AVPR- LIGHTING

[SiL]

He did.

Let's remove the titles?

[FILM FRANCHISE] explicitly suggests that if X, then Y. This colours the internal logic of most of [FILM FRANCHISE], and is never really in doubt.

[CROSSOVER FRANCHISE] shows X happening repeatedly, without Y ever happening at all.

[TurokSwe]

Yup.

Oh how do you mean?

Well on one side we have Sil who calmly suffers fools and bad actors, and the other side is a embodiment of the Dunning-Kruger Effect

Feel free to elaborate or this can just be disregarded as yet another of your regular misrepresentations of the other person. I feel I'm calmly suffering fools and bad actors enough as it is.

My point was to highlight that your logic didn't make any sense. Why is a civilization-wide infestation "not too bad"? I reckon that would already be too bad, and a global infestation would only be worse,

Thank you for agreeing that a global infestation would be worse than what AvP shows and agreeing with my point that AvP undermines the threat mentioned in the original movies by showing that doomsday scenario not occurring.

It took a while, but it's nice to see we're on the same page finally.

Well that's not juvenile at all. Why would I not agree that a global infestation is worse than what AVP shows? That's just silly. I also never agreed with your argument that AVP supposedly "undermines the threat as presented in the original films" and you have yet to explain how that could be true and how this idea of yours makes any sense. How does AVP not showing a global doomsday scenario supposedly undermine the threat of a Xenomorph infestation as presented in the original films? It doesn't undermine the threat the slightest bit, but if anything it highlights what a great threat it is, and much better and more clearly than any of the previous films did.

Let's remove the titles?

[FILM FRANCHISE] explicitly suggests that if X, then Y. This colours the internal logic of most of [FILM FRANCHISE], and is never really in doubt.

[CROSSOVER FRANCHISE] shows X happening repeatedly, without Y ever happening at all.

The problem here is that what the one person suggests that Y represents is not actually what Y represents in the films. In other words, a Xenomorph reaching Earth COULD result in anything from the Xenomorph being killed off to a global infestation. The logic of the first four films is NOT (as Sil suggests) that a Xenomorph reaching Earth will inevitably lead to a global infestation (which would already be refuted by how the previous infestations featured in the previous four films were handled), but the logic is that Xenomorphs are incredibly dangerous and a Xenomorph reaching Earth COULD lead to anything from it being killed off to a global infestation, and NOT exclusively a global infestation. His viewpoint is fundamentally flawed and unreasonable.

Let's remove the titles?

[FILM FRANCHISE] explicitly suggests that if X, then Y. This colours the internal logic of most of [FILM FRANCHISE], and is never really in doubt.

[CROSSOVER FRANCHISE] shows X happening repeatedly, without Y ever happening at all.

This is the way

No, it's not, as already explained, yet it keeps going over your head.

He did.

Let's remove the titles?

[FILM FRANCHISE] explicitly suggests that if X, then Y. This colours the internal logic of most of [FILM FRANCHISE], and is never really in doubt.

[CROSSOVER FRANCHISE] shows X happening repeatedly, without Y ever happening at all.

He never did. Neither did you for that matter!

By the way, I would like to note that we went way off topic here. Perhaps we shall return to the issue of the lighting in AVPR.

[426Buddy]

Its like speaking to a wall.

[[cancerblack]]

No, it's not, as already explained, yet it keeps going over your head.

Nobody in this thread is having a hard time understanding your argument.

Several of them feel it's a weak one, made of post-hoc justifications and fairy dust.

[TurokSwe]

Its like speaking to a wall.

I definitely agree, although you haven't really spoken much at all to be perfectly honest, with exception to slight personal attacks (and I'm guessing it's because you don't have a good and valid argument to propose).

No, it's not, as already explained, yet it keeps going over your head.

Nobody in this thread is having a hard time understanding your argument.

Several of them feel it's a weak one, made of post-hoc justifications and fairy dust.

How is it "weak"? Especially in comparison to the considerably weaker and unreasonable argument proposed by Sil? It was a fundamentally flawed argument which he barely bothered to support outside of basically repeating himself and hoping for a different outcome. I mean if you can't even properly explain yourself and address my counterarguments then how do you expect me to turn over and agree with you?

[SiL]

You agree that the AvP films show that Aliens on earth doesn't necessarily lead to the global apocalypse warned about in the original films, thus undermining Ripley's concerns.

