everything fades out.
(https://media1.giphy.com/media/Pp7c4VaqkwTcY/giphy.gif?cid=19f5b51a5c2e25fb7775323632a4e959)
Quote from: Frosty Venom on Jan 03, 2019, 01:04:32 PM
I can't wait for the third prequel film to either be scrapped or be released but still not answer this question so that people like you and I will forever have this discussion :laugh:
SM has a destiny. (https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/index.php?topic=59800.msg2282903#msg2282903)
Quote from: The Old One on Jan 03, 2019, 02:56:24 PM
@SM
Does that automatically
in your opinion make said trilogy
non-canon? /Not part of
the official continuity.
(https://preview.redd.it/6rattb38tjq01.jpg?width=1024&auto=webp&s=1e0e2a035127f1b164176d5338efebaa6ea939bb)
That'll never get answered how she got the lightsaber
Quote from: SiL on Jan 02, 2019, 12:51:31 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jan 02, 2019, 08:46:27 AM
And I believe this is where we must part ways on this particular mental journey, for I must beg to differ on this one. ;D
I can't take this seriously from someone who argues that David didn't make the Aliens fundamentally because he doesn't like the idea :P
Attacking why someone is arguing something is a pretty hefty logical fallacy. :P
That, and it doesn't actually change anything in my argument - an actual case citing evidence from the movies can be made that David is wrong.
Quote from: SM on Jan 03, 2019, 02:18:46 AM
It's not a contradiction until information actually exists to contradict it.
'Alien' exists.
Quote from: Immortan Jonesy on Jan 03, 2019, 02:51:20 AM
Quote from: Frosty Venom on Jan 03, 2019, 02:25:22 AM
It is a contradiction to what the original film hinted at as well as the EU lore.
Leaving aside Dallas' speculations about the antiquity of the Derelict ("looks like it's been dead a long time, fossilized") I don't see any in-universe contradiction at all ???
The Derelict appears to be old, and 'Covenant' doesn't address the Derelict's origins or its visual state.
Quote from: SM on Jan 03, 2019, 12:56:44 PM
Quote from: Frosty Venom on Jan 03, 2019, 06:57:43 AM
That recent Alien novel trilogy that was labelled as canon has Xenomorphs existing before David though right?
They're books written prior to Covenant.
And they're still canon, per FOX's policy. Covenant doesn't automatically overrule them just because it's a movie, or because it came out later - FOX's stated policy is that everything that came out after a certain point in time is canon, full stop; there's no provisions within that about a "ranking system" or what supersedes what, and anyone claiming otherwise is using their own personal interpretation of what the canon should be.
In other words re: canon - believe what you want (because you already are, whether you realize it or not). :P
Quote from: SM on Jan 03, 2019, 02:18:46 AM
It's not a contradiction until information actually exists to contradict it.
The ship appears old. It is stated to be old. Why does Dallas have less weight than David?
These things exist on screen. It's not a displaced hate of the concept. I just can't reconcile the apparent age of the derelict with the xenomorph being solely David's creation.
The evidence is David's statements and actions in Covenant and the derelict in Alien. Is David the creator of the xenomorph as portrayed in Covenant? Yes. Is it concrete as presented on film that the Derelict is protrayed as being ancient? Yes.
It isn't an assumption that the derelict is old. Contradictions occur in film all the time. It doesn't ruin anything for me in this particular case.
How old is definitely up for debate. Heck, even I might have to eat some crow. 57 years after the Nostromo landed, the derelict seems quite decayed and losing structural integrity. The left arm has fractured and collapsed onto the ground. Of course if these things are indeed grown, then decay is understandable. So if that happened in 57 years, it's probably not 2000 years old. Space Jockey on lv-223 aside, this ship is out in the elements, it's exposed. Not to mention there was still enough power left in the thing to still be broadcasting a warning.
Quote from: Huggs on Jan 05, 2019, 06:38:20 PM
How old is definitely up for debate. Heck, even I might have to eat some crow. 57 years after the Nostromo landed, the derelict seems quite decayed and losing structural integrity. The left arm has fractured and collapsed onto the ground. Of course if these things are indeed grown, then decay is understandable. So if that happened in 57 years, it's probably not 2000 years old. Space Jockey on lv-223 aside, this ship is out in the elements, it's exposed.
What da hay?
I don't imagine crow tastes very good.
Quote from: razeak on Jan 05, 2019, 06:04:31 PM
Quote from: SM on Jan 03, 2019, 02:18:46 AM
It's not a contradiction until information actually exists to contradict it.
The ship appears old. It is stated to be old. Why does Dallas have less weight than David?
These things exist on screen. It's not a displaced hate of the concept. I just can't reconcile the apparent age of the derelict with the xenomorph being solely David's creation.
The evidence is David's statements and actions in Covenant and the derelict in Alien. Is David the creator of the xenomorph as portrayed in Covenant? Yes. Is it concrete as presented on film that the Derelict is protrayed as being ancient? Yes.
It isn't an assumption that the derelict is old. Contradictions occur in film all the time. It doesn't ruin anything for me in this particular case.
From the four Alien films, to the AVP films, to the Ridley prequels, this is all just a byproduct of making it up as they go along.
I don't honestly see how the Prometheus mural has any relevance;
even as someone whom would like to find any indication that David
was mistaken in his authorship.
it's not this.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alien-covenant.com%2Faliencovenant_uploads%2F1_-_original.jpg&hash=6cec15d96fdd1eeb5df091d6dfcbc7283422d419)
Quote from: razeak on Jan 05, 2019, 06:04:31 PM
Quote from: SM on Jan 03, 2019, 02:18:46 AM
It's not a contradiction until information actually exists to contradict it.
The ship appears old. It is stated to be old. Why does Dallas have less weight than David?
These things exist on screen. It's not a displaced hate of the concept. I just can't reconcile the apparent age of the derelict with the xenomorph being solely David's creation.
The evidence is David's statements and actions in Covenant and the derelict in Alien. Is David the creator of the xenomorph as portrayed in Covenant? Yes. Is it concrete as presented on film that the Derelict is protrayed as being ancient? Yes.
It isn't an assumption that the derelict is old. Contradictions occur in film all the time. It doesn't ruin anything for me in this particular case.
Because Dallas "just runs the ship".
If the derelict is old, then we don't know the full story of how David recreated the xenomorph.
If the Derelict is young, then we don't know the full story of how David cause it to crash on LV426.
Simple as that.
Indeed. I recently watched alittle bit of Aliens, and was quite taken aback by the structural deterioration that took place in those 57 years. Whether it was just Cameron wanting to insert his idea of why the ship was there into the narrative or not, it's not in the same state it was before. I'm beginning to think there is significant enough room for it to be a relatively young site. 2000 years on lv-426 might well have rendered it a dusty stain by the time the Nostromo found it.
Quote from: Huggs on Jan 06, 2019, 12:33:58 AM
Indeed. I recently watched alittle bit of Aliens, and was quite taken aback by the structural deterioration that took place in those 57 years. Whether it was just Cameron wanting to insert his idea of why the ship was there into the narrative or not, it's not in the same state it was before. I'm beginning to think there is significant enough room for it to be a relatively young site. 2000 years on lv-426 might well have rendered it a dusty stain by the time the Nostromo found it.
"Two thousand years will give you such a krik in the neck!"
Quote from: TheSailingRabbit on Jan 06, 2019, 12:41:10 AM
Quote from: Huggs on Jan 06, 2019, 12:33:58 AM
Indeed. I recently watched alittle bit of Aliens, and was quite taken aback by the structural deterioration that took place in those 57 years. Whether it was just Cameron wanting to insert his idea of why the ship was there into the narrative or not, it's not in the same state it was before. I'm beginning to think there is significant enough room for it to be a relatively young site. 2000 years on lv-426 might well have rendered it a dusty stain by the time the Nostromo found it.
"Two thousand years will give you such a krik in the neck!"
Ridley Scott on Aliens in Covenant: I don't think so, not right now. YOU'RE GETTIN' YOUR WISHES SO SIT DOWN!!!!!
Quote from: Huggs on Jan 06, 2019, 12:33:58 AM
Indeed. I recently watched alittle bit of Aliens, and was quite taken aback by the structural deterioration that took place in those 57 years. Whether it was just Cameron wanting to insert his idea of why the ship was there into the narrative or not, it's not in the same state it was before. I'm beginning to think there is significant enough room for it to be a relatively young site. 2000 years on lv-426 might well have rendered it a dusty stain by the time the Nostromo found it.
It's the same apart from the broken prong which was damaged in a lava flow.
Quote from: SM on Jan 06, 2019, 12:59:26 AM
Quote from: Huggs on Jan 06, 2019, 12:33:58 AM
Indeed. I recently watched alittle bit of Aliens, and was quite taken aback by the structural deterioration that took place in those 57 years. Whether it was just Cameron wanting to insert his idea of why the ship was there into the narrative or not, it's not in the same state it was before. I'm beginning to think there is significant enough room for it to be a relatively young site. 2000 years on lv-426 might well have rendered it a dusty stain by the time the Nostromo found it.
It's the same apart from the broken prong which was damaged in a lava flow.
Everytime I try to make a point, you squash it like a damn fruit fly. :laugh:
If the Juggernaut is any indication, it survived this pretty much unscathed.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/AW6PuIumNLhe/giphy.gif)
Quote from: SM on Jan 05, 2019, 09:48:26 PM
Quote from: razeak on Jan 05, 2019, 06:04:31 PM
Quote from: SM on Jan 03, 2019, 02:18:46 AM
It's not a contradiction until information actually exists to contradict it.
The ship appears old. It is stated to be old. Why does Dallas have less weight than David?
These things exist on screen. It's not a displaced hate of the concept. I just can't reconcile the apparent age of the derelict with the xenomorph being solely David's creation.
The evidence is David's statements and actions in Covenant and the derelict in Alien. Is David the creator of the xenomorph as portrayed in Covenant? Yes. Is it concrete as presented on film that the Derelict is protrayed as being ancient? Yes.
It isn't an assumption that the derelict is old. Contradictions occur in film all the time. It doesn't ruin anything for me in this particular case.
Because Dallas "just runs the ship".
That doesn't give his word any less weight than David's. He's making an observation based on visual evidence. Is he mistaken? Possibly.
Is David mistaken that he's the original creator of the Alien? Possibly.
It's more of an assumption at this point to say that David had anything to do with the Derelict on LV-426 than it is to say that the Derelict is ancient. Why does Dallas' word hold less water than David's? Dallas is a trustworthy captain whilst David is depicted as being an unreliable source of information on purpose but also gets things wrong as he is defective and delusional.
The fact that in the 57 years after the Nostromo touched down the Derelict looks much more decayed and has lost structural integrity doesn't tell me that it is a relatively young site. That tells me that it has been there for a very long time and that has started to take it's tole on the ship, whether that be erosion from winds or damage from lava flows. I'd imagine the Space Jockey/Engineer ship is quite advanced and that is why it has been able to stay intact for this long with a working warning beacon.
If the Derelict truly is an Engineer ship then it'd be safe to assume that it is at least 2,000 years old (around the time that the LV-233 military outpost went down). But I'd estimate it to be approximately 3,200,000,000 year old. My very speculative theory is that the Space Jockeys created the Engineers approx 4,600,000,000 BC. In approx 3,200,000,000 BC there was a conflict between the Space Jockeys and Engineers. The Jockeys initiated a universal wave of extinction using Xenomorphs. They were almost successful and many Engineer colonised worlds were wiped out but the Xenomorph infestation backfired on the Space Jockeys, destroying them. The Derelict would be a result of this failure. The Engineers began to re-seed multiple planets, including Earth. But in approx 30-90 AD they changed their minds.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jan 05, 2019, 03:50:35 PM
Attacking why someone is arguing something is a pretty hefty logical fallacy. :P
I think you got lost. That entire conversation was about people using "Canon", "lore" etc to ignore what they don't like. Pointing out your arguments are often based on what you do or don't like isn't a logical fallacy when we're literally discussing
why people argue what they do ???
QuoteThat doesn't give his word any less weight than David's.
Uneducated opinions with no evidence are not equally valid to someone explaining a topic they're knowledgeable about.
That's basically antivaxxer logic.
Quote from: Frosty Venom on Jan 06, 2019, 03:56:18 AM
It's more of an assumption at this point to say that David had anything to do with the Derelict on LV-426 than it is to say that the Derelict is ancient. Why does Dallas' word hold less water than David's? Dallas is a trustworthy captain whilst David is depicted as being an unreliable source of information on purpose but also gets things wrong as he is defective and delusional.
The fact that in the 57 years after the Nostromo touched down the Derelict looks much more decayed and has lost structural integrity doesn't tell me that it is a relatively young site. That tells me that it has been there for a very long time and that has started to take it's tole on the ship, whether that be erosion from winds or damage from lava flows. I'd imagine the Space Jockey/Engineer ship is quite advanced and that is why it has been able to stay intact for this long with a working warning beacon.
If the Derelict truly is an Engineer ship then it'd be safe to assume that it is at least 2,000 years old (around the time that the LV-233 military outpost went down). But I'd estimate it to be approximately 3,200,000,000 year old. My very speculative theory is that The Space Jockeys created the Engineers approx 4,600,000,000 BC. In approx 3,200,000,000 there was a conflict between the Space Jockeys and Engineers. The Jockeys initiated a universal wave of extinction using Xenomorphs. They were almost successful and many Engineer colonised worlds were wiped out but the Xenomorph infestation backfired on the Space Jockeys, destroying them. The Derelict would be a result of this failure. The Engineers began to re-seed multiple planets, including Earth. But in approx 30-90 AD they changed their minds.
I like this idea.
Quote from: The Old One on Jan 06, 2019, 01:29:15 AM
If the Juggernaut is any indication, it survived this pretty much unscathed.
https://media.giphy.com/media/AW6PuIumNLhe/giphy.gif
A bit trashed inside but barely a scratch or scorch mark on the outside.
Which reinforces an idea I had for a long while that the Derelict didn't crash.
You think it parked?
Why exactly, because of the impossible space in the cargo hold?
Not parked. Just landed intentionally. Pilot knew he was hugged, set down and sent the warning before her burstered.
Of course flying into the sun would've been preferable but you can't have everything.
There was a nice big gas giant right there.
Quote from: SiL on Jan 06, 2019, 07:44:01 AM
There was a nice big gas giant right there.
