Hello
I would like to ask the avp masses a question to see where we all are on the the subject of david as the creator of the xeno/alien.
Do people like the idea of him as the daddy of the beast or was ridley and fox wrong to go in that direction?
All views welcome
Thanks
It's better than it being a natural creature.
I think a lot of fans in general dislike the idea. I would have prefered their origin to be left as a mysterious part of the Engineers ancient past. However I have warmed to the idea a bit over time.
I kind of agree with you, I think fox and scott removed the alien from the xeno making it less mysterious, same thing with the jockey too.
Respect all views on the subject, I seem to have this ongoing debate with my friends and it seems the fan Base is very devided over it.
Thanks for your comments fellas
It's worse than the Strause Brothers' idea of having a avp3 movie on the aliens homeplanet with dinossaur sized aliens fighting predators.
Well both in the movie although cryptic and hidden, and in the script and novel David just tried recreating the xenomorph from the info he got from the space engineers, and now I cant remember if he even found an egg he based a lot of his research on. Which explains why his xeno grew up faster and skipped the chestburster stage, and also why its way more stupid and more aggressive than the xeno we see in the original movies. Attacking the crane by jumping at it.......
And also remember in prometheus they had on the murals the xeno shown, and also the derelight ship has long time ago crashed on lv-426 at this time unless Ridley rewrite that part in the next movie, which would go against what Giger and Dan O banon and others confirmed when making alien and the space jockey is fossilised, dont get me started on you cans ee teeth and its tounge and eye etc and not a suit.
So to me David isnt the creator, just trying to recreate the creature and make it better and use it for his own gains and experiments. Those proto morphs and deacon etc I gladly let him take credit for however.
Quote from: judge death on Jun 25, 2018, 06:37:24 PM
Well both in the movie although cryptic and hidden, and in the script and novel David just tried recreating the xenomorph from the info he got from the space engineers, and now I cant remember if he even found an egg he based a lot of his research on. Which explains why his xeno grew up faster and skipped the chestburster stage, and also why its way more stupid and more aggressive than the xeno we see in the original movies. Attacking the crane by jumping at it.......
And also remember in prometheus they had on the murals the xeno shown, and also the derelight ship has long time ago crashed on lv-426 at this time unless Ridley rewrite that part in the next movie, which would go against what Giger and Dan O banon and others confirmed when making alien and the space jockey is fossilised, dont get me started on you cans ee teeth and its tounge and eye etc and not a suit.
So to me David isnt the creator, just trying to recreate the creature and make it better and use it for his own gains and experiments. Those proto morphs and deacon etc I gladly let him take credit for however.
Can't really comment on the script or novel as I have not read them, I get what you are saying but it does feel like they are excuses that the writers came up with after just to get around the hole idea of david being daddy it may have been in a early script but not the finished product, plus Scott confirmed in a covenant interview that david is now the creator? I loved the original jockey concept too, gigers work on movie was amazing, fossilised and been there for many years, and I can't see how Scott would turn this around to be honest, too many lose ends so to speak
Thanks for your input
Much appreciated
It's difficult for me to accept because I'm so married to the long standing idea that the Alien is some ancient horror. I'd always liked the ideas that the Space Jockeys had engineered them and when the Jockey's became the Engineers, I still thought that it could work with the Engineers creating the Alien.
Scott definitely intends that David be the creator of the Alien but I think there's wiggle room within the film for it to go down the route that Alan Dean Foster did in the novelization and have David simply re-creating or refining existing work the Engineers had done on cultivating Alien-like creatures.
I straight up want the alien to be an Alien from another galaxy. Entirely different from us, a completely different evolutionary path, if not a cosmic entity that became so perfect that it was somehow able to adapt itself to human dna. Something assumed to be impossible. A survivor as Ash put it, all those years ago. The Space Jockey should also be from that same other galaxy and it's relationship could be nothing more than space trucker. Of course for this to be, both David and the Engineers would have to be demoted to nothing more than bootleggers of alien dna. Nothing would please me more than for David to be outed as creating nothing more than high quality bootlegs but none the less merely bootlegs of the original creature. Kane's son doesn't have to come from David's experiments. The derelict should be confirmed as being ancient, millions of years old.
But hey that's just me. Truth be told I can sort of live with David creating the damn thing but to be honest, the one thing that is sacrosanct to me is that humans can't be the creator of the Alien. David being the creation of a human really tugs too close to that idea. However a child destroying his parents may be the faith of the human race.
The truth is though that David is farther from humanity, from other life as we know it than the Engineers. The Pathogen was also said to be primordial in advent I believe.
Definitely dislike the fact that David created them. And while a presumption, the majority probably shares that sentiment.
I preferred them as being an old species that is actually truly Alien, rather than an artificial creation of something created by mankind. It has made the universe smaller as well and the Alien less than what it was.
I used to prefer them as creations of the space jockeys but after consideration, I now would prefer that they were a natural species that was at least modified by the engineers.
Nature can create a lot of horrific species. I mean the Alien itself is based upon real life insects and parasites. There is a lot of monsters out there that are completely natural.
I always felt that the alien was designed to perfectly for a human to be truly alien. I liked the idea of engineers created them for use as part of a whole aresenal of bio-weapons for their wars.
Quote from: The Cruentus on Jun 26, 2018, 01:37:04 PM
Definitely dislike the fact that David created them. And while a presumption, the majority probably shares that sentiment.
I preferred them as being an old species that is actually truly Alien, rather than an artificial creation of something created by mankind. It has made the universe smaller as well and the Alien less than what it was.
I used to prefer them as creations of the space jockeys but after consideration, I now would prefer that they were a natural species that was at least modified by the engineers.
Nature can create a lot of horrific species. I mean the Alien itself is based upon real life insects and parasites. There is a lot of monsters out there that are completely natural.
I agree with you. The idea that the alien evolved independent of any "higher power" meddling is chilling. How frightening that a creature so destructive and resilient could be alive today, in some far off planet. Under what harsh conditions did it have to evolve under, in order for it to survive. I think it expands the mystery of the alien and begs more questions.
I'm also fine with the engineers having created them as a tool to quell insurrection or war. I just can't get on board with the David thing - I think Hicks said it perfectly in his post above :-\
Quote from: judge death on Jun 25, 2018, 06:37:24 PM
Well both in the movie although cryptic and hidden, and in the script and novel David just tried recreating the xenomorph from the info he got from the space engineers, and now I cant remember if he even found an egg he based a lot of his research on. Which explains why his xeno grew up faster and skipped the chestburster stage, and also why its way more stupid and more aggressive than the xeno we see in the original movies. Attacking the crane by jumping at it.......
And also remember in prometheus they had on the murals the xeno shown, and also the derelight ship has long time ago crashed on lv-426 at this time unless Ridley rewrite that part in the next movie, which would go against what Giger and Dan O banon and others confirmed when making alien and the space jockey is fossilised, dont get me started on you cans ee teeth and its tounge and eye etc and not a suit.
So to me David isnt the creator, just trying to recreate the creature and make it better and use it for his own gains and experiments. Those proto morphs and deacon etc I gladly let him take credit for however.
