It is Impossible

[The Old One]

Bang on Paranoid Android.

[Biomechanoid]

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.......

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.

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?

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.

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.

[Xenomrph]

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.

And 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.

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.

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.

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.

[Biomechanoid]

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.

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

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.

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.

..........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.

[The Cruentus]

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.

[Biomechanoid]

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?

[Paranoid Android]

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.

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.

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.

[The Cruentus]

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.

[Biomechanoid]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Necronomicon II]

The damn thing is too damn penis-y to be completely unknowable. 

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.

[Xenomrph]

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.

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.

..........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.

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').

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".

[Huggs]

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.

[Biomechanoid]

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.

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.

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.

[Xenomrph]

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'.

[Voodoo Magic]

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.