I don't remember any big a** giant. Except for the one in the chair. ;D
Quote from: SiL on Jan 06, 2019, 06:34:23 AM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jan 05, 2019, 03:50:35 PM
Attacking why someone is arguing something is a pretty hefty logical fallacy. :P
I think you got lost. That entire conversation was about people using "Canon", "lore" etc to ignore what they don't like. Pointing out your arguments are often based on what you do or don't like isn't a logical fallacy when we're literally discussing why people argue what they do ???
Maybe I did get lost because that's not what I was gathering from the conversation at all. ???
Quote from: SiL on Jan 06, 2019, 06:34:23 AM
QuoteThat doesn't give his word any less weight than David's.
Uneducated opinions with no evidence are not equally valid to someone explaining a topic they're knowledgeable about.
That's basically antivaxxer logic.
1. We don't know he was uneducated.
2. He had evidence, it's the same visual evidence the audience can see.
In the past you've said that David breaking down how he made the Alien is the movie's way of conveying to the audience in no uncertain terms that he did it, and how he did it. Dallas' comment is no different - from a storytelling perspective, the movie is conveying to the audience in no uncertain terms that the Derelict is old. Suddenly saying "oh well maybe Dallas is just an idiot and doesn't know what he's talking about" is simple revisionism to discredit a movie that has equal weight as the new one.
To use a hyperbolic analogy, that's basically Holocaust denier logic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_negationism).
Quote from: SiL on Jan 06, 2019, 07:44:01 AM
There was a nice big gas giant right there.
Also this.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jan 06, 2019, 09:35:47 AM
1. We don't know he was uneducated.
Yes. Yes we do. Please tell me you're not about to argue that Dallas knew about Engineer spaceships and flightsuits and what they were and how to gauge their age based purely on appearance.
Please.
Quote2. He had evidence, it's the same visual evidence the audience can see.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fd/Goodrich_Iguanodon.jpg/800px-Goodrich_Iguanodon.jpg)
That's an Iguanodon, constructed from the same skeletons we now believe to look like
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dinosaurisle.com%2Fimages%2FIguanodon-fleshed.jpg&hash=8919433196bf18a7fa59011c5063a507856b6b89)
The original interpretation is not "equally valid" to the new one. We have more information which explains why the original interepretation is wrong.
Dallas made the best analysis he could make with the information he had -- which was walking around a ship for a few minutes. He knew literally nothing else. We now have evidence Dallas did not.
QuoteIn the past you've said that David breaking down how he made the Alien is the movie's way of conveying to the audience in no uncertain terms that he did it, and how he did it.
In the service of explaining how the filmmakers did all they could to establish their
retroactive continuity, yes. Dallas, and the audience, had limited information. The audience has more now -- ergo the previous assumptions are not "equally valid". They were born of ignorance.
Besides which, your analogy relies on attacking my reasoning, not addressing the actual facts presented, which you kind'a
just told me off for as a logical fallacy...
Was it not established that Dallas had a PhD in exopaleontology?
To play devil's advocate, Dallas is actually right -- the ship and the suit are old, unless David finds some fresh-off-the-line model.
He's just most likely wrong it's "been dead a long time" (although really, a few years can be considered "a long time" for something to be dead...)
Quote from: SiL on Jan 06, 2019, 10:47:38 AM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jan 06, 2019, 09:35:47 AM
1. We don't know he was uneducated.
Yes. Yes we do. Please tell me you're not about to argue that Dallas knew about Engineer spaceships and flightsuits and what they were and how to gauge their age based purely on appearance. Please.
He kinda doesn't need to - he made a valid conclusion based on visual evidence, a conclusion that the audience had also drawn for the past 40 years.
Quote from: SiL on Jan 06, 2019, 10:47:38 AM
Dallas made the best analysis he could make with the information he had -- which was walking around a ship for a few minutes. He knew literally nothing else. We now have evidence Dallas did not.
No we don't, since what we're shown in 'Alien' is not explained in any way in 'Covenant'. The Derelict still looks old, the same as it did in 1979.
Quote from: SiL on Jan 06, 2019, 10:47:38 AM
In the service of explaining how the filmmakers did all they could to establish their retroactive continuity, yes. Dallas, and the audience, had limited information. The audience has more now -- ergo the previous assumptions are not "equally valid". They were born of ignorance.
No the audience doesn't, since 'Covenant' doesn't address the Derelict or LV-426 in any way.
Quote from: SiL on Jan 06, 2019, 10:47:38 AM
Besides which, your analogy relies on attacking my reasoning, not addressing the actual facts presented, which you kind'a just told me off for as a logical fallacy...
N- no? I called you out on you questioning the reason why I was reaching my conclusion at all, which is a logical fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_motive). My analogy points out that the logical steps taken to reach your conclusion are similar to mine: via a character, the movie is conveying to the audience in no uncertain terms "this is X".
Could 'Covenant' give us reason to reconsider Dallas' assessment? Sure.
Are we meant to automatically do so? No, I don't think so.
Could 'Alien' give us reason to doubt David's word? Sure.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jan 07, 2019, 03:19:11 AM
No we don't,
Of course we do. We now have information that the Aliens aren't older than a few decades.
QuoteMy analogy points out that the logical steps taken to reach your conclusion are similar to mine: via a character, the movie is conveying to the audience in no uncertain terms "this is X".
That's not what I'm doing in this discussion at all. The only logical step I'm taking in this particular conversation is "our understanding of things changes when new information is presented that we didn't know prior." You're trying to argue that opinions made from ignorance are valid no matter how much additional information is learned.
Hence the above analogy; you're arguing the original Iguanodon is just as valid an interpretation of an Iguanodon skeleton as the modern version despite decades of additional research.
QuoteOf course we do. We now have information that the Aliens aren't older than a few decades.
We have information that they
might be - 'Covenant' still hasn't resolved the Derelict.
QuoteYou're trying to argue that opinions made from ignorance are valid no matter how much additional information is learned.
Not exactly, I'm arguing that the opinions made from ignorance are *still* valid because they're not immediately disproven by one single piece of contradictory evidence.
QuoteHence the above analogy; you're arguing the original Iguanodon is just as valid an interpretation of an Iguanodon skeleton as the modern version despite decades of additional research.
The original iguanadon interpretation
was still valid in the science community when the first pieces of contradictory evidence started showing up - it just made people stop and say "hang on, maybe we need to rethink this". It was only after, as you mentioned, decades of additional research that scientists decided that the original iguanadon interpretation was wrong.
We don't have that decades of additional research for the origin of the Alien - we have a single piece of contradictory evidence. Further evidence would come in the form of additional movies or whatever, and we don't have that yet.
I'm saying we're still at the "hang on, maybe we need to rethink this" stage, rather than immediately jumping to "the new interpretation is correct, let's find ways to explain how we were wrong for 30 years".
A better analogy is if we found evidence today from a single study that Hawking Radiation couldn't exist. We don't just immediately disregard Hawking Radiation as a concept; we keep digging and see where it takes us, but it doesn't automatically mean Hawking Radiation is a less-valid or incorrect conclusion.
But then you're equating someone with no knowledge of a topic with freakin' Stephen Hawking's knowledge on black holes. That's way over-inflating Dallas' authority on the subject. He walked through a crashed alien ship for an hour or so and made an observation. David spent the better part of a decade bio-engineering his creation and learning about the Engineers. It is insane to try to argue that Dallas' off-hand remark is as valuable a source as David.
We obviously both agree that there's room for Ridley to pull a rabbit out of a hat -- but I can't agree it's because someone who didn't know what he was talking about said "Hey, this looks old!"
We have the luxury of seeing what Dallas and crew saw. When you look at the jockey, the eggs, the ship, how does it look to fit within the current narrative? Does anyone look at the jockey and feel that Dallas was correct? It's only gotta make sense to us, because we're the one's who will be seeing it if anything gets put on film.
Considering the lack of precedent, Dallas might be correct or he might not. As of right now - he's not.
Well, there it is.
If it turns out he's right - that can work too.
Are you obligated to remain neutral on your preference?
No. I don't have a preference.
You have truly achieved Kolinahr.
Here's something that makes the idea of the derelict not being so ancient make sense in light of what occurs to it in Aliens.
If the Derelict is a recent crash on LV-426, that does provide some added justification for the volcanic destruction of the vessel in the SE of Aliens. It seems awfully convenient that it would succumb to such a fate during that meager fifty-seven year span after the Nostromo finds it and while the colony was being set up if it had been there untouched for thousands of years...So, there was no volcanic action in those alleged thousands of years?
But if it had only crashed, say, a decade or so before the events of Alien, I'd buy it as being much more likely for everything significant to happen to the ship in such a compressed span of time.
Boom. ;D
The set up of the Atmosphere processors could've easily been responsible.
QuoteSo, there was no volcanic action in those alleged thousands of years?
There was. Dallas, Kane and Lambert walked past a bunch of geyser vents on the way to the Derelict.
Indeed.
& Ridley Scott loves his smoke.
Interesting. I'm wondering if this theory can explain the unusual physical apareance of that lone Engineer (aka Space Jockey).
Quote from: The Old One on Jan 09, 2019, 06:16:10 AM
Indeed.
& Ridley Scott loves his smoke.
Geysers outside, venting pipes inside.
We know from Prometheus that the engineer space-crafts can remain in perfect operating condition, even after 2000 years when they have been well protected against the elements. The craft on LV-426? I don't know. If it is (in fact) something that is grown or composed of any kind of organic material, would it not rot eventually?
Or does it feature the same kind of cell shedding silicone (say that 3 times fast) replacement that the facehugger does? Maybe it's also dead, but protected in a way.
Quote from: The Old One on Jan 09, 2019, 06:16:10 AM
Indeed.
& Ridley Scott loves his smoke.
Indeed. Where it's getting blown, is another matter entirely.
The ships of Prometheus were stored in hangar. Also, I saw a lot of vegetation inside the David's juggernaut when Oram and the others were looking for the source of the signal.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fkissthemgoodbye.net%2Fhorrors%2Falbums%2FAlien%2520Covenant%2FAlien_Covenant_screencaps_kissthemgoodbye_28177829.jpg&hash=2e358cb8e6f2f76050de324523b219e876def5d2)
Quote from: Immortan Jonesy on Jan 09, 2019, 06:31:08 AM
The ships of Prometheus were stored in hangar.
Exactly. So they'll fire right up, even after 2000 years when well kept. There was even enough power to keep the engineer alive the whole time. So is it possible the derelict is even more ancient? Or is the weather on LV-426 really that bad?
What's more, how long are the eggs viable? Because there must be a connection between the juggernaut and the eggs, given the chesbursted engineer. If there is a limit to how long the eggs can remain dormant and viable, that would narrow down your timeframe.
I think two films give us a pretty good indication of LV-426 weather.
The Eggs are viable as long as the stasis field is.
Possibly.
Quote from: SM on Jan 09, 2019, 06:14:47 AM
QuoteSo, there was no volcanic action in those alleged thousands of years?
There was. Dallas, Kane and Lambert walked past a bunch of geyser vents on the way to the Derelict.
Precisely, probably should have said
significant volcanic activity, enough to split the hull. Archeron seems fairly active for the rock it is, activity over thousands of years and no damage?
The Prometheus crashes the Juggernaut, but doesn't leave a scratch-
I'll believe it laid there undisturbed for thousands of years, if you say so.
I maintain that the setup of the Atmosphere processors likely had
something to do with the damage to the Alien Derelict, inadvertently.
I like that, but I'm just going off of Cameron's explanation to some irate fans regarding the warning beacon being disabled.
"Since we and the Nostromo crew last saw it, it has been damaged by volcanic activity, a lava flow having crushed it against a rock outcropping and ripped open its hull. Aside from considerations of visual interest, this serves as a justification for the acoustic beacon being non-operational." How the atmosphere processor would have a seismic impact here I don't know, I'm no geophysics expert haha
We obviously have no way of knowing the condition the ship was in prior to arriving at LV-426. It might've already been a piece of shit, or laying there for years when it was found. Constant sand-blasting by the planetoid's atmosphere could weaken it over time.
Maybe it was the millennium falcon of the engineers' fleet. :D
Quote from: Necronomicon II on Jan 10, 2019, 09:43:27 AM
I like that, but I'm just going off of Cameron's explanation to some irate fans regarding the warning beacon being disabled.
"Since we and the Nostromo crew last saw it, it has been damaged by volcanic activity, a lava flow having crushed it against a rock outcropping and ripped open its hull. Aside from considerations of visual interest, this serves as a justification for the acoustic beacon being non-operational." How the atmosphere processor would have a seismic impact here I don't know, I'm no geophysics expert haha
I don't imagine terraforming would make any difference to the Derelict. It makes the air warmer and breathable - but the near constant gales were the same before and after.
ADF did point out that it nows rains, though.
Maybe the derelict was made out of Triffids.
Agreed @SM.
Quote from: SiL on Jan 10, 2019, 10:37:22 AM
ADF did point out that it nows rains, though.
Maybe the derelict was made out of Triffids.
Space croissants have enough salt from the butter to withstand the elements.
Mmm... croissants.
Quote from: Huggs on Jan 09, 2019, 06:34:25 AM
Quote from: Immortan Jonesy on Jan 09, 2019, 06:31:08 AM
The ships of Prometheus were stored in hangar.
What's more, how long are the eggs viable? Because there must be a connection between the juggernaut and the eggs, given the chesbursted engineer. If there is a limit to how long the eggs can remain dormant and viable, that would narrow down your timeframe.
I think some of the eggs were dead in the that cargo hold, Kane falls on one and it doesn't open, the Anesidora crew freely roamed the area and only one egg opened. So either they have a limited life span or the eggs may cannibalize each other for nutrients, I mean they would have to have some form of nourishment to keep its self alive.
Wasn't that blue light on top of them working as some kind of stasis field for them? Thus preveting them from dying?
They all looked "full", I imagine a dead alien egg looking a little different.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Dec 30, 2018, 08:05:27 AM
I think the answer to a lot of the hypothetical questions you offered as examples is "who cares"?
No, seriously. The origin of the Alien was an off-limits topic within the fiction for like 30 years and fans and audiences were completely okay with that - heck, I'd argue that a not-insignificant percentage (of not a majority) preferred not knowing where the Alien came from. The problem with Prometheus/Covenant (and with many prequels) is it answered questions nobody asked, or nobody wanted answered.