Pretty much this.
The movie isn't cryptic. David explains how he went about it. He basically found an infected space wasp and f**ked around until he got an Alien.
The scripts never said David was remaking anything. ADF confirmed he was the one who added it into the novel even though it wasn't in the script.
Yep.
Originally I didn't like the idea, but I have made my peace with it. With everything I have studied of his "research" everything points to him recreating something, the engineers had previously discovered.
But the new David's Drawings book is an in universe diary which may shed some more light on how exactly he did it.
You can make an argument it's a variation of the Deacon or Neomorph.
Quote from: SM on Jun 29, 2018, 10:41:21 AM
You can make an argument it's a variation of the Deacon or Neomorph.
It's the age-old Genetically Modified argument isn't it though. You have a look at the apple that used to grow in the wild, created and evolved naturally and it's not very good. Over many years of genetic crossbreeding and such, you get this enormous sweet crunchy apple which is much better than the original. That's the way I see it now anyway.
Quote from: SiL on Jun 29, 2018, 09:47:30 AM
The scripts never said David was remaking anything. ADF confirmed he was the one who added it into the novel even though it wasn't in the script.
And we shall forever thank him for that damage control.
Quote from: muthur9000 on Jun 29, 2018, 10:56:09 AM
Quote from: SM on Jun 29, 2018, 10:41:21 AM
You can make an argument it's a variation of the Deacon or Neomorph.
It's the age-old Genetically Modified argument isn't it though. You have a look at the apple that used to grow in the wild, created and evolved naturally and it's not very good. Over many years of genetic crossbreeding and such, you get this enormous sweet crunchy apple which is much better than the original. That's the way I see it now anyway.
Makes me wonder if there's a "true" Alien, as such. The accelerant seems to create creatures that follow the same basic morphology. I wonder if there's an original.
I've only recently started reading the Alien Covenant novel..to my eternal shame as a friend gave it to me for Xmas..
Watched the film only once..Prometheus twice, but i'm still really struggling with the concept of David creating the Xenomorph..
I think Dropship put it best:
'I loved the original jockey concept too, Gigers work on movie was amazing, fossilised and been there for many years, and I can't see how Scott would turn this around to be honest, too many lose ends so to speak'
It's just not sitting right with me at all, even after watching numerous YT videos explaining origins of the black goo..withdrawn script etc.
I'm currently of the mindset the 2 prequel movies so far, hadn't been attempted, as they've left me with far more questions than answers...
Quote from: muthur9000 on Jun 29, 2018, 10:56:09 AM
Quote from: SM on Jun 29, 2018, 10:41:21 AM
You can make an argument it's a variation of the Deacon or Neomorph.
It's the age-old Genetically Modified argument isn't it though. You have a look at the apple that used to grow in the wild, created and evolved naturally and it's not very good. Over many years of genetic crossbreeding and such, you get this enormous sweet crunchy apple which is much better than the original. That's the way I see it now anyway.
Something like this?
(https://i.imgur.com/J63uwYn.jpg)
+ (https://i.imgur.com/BjFmQ3f.jpg)
= (https://i.imgur.com/qM9q8sD.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/xRyGB7E.jpg)
+ (https://i.imgur.com/5iQpml7.jpg)
= (https://i.imgur.com/xwJdUI9.jpg)
Quote from: SM on Jun 29, 2018, 10:41:21 AM
You can make an argument it's a variation of the Deacon or Neomorph.
At first, I was thinking that the Neomorph was another variant of the Deacon. However on the other hand, and although in real life evolution is not a linear process, the Neomorph seems like a missing link between the Deacon and the Xenomorph.
QuoteMakes me wonder if there's a "true" Alien, as such. The accelerant seems to create creatures that follow the same basic morphology. I wonder if there's an original.
If there is a "true Alien" (or a pure Alien, so to speak), it's probably not the xenomorph. The murals in LV-223 are the only references of these creatures since the Deacon was created through a random and convoluted chain of events.
(https://i.imgur.com/N5PjRmx.jpg)
Convoluted perhaps; why random?
Quote from: SiL on Jun 29, 2018, 09:47:30 AM
The movie isn't cryptic. David explains how he went about it. He basically found an infected space wasp and f**ked around until he got an Alien.
The scripts never said David was remaking anything. ADF confirmed he was the one who added it into the novel even though it wasn't in the script.
Just because he created something doesn't mean he was the sole, original creator. Also, sure David says how he did it, but he's also an unreliable source of information.
David gets the author of the Ozymandias quote wrong - that detail wasn't put in the movie by accident.
I admire ADF for trying to unf**k this.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jun 30, 2018, 10:49:14 AM
Quote from: SiL on Jun 29, 2018, 09:47:30 AM
The movie isn't cryptic. David explains how he went about it. He basically found an infected space wasp and f**ked around until he got an Alien.
The scripts never said David was remaking anything. ADF confirmed he was the one who added it into the novel even though it wasn't in the script.
Just because he created something doesn't mean he was the sole, original creator. Also, sure David says how he did it, but he's also an unreliable source of information.
David gets the author of the Ozymandias quote wrong - that detail wasn't put in the movie by accident.
Because Scott confimed that he created them. I notice fans are trying to get around it by saying that the because the Engineers created the goo and has that mural thing that it means they still created them but unfortunatly that is not the case, them creating the goo doesn't mean they created the aliens, and that mural seems to be sadly contradicted by both David and Scott. Trust me, I wish it wasn't the case, I really dislike that David created them but its now canon unless at some point after prequel finale there is a reboot on the origins.
Quote from: SM on Jun 30, 2018, 09:53:42 AM
Convoluted perhaps; why random?
Sorry, wrong word :-X
Quote from: The Cruentus on Jun 30, 2018, 02:52:37 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jun 30, 2018, 10:49:14 AM
Quote from: SiL on Jun 29, 2018, 09:47:30 AM
The movie isn't cryptic. David explains how he went about it. He basically found an infected space wasp and f**ked around until he got an Alien.
The scripts never said David was remaking anything. ADF confirmed he was the one who added it into the novel even though it wasn't in the script.
Just because he created something doesn't mean he was the sole, original creator. Also, sure David says how he did it, but he's also an unreliable source of information.
David gets the author of the Ozymandias quote wrong - that detail wasn't put in the movie by accident.
Because Scott confimed that he created them. I notice fans are trying to get around it by saying that the because the Engineers created the goo and has that mural thing that it means they still created them but unfortunatly that is not the case, them creating the goo doesn't mean they created the aliens, and that mural seems to be sadly contradicted by both David and Scott. Trust me, I wish it wasn't the case, I really dislike that David created them but its now canon unless at some point after prequel finale there is a reboot on the origins.
Easter egg or not, the creature of the mural it's a Deacon-like being, not a Xenomorph.
I know that but some peeps have still been using it to say Xenomorphs have existed before David's creation.
The Deacon is obviously a variation on the Neomorphs, not the other way around.
How would we know when both are black goo creatures? Unless the Neomorph in it's form is natural and native to planet 4 which I doubt...
I could believe the Deacon is a variation on the Neomorph simply because the Deacon's life cycle is too specific and convoluted, whereas I could imagine the Neomorph spreading a lot faster.