That's the entire argument and always has been. You are the only one struggling with this.

[TurokSwe]

You agree that the AvP films show that Aliens on earth doesn't necessarily lead to the global apocalypse warned about in the original films, thus undermining Ripley's concerns.

That's the entire argument and always has been. You are the only one struggling with this.

No. First off, Ripley's concerns were never exclusively focused on a global infestation, but were very general concerns about Xenomorph infestations occurring at all, especially on her homeworld. Second, even if her personal concerns had been specifically directed at a global infestation, that doesn't really matter because any degree of a Xenomorph infestation is naturally terrible and should be avoided. Third, had the eradication of Xenomorph infestations on Earth as depicted in AVP actually "undermined" any such concerns then certainly Ripley's own continual eradication of Xenomorph infestations throughout four films would already have done the job of undermining those concerns (and much more than AVP, seeing as AVP actually reached much closer to a global Earth infestation than any of the infestations in the previous four films did, as all the Xenomorphs in the previous films were "contained" and relatively easily eradicated). I'm definitely not the one struggling here. You're doing a very poor job at supporting your position.

[Xenomrph]

You agree that the AvP films show that Aliens on earth doesn't necessarily lead to the global apocalypse warned about in the original films, thus undermining Ripley's concerns.

That's the entire argument and always has been. You are the only one struggling with this.

I think you guys are sort of talking past each other.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're saying that Ripley is claiming that an Alien getting to Earth is a doomsday scenario. That's true, she literally says it (and Call says it too in Resurrection).

If I'm understanding him correctly, I think turokswe is saying that Ripley was mistaken. That isn't to say that Aliens are "easily contained" (committing suicide by nuke is pretty extreme), but it also doesn't mean that an Alien threat is absolutely unstoppable - if that were true, every Alien movie would end with everyone dead and the Alien(s) doing whatever they want.

THAT SAID, the first AvP movie "works" because it takes place in an isolated environment just as the Alien movies do (on spaceships, or in isolated colonies), and you could make the case that the other Predators on the cloaked Predator ship were a contingency plan to contain any Alien stragglers if Scar's nuke didn't kill them all. Predators, with their experience, resilience, and technology, are an Alien-stopping variable Ripley wouldn't consider.
Just like how in 'Alien' the Alien is an unstoppable killing machine, but in 'Aliens' you can put one down with basic firearms like a pistol or a shotgun. Shooting the Alien wasn't an option in the first movie, but that doesn't mean the Alien is literally invincible.

The scenario in AvPR is a bit of a harder sell because it presupposes that not a single Alien bails on Gunnison at any point in the movie and that they all hung out in nuke range. Yeah sure you can argue in favor of them doing it, but Aliens are clever and unpredictable and don't all follow in a single direction. A small town isn't an inherently isolated environment like antarctica, or a spaceship.

Do the AvP movies undermine the "spirit" of the Alien movies by full-on putting the Aliens on Earth at all? I think that's a different argument and I guess it depends on one's level of tolerance. Like, I've seen people dislike 'Aliens' because they felt that being able to kill an Alien at all, let alone with something as basic and conventional as firearms, undermined the "spirit" of 'Alien' even if the Aliens were still an overwhelming threat.

[SiL]

I've been clear from the start the AvP saying she's wrong undermines the threat that the series poses in the original films, and that is all.

Turokswe keeps going off on strange, irrelevant tangents to try to say I'm wrong while simultaneously agreeing with me.

[Xenomrph]

Okay yeah that's pretty much what I thought

[Gr33n M4n]

TurokSwe speaks the truth. I proudly stand with him.

[[cancerblack]]

TurokSwe speaks the truth. I proudly stand with him.

...

This thread is f**king painful.

I take it back, this is my new favourite thread.

[SM]

Feel free to elaborate or this can just be disregarded as yet another of your regular misrepresentations of the other person.

I don't think it's a misrepresentation to say that you've written thousands of words on your website calling effectively others - who have worked in the franchise in an official capacity - liars.

You - and correct me if I am wrong - have not, so your knowledge about such things is low and while you believe it is high.  Ergo - Dunning-Kruger.  Elaborate enough?

[Xenomrph]

Here we go

[Kradan]

He's saying that the premise of the Alien movies is that they cannot be contained and letting even one of them get to earth would be a doomsday scenario.

Which I always found a bit unplausible