Not the pattern I've seen over the years. Countless people have asked those hypothetical questions countless times. There were page after page of threads regarding those questions on the old imdb forum to name one example. I'm not going to dig into this very forum's archive going back several years, but it wouldn't surprise me to find these questions the topic of multiple threads.
I don't know how far AVPG archive on display goes back, but for a quick AVPG example.....let's see..... how about revisiting this very thread where 21 pages are peppered with members debating the origin of the egg......not to mention the original post asks, "where do the eggs come from?"
So to answer your question who cares, I would bet quite a few.
Quote from: Samhain13 on Jan 14, 2019, 02:21:01 PM
Wasn't that blue light on top of them working as some kind of stasis field for them? Thus preveting them from dying?
The blue lazer was a Ridley Scott add on. According to what I've read, The Who were rehearsing in a stage next to Scott's Alien project. The crew had taken a break and stepped over to watch The Who, it was a dress rehearsal, meaning stage lights activated including their lazers. Sometime later, Scott had borrowed The Who's lazers for the egg chamber scene. He thought it would be a cool visual effect. As for its in-story function.....hey, it's Ridley "don't bother me with story" Scott.
Quote from: SM on Jan 10, 2019, 10:33:47 AM
Quote from: Necronomicon II on Jan 10, 2019, 09:43:27 AM
I like that, but I'm just going off of Cameron's explanation to some irate fans regarding the warning beacon being disabled.
"Since we and the Nostromo crew last saw it, it has been damaged by volcanic activity, a lava flow having crushed it against a rock outcropping and ripped open its hull. Aside from considerations of visual interest, this serves as a justification for the acoustic beacon being non-operational." How the atmosphere processor would have a seismic impact here I don't know, I'm no geophysics expert haha
I don't imagine terraforming would make any difference to the Derelict. It makes the air warmer and breathable - but the near constant gales were the same before and after.
To be honest, I'd say that terraforming could make a big difference. It's forced climate change, and a quick Google Search brings up this article. (https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/volcano-eruption-climate-change-mountain-landslide-glacier-global-warming-a8299821.html) The terraforming engines could easily be the reason behind increased volcanic activity, and thus the additional damage to the derelict.
The area where the Derelict was already volcanic. And according to Cameron as Necronomicon II said, the eruption that damaged the Derelict before the colonists arrived.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Jul 08, 2018, 04:20:35 AM
My head canon says that the explosion set off a chain of massive volcanic eruptions all over planet and that's what destroyed the derelict.
A lot happened in those 57 years.
I wouldn't rule out the possibility that terraforming the atmosphere and whatever mining operations the company had there may have triggered similar side-effects long before the AP exploded.
Just look at the effects that modern-day fracking have had on otherwise seismically dormant regions of North America.
Thanks To Fracking, Earthquake Hazards In Parts Of Oklahoma Now Comparable To California (https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/09/07/the-connection-between-earthquakes-and-fracking/#1099e20e6d68)
Quote from: Samhain13 on Jan 14, 2019, 02:21:01 PM
Wasn't that blue light on top of them working as some kind of stasis field for them? Thus preveting them from dying?
That's been the fan speculation theory for years - we don't actually know what it is.
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Jan 14, 2019, 09:36:30 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Dec 30, 2018, 08:05:27 AM
I think the answer to a lot of the hypothetical questions you offered as examples is "who cares"?
No, seriously. The origin of the Alien was an off-limits topic within the fiction for like 30 years and fans and audiences were completely okay with that - heck, I'd argue that a not-insignificant percentage (of not a majority) preferred not knowing where the Alien came from. The problem with Prometheus/Covenant (and with many prequels) is it answered questions nobody asked, or nobody wanted answered.
Not the pattern I've seen over the years. Countless people have asked those hypothetical questions countless times. There were page after page of threads regarding those questions on the old imdb forum to name one example. I'm not going to dig into this very forum's archive going back several years, but it wouldn't surprise me to find these questions the topic of multiple threads.
I don't know how far AVPG archive on display goes back, but for a quick AVPG example.....let's see..... how about revisiting this very thread where 21 pages are peppered with members debating the origin of the egg......not to mention the original post asks, "where do the eggs come from?"
So to answer your question who cares, I would bet quite a few.
I worded my post poorly - it isn't so much that fans didn't "care", it's that they implicitly didn't want to know "the truth" - the mystery is what kept it interesting and allowed for their imaginations to run wild. Sure, people would discuss ideas or theories about where the Alien came from and what the creature meant to them, but I think there's an important distinction between that and actually, genuinely wanting to know where the Alien came from. Prior to 'Alien Covenant' (and even after it) I had my thoughts on the Alien's origins, but ultimately I didn't want them to be confirmed or debunked because it's a whole lot more interesting to not know. My ideas could be right, or it could be something even more fantastical/scary/interesting than anything I could have come up with. Knowing "the truth" is bound to disappoint a shitload of people.
That blue light on the derelict had to be some kind of stasis technology for the ovomorphs. Is this Space Jockey/Engineer technology already part of the derelict? Or will David implement this too?
I don't think stasis is the right word since that would mean everything in it would be frozen or in stasis, the fact one egg opened while the field was still active calls that in question. What it might be is more a disrupter, stopping the eggs from sensing anything above the field which would be logical to protect those hauling to whatever world they plan on dropping them off on.
Quote from: The Cruentus on Jan 17, 2019, 12:16:15 PM
I don't think stasis is the right word since that would mean everything in it would be frozen or in stasis, the fact one egg opened while the field was still active calls that in question. What it might be is more a disrupter, stopping the eggs from sensing anything above the field which would be logical to protect those hauling to whatever world they plan on dropping them off on.
Good explanation, makes sense.
Agreed.
Yeah I like that.
The general origin of the alien/eggs/etc itself should always be a mystery. That's pretty much the main reason (of many) the prequels are bad. Just the very idea of a prequel to Alien is a bad one imo. Takes away the mystery and turns the Alien from being an abstract cosmic horror into just another stupid movie monster.
Quote from: Adam802 on Jan 18, 2019, 05:31:42 AM
The general origin of the alien/eggs/etc itself should always be a mystery. That's pretty much the main reason (of many) the prequels are bad. Just the very idea of a prequel to Alien is a bad one imo. Takes away the mystery and turns the Alien from being an abstract cosmic horror into just another stupid movie monster.
Agreed.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jan 16, 2019, 08:01:15 AM
I worded my post poorly - it isn't so much that fans didn't "care", it's that they implicitly didn't want to know "the truth" - the mystery is what kept it interesting and allowed for their imaginations to run wild. Sure, people would discuss ideas or theories about where the Alien came from and what the creature meant to them, but I think there's an important distinction between that and actually, genuinely wanting to know where the Alien came from. Prior to 'Alien Covenant' (and even after it) I had my thoughts on the Alien's origins, but ultimately I didn't want them to be confirmed or debunked because it's a whole lot more interesting to not know. My ideas could be right, or it could be something even more fantastical/scary/interesting than anything I could have come up with.
Thanks for clarification. I suppose I would agree to a certain level. I mean, at what point do you end the story or choose not to reveal some plot elements either through the one film or through sequels, leaving some questions unanswered? Why not end Aliens 86 with them escaping the explosion and they settle down into cryo beds....fade to black. There's been plenty of action and tension already to satisfy viewers.
Then you, as the viewer, could have lots of fun speculating what happened to the queen. Did it hitch a ride? Did it kill the entire crew? Did it get destroyed from the blast? But you've been denied letting your imagination "run wild" because they already established what happened. Sure, playing what-if is a hoot, but I'm not so in love with my imagination creativity to not want to see what others create with their imagination.....such as the film makers.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jan 16, 2019, 08:01:15 AM
Knowing "the truth" is bound to disappoint a shitload of people.
True......and there's likely a shitload of people who enjoyed knowing "the truth." And there's likely an even much bigger shitload of people who are just casual fans.....they don't explore other xeno media, they don't hop on xeno forums, they don't do endless replays of the franchise....you know, the viewer masses who infinitely outnumber us xenophiles, who are completely neutral on the answer. "Hmm....so that's where the egg came from.....okay." Not necessarily positive, not necessarily negative.
Point is, I've seen no clear domination of one perception over the other. Even here in a xeno forum, I'll match every avpg member you pull up ridiculing the film maker's "truth" with an avpg member praising the film maker's "truth." .....Challenge! .....lol
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Jan 19, 2019, 08:13:25 AM
at what point do you end the story or choose not to reveal some plot elements either through the one film or through sequels, leaving some questions unanswered? Why not end Aliens 86 with them escaping the explosion and they settle down into cryo beds....fade to black. There's been plenty of action and tension already to satisfy viewers.
The reason being is that ending Aliens with the characters escaping the explosion wouldn't reach the film's conclusion
thematically. Aliens explored the theme of motherhood, and the battle between Ripley and the Queen was set to resolve the conflict between the two species' approaches to the subject.
Alien didn't answer the question about where the alien is from because not knowing where it's from
is the point thematically. It's alien - you're not supposed to know where it's from.
Speculating over the species origins is fun, but actually trying to answer the question is failing to understand the film and thus undermining its message.
To sum up and answer your question: You resolve a plot once you've communicated the message behind your film. The plot is just a vehicle to pass that message to the viewer. It in itself is not the ultimate goal.
Bang on Paranoid Android.
Interesting opinion, but it really has nothing to do with my original point that there is no clear domination of one perception over the other regarding who does and who does not want to know the answers. But we can change to your flow of the thread conversation topic.......
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jan 19, 2019, 09:15:30 AM
The reason being is that ending Aliens with the characters escaping the explosion wouldn't reach the film's conclusion thematically. Aliens explored the theme of motherhood, and the battle between Ripley and the Queen was set to resolve the conflict between the two species' approaches to the subject. Aliens explored the theme of motherhood, and the battle between Ripley and the Queen was set to resolve the conflict between the two species' approaches to the subject.
Without the Queen stowaway scene, how is the theme of motherhood not concluded thematically already? Why reveal the queen survived, leading to the Momma vs Queen showdown? There were more than plenty of scenes that conveyed the theme of motherhood already. Your message had already been communicated - the theme of motherhood. How many times can a story teller keep playing that broken record?
And the conflict was resolved between the two mommas when the nuke was ignited. Human momma wins, xeno momma dead, conflict resolved. So why add the dock showdown? Because the filmmaker chose to use his imagination to employ that theme....one more time.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jan 19, 2019, 09:15:30 AM
Alien didn't answer the question about where the alien is from because not knowing where it's from is the point thematically. It's alien - you're not supposed to know where it's from.
That's not entirely accurate. A better way to word it, imo, is......
"It's alien - you just happen to not know where it's from."
Not just Alien sci-fi, fantasy also, countless fantasy films expand on how characters/civilizations/etc. obtained their supernatural abilities. They explore how a mythical being came into existence. What you're suggesting is writers/filmmakers are in error exploring origins, the audience is "not supposed to know" how mythical beings came into existence. When it comes to aliens and goblins - being fictional characters that must remain mysterious, you're "not supposed to know" their origins? Really?
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jan 19, 2019, 09:15:30 AM
Speculating over the species origins is fun, but actually trying to answer the question is failing to understand the film and thus undermining its message.
I see. So...avpg member Xenomrph's "running wild imagination" drumming up ideas where the xenos came from, all that effort and time invested, he didn't realize he was failing to understand the film..... Well, he may not like that answer, but I will give you a thumbs up for an intriguing albeit questionable perspective.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jan 19, 2019, 09:15:30 AM
To sum up and answer your question: You resolve a plot once you've communicated the message behind your film. The plot is just a vehicle to pass that message to the viewer. It in itself is not the ultimate goal.
See my first point above, the message was already communicated with more than plenty of previous scenes conveying motherhood all gift wrapped with a tidy conflict resolution via a nuclear blast..............and yet the plot continued. So obviously Cameron elected not to employ your agenda.
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Jan 19, 2019, 08:13:25 AM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jan 16, 2019, 08:01:15 AM
Knowing "the truth" is bound to disappoint a shitload of people.
True......and there's likely a shitload of people who enjoyed knowing "the truth."
Ehhh... not as many as those who preferred not knowing, if the polls on this forum are any indication.
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Jan 19, 2019, 08:13:25 AMAnd there's likely an even much bigger shitload of people who are just casual fans..... who are completely neutral on the answer. "Hmm....so that's where the egg came from.....okay." Not necessarily positive, not necessarily negative.
Speaking from experience with people on non-Alien forums and with casual viewers I've encountered from work, friends, etc, I'd say it's been "mostly negative" as well. Anecdotal evidence, of course.
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Jan 19, 2019, 08:13:25 AM
Point is, I've seen no clear domination of one perception over the other. Even here in a xeno forum, I'll match every avpg member you pull up ridiculing the film maker's "truth" with an avpg member praising the film maker's "truth." .....Challenge! .....lol
I do agree there, it's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" sort of situation because there's no way to please everybody. But I maintain that you're more likely to piss off more people than you please, especially when the Alien's origins are involved.
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Jan 19, 2019, 10:45:56 AM
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jan 19, 2019, 09:15:30 AM
Alien didn't answer the question about where the alien is from because not knowing where it's from is the point thematically. It's alien - you're not supposed to know where it's from.
That's not entirely accurate. A better way to word it, imo, is......
"It's alien - you just happen to not know where it's from."
Not just Alien sci-fi, fantasy also, countless fantasy films expand on how characters/civilizations/etc. obtained their supernatural abilities. They explore how a mythical being came into existence. What you're suggesting is writers/filmmakers are in error exploring origins, the audience is "not supposed to know" how mythical beings came into existence. When it comes to aliens and goblins - being fictional characters that must remain mysterious, you're "not supposed to know" their origins? Really?
With 'Alien', that really is "the point" - it's one of the major Lovecraftian themes of the film; the audience and the characters don't know where the Alien came from, what its motivations are, what it does, or what it's capable of, and that's what makes it scary. Ripley specifically has a line of dialogue to point this out; when she's talking about the facehugger, she says "that thing bled acid, who knows what it'll do when it's dead?"
The moment you start putting the monster in the spotlight, visually or narratively, you start diminishing the creature's scare-factor by massively undermining the Lovecraftian horror tropes that make the film work in the first place.
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Jan 19, 2019, 10:45:56 AM
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jan 19, 2019, 09:15:30 AM
Speculating over the species origins is fun, but actually trying to answer the question is failing to understand the film and thus undermining its message.