Another possibility is that both the Deacon and Neomorph are branch species from a Xenomorphic template within the black goo as others have previously stated.
More official info on both the black goo and the Neomorphs would be very interesting, though that's very unlikely at this point.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jun 30, 2018, 10:49:14 AM
David gets the author of the Ozymandias quote wrong - that detail wasn't put in the movie by accident.
Neither was David explaining how he created the Alien :)
Quote from: The Old One on Jun 30, 2018, 06:12:35 PM
The Deacon is obviously a variation on the Neomorphs, not the other way around.
"Obviously" why?
Quote from: The Old One on Jun 30, 2018, 06:12:35 PM
The Deacon is obviously a variation on the Neomorphs, not the other way around.
I doubt even Ridley know what he was trying to do with those 2. He might have not even noticed the difference between them.
Quote from: SM on Jun 30, 2018, 09:57:03 PM
Quote from: The Old One on Jun 30, 2018, 06:12:35 PM
The Deacon is obviously a variation on the Neomorphs, not the other way around.
"Obviously" why?
Because the road to the Deacon is convoluted, where the road to the Neomorph is common.
The Deacon's just a f**ked up Neomorph that's been changed because it's been carried from womb to womb, taking on different traits.
The same way that Ledward's Neomorph had back spines to escape through the back and the throat burster didn't.
I don't really see how one would be derived from the other or vice versa.
Quote from: The Cruentus on Jun 30, 2018, 02:52:37 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jun 30, 2018, 10:49:14 AM
Quote from: SiL on Jun 29, 2018, 09:47:30 AM
The movie isn't cryptic. David explains how he went about it. He basically found an infected space wasp and f**ked around until he got an Alien.
The scripts never said David was remaking anything. ADF confirmed he was the one who added it into the novel even though it wasn't in the script.
Just because he created something doesn't mean he was the sole, original creator. Also, sure David says how he did it, but he's also an unreliable source of information.
David gets the author of the Ozymandias quote wrong - that detail wasn't put in the movie by accident.
Because Scott confimed that he created them.
Ridley Scott says a lot of things, and what he says changes from movie to movie.
Not to mention, the movie is up to interpretation anyway - Ridley Scott would be the first one to tell you that.
Quote from: SiL on Jun 30, 2018, 09:03:46 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jun 30, 2018, 10:49:14 AM
David gets the author of the Ozymandias quote wrong - that detail wasn't put in the movie by accident.
Neither was David explaining how he created the Alien :)
Him getting that detail wrong is what calls his explanation into question, since he's obviously an unreliable source of information. :)
He can know how they were created and mis-attribute who created them, just like he mis-attributes the author of the Ozymandias quote. I can explain how a combustion engine works, or how to create beer, but that doesn't mean I was the original creator of those things.
And I said, even if he's right and he's legitimately creating them, that doesn't mean he's the
first person to create such a thing - whether he realizes that or not.
It's also a pretty hilarious thematic "f**k you" to his god complex if he genuinely thinks he's the first/sole creator and he's wrong.
At least we got to "And even if I'm wrong I'll just imagine I'm right anyway" faster this time.
Quote from: SiL on Jul 02, 2018, 01:52:12 AM
At least we got to "And even if I'm wrong I'll just imagine I'm right anyway" faster this time.
That's not what I said. :)
If that was your takeaway from my post, then you, uh, you really missed the point.
Here's another mind-blower: just because a character says something doesn't make it gospel truth. Characters lie and make mistakes.
Quote from: Crazy Shrimp on Jun 30, 2018, 06:12:10 AM
Quote from: muthur9000 on Jun 29, 2018, 10:56:09 AM
Quote from: SM on Jun 29, 2018, 10:41:21 AM
You can make an argument it's a variation of the Deacon or Neomorph.
It's the age-old Genetically Modified argument isn't it though. You have a look at the apple that used to grow in the wild, created and evolved naturally and it's not very good. Over many years of genetic crossbreeding and such, you get this enormous sweet crunchy apple which is much better than the original. That's the way I see it now anyway.
Something like this?
https://i.imgur.com/J63uwYn.jpg + https://i.imgur.com/BjFmQ3f.jpg = https://i.imgur.com/qM9q8sD.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/xRyGB7E.jpg + https://i.imgur.com/5iQpml7.jpg = https://i.imgur.com/xwJdUI9.jpg
Yes, pretty much. What is the pathogen has a pre-destined morphology and shape. If the pathogen was used to seed planets and we and all life on Earth comes from them. And the biological life on Planet 4 is just like ours on Earth. It's the thing that makes the most sense, when trying to make sense of it.
Quote from: SiL on Jul 02, 2018, 01:52:12 AM
At least we got to "And even if I'm wrong I'll just imagine I'm right anyway" faster this time.
:laugh:
Quote from: SM on Jul 02, 2018, 04:41:26 AM
Quote from: SiL on Jul 02, 2018, 01:52:12 AM
At least we got to "And even if I'm wrong I'll just imagine I'm right anyway" faster this time.
:laugh:
The best part is SM is laughing at something I didn't say, but couldn't know that because he's got me on ignore.
Straw man arguments are the best kind of arguments. ;D
David being the creator is just the latest nail in the coffin. Even if the prequels stop right now, I'm concerned that all they will have accomplished is to say the Jockeys are just big bald guys, and the xenomorphs were created by an android with daddy issues. After two movies, I'm still wondering what the overall plan was here? How have they improved the franchise? What positive ideas have they contributed?
We still know squat diddly about the engineers, who should be the most interesting part of these movies, yet look at covenant. Zilch, Nada, Nunca, Zip. Just hollow hills and empty rooms. It's so unsatisfying. We're learning very little. And if that's the plan, then frankly, the space jockeys and xenomorphs were more impressive and frightening as large and ancient alien creatures that we knew nothing about.
Financial and political stuff aside, I always saw this overall storyline as a fight between Intelligence/technology and unbridled/furious nature. No amount of technology, advanced weaponry, or careful planning is really enough to save everyone from it. That and these are monster movies. It's supposed to be a scary experience about things that want to eat you. All of these philosophical and theological concepts Ridley has been injecting into this franchise is like trying to get motorcycle mileage out of a full-size truck. You're asking too much of the wrong machine. The design was perfect for its task already.
If they make another prequel, yes I'll watch it. But I'll find myself quoting Holiday/Holloway. "This is just another tomb". Amen brother.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jul 02, 2018, 04:46:16 AM
The best part is SM is laughing at something I didn't say, but couldn't know that because he's got me on ignore.
:D
Holiday :laugh:
Quote from: The Old One on Jul 02, 2018, 05:13:22 AM
Holiday :laugh:
It's what I personally call him. You know, the whole Christmas and presents thing. That and the atheism. And seriously, does Charlie Holiday not sound like the ultimate cowboy name? Especially in space?
When you're Charlie Holiday, you get to open your presents every day.
Quote from: SM on Jul 02, 2018, 05:20:53 AM
When you're Charlie Holiday, you get to open your presents every day.