I see. So...avpg member Xenomrph's "running wild imagination" drumming up ideas where the xenos came from, all that effort and time invested, he didn't realize he was failing to understand the film..... Well, he may not like that answer, but I will give you a thumbs up for an intriguing albeit questionable perspective.
You're misunderstanding what he's saying - there's a difference between my (or any other fan's) wild imaginative speculation, and a filmmaker actually definitively answering the question. You're grouping me in with the latter. :)
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jan 19, 2019, 11:07:45 AM
Ehhh... not as many as those who preferred not knowing, if the polls on this forum are any indication.
Interesting. I was going by more of the back and forth endless threads.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jan 19, 2019, 11:07:45 AM
Speaking from experience with people on non-Alien forums and with casual viewers I've encountered from work, friends, etc, I'd say it's been "mostly negative" as well. Anecdotal evidence, of course.
Understood. For me personally, people in my circle offered no negative or positive opinion and changed the subject to sports. lol
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jan 19, 2019, 11:07:45 AM
With 'Alien', that really is "the point" - it's one of the major Lovecraftian themes of the film; the audience and the characters don't know where the Alien came from, what its motivations are, what it does, or what it's capable of, and that's what makes it scary. Ripley specifically has a line of dialogue to point this out; when she's talking about the facehugger, she says "that thing bled acid, who knows what it'll do when it's dead?"
The moment you start putting the monster in the spotlight, visually or narratively, you start diminishing the creature's scare-factor by massively undermining the Lovecraftian horror tropes that make the film work in the first place.
I understand the point you're making, but exploring the monster's origin in a later project is not "robbing" you of the original film's scare factor you derived from your first viewing. That's permanent, it can't be taken away. So while a good point, exploring the monster's origin later on is irrelevant to your initial sensation of fear/dread/etc. of the alien.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jan 19, 2019, 11:07:45 AM
You're misunderstanding what he's saying - there's a difference between my (or any other fan's) wild imaginative speculation,..............
Hey, he's the one saying you're failing to understand the film by using your imagination to come up with an answer, not me.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jan 19, 2019, 11:07:45 AM
..........and a filmmaker actually definitively answering the question.
It's not just "a filmmaker." It's the original filmmaker continuing the story. You can't get any more "definitive" than the original film explored further by the original director.
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Jan 19, 2019, 08:13:25 AM
True......and there's likely a shitload of people who enjoyed knowing "the truth." And there's likely an even much bigger shitload of people who are just casual fans.....they don't explore other xeno media, they don't hop on xeno forums, they don't do endless replays of the franchise....you know, the viewer masses who infinitely outnumber us xenophiles, who are completely neutral on the answer. "Hmm....so that's where the egg came from.....okay." Not necessarily positive, not necessarily negative.
Even some fans of the franchise did not enjoy knowing "the truth", some like myself prefer to leave it mysterious or if it absolutely had to be revealed, then at least not having the alien created by an android. And I am not talking about causual fans either, you will find plenty on here that didn't like what was revealed in Covenent.
Quote from: The Cruentus on Jan 19, 2019, 11:57:53 AM
And I am not talking about causual fans either, you will find plenty on here that didn't like what was revealed in Covenent.
Understood, there are plenty here who didn't like it, got it. Are you implying there are *not* plenty of members here who like the creature's origin presented in Ridley's newest projects?
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Jan 19, 2019, 10:45:56 AM
Without the Queen stowaway scene, how is the theme of motherhood not concluded thematically already? Why reveal the queen survived, leading to the Momma vs Queen showdown? There were more than plenty of scenes that conveyed the theme of motherhood already. Your message had already been communicated - the theme of motherhood. How many times can a story teller keep playing that broken record?
And the conflict was resolved between the two mommas when the nuke was ignited. Human momma wins, xeno momma dead, conflict resolved. So why add the dock showdown? Because the filmmaker chose to use his imagination to employ that theme....one more time.
Before the final showdown, the Queen has only been introduced, and in thematic terms all you got to see was the Queen's "ideology" when it came down to preserving her children: She could've let Ripley and Newt walk away, but placed the attempt to kill them as a higher priority than saving the eggs. The final showdown has the roles reversed: The Queen is going after Newt, and Ripley fighting the Queen to try and save her - Ripley's ideology is valuing the child's life above her own. The final conflict is a battle between those two ideologies, and Ripley's victory is the film's attempt to say that her ideology is superior. Which is also why only then Newt refers to Ripley as "mommy". So no, thematically the theme was not concluded earlier. Concluding a theme is not just by having someone in the audience say 'oh, there's a motherhood theme in here' - it's by actually saying something about it. In the case of Aliens, it's saying that motherhood is about placing a child's life before your own.
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Jan 19, 2019, 11:37:55 AM
I understand the point you're making, but exploring the monster's origin in a later project is not "robbing" you of the original film's scare factor you derived from your first viewing. That's permanent, it can't be taken away. So while a good point, exploring the monster's origin later on is irrelevant to your initial sensation of fear/dread/etc. of the alien.
Covenant might be a later project in terms of release date, but in narrative terms it's an earlier project. It's a prequel. Everything that happens in it affects whatever comes later in terms of narrative. Having seen Covenant, it is impossible to watch Alien and not know where the alien came from. It is impossible to even watch it and still think of the alien as an alien. It's a man-made science project. The whole thematic purpose of Alien is now robbed of meaning. Alien is cautionary tale on the exploration of the universe, saying that there might be things out there so horrifying we might never want to encounter. This message no longer works. We made the horror, and we didn't even make it for a good reason. There is no unknown to fear, because there is no unknown.
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Jan 19, 2019, 11:37:55 AM
Hey, he's the one saying you're failing to understand the film by using your imagination to come up with an answer, not me.
It's not just "a filmmaker." It's the original filmmaker continuing the story. You can't get any more "definitive" than the original film explored further by the original director.
Actually I wasn't saying that about Xenomorph at all, and he understood that. Judging by what he wrote here so far, he understands Alien perfectly. I was saying that Ridley Scott, the writing team behind Covenant and the fans that think there's a need for a definitive answer to the alien's origins don't understand Alien.
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Jan 19, 2019, 12:04:18 PM
Quote from: The Cruentus on Jan 19, 2019, 11:57:53 AM
And I am not talking about causual fans either, you will find plenty on here that didn't like what was revealed in Covenent.
Understood, there are plenty here who didn't like it, got it. Are you implying there are *not* plenty of members here who like the creature's origin presented in Ridley's newest projects?
You said there was fans who enjoyed the truth and
casual fans who didn't, I am merely replying there is plenty of
serious fans who didn't enjoy the truth. The difference in liking the reveal is not just down to two different types of fans, casual or serious. Plenty on both sides would have different views on it.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jan 19, 2019, 12:07:04 PM
Concluding a theme is not just by having someone in the audience say 'oh, there's a motherhood theme in here' - it's by actually saying something about it. In the case of Aliens, it's saying that motherhood is about placing a child's life before your own.
No, there was a clear cut showdown between human momma and xeno momma at Hadley's Hope. The chamber scene was the ideal representation of a mother willing to sacrifice her life for the child's life. So we already visited that message without the dock showdown.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jan 19, 2019, 12:07:04 PM
Having seen Covenant, it is impossible to watch Alien and not know where the alien came from. It is impossible to even watch it and still think of the alien as an alien. It's a man-made science project.
After watching behind the scenes, it's impossible to watch Alien and still think of the alien as an alien when you know it's just Bolaji Badejo in a rubber suit. It's impossible to watch Alien and consider the alien truly "alien" when Aliens 86 revealed they are nothing more than a bug species mimicking an ant colony. ............We could do this all the live long day.
Actually, Covenant, rubber suits, ant colony, and any other factors really don't impede my enjoyment of Alien replays, but I can understand how it might stick in other viewer's crawl.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jan 19, 2019, 12:07:04 PM
The whole thematic purpose of Alien is now robbed of meaning. Alien is cautionary tale on the exploration of the universe, saying that there might be things out there so horrifying we might never want to encounter. This message no longer works. We made the horror, and we didn't even make it for a good reason. There is no unknown to fear, because there is no unknown.
It robbed nothing from my replays of Alien, I enjoy it still, just fine. Sorry to here your Alien experience has been tarnished.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jan 19, 2019, 12:07:04 PM
Actually I wasn't saying that about Xenomorph at all, and he understood that. Judging by what he wrote here so far, he understands Alien perfectly. I was saying that Ridley Scott, the writing team behind Covenant and the fans that think there's a need for a definitive answer to the alien's origins don't understand Alien.
Yes, but him along with many others have attempted to come up with an answer for the creature's origin....and you said that attempt is failing to understand Alien. I understand you're now trying to direct that more specifically to the director, but why doesn't your rule apply to everyone? Doesn't matter whether it's a fan concocting an idea put into forum text or a director concocting it on film. The point is, you laid down the gauntlet, any attempt to answer the question, is failing to understand Alien.
I understand that you like it to remain mysterious, but you should just be content with that without the need to stifle others' curiosity. Now if it's any consolation, I'm not satisfied with Ridley's creature origin, I was expecting more of an "ancient origin" for lack of a better description.
The damn thing is too damn penis-y to be completely unknowable. :D
I don't know, I'm still half way with all this, I can understand the entire phylogeny of sharks, for example, and still find them awe inspiring and terrifying.
However, given the polarising reaction, I expect a 180 along the lines of David discovering that he was not the first to harness the pathogen's potential, and an unknown mind even greater than the engineers and his A.I. created the star beast. This will crush his ego and lead him to greater insanity until he inevitably expires from his own hubris.
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Jan 19, 2019, 11:37:55 AM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jan 19, 2019, 11:07:45 AM
With 'Alien', that really is "the point" - it's one of the major Lovecraftian themes of the film; the audience and the characters don't know where the Alien came from, what its motivations are, what it does, or what it's capable of, and that's what makes it scary. Ripley specifically has a line of dialogue to point this out; when she's talking about the facehugger, she says "that thing bled acid, who knows what it'll do when it's dead?"
The moment you start putting the monster in the spotlight, visually or narratively, you start diminishing the creature's scare-factor by massively undermining the Lovecraftian horror tropes that make the film work in the first place.
I understand the point you're making, but exploring the monster's origin in a later project is not "robbing" you of the original film's scare factor you derived from your first viewing. That's permanent, it can't be taken away. So while a good point, exploring the monster's origin later on is irrelevant to your initial sensation of fear/dread/etc. of the alien.
It isn't just the initial scare factor, it's the knowledge on repeat viewings. Not only that, but it robs future viewers who haven't seen the films.
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Jan 19, 2019, 11:37:55 AMQuote from: Xenomrph on Jan 19, 2019, 11:07:45 AM
You're misunderstanding what he's saying - there's a difference between my (or any other fan's) wild imaginative speculation,..............
Hey, he's the one saying you're failing to understand the film by using your imagination to come up with an answer, not me.
No he's not, and he knows that I recognize that. :)
Pitting us against each other by being disingenuous is one angle to take, but it's not one I tend to fall for.
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Jan 19, 2019, 11:37:55 AMQuote from: Xenomrph on Jan 19, 2019, 11:07:45 AM
..........and a filmmaker actually definitively answering the question.
It's not just "a filmmaker." It's the original filmmaker continuing the story. You can't get any more "definitive" than the original film explored further by the original director.
It's the original
director, not the original screenwriter, artist, or actors.
But that's my point - there's a difference between fan speculation and an "official" film answer - one is cool and good and allows for self-interpretation, creative and imaginative discussion, and a more personal engagement with the work, and the other, uh, does the opposite.
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Jan 19, 2019, 12:52:56 PM
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jan 19, 2019, 12:07:04 PM
Having seen Covenant, it is impossible to watch Alien and not know where the alien came from. It is impossible to even watch it and still think of the alien as an alien. It's a man-made science project.
After watching behind the scenes, it's impossible to watch Alien and still think of the alien as an alien when you know it's just Bolaji Badejo in a rubber suit. It's impossible to watch Alien and consider the alien truly "alien" when Aliens 86 revealed they are nothing more than a bug species mimicking an ant colony. ............We could do this all the live long day.
The "guy in a suit" thing is related to "movie magic" and suspension of disbelief, which is a little different from in-context portrayals/explanations of the creature in question.
The point about 'Aliens' screwing up the Alien is a legitimate one, though - and it's one that I've seen people express over the years. It's really no different than people showing displeasure with Covenant and its "revelations", and its a risk that just about any franchise sequel runs into. Some handle it well ('Predator 2'), others handle it not so well ('The Predator').
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Jan 19, 2019, 12:52:56 PM
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jan 19, 2019, 12:07:04 PM
Actually I wasn't saying that about Xenomorph at all, and he understood that. Judging by what he wrote here so far, he understands Alien perfectly. I was saying that Ridley Scott, the writing team behind Covenant and the fans that think there's a need for a definitive answer to the alien's origins don't understand Alien.
Yes, but him along with many others have attempted to come up with an answer for the creature's origin....and you said that attempt is failing to understand Alien. I understand you're now trying to direct that more specifically to the director, but why doesn't your rule apply to everyone? Doesn't matter whether it's a fan concocting an idea put into forum text or a director concocting it on film. The point is, you laid down the gauntlet, any attempt to answer the question, is failing to understand Alien.
There's a world of difference between personal reflection on a (fictional) subject and creative discussion, and unilaterally altering the "official lore".
Ridley being the original director is of little consequence. He was still just a cog in the machine at that point. He holds considerably more clout and control now than he did then.
Alien was a group effort. If that exact same group of people were tasked to make the prequels, I'd say it's quite possible the movies would be entirely different than what Scott has created.
As for the "guy in a suit" thing, there's a big difference between Big Chap and Godzilla attacking the city. Whatever Bedejo did, it worked. Not one frame of his performance takes me out of the experience. It's fluid, horrifying, and effective.
Quote from: Necronomicon II on Jan 19, 2019, 01:57:46 PM
However, given the polarising reaction, I expect a 180 along the lines of David discovering that he was not the first to harness the pathogen's potential, and an unknown mind even greater than the engineers and his A.I. created the star beast.
Certainly some potential there. The Engineers and David are after the fact of some ancient intelligence that created the creature/black goo/etc. The Engineers simply stumbled on it, like David.
I really do like any theory that connects the origin to an ancient theme. I suppose I have some bias there considering I favor O'Bannon's ultimate original xeno story which included the crew discovering the ancient pyramid housing the urns (later modified to eggs) in the 76 script. His script also suggests it's possible it was not built by the space jockeys, they merely discovered it.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jan 20, 2019, 12:30:26 AM
It's the original director, not the original screenwriter, artist, or actors.
Interesting. So you think the screenwriter is more qualified to provide a definitive answer than the original director of the original film? I was referring to the film story only, but we can go there. Because if you're going to bring in the original screenwriter's original creation, that now puts in question does Ridley have any sort of "definitive" credibility to even the original story? Ridley's '79 film story is somewhat different from O'Bannon's original story.
Quote from: Huggs on Jan 20, 2019, 01:05:22 AM
As for the "guy in a suit" thing, there's a big difference between Big Chap and Godzilla attacking the city. Whatever Bedejo did, it worked. Not one frame of his performance takes me out of the experience. It's fluid, horrifying, and effective.
Either you missed my point or I didn't convey it properly, but Bedejo in a
rubber suit did not impede my experience for Alien '79 and the following replays. I thought I had clarified that when I stated, "Actually, Covenant,
rubber suits, ant colony, and any other factors really don't impede my enjoyment of Alien replays.
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Jan 20, 2019, 02:31:53 AM
Interesting. So you think the screenwriter is more qualified to provide a definitive answer than the original director of the original film? I was referring to the film story only, but we can go there. Because if you're going to bring in the original screenwriter's original creation, that now puts in question does Ridley have any sort of "definitive" credibility to even the original story? Ridley's '79 film story is somewhat different from O'Bannon's original story.
Ridley didn't write the script revisions that changed O'Bannon's story, Walter Hill and David Giler did.
As others mentioned, 'Alien' was a hugely collaborative effort and that's what led to the end result we got. Stripping away all of those contributors except for 1 person results in, well, 'Alien: Covenant'. :P
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jan 19, 2019, 12:07:04 PM
Covenant might be a later project in terms of release date, but in narrative terms it's an earlier project. It's a prequel. Everything that happens in it affects whatever comes later in terms of narrative. Having seen Covenant, it is impossible to watch Alien and not know where the alien came from. It is impossible to even watch it and still think of the alien as an alien. It's a man-made science project. The whole thematic purpose of Alien is now robbed of meaning. Alien is cautionary tale on the exploration of the universe, saying that there might be things out there so horrifying we might never want to encounter. This message no longer works. We made the horror, and we didn't even make it for a good reason. There is no unknown to fear, because there is no unknown.
Well said.
I would say that while man is indirectly responsible, genetically the origins of the creature are still technically extraterrestrial, an android simply poured all of his sexual hang-ups into it; by making it more explicitly phallic. The pathogen's origins aren't clear, either, nor exactly how old it is (at least thousands), it's essentially a shoggoth - "Formless protoplasm able to mock and reflect all forms and organs and processes..."
It's one giant incestuous orgy in the cold void of space baby. ;D :D
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jan 19, 2019, 12:07:04 PM
Covenant might be a later project in terms of release date, but in narrative terms it's an earlier project. It's a prequel. Everything that happens in it affects whatever comes later in terms of narrative. Having seen Covenant, it is impossible to watch Alien and not know where the alien came from. It is impossible to even watch it and still think of the alien as an alien. It's a man-made science project. The whole thematic purpose of Alien is now robbed of meaning. Alien is cautionary tale on the exploration of the universe, saying that there might be things out there so horrifying we might never want to encounter. This message no longer works. We made the horror, and we didn't even make it for a good reason. There is no unknown to fear, because there is no unknown.
You can always ignore Covenant from the way you want see the series. ALIEN still exists on its own, you can see it without considering anything else. Besides we don't know where those eggs or that particular derelict ship came from. What if Ridley don't get to make his third movie? We will just have to assume there are aliens that weren't made by David. There is also the Covenant novelization if you prefer.
Quote from: Samhain13 on Jan 20, 2019, 03:15:08 PM
You can always ignore Covenant from the way you want see the series. ALIEN still exists on its own, you can see it without considering anything else. Besides we don't know where those eggs or that particular derelict ship came from. What if Ridley don't get to make his third movie? We will just have to assume there are aliens that weren't made by David. There is also the Covenant novelization if you prefer.
(https://media1.giphy.com/media/3djYKPkyh5sXu/giphy.gif?cid=19f5b51a5c449ac64e61717a774b1bb2)
Also, I think it's more that the prequels are ignoring the functional text of the original; the mechanics that made it work so well to provoke fear and terror, namely, the unknown, and expanding more on the sexual/Freudian subtext and ironies of creation, with David being the centre crux.
How valid is this approach?
Well, given that Giger's aesthetic wasn't so much predicated on mystery or the unknown as it was on erotic transfiguration and psychosexuality, this is evoked with the revelation of an extraterrestrial rape and death machine moulded via an impotent android descending into madness as he utilises truly alien, Shoggoth-like bio-tech. That's far more nuanced than simply "man-made". David's an artificial alien himself in an organic/natural world, possessing the very thing mortals seek but cannot possess - immortality. Yet for all of David's superiority, he's uncannily identical to man sans the ability to reproduce or die. Thus, the phallic and vaginal designs and the predatory instinct are all an artistic, morbid mockery and transfiguration of human reproduction/mortality.
That is fundamentally Giger-esque to the core. Thus you could argue it understands Alien meta-textually insofar that it reflects Giger's sexual/Freudian themes, just not the mechanics of its effective horror/terror.
Heck, Covenant goes out of its way to subvert the original chestburster scene and present the organism as a thing of beauty, not something to be feared or reviled. Giger would've approved.
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Jan 19, 2019, 12:52:56 PM
After watching behind the scenes, it's impossible to watch Alien and still think of the alien as an alien when you know it's just Bolaji Badejo in a rubber suit. It's impossible to watch Alien and consider the alien truly "alien" when Aliens 86 revealed they are nothing more than a bug species mimicking an ant colony. ............We could do this all the live long day.
Did you just counter an argument about narrative with an argument about special effects? Seriously?
Gee, it's a good thing you watched that behind the scenes footage to learn you're watching a film and not not real life...
Even if it was an actual real alien walking around a real ship, killing people for real, it would have changed exactly
nothing in terms of narrative.
As for the Aliens argument, I can agree with you on that one to an extent. It does rob the alien of some of its scare factor and I'd never fault someone for disliking Aliens due to that fact. That said, it's not that big of a deal because:
1. The alien is still an alien organism of unknown origin and thus retains its thematic purpose.
2. Aliens comes later in the narrative. It does not impact Alien - it's the other way around.
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Jan 19, 2019, 12:52:56 PM
Yes, but him along with many others have attempted to come up with an answer for the creature's origin....and you said that attempt is failing to understand Alien. I understand you're now trying to direct that more specifically to the director, but why doesn't your rule apply to everyone?
This is not at all what I said, nor was I ever trying to to direct anything more specifically to the director. I was trying my best to explain myself in a way that lets you understand that there's a difference between a fan theory and the official story. You can come up with fan theories about the alien's origin until the end of time - its origin is still unknown, as was intended, because it's not the official story. It is completely different to thinking that it
should be part of the official story, and all the more damning when you actually go and make it as such.
Quote from: Necronomicon II on Jan 20, 2019, 04:04:34 PM
Also, I think it's more that the prequels are ignoring the functional text of the original; the mechanics that made it work so well to provoke fear and terror, namely, the unknown, and expanding more on the sexual/Freudian subtext and ironies of creation, with David being the centre crux.
How valid is this approach?
Well, given that Giger's aesthetic wasn't so much predicated on mystery or the unknown as it was on erotic transfiguration and psychosexuality, this is evoked with the revelation of an extraterrestrial rape and death machine moulded via an impotent android descending into madness as he utilises truly alien, Shoggoth-like bio-tech. That's far more nuanced than simply "man-made". David's an artificial alien himself in an organic/natural world, possessing the very thing mortals seek but cannot possess - immortality. Yet for all of David's superiority, he's uncannily identical to man sans the ability to reproduce or die. Thus, the phallic and vaginal designs and the predatory instinct are all an artistic, morbid mockery and transfiguration of human reproduction/mortality.
That is fundamentally Giger-esque to the core. Thus you could argue it understands Alien meta-textually insofar that it reflects Giger's sexual/Freudian themes, just not the mechanics of its effective horror/terror.
Heck, Covenant goes out of its way to subvert the original chestburster scene and present the organism as a thing of beauty, not something to be feared or reviled. Giger would've approved.
Good shit right here,
I guess I'm different though
because I can appreciate
each film separately within
it's own artistic and narrative
context.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jan 20, 2019, 10:42:00 AM
'Alien' was a hugely collaborative effort and that's what led to the end result we got. Stripping away all of those contributors except for 1 person results in, well, 'Alien: Covenant'. :P
Heh, heh, was that a shot at Covenant fans?
Well played.
Btw, Xenomrph, since our initial conversation regarding "who cares" if the question is answered, take notice the last several posts, "the question" keeps hovering front and center throughout the back and forth flow of the conversation. Just one more affirmation there's well more than just a few who care about the question.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jan 20, 2019, 05:06:33 PM
Did you just counter an argument about narrative with an argument about special effects? Seriously?
No, I used a narrative and a special effects example. Seriously.
My point was a viewer can allow various outside factors.........movie magic, third party scripting, narrative gone south, director change, etc. tarnish their Alien experience. I can't explain why, but when I do replays of Alien, none of that noise interferes. Those thoughts may pass in my mind after a replay, but during the replay I'm all Alien 79.
And once again, I am sorry to hear that your Alien experience has been tarnished. Even I am not invulnerable to that cinematic ruin, I feel the same way about the abomination Police Academy 5 which has severely tarnished my experience of the masterpiece Police Academy.
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jan 20, 2019, 05:06:33 PM
I was trying my best to explain myself in a way that lets you understand that there's a difference between a fan theory and the official story.
I'm fairly confident all the xenophiles here, including me, understand the difference between a fan theory and the official story.
Quote from: The Old One on Jan 20, 2019, 05:57:35 PM
I guess I'm different though
because I can appreciate
each film separately within
it's own artistic and narrative
context.
And there you go, the theme of my message all in one tidy sentence.
Quote from: Samhain13 on Jan 20, 2019, 03:15:08 PM
ALIEN still exists on its own, you can see it without considering anything else.
And there you go, the theme of my message all in one tidy sentence.......again.
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Jan 19, 2019, 12:52:56 PM
It's impossible to watch Alien and consider the alien truly "alien" when Aliens 86 revealed they are nothing more than a bug species mimicking an ant colony.
Ok hold your horses pal. They (bugs) look like weird little aliens. Just look at this buddy here. He looks like a spaceman from alpha centauri. But yeah, I know you were kidding. Also, I know we've never seen a real-life alien. But science fiction is guilty (in part) of my confirmation bias anyway. ;D
(https://media.giphy.com/media/39lSwUwXXxYj6fw5tv/giphy.gif)
Quote from: Paranoid Android on Jan 19, 2019, 12:07:04 PM
Covenant might be a later project in terms of release date, but in narrative terms it's an earlier project. It's a prequel. Everything that happens in it affects whatever comes later in terms of narrative. Having seen Covenant, it is impossible to watch Alien and not know where the alien came from. It is impossible to even watch it and still think of the alien as an alien. It's a man-made science project. The whole thematic purpose of Alien is now robbed of meaning. Alien is cautionary tale on the exploration of the universe, saying that there might be things out there so horrifying we might never want to encounter. This message no longer works. We made the horror, and we didn't even make it for a good reason. There is no unknown to fear, because there is no unknown.
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Jan 19, 2019, 11:37:55 AM
Hey, he's the one saying you're failing to understand the film by using your imagination to come up with an answer, not me.
It's not just "a filmmaker." It's the original filmmaker continuing the story. You can't get any more "definitive" than the original film explored further by the original director.
Actually I wasn't saying that about Xenomorph at all, and he understood that. Judging by what he wrote here so far, he understands Alien perfectly. I was saying that Ridley Scott, the writing team behind Covenant and the fans that think there's a need for a definitive answer to the alien's origins don't understand Alien.
I like both: the philosophical psycho-sexual background of Covenant (although part of Freud's vision is seen as pseudoscience in these days) and the original Lovecraftian horror of Alien. But I prefer the second:
"Alien went to where the Old Ones lived, to their very world of origin. That baneful little storm-lashed planetoid halfway across the galaxy was a fragment of the Old Ones' home world, and the Alien a blood relative of Yog-Sothoth." (https://alienseries.wordpress.com/2013/03/05/writing-alien/comment-page-1/)
This geological formation of unusual appearance may not have been used in the film, but I like to think about this as that "fragment of the Old Ones' home world". It really fit with Dan O'Bannon's vision.
(https://i.imgur.com/ZP7iyIC.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/9E6vVVE.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/lVEnuDV.jpg)
Quote from: Immortan Jonesy on Jan 20, 2019, 11:32:36 PM
This geological formation of unusual appearance may not have been used in the film, but I like to think about this as that "fragment of the Old Ones' home world". It really fit with Dan O'Bannon's vision.
Now, you and I are on the same page. It's sad to see one or more here dismiss O'Bannon's contribution to the Alien universe, especially considering it was he that created it.
I'm not dismissing it.
I'm just approaching
Covenant on it's own
ground.
I do indeed want the
Alien's origin to come
back around to the
"other" Dan O'Bannon
intended after all's
said and done.
Quote from: The Old One on Jan 20, 2019, 11:47:42 PM
I'm not dismissing it.
For what it's worth, you were not who I had in mind when I stated, "It's sad to see one or more here dismiss O'Bannon's contribution......"
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Jan 20, 2019, 09:20:24 PM
Btw, Xenomrph, since our initial conversation regarding "who cares" if the question is answered, take notice the last several posts, "the question" keeps hovering front and center throughout the back and forth flow of the conversation. Just one more affirmation there's well more than just a few who care about the question.
Since it's literally the topic of this thread, I suspect it would be discussed here. :P
I still stand by my assertion that a significant subset of fans and audiences didn't want to know "the truth", whether they realized it or not. It's a well-known component of horror that "less is more", and that what's in your imagination is far scarier than anything the filmmaker can put on the screen. That's why a huge component of 'Alien' is the fear of the unknown, because your subconscious starts filling in the blanks with what scares
you. The unknown inherently gets less scary when it becomes known. :P
Sure some people might want to know "the truth" about the Alien, and that's a pretty rational response - the human brain wants to find answers in order to make sense of the world, it's a basic survival instinct. What people might not realize is that in doing so, they're drastically undercutting the Alien's purpose as a scary monster meant to scare us. It's a conflict of subconscious interests: deep down we know we don't want to know about the Alien because that makes it scarier, but at the same time our overriding lizard brain subconscious wants to know the "truth" because as a survival tactic it makes the world easier to understand even if our rational thinking brain knows the Alien is a fictional creature and it doesn't matter anyway.