Even Heimdall couldn't stop Charlie Holiday. ;)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-9TwsFkZQMJE%2FT-LGxjiNWmI%2FAAAAAAAAAy8%2F7bLCKcr6tvo%2Fs1600%2Fdavidholloway.jpg&hash=82ad74649410a6c1af2e303f84afb4e918a3c628)
Worth drinking to, I'd imagine.
Quote from: Huggs on Jul 02, 2018, 05:06:28 AM
David being the creator is just the latest nail in the coffin. Even if the prequels stop right now, I'm concerned that all they will have accomplished is to say the Jockeys are just big bald guys, and the xenomorphs were created by an android with daddy issues. After two movies, I'm still wondering what the overall plan was here? How have they improved the franchise? What positive ideas have they contributed?
We still know squat diddly about the engineers, who should be the most interesting part of these movies, yet look at covenant. Zilch, Nada, Nunca, Zip. Just hollow hills and empty rooms. It's so unsatisfying. We're learning very little. And if that's the plan, then frankly, the space jockeys and xenomorphs were more impressive and frightening as large and ancient alien creatures that we knew nothing about.
Financial and political stuff aside, I always saw this overall storyline as a fight between Intelligence/technology and unbridled/furious nature. No amount of technology, advanced weaponry, or careful planning is really enough to save everyone from it. That and these are monster movies. It's supposed to be a scary experience about things that want to eat you. All of these philosophical and theological concepts Ridley has been injecting into this franchise is like trying to get motorcycle mileage out of a full-size truck. You're asking too much of the wrong machine. The design was perfect for its task already.
If they make another prequel, yes I'll watch it. But I'll find myself quoting Holiday/Holloway. "This is just another tomb". Amen brother.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jul 02, 2018, 04:46:16 AM
The best part is SM is laughing at something I didn't say, but couldn't know that because he's got me on ignore.
:D
I've got issues with the prequels, and I feel that on the whole they've been a detriment to the overall franchise, but I'll step up to bat for them in one regard: thematic and philosophical stuff is cool and good, and has been present in all the Alien movies (yes, all of them), but that kind of thematic stuff is more effective when it's more subtle and not quite as on-the-nose as it has been with the Alien prequels.
The themes that are tossed around in the prequels (man's search for god, the dangers of too much knowledge, the relationship between creators and their creations, the nature of beliefs, man's place in the universe, etc) are legitimately interesting and worth exploring, but the manner in which they've been handled has undermined some of the preexisting themes and ideas that were present in the older movies.
Given the back-and-forth during Prometheus' production on whether it would be an Alien movie at all, I think it's clear that Ridley Scott is more interested in telling his horror-space-opera story, and using the Alien name is an effective way to guarantee an audience. I've said it before, I think disconnecting it from the Alien series would have allowed Scott to take bigger and more interesting risks without being hamstrung by Alien franchise baggage, but new sci-fi stories are a shaky gamble in Hollywood, whereas using the Alien name as a crutch is a pretty safe bet.
One could also argue that given the quotes in the past where Ridley has flat out said that the Alien is dead, played out, and not scary, that the prequels are his attempts to euthanize the franchise by "ruining" it. Given Covenant's underperformance at the box office, it seems to be working.
But like I said before, Ridley says a lot of things.
I don't personally think he's actively trying to ruin Alien, but he's using it as a means to tell the space-story he really wants to tell, and if Alien is a casualty in the process, then so be it.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jul 02, 2018, 05:49:24 AM
I've got issues with the prequels, and I feel that on the whole they've been a detriment to the overall franchise, but I'll step up to bat for them in one regard: thematic and philosophical stuff is cool and good, and has been present in all the Alien movies (yes, all of them), but that kind of thematic stuff is more effective when it's more subtle and not quite as on-the-nose as it has been with the Alien prequels.
The themes that are tossed around in the prequels (man's search for god, the dangers of too much knowledge, the relationship between creators and their creations, the nature of beliefs, man's place in the universe, etc) are legitimately interesting and worth exploring, but the manner in which they've been handled has undermined some of the preexisting themes and ideas that were present in the older movies.
Given the back-and-forth during Prometheus' production on whether it would be an Alien movie at all, I think it's clear that Ridley Scott is more interested in telling his horror-space-opera story, and using the Alien name is an effective way to guarantee an audience. I've said it before, I think disconnecting it from the Alien series would have allowed Scott to take bigger and more interesting risks without being hamstrung by Alien franchise baggage, but new sci-fi stories are a shaky gamble in Hollywood, whereas using the Alien name as a crutch is a pretty safe bet.
One could also argue that given the quotes in the past where Ridley has flat out said that the Alien is dead, played out, and not scary, that the prequels are his attempts to euthanize the franchise by "ruining" it. Given Covenant's underperformance at the box office, it seems to be working.
But like I said before, Ridley says a lot of things.
I don't personally think he's actively trying to ruin Alien, but he's using it as a means to tell the space-story he really wants to tell, and if Alien is a casualty in the process, then so be it.
Well said.
Quote from: SM on Jul 02, 2018, 04:41:26 AM
Quote from: SiL on Jul 02, 2018, 01:52:12 AM
At least we got to "And even if I'm wrong I'll just imagine I'm right anyway" faster this time.
:laugh:
Can we refrain from antagonising each other, please? It'd mean the world to me and my blood pressure.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jul 01, 2018, 08:44:44 AM
Ridley Scott says a lot of things, and what he says changes from movie to movie.
Tis true. Scott also said he doesn't think AI's could actually create something. That said, tt was 100% Scott's intention when making Covenant that David be their creator. How that pans out given the reaction to the film...we'll see...perhaps.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jun 30, 2018, 10:49:14 AM
Just because he created something doesn't mean he was the sole, original creator. Also, sure David says how he did it, but he's also an unreliable source of information.
David gets the author of the Ozymandias quote wrong - that detail wasn't put in the movie by accident.
I hadn't actually considered David being unreliable as an open avenue. Certainly makes some sense and is a possible way out of him being the creator if that's where they decide to go with it.
Quote from: Crazy Shrimp on Jun 30, 2018, 06:12:10 AM
If there is a "true Alien" (or a pure Alien, so to speak), it's probably not the xenomorph. The murals in LV-223 are the only references of these creatures since the Deacon was created through a random and convoluted chain of events.
https://i.imgur.com/N5PjRmx.jpg
The murals definitely indicate that the Engineers had some knowledge of or reverence of something Alien-like. I really wish we could have heard more of the thinking or considerations behind that mural. Shame the Steves never really seem to talk about their work.
Makes sense to me, they could very easily switch directions story-wise if they decide to make the Aliens an ancient cosmic horror again.
David was malfunctioning and a few deaths were involved. He was an older model and that could never happen now with our behavioral inhibitors... are you sure you dont want some cornbread?
You just keep the hell away from me, 426Buddy!
I guess he didn't like the corn bread either.
The cornbread is perfectly safe, I assure you.
Take a look, something to eat.
Quote from: The Old One on Jul 02, 2018, 07:21:45 PM
Take a look, something to eat.