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Jan 20, 2019, 09:20:24 PM
Quote from: The Old One on Jan 20, 2019, 05:57:35 PM
I guess I'm different though
because I can appreciate
each film separately within
it's own artistic and narrative
context.
And there you go, the theme of my message all in one tidy sentence.
Quote from: Samhain13 on Jan 20, 2019, 03:15:08 PM
ALIEN still exists on its own, you can see it without considering anything else.
And there you go, the theme of my message all in one tidy sentence.......again.
Sure, but this thread and its ilk are about the ramifications of the Alien's origin with regards to the broader franchise narrative.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jan 21, 2019, 01:06:59 AM
It's a well-known component of horror that "less is more", and that what's in your imagination is far scarier than anything the filmmaker can put on the screen. That's why a huge component of 'Alien' is the fear of the unknown, because your subconscious starts filling in the blanks with what scares you.
What people might not realize is that in doing so, they're drastically undercutting the Alien's purpose as a scary monster meant to scare us.
Well if "less is more" is your driving force, then why even bother with "filling in the blanks" with your imagination? By your own logic, are you not "drastically undercutting the Alien's purpose" when you choose to drum up plot elements outside the film story with your filling in the blanks?
Maybe it's not your intention, but on the surface, your comments come across as, "it's okay for me, other fans, a screenwriter, director, to drum up plot elements, answer questions, etc., outside the original story and that is NOT undercutting the Alien's purpose. BUT! if you attempt to address where the creature/egg comes from.......well that's taboo......that's undercutting the Alien's purpose.
No offense, but it looks like you're cherry picking to endorse your own personal agenda. I don't mean that in anyway disrespectful, just an observation, but you or I don't get to pick what questions viewers or filmmakers attempt to answer........ guilt free of the label "you're undermining Alien's purpose."
There's a difference
between a fanatic's
personal interpretation/
speculation on answers.
And a definitive answer
in a franchise entry.
From the Director.
Quote from: The Old One on Jan 21, 2019, 02:03:48 AM
There's a difference
between a fanatic's
personal interpretation/
speculation on answers.
And a definitive answer
in a franchise entry.
From the Director.
I think that has been
firmly established repeatedly
in previous posts. But my
point is none of us get
to pick what questions
are taboo and what
questions are not taboo.
One can declare it taboo
but no fan nor filmmaker
has to abide by it
nor do they need to be
burden with the label it's
undermining Alien's purpose.
"When the legend becomes fact, print the legend." - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
I do.
No but seriously,
to answer that question
you have to ask
the question...
If the Alien's purpose,
is to be A L I E N-
To create fear.
The unknown creates
fear, so explanations
remove fear.
Quote from: The Old One on Jan 21, 2019, 02:24:15 AM
The unknown creates
fear, so explanations
remove fear.
I see.
Scenario 1: You arrive home in the dark, suddenly you feel a piercing pain in your shoulder. You realize you've been shot, but you see no one. How you got shot or who shot you is completely "unknown."
Scenario 2: You arrive home in the dark, suddenly you feel a piercing pain in your shoulder. You realize you've been shot, you see a menacing figure pointing the gun at you.
Are you suggesting your fear would be removed in Scenario 2 because your eyes now see the "explanation" how you got shot and who shot you?
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Jan 21, 2019, 02:49:42 AM
Scenario 2: You arrive home in the dark, suddenly you feel a piercing pain in your shoulder. You realize you've been shot, you see a menacing figure pointing the gun at you.
Are you suggesting your fear would be removed in Scenario 2 because your eyes now see the "explanation" how you got shot and who shot you?
If it turns out to be Local with a dart gun then you'll indeed feel much better.
If you wake up in the sex dungeon, not so much.
Quote from: Huggs on Jan 21, 2019, 02:55:21 AM
If it turns out to be Local with a dart gun then you'll indeed feel much better.
If you wake up in the sex dungeon, not so much.
Heh, heh, .....always someone here trying to turn movie talk into sexual gutter talk. . . . ;)
Quote from: Huggs on Jan 21, 2019, 02:55:21 AM
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Jan 21, 2019, 02:49:42 AM
Scenario 2: You arrive home in the dark, suddenly you feel a piercing pain in your shoulder. You realize you've been shot, you see a menacing figure pointing the gun at you.
Are you suggesting your fear would be removed in Scenario 2 because your eyes now see the "explanation" how you got shot and who shot you?
If it turns out to be Local with a dart gun then you'll indeed feel much better.
I'd be scared of that.
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Jan 21, 2019, 02:49:42 AM
Quote from: The Old One on Jan 21, 2019, 02:24:15 AM
The unknown creates
fear, so explanations
remove fear.
I see.
Scenario 1: You arrive home in the dark, suddenly you feel a piercing pain in your shoulder. You realize you've been shot, but you see no one. How you got shot or who shot you is completely "unknown."
Scenario 2: You arrive home in the dark, suddenly you feel a piercing pain in your shoulder. You realize you've been shot, you see a menacing figure pointing the gun at you.
Are you suggesting your fear would be removed in Scenario 2 because your eyes now see the "explanation" how you got shot and who shot you?
But the fear of the unknown may be a little different from the fear to not surviving a deadly situation. When you don't know anything about a threat or danger, it seems to be perceived as something spooky or uncanny.
Quote from: Immortan Jonesy on Jan 21, 2019, 03:33:57 AM
But the fear of the unknown may be a little different from the fear to not surviving a deadly situation. When you don't know anything about a threat or danger, it seems to be perceived as something spooky or uncanny.
Sigh....so you're forcing me to alter my scenarios. Also, I mentioned nothing about survival, it's irrelevant to the point of my scenarios. But hey, if you truly did not comprehend the point of my scenarios, that's okay, I can oblige..............
Scenario 1: You arrive home in the dark, suddenly you feel a piercing pain in your shoulder. You realize something has taken a vicious bite out of your shoulder, but you see no one or nothing. How you got bit or what bit you is completely "unknown."
Scenario 2: You arrive home in the dark, suddenly you feel a piercing pain in your shoulder. You realize you've been bitten, then you see a menacing xenomorph mashing his metallic teeth at you.
Are you suggesting your fear would be removed in Scenario 2 because your eyes now see the "explanation" how you got bit and what bit you?
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Jan 21, 2019, 04:15:53 AM
Quote from: Immortan Jonesy on Jan 21, 2019, 03:33:57 AM
But the fear of the unknown may be a little different from the fear to not surviving a deadly situation. When you don't know anything about a threat or danger, it seems to be perceived as something spooky or uncanny.
Sigh....so you're forcing me to alter my scenarios. Also, I mentioned nothing about survival, it's irrelevant to the point of my scenarios. But hey, if you truly did not comprehend the point of my scenarios, that's okay, I can oblige..............
Scenario 1: You arrive home in the dark, suddenly you feel a piercing pain in your shoulder. You realize something has taken a vicious bite out of your shoulder, but you see no one or nothing. How you got bit or what bit you is completely "unknown."
Scenario 2: You arrive home in the dark, suddenly you feel a piercing pain in your shoulder. You realize you've been bitten, then you see a menacing xenomorph mashing his metallic teeth at you.
Are you suggesting your fear would be removed in Scenario 2 because your eyes now see the "explanation" how you got bit and what bit you?
The fear is not going to be removed, but it will change into another type of fear according to the processed information. However, sometimes for a horror movie; the fear of the unknown is better. Do you believe that a velociraptor is just as scary as a creature, with a strange shaped body (or even almost invisible), unknown nature and origins?
I think the key is in not revealing too much, and how do you handle the creature.
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Jan 21, 2019, 04:42:08 AM
Quote from: The Old One on Jan 21, 2019, 02:24:15 AM
The unknown creates fear, so explanations remove fear.
Quote from: Immortan Jonesy on Jan 21, 2019, 04:31:24 AM
The fear is not going to be removed.......
Thank you.
Since we are talking about monsters and horror oriented sci fi, I know she is right.
An unknown quantity is always
more terrifying than a known quantity.
A shark is a known quantity, they're still terrifying. The unknown that's scary is more where is it, when will it strike, how will it strike. Whether it's an ancient elder god or a robot's science experiment is secondary.
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Jan 21, 2019, 01:58:51 AM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jan 21, 2019, 01:06:59 AM
It's a well-known component of horror that "less is more", and that what's in your imagination is far scarier than anything the filmmaker can put on the screen. That's why a huge component of 'Alien' is the fear of the unknown, because your subconscious starts filling in the blanks with what scares you.
What people might not realize is that in doing so, they're drastically undercutting the Alien's purpose as a scary monster meant to scare us.
Well if "less is more" is your driving force, then why even bother with "filling in the blanks" with your imagination? By your own logic, are you not "drastically undercutting the Alien's purpose" when you choose to drum up plot elements outside the film story with your filling in the blanks?
No, sharing what we think is a common human behavior and leads to interesting discussion about what the Alien means to us on an individual level. That's really different from a filmmaker coming along and saying "this is the Alien" when the Alien's whole schtick was "we don't know what it is, and that's scary".
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Jan 21, 2019, 01:58:51 AM
Maybe it's not your intention, but on the surface, your comments come across as, "it's okay for me, other fans, a screenwriter, director, to drum up plot elements, answer questions, etc., outside the original story and that is NOT undercutting the Alien's purpose. BUT! if you attempt to address where the creature/egg comes from.......well that's taboo......that's undercutting the Alien's purpose.
Well, yeah. When the Alien's gimmick is that it's weird and spooky and unknown, full-on answering the question of where the Alien came from inherently kneecaps that gimmick.
Shit, the Alien/AvP EU was smart enough to steer clear of the Alien's origins, and would offer up a myriad of (contradictory) possibilities as food for thought with the caveat that ultimately, we didn't know.
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Jan 21, 2019, 01:58:51 AM
No offense, but it looks like you're cherry picking to endorse your own personal agenda. I don't mean that in anyway disrespectful, just an observation, but you or I don't get to pick what questions viewers or filmmakers attempt to answer........ guilt free of the label "you're undermining Alien's purpose."
No, but we can sure call them out when we think it was a bad decision.
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Jan 21, 2019, 04:42:08 AM
Quote from: The Old One on Jan 21, 2019, 02:24:15 AM
The unknown creates fear, so explanations remove fear.
Quote from: Immortan Jonesy on Jan 21, 2019, 04:31:24 AM
The fear is not going to be removed.......
Thank you.
You cut out the (really important) second half of his sentence.
When "fear of the unknown" is the point, removing "the unknown" defeats that point, even if you're replacing it with a different kind of fear.
Here's an example. In 'Alien', the Alien grabs Dallas, leaving no trace. We don't know what the Alien is going to do to him, but it's probably not pleasant. Likewise, the Alien does something horrific to Lambert; we don't see what it is, but we see Ripley's reaction to it and she's scared shitless. Our mind is left to fill in the blanks in both cases. Maybe whatever terrible thing happened to Lambert happened to Dallas? Maybe the Alien turned Dallas inside-out in the most painful way possible? You fill in the blank, that's the point.
The director's cut deleted scene shows us what happened to Dallas. It's horrific, but our fear of the unknown has changed to a different kind of fear: body horror. Likewise, even if you hadn't seen that deleted scene, 'Aliens' shows us what happens when Aliens do when they grab you. I've seen people make the case that this undercuts the fear of not knowing what the Alien does to you, even if what actually happens is awful and scary.
Quote from: SiL on Jan 21, 2019, 05:12:34 AM
A shark is a known quantity, they're still terrifying. The unknown that's scary is more where is it, when will it strike, how will it strike. Whether it's an ancient elder god or a robot's science experiment is secondary.
Personally I'm not sure I agree with it being secondary. When a big component of that fear of the unknown is not knowing what you might find out in the scary blackness of space, and that anyone might find crazy penis monsters capable of anything, it undercuts that horror when you learn that said penis monsters are only 20 years old at best and limited in scope to only the places a deranged robot has visited.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jan 21, 2019, 05:18:26 AM
No, sharing what we think is a common human behavior and leads to interesting discussion about what the Alien means to us on an individual level.
I agree, this flow of the conversation has been interesting. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jan 21, 2019, 05:18:26 AM
When a big component of that fear of the unknown is not knowing what you might find out in the scary blackness of space, and that anyone might find crazy penis monsters capable of anything, it undercuts that horror when you learn that said penis monsters are only 20 years old at best and limited in scope to only the places a deranged robot has visited.
[Beavis laugh] Heh, heh...heh, heh. He said 'penis.' Twice.
Quote from: The Old One on Jan 21, 2019, 05:05:54 AM
An unknown quantity is always
more terrifying than a known quantity.
A crazy penis monster quantity is always
more terrifying than a shark quantity.
Biomechanoid, stop!
Penis monsters are beautiful, though. ;D
Quote from: Necronomicon II on Jan 21, 2019, 06:01:51 AM
Penis monsters are beautiful, though. ;D
Lieutenant Eckhardt: "Where you been spending your nights?"
Quote from: SiL on Jan 21, 2019, 05:12:34 AM
A shark is a known quantity, they're still terrifying. The unknown that's scary is more where is it, when will it strike, how will it strike. Whether it's an ancient elder god or a robot's science experiment is secondary.
Okay, jokes aside. This describes best how I felt in my first viewing of Alien. When Ripley was in the corridors preparing to escape in the shuttle, every single moment I was on the edge of my seat teeming with dread - yet it never appeared. Weaver also was very convincing in portraying that dread. The "no-show" was more frightening than if it actually did appear in the corridors at that time.
It's similar to my first viewing of The Exorcist. Certainly some scary visuals, but I felt the most dread when they simply showed Regan's bedroom closed door. They did that multiple times. Each time I felt, "just don't open the door!"
Quote from: SiL on Jan 21, 2019, 05:12:34 AM
A shark is a known quantity, they're still terrifying. The unknown that's scary is more where is it, when will it strike, how will it strike. Whether it's an ancient elder god or a robot's science experiment is secondary.
I don't agree entirely but yeah, the way you handle the creature is very important. The last prequel provides a good example of this, since
the Alien shows almost the same behavior as the Neomorph.
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Jan 21, 2019, 06:11:01 AM
Quote from: Necronomicon II on Jan 21, 2019, 06:01:51 AM
Penis monsters are beautiful, though. ;D
Lieutenant Eckhardt: "Where you been spending your nights?"
Why, Biomechanoid-
You ought to think about the future.
(https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/villains/images/a/a6/Young_Jack_Napier.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20170602053144)
QuoteWhen a big component of that fear of the unknown is not knowing what you might find out in the scary blackness of space, and that anyone might find crazy penis monsters capable of anything, it undercuts that horror when you learn that said penis monsters are only 20 years old at best and limited in scope to only the places a deranged robot has visited.
The scariest part is still it crawling around trying to eat your face.
Sharks are still scary even if you know you just need to stay out of the water.
Quote from: SiL on Jan 21, 2019, 08:31:08 AM
QuoteWhen a big component of that fear of the unknown is not knowing what you might find out in the scary blackness of space, and that anyone might find crazy penis monsters capable of anything, it undercuts that horror when you learn that said penis monsters are only 20 years old at best and limited in scope to only the places a deranged robot has visited.
The scariest part is still it crawling around trying to eat your face.
Sharks are still scary even if you know you just need to stay out of the water.
The shark gets less scary if you know with certainty that it isn't going to be present in 99.997% of the water you go into, though.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jan 21, 2019, 09:16:58 AM
The shark gets less scary if you know with certainty that it isn't going to be present in 99.997% of the water you go into, though.
The Alien was delegated to one ship on one planetoid for three movies and one ship in our solar system for another movie. That didn't affect two of them being scary and didn't make the other two not scary.
Besides which, no -- it not being in 99.97% of whatever doesn't make it any less scary when it's
coming right for you. It's not about how scary the
chances of randomly finding it are, it's about how scary it is if you
do find it.
If David made a shark more penis-y does that make it man-made? ;D
Quote from: SiL on Jan 21, 2019, 08:31:08 AM
QuoteWhen a big component of that fear of the unknown is not knowing what you might find out in the scary blackness of space, and that anyone might find crazy penis monsters capable of anything, it undercuts that horror when you learn that said penis monsters are only 20 years old at best and limited in scope to only the places a deranged robot has visited.
The scariest part is still it crawling around trying to eat your face.
Sharks are still scary even if you know you just need to stay out of the water.
I think the scariest part is the creepiness of the Alien, and here is where I find the skull inside the dome quite helpful: that subtle humanness present in the monster is successful in creating an uncanny valley effect. Is to be looking at the soul of a person being imprisoned inside this psycho-sexual nightmare. It almost looks like a science fiction metaphor about hell; with a fragment of human consciousness being tortured after death.
Also, the fear of unknown is still a better thing for horror movies in my opinion. The vagueness and ambiguity of a potential threat can trigger irrational fears. Why do you think some people are frightened by clowns or masked guys? because masks can hide a person's true emotions, so you can not know if that person is a threat or not. Some people find that scary. There is definitely an eerie feeling when you're facing a threat of mysterious nature.
You're not scared by not knowing what city the clown was born in, though. Not knowing their intent makes you anxious and afraid.
Same with the Alien. Exactly what planet it came from, where and when is utterly secondary -- if that -- to "it may or may not be in the room with me right now and try to murder me horribly."
We're not scared by the uncertainty of origin, we're scared by the uncertainty of its presence -- whether that's the uncertainty of whether it is present, or the uncertainty of what it will do while present.
Don't get me wrong, I'm fully on board the "I'd rather not have an answer" train -- but knowing the origin of the Alien doesn't make it more or less scary. What it does in a given circumstance, however, does.
That is why I've said "There is definitely an eerie feeling when you're facing a threat of mysterious nature." I'm not exclusively talking about origins, but about behaviour. I think someone said something
similar:
In Alien we're hearing that something horrible is happening to Lambert, but Scott never show us the full picture of what's going on.
What about scary clown penis?
Is clown penis ever not scary?
Quote from: Huggs on Jan 21, 2019, 11:12:22 PM
What about scary clown penis?
Pennywise meets Alien.
Quote from: Huggs on Jan 21, 2019, 11:12:22 PM
What about scary clown penis?
You mean President Trump's penis?
No... :'(
Quote from: Immortan Jonesy on Jan 21, 2019, 11:39:55 PM
So we are derailing threads again? Doesn't this make "The Recess Thread" kinda pointless? :P
I saw clown, and excessive amounts of dong. You can't blame me. But what will be the last of it here.
Quote from: SiL on Jan 21, 2019, 09:49:08 AM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jan 21, 2019, 09:16:58 AM
The shark gets less scary if you know with certainty that it isn't going to be present in 99.997% of the water you go into, though.
The Alien was delegated to one ship on one planetoid for three movies and one ship in our solar system for another movie. That didn't affect two of them being scary and didn't make the other two not scary.
Besides which, no -- it not being in 99.97% of whatever doesn't make it any less scary when it's coming right for you. It's not about how scary the chances of randomly finding it are, it's about how scary it is if you do find it.
We're talking about two different elements of the Alien being scary, and whether or not you'll encounter it at all is a pretty big component of 'Alien'. The movie isn't just trying to scare you with the Alien itself, it's also offering up the idea of "if some random space-truckers can stumble across a space monster, what else is lurking in the dark?"
Covenant answers that question by saying "there is nothing else lurking in the dark, all the horrors are man-made and very recent".
Like I said, the shark attack scenario is only scary if there's actually a chance of you being attacked by a shark.
Quoteit's also offering up the idea of "if some random space-truckers can stumble across a space monster, what else is lurking in the dark?"
Eh, not really. The truckers are specifically directed off-course to intercept a transmission of unknown origin. They don't just "stumble" on it, and they're specifically sent into the ass-end of nowhere off the beaten track to get to it.
The entire series revolved around there being all of one source of the Aliens, in one cargo hold on one dead ship on one dead planetoid in the middle of space. It was about finding the one nightmare remnant of an ancient, dead civilisation and awakening a slumbering horror. It wasn't about "This could happen again
at any moment!" The only time people had the same issue was when they went back to that same rock -- and when that source was destroyed, they had to clone the last known infected person.
In
Alien the universe is vast and cold and dead. Finding something is rare and unlucky. It's very much like what you're trying to argue
against -- 99.99% of space is perfectly empty. You can fly around space a lot and never meet an Alien. That doesn't make it less scary to actually meet one.
If anything it's the
prequels that made it more about "you could stumble over this shit any time."
Prometheus and
Covenant open up many more worlds for people to find Engineer remnants, along with their horrifying biological weapons.
Alien said "there are horrors on this one tiny, specific rock; let's hope there are no more." The prequels said "oh shit, there are more nightmares on more rocks -- just not necessarily the Alien."
Not to even mention their abundance in the EU, old and new.
Well we were talking films, soo...
As far as the EU is concerned the universe is lousy with Aliens like a mite infestation.
Quote from: SiL on Jan 22, 2019, 04:14:58 AM
The entire series revolved around there being all of one source of the Aliens, in one cargo hold on one dead ship on one dead planetoid in the middle of space. It was about finding the one nightmare remnant of an ancient, dead civilisation and awakening a slumbering horror. It wasn't about "This could happen again at any moment!" The only time people had the same issue was when they went back to that same rock -- and when that source was destroyed, they had to clone the last known infected person.
I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on that assessment. The narrative happens to follow that one location and one source of Aliens because it sticks to Ripley, but the implication is always there: who knows what you'll find out there? As you mentioned, the EU has Aliens all over the place, waiting to be stumbled upon.
Quote from: SiL on Jan 22, 2019, 04:14:58 AM
If anything it's the prequels that made it more about "you could stumble over this shit any time." Prometheus and Covenant open up many more worlds for people to find Engineer remnants, along with their horrifying biological weapons. Alien said "there are horrors on this one tiny, specific rock; let's hope there are no more." The prequels said "oh shit, there are more nightmares on more rocks -- just not necessarily the Alien."
I saw that as more of the prequels continuing the theme of 'Alien' ("space has scary things, who knows what you'll find?"), although it's worth pointing out that they didn't "stumble across" anything in 'Prometheus', either - they were directed there by specific directions they found via ancient cultures. It's not "there are spooky things on this one isolated location, let's hope there aren't more", it's "there are spooky things in space" followed by "like we said, there are spooky things in space".
Also that one rock wasn't tiny.
Spoiler
(https://media.giphy.com/media/YPIrsRqqO7oB2/giphy.gif)
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jan 22, 2019, 10:49:42 AM
I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on that assessment. The narrative happens to follow that one location and one source of Aliens, but the implication is always there: who knows what you'll find out there?
"Who knows what you find when corporate redirects you to specific locations", which is literally the plot of two consecutive films :P
QuoteI saw that as more of the prequels continuing the theme of 'Alien' ("space has scary things, who knows what you'll find?"), although it's worth pointing out that they didn't "stumble across" anything in 'Prometheus', either - they were directed there by specific directions they found via ancient cultures. It's not "there are spooky things on this one isolated location, let's hope there aren't more", it's "there are spooky things in space" followed by "like we said, there are spooky things in space".
Alien, and the subsequent films, shows that space is 99.999% empty. Nobody seems concerned about finding anything anywhere else because it apparently never happens.
That goes back to the point I made -- it's absolutely secondary (if that) where they're from and how many there are out there. Please note, I'm not saying
entirely irrelevant. Just not the main thing by any stretch. The scary part is what happens when you
do find them.
There are zero shark attacks on dry land. Most people swim in pools -- with no sharks. People who swim in waters with sharks are rarely attacked.
That doesn't make the attacks less scary, and it's those attacks which form the real fear of the films.
QuoteSpoiler
(https://media.giphy.com/media/YPIrsRqqO7oB2/giphy.gif)
Whether it's 1200km or 12,000km, it's a small celestial body.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jan 22, 2019, 10:49:42 AM
I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on that assessment.
The old saying 'we'll have to agree to disagree' originated from an ancient Macedonian king who was eventually beheaded by the opposing king he agreed to disagree with.......not that I'm suggesting Sil would ever lob off your head, it's just that, that trivia came to mind while reading your post.
Quote from: SiL on Jan 22, 2019, 04:14:58 AM
In Alien the universe is vast and cold and dead. Finding something is rare and unlucky. It's very much like what you're trying to argue against -- 99.99% of space is perfectly empty. You can fly around space a lot and never meet an Alien. That doesn't make it less scary to actually meet one.
If anything it's the prequels that made it more about "you could stumble over this shit any time."
Maybe off topic, but for some reason the first thing that came to mind was AVP :-X (EU & movies)
Quote from: SiL on Jan 22, 2019, 08:15:01 AM
Well we were talking films, soo...
As far as the EU is concerned the universe is lousy with Aliens like a mite infestation.
Hard to imagine how the ECA managed to overlook them all after surveying over 300 worlds.
Quote from: SiL on Jan 22, 2019, 10:57:32 AM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jan 22, 2019, 10:49:42 AM
I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on that assessment. The narrative happens to follow that one location and one source of Aliens, but the implication is always there: who knows what you'll find out there?
"Who knows what you find when corporate redirects you to specific locations", which is literally the plot of two consecutive films :P
I guess I got something different out of it than you did. Such is art. :)
Quote from: SiL on Jan 22, 2019, 10:57:32 AM
QuoteI saw that as more of the prequels continuing the theme of 'Alien' ("space has scary things, who knows what you'll find?"), although it's worth pointing out that they didn't "stumble across" anything in 'Prometheus', either - they were directed there by specific directions they found via ancient cultures. It's not "there are spooky things on this one isolated location, let's hope there aren't more", it's "there are spooky things in space" followed by "like we said, there are spooky things in space".
Alien, and the subsequent films, shows that space is 99.999% empty. Nobody seems concerned about finding anything anywhere else because it apparently never happens.
No, the subsequent films keep returning to the same location without exploring anywhere else, because the story revolves around a specific character. As you pointed out, the EU has had Aliens crop up in other locations (which is my point).
Quote from: SiL on Jan 22, 2019, 10:57:32 AM
That goes back to the point I made -- it's absolutely secondary (if that) where they're from and how many there are out there. Please note, I'm not saying entirely irrelevant. Just not the main thing by any stretch. The scary part is what happens when you do find them.
Again, I'll have to agree to disagree. I'm not saying the Alien attacks themselves aren't scary, but a major lovecraftian theme in 'Alien' is "the great unknown has shit in it that you'll wish you hadn't found", and 'Prometheus' continues that theme.
Quote from: SiL on Jan 22, 2019, 10:57:32 AM
QuoteSpoiler
(https://media.giphy.com/media/YPIrsRqqO7oB2/giphy.gif)
Whether it's 1200km or 12,000km, it's a small celestial body.
Is the Earth a "tiny rock"? ;)
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jan 23, 2019, 02:57:54 AM
As you pointed out, the EU has had Aliens crop up in other locations (which is my point).
My point is also we're discussing the films.
Quotea major lovecraftian theme in 'Alien' is "the great unknown has shit in it that you'll wish you hadn't found", and 'Prometheus' continues that theme.
Are you actually willing to argue that's what scares audience
the most, though?
QuoteIs the Earth a "tiny rock"? ;)
In a universe full of stars, gas giants, solar systems, galaxies -- yes.
The films: "300 surveyed worlds" -No "A creature that gestates inside a living human host." Ergo, no Pathogen, no Alien either.
Prometheus doesn't continue that theme, it directly contradicts it by connecting the Engineers to our ancestry.
To be fair LV-222 and Planet 4 weren't officially surveyed.
Can't help but wonder what became of Origae-6 then, assuming David actually stayed the course. If he did, one would think the company or the ECA would check in on them after a time.
I doubt he went to Origae-6.
Quote from: SiL on Jan 23, 2019, 03:12:51 AM
Quotea major lovecraftian theme in 'Alien' is "the great unknown has shit in it that you'll wish you hadn't found", and 'Prometheus' continues that theme.
Are you actually willing to argue that's what scares audience the most, though?
In the case of the movie itself? No, but I do think it's important to consider even if it's not the single scariest thing in the movie. Audiences can be scared of more than one thing. :P
Quote from: The Old One on Jan 23, 2019, 03:13:15 AM
Prometheus doesn't continue that theme, it directly contradicts it by connecting the Engineers to our ancestry.
The ancestry doesn't really matter - the movie is still saying, as 'Alien' did, that the big void of space sometimes has weird and scary shit in it, and if you go looking then you might not like what you find.