The trick, is not minding that it's cornbread.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jul 02, 2018, 04:46:16 AM
Quote from: SM on Jul 02, 2018, 04:41:26 AM
Quote from: SiL on Jul 02, 2018, 01:52:12 AM
At least we got to "And even if I'm wrong I'll just imagine I'm right anyway" faster this time.
:laugh:
The best part is SM is laughing at something I didn't say, but couldn't know that because he's got me on ignore.
Straw man arguments are the best kind of arguments. ;D
It really is. The film isn't ambiguous. It's clear he's explaining how he made the Alien. But you don't care; you'll still imagine a scenario where you're right and David somehow isn't the creator.
And for SM's edification: you said that even if David isn't lying or mistaken in how he created the Alien, that doesn't mean somebody else at some other point didn't somehow follow the same steps to get to exactly the same creature earlier.
Which, yeah, is "I don't care what the film says I'm going to just believe what I want".
Or that since the film showcases that David doesnt know who actually created Ozymandias, then maybe hes wrong about who originally created the Xeno even if he doesnt know it. The film goes through some trouble to point out that David is malfunctioning and cant be trusted in any way. Heck we'll never know what actually happened between him and shaw because David is contantly lying or maybe isnt even sure anymore just judging by his drawings.
Even though Scott wanted David to be the actual creator, he has an opening to change his mind... Like he alwaye seems to do minute to minute.
Quote from: SiL on Jul 02, 2018, 11:19:27 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jul 02, 2018, 04:46:16 AM
Quote from: SM on Jul 02, 2018, 04:41:26 AM
Quote from: SiL on Jul 02, 2018, 01:52:12 AM
At least we got to "And even if I'm wrong I'll just imagine I'm right anyway" faster this time.
:laugh:
The best part is SM is laughing at something I didn't say, but couldn't know that because he's got me on ignore.
Straw man arguments are the best kind of arguments. ;D
It really is. The film isn't ambiguous. It's clear he's explaining how he made the Alien. But you don't care; you'll still imagine a scenario where you're right and David somehow isn't the creator.
And for SM's edification: you said that even if David isn't lying or mistaken in how he created the Alien, that doesn't mean somebody else at some other point didn't somehow follow the same steps to get to exactly the same creature earlier.
Which, yeah, is "I don't care what the film says I'm going to just believe what I want".
David saying he created something doesn't mean he actually did it just because he said it. That's the point of the Ozymandias bit - David is faulty and has issues with getting things right when it comes to creators. You're fixating on the fact that David said something and not looking at the broader context of what David says and does. He's a faulty, unreliable sociopath with a god complex, why on earth should I believe anything he says?
Also, given the Space Jockey and Derelict's apparent age in 'Alien', it's really easy to conclude that David is wrong even if he doesn't realize it. That's not me making up some scenario, that's me actually using what's presented on screen and interpreting it.
Like it's not rocket science - Corporal Hicks and the poster after him (and someone else later on) understood the idea. They may not agree with it, but they had the common decency to acknowledge that it's a viable interpretation and not immediately jump to snide comments. :)
Edit— case in point, the post right above mine that was made as I was writing this one.
Then perhaps if David is going screwy, the xenomorph he created and that we've come to know isn't the true/original form. I shudder to think there's a meaner version out there. Maybe it's like comparing a great white shark to an extinct Megalodon. We're so used to the great white being the alpha predator that we don't often remember the original design was a lot bigger and meaner.
Quote from: SiL on Jul 02, 2018, 11:19:27 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jul 02, 2018, 04:46:16 AM
Quote from: SM on Jul 02, 2018, 04:41:26 AM
Quote from: SiL on Jul 02, 2018, 01:52:12 AM
At least we got to "And even if I'm wrong I'll just imagine I'm right anyway" faster this time.
:laugh:
The best part is SM is laughing at something I didn't say, but couldn't know that because he's got me on ignore.
Straw man arguments are the best kind of arguments. ;D
It really is. The film isn't ambiguous. It's clear he's explaining how he made the Alien. But you don't care; you'll still imagine a scenario where you're right and David somehow isn't the creator.
And for SM's edification: you said that even if David isn't lying or mistaken in how he created the Alien, that doesn't mean somebody else at some other point didn't somehow follow the same steps to get to exactly the same creature earlier.
Which, yeah, is "I don't care what the film says I'm going to just believe what I want".
I agree with you.
But Hicks already scolded me once, and he had the ban hammer out yesterday....
Quote from: SM on Jul 03, 2018, 12:45:54 AM
Quote from: SiL on Jul 02, 2018, 11:19:27 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jul 02, 2018, 04:46:16 AM
Quote from: SM on Jul 02, 2018, 04:41:26 AM
Quote from: SiL on Jul 02, 2018, 01:52:12 AM
At least we got to "And even if I'm wrong I'll just imagine I'm right anyway" faster this time.
:laugh:
The best part is SM is laughing at something I didn't say, but couldn't know that because he's got me on ignore.
Straw man arguments are the best kind of arguments. ;D
It really is. The film isn't ambiguous. It's clear he's explaining how he made the Alien. But you don't care; you'll still imagine a scenario where you're right and David somehow isn't the creator.
And for SM's edification: you said that even if David isn't lying or mistaken in how he created the Alien, that doesn't mean somebody else at some other point didn't somehow follow the same steps to get to exactly the same creature earlier.
Which, yeah, is "I don't care what the film says I'm going to just believe what I want".
I agree with you.
But Hicks already scolded me once, and he had the ban hammer out yesterday....
There's more context to my point that SiL left out, we'll see if he includes it if he posts in the thread again.
You know, for SM's edification. :)
I get SiL's reasoning - on the surface, it IS obvious that David is meant to be the creator. It's when you look at the details that it stops being "unambiguous".
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jul 02, 2018, 11:28:33 PM
David saying he created something doesn't mean he actually did it just because he said it. That's the point of the Ozymandias bit - David is faulty and has issues with getting things right when it comes to creators. You're fixating on the fact that David said something and not looking at the broader context of what David says and does. He's a faulty, unreliable sociopath with a god complex, why on earth should I believe anything he says?
I don't think that is the reason why people are on this idea, at least some of us anyway, until I heard it from Scott's mouth that David created the Alien, I too was thinking you can't trust David, He is egotistical and faulty, he must have just recreated what the Engineers did. Because I
really, really dislike the David creating them.
And yes, you can say Scott says a lot of things, he changes his mind a lot and that is true but until he actually does change his mind, his statements about David still goes. Hopefully he will change his stance.
It goes to the core of David's character that he doesn't like humans or Engineers and isn't interested in following in their footsteps. He's interested in creation, but his creation. Why would he recreate what an Engineer made? It's entirely against his character. He would go out of his way to create something new, if simply in spite.
But hey he misquoted somebody so nothing else in the film or his development over two movies means a thing ::)
Quote from: The Cruentus on Jul 03, 2018, 10:52:45 AM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jul 02, 2018, 11:28:33 PM
David saying he created something doesn't mean he actually did it just because he said it. That's the point of the Ozymandias bit - David is faulty and has issues with getting things right when it comes to creators. You're fixating on the fact that David said something and not looking at the broader context of what David says and does. He's a faulty, unreliable sociopath with a god complex, why on earth should I believe anything he says?
I don't think that is the reason why people are on this idea, at least some of us anyway, until I heard it from Scott's mouth that David created the Alien, I too was thinking you can't trust David, He is egotistical and faulty, he must have just recreated what the Engineers did. Because I really, really dislike the David creating them.
And yes, you can say Scott says a lot of things, he changes his mind a lot and that is true but until he actually does change his mind, his statements about David still goes. Hopefully he will change his stance.
Your interpretation of the movie carries just as much weight as Scott's does, and there's no harm in disagreeing with him. I'm trying to dig it up, but there's a quote from him where he says that he makes his movies in order to spark discussion and interpretation, and that he finds disagreement to be a lot more interesting than consensus.
Well, here we are.
Quote from: SiL on Jul 03, 2018, 11:57:41 AM
It goes to the core of David's character that he doesn't like humans or Engineers and isn't interested in following in their footsteps. He's interested in creation, but his creation. Why would he recreate what an Engineer made? It's entirely against his character. He would go out of his way to create something new, if simply in spite.
But hey he misquoted somebody so nothing else in the film or his development over two movies means a thing ::)
That's one way of interpreting it, the point is that it's not the
only way. This thread is proof of that - we've got multiple people saying "hey, it makes sense that David could be wrong". Even The Cruentus said that the only reason he thinks David is the creator is because Ridley Scott said so (and Ridley Scott says a lot of things :P ).
Let's try this: the movie draws really specific attention to David misattributing the creator of "Ozymandias" wrong. Why does the movie do this?
The series up to this point has shown us two seemingly contradictory things: David seeming to create the Alien or something like it, and the Derelict full of Alien eggs that seems to be very old.
You can reconcile it, but it requires taking the stance that either David is wrong, or the Derelict isn't as old as we thought. You've opted to believe one, and I've opted to believe the other.
And that's okay.
QuoteLet's try this: the movie draws really specific attention to David misattributing the creator of "Ozymandias" wrong. Why does the movie do this
To show he's gone nuts and is now a homicidal maniac, which is the payoff of the revelation. He's gone screwy and needs to be shut down. That's it.
Before, during and after it heavily showcases his interest in autonomy and creation. He's nobody's slave. He wouldn't recreate something from the Engineers and try to pass it off as his own; he'd have no reason to. Why not claim the accelerant was his own?
Your comparison is dishonest. Covenant doesn't "seem" to tell us David made them, it just says it. It's not implying it, it's not subtle, it's not a background detail or set dressing. The choice is "Telling us in no uncertain terms that David made the Alien" vs "the Derelict full of Alien eggs that
seems old". It's never confirmed the Derelict
is old, it just
looks it. Even Dallas doesn't speak in an absolute. "Looks fossilised", having seen it for two minutes, not knowing that he's (apparently) looking at a space suit.
Your choice is between a definite answer and set dressing, so excuse me if I don't act like they're equivalent.
Quote from: SiL on Jul 03, 2018, 12:26:30 PM
QuoteLet's try this: the movie draws really specific attention to David misattributing the creator of "Ozymandias" wrong. Why does the movie do this
To show he's gone nuts and is now a homicidal maniac, which is the payoff of the revelation. He's gone screwy and needs to be shut down. That's it.
He was already a homicidal maniac prior to that point, and the audience knew it. There were a million ways to show that David was screwy, and the movie deliberately fixates on David getting the author of his favorite quote wrong. He's literally misattributing the creation of one of his favorite things. Like, it's really on-the-nose.
If you think it's not important, then that's okay. That's your interpretation.
Quote from: SiL on Jul 03, 2018, 12:26:30 PMYour comparison is dishonest. Covenant doesn't "seem" to tell us David made them, it just says it. It's not implying it, it's not subtle, it's not a background detail or set dressing.
No, the movie doesn't tell us that -
David tells us that, and David is a dishonest, faulty sociopath who gets it wrong when asked who created one of his favorite things. That's a really, really important distinction. Your interpretation hinges on two things: the fact that David said something, and your interpretation of his character.
That's why it
seems like David created them - there's ample evidence to believe that he's wrong, especially compounded by what we see in 'Alien'. Did David actually, literally create the Alien for the first time ever? If you discard what he says because he's unreliable and literally gets creators wrong, then we actually don't know.
If you don't think the Derelict is old, then that's fine. If you want to make up reasons to rationalize why it looks old, then that's cool, too.
There's more than enough room here for more than one interpretation, and it's a shame that you don't recognize that. :)
But hey, you believe what you'd like, and I'll believe what I'd like.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jul 03, 2018, 12:57:55 PM
No, the movie doesn't tell us that - David tells us that,
The film isn't saying David misattributes his favourite quote to show he's gone crazy, Walter is!
Characters are tools used by stories to communicate ideas, concepts, emotions, etc. In this instance the film uses David to explain that he, David, made the Alien. The film does nothing specifically to contest this claim because this is what the film wants you to think. This is the intent of the author that is being communicated through the story by way of a character.
You'll argue you don't care, death of the authors, whatever. That's fine. But trying to argue that the story isn't trying to use David to communicate this information is demonstrably wrong. You can disagree with it doing so, but you can't disagree it's happening.
EDIT
I mean, you can and will disagree it's happening, sure. But you'll still be wrong.
No, I'm not wrong, because there's more than one way to interpret what we're seeing onscreen. Your failure to recognize that people can have opinions other than your own kind of makes you look belligerent and unreasonable. Like, "other people can have different opinions" is right there in the forum rules.
You can *think* I'm wrong, just like I think you're wrong. But you aren't some holy arbiter of Univeral Truth, and excuse me if I find it distasteful when you act like you are.
Again, I agree that the movie is showing that David is creating an Alien. However, it's also showing through Walter that David gets creators wrong and that he's an unreliable source of information about creation. You're cherry-picking which characters' words to listen to - you can believe that Walter's words mean nothing, but you're demonstrably wrong. The film contests David's claim by specifically having him get the creator of one of his favorite things wrong. Like, it's not just subtext, it's full-on text. :D
That's enough, Sil. You're just making personal digs now and it's unwarranted.
FWIW, I'm in the same boat as Xenomrph on this point. I guess we're both sailing along that river in Egypt together.
(https://i.imgflip.com/61u9a.jpg)
Why has SM got Xenomrph on ignore and who got banhammered yesterday?
Quote from: The Eighth Passenger on Jul 03, 2018, 05:25:44 PM
https://i.imgflip.com/61u9a.jpg
Why has SM got Xenomrph on ignore and who got banhammered yesterday?
I have my ideas but I won't presume to speak for SM, although it might be a conversation better suited for PMs.
I think Scorpio got banhammered yesterday in one of the threads in the AvP Literature subforum.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Jul 03, 2018, 04:41:00 PM
FWIW, I'm in the same boat as Xenomrph on this point. I guess we're both sailing along that river in Egypt together.
Sup, Egypt sailing buddy. Want a beer?
Ah alright, won't pry any further, none of my business anyway. Just strange because you seem to be a decent fella.
Scorpio had it coming to him though, he's had enough warnings regarding his blatant trolling.