Quote from: The Old One on Jan 23, 2019, 03:23:20 AM
I doubt he went to Origae-6.
I'm not sure that changes Local Trouble's point - WY sent an expensive colonization mission to a specific planet and it apparently never arrived.
If they write it off, it kind of makes me wonder how often deep-space missions go awry in the Alien universe. Granted space is goddamn colossal so it's a lot harder to investigate missing ships without expending astronomical resources for potentially little payoff. I suppose it wouldn't be much different from being "lost at sea" in the days before large-scale search and rescue was feasible.
Yes, I think they'd have no other choice but to write it off- considering how many years it's going to take them to get there, or was going to take. Searching would be a rather futile effort.
This makes me wonder, out of curiosity- when did the Covenant mission launch?
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jan 23, 2019, 03:31:51 AM
In the case of the movie itself? No, but I do think it's important to consider even if it's not the single scariest thing in the movie. Audiences can be scared of more than one thing. :P
OK, so let's rank the things that are scary.
1. Alien attacking people.
2. Lovecraftian horror.
Oh look! The Lovecraftian horror is in second place! Almost like it's ... secondary! ;D
Quote from: The Old One on Jan 23, 2019, 03:37:02 AM
Yes, I think they'd have no other choice but to write it off- considering how many years it's going to take them to get there, or was going to take. Searching would be a rather futile effort.
This makes me wonder, out of curiosity- when did the Covenant mission launch?
SM's timeline pegs it at early January, 2104. I'm not sure what his source is, though.
Quote from: SiL on Jan 23, 2019, 03:44:09 AM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jan 23, 2019, 03:31:51 AM
In the case of the movie itself? No, but I do think it's important to consider even if it's not the single scariest thing in the movie. Audiences can be scared of more than one thing. :P
OK, so let's rank the things that are scary.
1. Alien attacking people.
2. Lovecraftian horror.
Oh look! The Lovecraftian horror is in second place! Almost like it's ... secondary! ;D
That doesn't really change my point that it's important to consider though. :P
My point was only ever that it's not as important.
Fair enough. :)
I was just curious if perhaps David was aware of the ship's existence/mission before the events of Alien Covenant.
Quote from: The Old One on Jan 23, 2019, 03:37:02 AMYes, I think they'd have no other choice but to write it off- considering how many years it's going to take them to get there, or was going to take. Searching would be a rather futile effort.
Not forever though. Remember, a trip that would have taken the Nostromo ten months only took three weeks for the Sulaco. By the time of Aliens, I'd be surprised if they never sent a follow-up mission to Origae-6 if only because it was supposed to be a promising colony world.
Let's rank things that are sexy:
1. David's steel buns
2. David's, er, steel buns. ;D
Quote from: The Old One on Jan 23, 2019, 04:02:58 AM
I was just curious if perhaps David was aware of the ship's existence/mission before the events of Alien Covenant.
No.
What makes you so sure?
He was Peter Weyland's personal aid for all intents and purposes, for a long time-
You don't think he'd be at least aware of the plans to build a ship the scale of the Covenant?
Perhaps he might even be aware of it's route?
The Prometheus was Weyland. The Covenant was W-Y. Entirely possible he had no idea about anything to do with it.
I know, but ten years is a short time to build and prepare for a mission like that, don't you think?
In sci-fi, no.
I mean, the ship might have been built before. But planning and launching the mission, not so much.
Fair enough.
Sketching out the rough idea for the mission, getting all the paperwork and permissions for a mission like that, scouting for a suitable planet, investigating fitting ones for permanent habitability, putting together the crew and colonists to be and building a specialized ship for that mission and planing the whole thing in detail might be ten years in the making, even in sci-fi world IMO.
Or it might be less.
It's sci-fi. Regular time considerations need not apply.
Quote from: The Old One on Jan 23, 2019, 07:58:56 AM
What makes you so sure?
No certainty behind that 'no.' A shot in the dark. Just a hunch going by how David reacts to everything xeno related.
Though I do realize one could still display a sense of awe of a discovery he/she/it knew was coming around the corner......hence, that would be the uncertainty part of my 'no.'
Another factor, David was introduced to us as very obedient.....until it was revealed they were on an alien treasure hunt. Soon after, he became a more ruthless David, happily pursuing his . . . "agenda."
Quote from: SiL on Jan 23, 2019, 08:36:48 AM
The Prometheus was Weyland. The Covenant was W-Y. Entirely possible he had no idea about anything to do with it.
Didn't David know override codes that worked on the Covenant at the end of the movie?
I'm not saying he knew about the Covenant or its mission specifically, but I guess he was aware of verbal back-door access to Weyland ships and equipment, implying that the Covenant features equipment he was familiar with.
I mean, unless his override was a lucky guess that happened to pay off. :P
They're not going to take 10 years to recruit the crew for the Covenant.
I reckon they built the ship for a deep space colonisation mission, but spent 10 years finding a suitable destination.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jan 23, 2019, 11:26:35 AM
Didn't David know override codes that worked on the Covenant at the end of the movie?
He did! But that might be the MUTHR interface in particular, not the ship.
Quote from: SM on Jan 23, 2019, 12:11:35 PM
They're not going to take 10 years to recruit the crew for the Covenant.
I reckon they built the ship for a deep space colonisation mission, but spent 10 years finding a suitable destination.
That's what I'm getting at. The ship herself might predate the launch of the
Prometheus, but the mission, not so much. So David might know of MUTHR protocols, but not necessarily the mission.
Quote from: SiL on Jan 23, 2019, 12:15:18 PM
Quote from: SM on Jan 23, 2019, 12:11:35 PM
They're not going to take 10 years to recruit the crew for the Covenant.
I reckon they built the ship for a deep space colonisation mission, but spent 10 years finding a suitable destination.
That's what I'm getting at. The ship herself might predate the launch of the Prometheus, but the mission, not so much. So David might know of MUTHR protocols, but not necessarily the mission.
I think the other way round makes more sense. Plan an expedition and then build a ship that suits that expedition's needs.
It is in no way unrealistic that an highstake mission like that, with not much room for mistakes, would take more than 10 years to plan and organize.
I don't even think the ship predates Prometheus. In an age of FTL travel, advanced AI, and terraforming - building a modular spaceship would be a doddle. Take way less than 10 years.
Thought you typed doodle. ;D
Quote from: The Kurgan on Jan 23, 2019, 12:25:42 PM
I think the other way round makes more sense. Plan an expedition and then build a ship that suits that expedition's needs.
It is in no way unrealistic that an highstake mission like that, with not much room for mistakes, would take more than 10 years to plan and organize.
I'm not saying it's unrealistic.
I'm saying it's sci-fi.
The Prometheus does display imperfect artificial gravity though, the Covenant doesn't.
Therefore I'd say the Prometheus' vessel itself is at least older than the Covenant vessel.
Quote from: SM on Jan 23, 2019, 12:26:13 PM
I don't even think the ship predates Prometheus. In an age of FTL travel, advanced AI, and terraforming - building a modular spaceship would be a doddle. Take way less than 10 years.
The physical ship might be new, but David being able to commandeer the ship's functions tells us that the computer systems are at least as old as the Prometheus, or at least use a lot of legacy code and/or backdoor access dating back to the Prometheus.
I go along with those who say it will take less than ten years. Not unrealistic all of the factors The Kurgan mentions, could be accomplished in much less than ten years. Once remote space travel became a part of mankind, quite possible top priorities were set.
Technology and manpower are thrown at projects in mass quantity. Red tape expedited. A massive industry the likes we've never seen. Possibly make America's behemoth industry machine in the forties producing ships/planes/artillery at record speed, look like a mom and pop street corner business.
It is impossible.
All you need is alittle energon, and a lot of luck.
It is impossible! >:(
*umpossible
(https://i.imgur.com/AqkpF1E.png)
I love Kimpossible. ;D
Quote from: Local Trouble on Jan 24, 2019, 01:49:50 AM
It is impossible.
"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
Subject says impossible, I'mma say impossible.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Jan 24, 2019, 04:26:22 AM
Subject says impossible, I'mma say impossible.
"The truth is not the truth."
Inconceivable!
Quote from: Necronomicon II on Jan 23, 2019, 04:54:41 AM
Let's rank things that are sexy:
1. David's steel buns
2. David's, er, steel buns. ;D
I think you need to swap your 1 and 2. Everyone knows Er Steel Buns are sexier than plain Steel Buns.
Bring me these, er, steel buns, voodoo.
(https://i.makeagif.com/media/2-13-2018/oOby7Q.gif)
(https://media1.tenor.com/images/72804e10156d86670ad50c7ee76c033a/tenor.gif?itemid=7893628)
Those aren't steel, they're Samsonite.
Bum. Yeehaa!
Lol. Lloyd.
"Bum" is gonna be the next "suction."
Until they join forces and become "bum suction".
C'monnnnnn asshugger. ;D
Quote from: Necronomicon II on Jan 28, 2019, 01:50:19 AM
C'monnnnnn asshugger. ;D
(https://media2.giphy.com/media/WuxTkRNbU3Rmg/giphy.gif?cid=4bf119fc5c4e7c5872474f78636be7e3)
(https://y.yarn.co/680a5a1a-259f-4c0d-8cff-04a82cba7959_text_hi.gif)
It's that d*mn Quagmire again!
Aw, shit, what've I done?
Too early in the morning to deal with you guys, and yet I like you. Some if you.
SOME?!?
(https://gifer.com/i/3Ztj.gif)
Huggs and Verm. Because they put up with me in the Rec thread.
Come-on folk, back on topic.
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Jan 28, 2019, 12:31:08 PM
Come-on folk, back on topic.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190128/ab524743f55ead25e024da7baf44ab6b.gif)
Affirmative
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Jan 24, 2019, 01:41:35 AM
I go along with those who say it will take less than ten years. Not unrealistic all of the factors The Kurgan mentions, could be accomplished in much less than ten years. Once remote space travel became a part of mankind, quite possible top priorities were set.
Technology and manpower are thrown at projects in mass quantity. Red tape expedited. A massive industry the likes we've never seen. Possibly make America's behemoth industry machine in the forties producing ships/planes/artillery at record speed, look like a mom and pop street corner business.
Yeah/
Back on Topic.
Back on topic...
Engineer found goo
Engineer create egg
Egg became Xeno
Engineer create Man
Man create Android
Android destroy Engineer
Android create egg
Egg became Xeno
Xeno destroy Man
Woman inherits the Earth?
Well, let's see....right now I'm thinking how my married buddy's head automatically starts nodding yes just at the sound of his wife's voice...............so I would say women have pretty much already snagged the Earth.
Quote from: The Old One on Feb 01, 2019, 07:33:10 AM
Woman inherits the Earth?
Now that's, that's chaos theory.
"Android destroy Engineer"
Are we expected to be believe the engineer wannabes on Covenant were all of them? That felt like some random colony planet.
Who destroys the android?
Yah they aren't all dead. Ships come and go at regular intervals. They're going to be mighty pissed. :laugh:
Quote from: Samhain13 on Feb 01, 2019, 11:18:28 AM
Are we expected to be believe the engineer wannabes on Covenant were all of them? That felt like some random colony planet.
Yep, one little city on one planet. Typical.
Quote from: Samhain13 on Feb 01, 2019, 11:18:28 AM
"Android destroy Engineer."
Are we expected to be believe the engineer wannabes on Covenant were all of them? That felt like some random colony planet.
It should be perceived in the same frame as Dr. Malcom's quote, "Man destroy God." Not to be taken literally, more to be taken for its relevance to the good doctor's message.
Venturing towards literal definition is missing the impact of his message since for some people, God is still alive and well. For some people, Man did destroy God. Similarly, Android did destroy some Engineers, some possibly still alive and well.
I suppose Malcom could have quoted that more detailed point, but then that is defeating his minimalist theme. But I have a hunch you already knew all of that. . . ;)
"Nothing is impossible; there are ways that lead to everything, and if we had sufficient will, we should always have sufficient means. It is often merely for an excuse that we say things are impossible."
Quote from: The Old One on Feb 01, 2019, 07:33:10 AM
Woman inherits the Earth?
Facehugger gets woman. Mortally wounded man laughs, then dies. ;D
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Feb 02, 2019, 03:32:46 AM
"Nothing is impossible; there are ways that lead to everything, and if we had sufficient will, we should always have sufficient means. It is often merely for an excuse that we say things are impossible."
Does that include redemption for Randy?
Yes, Randy, and also redemption for Bodean, Obediah, Cletus, Daisy, Jethro, Eustice, Floyd, Huck, Otis, Maynard, Pervis, Roscoe, Tiberius, and Wilbur.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 02, 2019, 04:37:46 AM
Quote from: Biomechanoid on Feb 02, 2019, 03:32:46 AM
"Nothing is impossible; there are ways that lead to everything, and if we had sufficient will, we should always have sufficient means. It is often merely for an excuse that we say things are impossible."
Does that include redemption for Randy?
If he drives to everybody's house and refunds their A:CM money, apologizes profusely to us all, admits his filthy sins on national television, leaves the gaming industry and serves a rather lengthy prison sentence for fraud and whatever else it may turn out he's guilty of. Then, if released, he goes and lives on some little known island far away from everyone he royally screwed over, climbs to the top of the volcano everyday just to slap himself as punishment, and lives in a coconut, it's....no it's still not possible.
What if he releases a remastered edition of ACM that meets or exceeds the quality of the demo and then gives it away to everyone who bought the original version?
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 02, 2019, 09:00:08 PM
What if he releases a remastered edition of ACM that meets or exceeds the quality of the demo and then gives it away to everyone who bought the original version?
Rabbits will fly.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 02, 2019, 09:00:08 PM
What if he releases a remastered edition of ACM that meets or exceeds the quality of the demo and then gives it away to everyone who bought the original version?
So what you're saying is Randy is TemplarGFX?
That's an insult to TemplarGFX if so.
The evidence is overwhelming.
Hey if Randy did all that stuff then yeah I'd forgive him.
If he just took credit for TemplarGFX's work and said "hay guyz the game is fixed, we're cool now right??" then that's kind of a different matter. :P
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 02, 2019, 09:16:50 PM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 02, 2019, 09:00:08 PM
What if he releases a remastered edition of ACM that meets or exceeds the quality of the demo and then gives it away to everyone who bought the original version?
So what you're saying is Randy is TemplarGFX?
Beat me to it.