Quote from: SiL on Jul 03, 2018, 11:57:41 AM
But hey he misquoted somebody so nothing else in the film or his development over two movies means a thing ::)
You seem to be missing just how important the misquote is. David thinks he is infallible, and can do no wrong. He is effectively the storyteller of Planet 4, giving us and the characters all the information about it.
His misattribution of the author of Ozymandias is significant because he believed it. He absolutely 100% thought that what he was saying was correct.
It wasn't.
How do we then know that anything he has said is correct? He's an unreliable narrator. This calls everything he has said into question. He's a malfunctioning machine. He definitely created
an alien, but did he create
the alien? We don't know, but it puts his story under enough doubt that we can't be sure of it.
People that didn't like David being the creator can just ignore the movie and follow the novelization instead. That's what I did. Novels tend to be better than their movies most of the time anyway, I would prefer a novel as a sequel than another movie from Ridley. Even in Predator 2 I preferred the novel than the movie.
Quote from: The Eighth Passenger on Jul 03, 2018, 05:25:44 PM
https://i.imgflip.com/61u9a.jpg
...who got banhammered yesterday?
Scorpio.
The bottom line is, as far as the films currently stand, David created the Aliens. It's explicit in the film and out.
You may think it's possible that he didn't - but it's just, by definition, fan theory.
Sooooo...... you're saying theres a chance!?
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSsV914EqaIWv3_5ENTHw0K4xznPKJZfHDdb_OLUntropkV-eNS)
Quote from: SM on Jul 03, 2018, 08:03:18 PM
The bottom line is, as far as the films currently stand, David created the Aliens. It's explicit in the film and out.
You may think it's possible that he didn't - but it's just, by definition, fan theory.
As demonstrated, no it isn't. :)
David says he created them, and that's the beginning and end of the evidence that he did. We know he's unreliable and the movie deliberately has him flub who created his favorite quote, which calls into question anything else he's said (especially when it comes to creation).
What you're calling "fan theory" is actually, by definition, a valid interpretation of what is shown in the movies. Pigeon-holing anyone who disagrees with you as "fan theory" isn't exactly conducive of civil discussion.
As of right now, I'd say it's possible he's building on the work of others. I'd even say the murals and installations/black goo make it likely he's not the first. But a third movie gives Ridley the opportunity to outright say it's David, and cement it forever. Until that point, I'm assuming he's just piggybacking on the engineers work.
Ridley might retcon that in the next movie, his ideas are so random, he doesn't care at all about continuity or canon.
If the AVP movies were forgotten by Fox so can the alien prequels.
Back then people argued if the avp movies were canon at that time or not. It all lead to nothing.
If Fox and Scott choose to, there is a clear way out of the whole "David is the creator". But I don't take David's word about him being the creator, I take Scott's word on it. He said so. Clearly, many times. He can always change his mind but the last thing he said regarding this matter is: David created the Alien. Not an alien. The Alien. "If you think they (the Engineers) made him (the alien), you're dead wrong". I'm probably paraphrasing but he did say something like this to some people who visited the sets while Covenant was being made if I'm not mistaken? It was reported on AvP Galaxy, that I'm sure of.
Scott is certainly more likely than the average person to change his mind and make a 180 with the direction of the prequels. The door is open for David to be made a recreator. But that is clearly not where Scott stood with the last known comments from him about the issue. Since these are his prequels, his final public thought on the matter is as cannon as it can be as long as it's not contradicted by the movie(s). And it's not. The movie clearly suggest David created the alien. Scott's comments outright confirm that.
We'll see if he changes his mind again...
Quote from: 426Buddy on Jul 03, 2018, 08:50:11 PM
Sooooo...... you're saying theres a chance!?
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSsV914EqaIWv3_5ENTHw0K4xznPKJZfHDdb_OLUntropkV-eNS
:D
Quote from: Huggs on Jul 03, 2018, 08:58:49 PM
As of right now, I'd say it's possible he's building on the work of others. I'd even say the murals and installations/black goo make it likely he's not the first. But a third movie gives Ridley the opportunity to outright say it's David, and cement it forever. Until that point, I'm assuming he's just piggybacking on the engineers work.
He already outright said it. He could outright say it till he's blue in the face and some people will still claim it isn't the case.
Same as how some people still think Jockies aren't Engineers.
Quote from: Still Collating... on Jul 03, 2018, 09:34:34 PM
If Fox and Scott choose to, there is a clear way out of the whole "David is the creator". But I don't take David's word about him being the creator, I take Scott's word on it. He said so. Clearly, many times. He can always change his mind but the last thing he said regarding this matter is: David created the Alien. Not an alien. The Alien. "If you think they (the Engineers) made him (the alien), you're dead wrong". I'm probably paraphrasing but he did say something like this to some people who visited the sets while Covenant was being made if I'm not mistaken? It was reported on AvP Galaxy, that I'm sure of.
Scott is certainly more likely than the average person to change his mind and make a 180 with the direction of the prequels. The door is open for David to be made a recreator. But that is clearly not where Scott stood with the last known comments from him about the issue. Since these are his prequels, his final public thought on the matter is as cannon as it can be as long as it's not contradicted by the movie(s). And it's not. The movie clearly suggest David created the alien. Scott's comments outright confirm that.
We'll see if he changes his mind again...
There's a reason "Ridley Scott says a lot of things." is a well-worn adage. :P
If people choose to accept Ridley Scott's word as the be-all end-all then that's okay, but it's not like it makes it objective truth just because he said it. He's been a strong proponent of people having their own interpretations and theories about his work, and he's got a great quote from a couple years ago where he said that he makes movies to spark discussions and get people talking about his movies and asking questions, because consensus is boring.
He's not saying "David created the Alien" because he wants you to accept it as "fact", he's saying it because he's sharing his opinion (and wants you to share yours, too). Blindly accepting what he says just because he said it is doing him a pretty big disservice.
Quote from: SM on Jul 03, 2018, 09:36:15 PM
Quote from: 426Buddy on Jul 03, 2018, 08:50:11 PM
Sooooo...... you're saying theres a chance!?
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSsV914EqaIWv3_5ENTHw0K4xznPKJZfHDdb_OLUntropkV-eNS
:D
Quote from: Huggs on Jul 03, 2018, 08:58:49 PM
As of right now, I'd say it's possible he's building on the work of others. I'd even say the murals and installations/black goo make it likely he's not the first. But a third movie gives Ridley the opportunity to outright say it's David, and cement it forever. Until that point, I'm assuming he's just piggybacking on the engineers work.
He already outright said it. He could outright say it till he's blue in the face and some people will still claim it isn't the case.
And more power to them - having an opinion other than Ridley Scott's is okay. No really, honest! He's not going to smite you or something, I swear!
I'd have to side with Xenomrph in this debate.
What we have is Scott's favoured theory, but since it isn't 100% ironclad canonised, there's still, as Hicks says, wriggle room for another future story-teller to interpret it in a different way (and with that 70% drop in ticket sales, there isn't yet any guarantee he'll be helming the next or, at least, be influencing the writing to the same degree).
Back on episode 52, Hicks interviewed Dane Hallett and Matt Hatton for our podcast and they were very adamant that the angle they were going for was the ambiguity of David being an "unreliable narrator". A lot of the anatomical sketches they made up were done with the idea in mind that they might have been literal or, alternatively, either future plans or simply what David 8 imagined or literally dreamed up (and we know from his discussion with Walter that David 8 apparently does dream). At least one of those sketches of Shaw is certainly fictional, as it features her entire jaw ripped open and her being depicted with internal organs shoved or growing out (not unlike Hallet's fate), which clearly didn't occur.
I also suspect, as with most serial killer-type personalities, that David 8 is not beyond convincing himself of a certain perspective upon historical events which was never accurate. Especially if such a perspective might appeal to his/its inflated sense of illusionary ego.
Would Scott like it to be clarified, once and for all, that David 8 literally created the Alien we all know? Almost certainly! But that was not (thankfully) what the film yet proved.
Ambiguity has fuelled our debates about the whole series for a long while. But this isn't, say, like the egg in 'Alien 3', where someone can declare a belief that it was placed on the dropship, because the film shows us it was elsewhere (and nowhere the Queen was shown to have visited, but that's a debate for another day).
What 'Covenant' gives us is David 8 talking about experimentation. There isn't any detail in regards to how much of that experimentation may have resulted from knowledge left by Engineers. Indeed, it could just as easily have been notes relating to a naturally evolved creature they once encountered as something they genetically created.
However, we do know that the creature we ultimately get to see is not one and the same as the creatures from the other films. Hicks' podcasts have covered this, too, where we know the production team were given the direction of deliberately making it look different. Similar, sure, in the same way as the Deacon was similar, but not one and the same. Just like the facehuggers are superficially similar, yet can somehow impregnate Lope without even ramming a tube down his throat, much less having enough time to do so! Visually similar, but clearly not the very same exact creature.
David 8 may or may not have been wholly or partially responsible for those particular organisms. I'm not even sure he's reliable in regards to calling the black ooze a literal virus, as the substance is clearly something very different. But he's not - yet - depicted as being responsible for the Alien from the other films. I'm sure Scott would like him/it to be, but the wishes and desires of Ridley Scott are not necessarily what will ultimately pan out.
After all, if we're going 100% by canon, then we still have that engraved mural in 'Prometheus' of the famous egg in a pair of very Alien-like skeletal hands:
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvignette4.wikia.nocookie.net%2Favp%2Fimages%2F0%2F0c%2FNormal_art-of-prometheus-003.PNG&hash=4d03a6041687431740fdafb322340b64118f5cdf)
Would Scott ignore that? Maybe. But it's still there - and enough to evidence at least the possibility that David 8 is merely recreating something, rather than personally creating it. Ironically, standing on the shoulders of giants, as it were.
I'm also still of the view that the black ooze, itself, could simply be refined and modified from hive material sampled from the nest of naturally evolved Aliens. 'Alien Resurrection' showed that an accidentally genetically tampered strain of the Alien led to the Viper's Nest scene, where the stuff was literally alive and animated - even growing Alien tails. With that scene in mind, it certainly isn't impossible that the black ooze could have been derived from this. In which case, accounting for why even things like the Deacon (which came about by an extraordinarily convoluted series of events and certainly was not planned) follow the same basic morphology as the Neomorph and what stalked the 'Covenant' crew.
I'd actually rather like that, as it would bring everything full circle, plus allow for what we've seen to have been only a mere glimpse into a truly nightmarish ecosystem potentially still out there.
I mean, what's scarier than the modified template for a creature so aggressive and predatory that the Engineers, themselves, endlessly obsessed over it as the ultimate genocidal method of purging whole planets of life?
Whatever gave them the idea in the first place...
Maybe, in a way, that makes the Engineers a sort of foreshadowing for the efforts of Weyland-Yutani and the United Systems Military, many thousands of years later.
Quote from: Xenomorphine on Jul 03, 2018, 09:53:16 PM
I'd have to side with Xenomrph in this debate.
What we have is Scott's favoured theory, but since it isn't 100% ironclad canonised, there's still, as Hicks says, wriggle room for another future story-teller to interpret it in a different way (and with that 70% drop in ticket sales, there isn't yet any guarantee he'll be helming the next or, at least, be influencing the writing to the same degree).
Back on episode 52, Hicks interviewed Dane Hallett and Matt Hatton for our podcast and they were very adamant that the angle they were going for was the ambiguity of David being an "unreliable narrator". A lot of the anatomical sketches they made up were done with the idea in mind that they might have been literal or, alternatively, either future plans or simply what David 8 imagined or literally dreamed up (and we know from his discussion with Walter that David 8 apparently does dream). At least one of those sketches of Shaw is certainly fictional, as it features her entire jaw ripped open and her being depicted with internal organs shoved or growing out (not unlike Hallet's fate), which clearly didn't occur.
I also suspect, as with most serial killer-type personalities, that David 8 is not beyond convincing himself of a certain perspective upon historical events which was never accurate. Especially if such a perspective might appeal to his/its inflated sense of illusionary ego.
Would Scott like it to be clarified, once and for all, that David 8 literally created the Alien we all know? Almost certainly! But that was not (thankfully) what the film yet proved.
Ambiguity has fuelled our debates about the whole series for a long while. But this isn't, say, like the egg in 'Alien 3', where someone can declare a belief that it was placed on the dropship, because the film shows us it was elsewhere (and nowhere the Queen was shown to have visited, but that's a debate for another day).
What 'Covenant' gives us is David 8 talking about experimentation. There isn't any detail in regards to how much of that experimentation may have resulted from knowledge left by Engineers. Indeed, it could just as easily have been notes relating to a naturally evolved creature they once encountered as something they genetically created.
However, we do know that the creature we ultimately get to see is not one and the same as the creatures from the other films. Hicks' podcasts have covered this, too, where we know the production team were given the direction of deliberately making it look different. Similar, sure, in the same way as the Deacon was similar, but not one and the same. Just like the facehuggers are superficially similar, yet can somehow impregnate Lope without even ramming a tube down his throat, much less having enough time to do so! Visually similar, but clearly not the very same exact creature.
David 8 may or may not have been wholly or partially responsible for those particular organisms. I'm not even sure he's reliable in regards to calling the black ooze a literal virus, as the substance is clearly something very different. But he's not - yet - depicted as being responsible for the Alien from the other films. I'm sure Scott would like him/it to be, but the wishes and desires of Ridley Scott are not necessarily what will ultimately pan out.
After all, if we're going 100% by canon, then we still have that engraved mural in 'Prometheus' of the famous egg in a pair of very Alien-like skeletal hands:
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvignette4.wikia.nocookie.net%2Favp%2Fimages%2F0%2F0c%2FNormal_art-of-prometheus-003.PNG&hash=4d03a6041687431740fdafb322340b64118f5cdf)
Would Scott ignore that? Maybe. But it's still there - and enough to evidence at least the possibility that David 8 is merely recreating something, rather than personally creating it. Ironically, standing on the shoulders of giants, as it were.
I'm also still of the view that the black ooze, itself, could simply be refined and modified from hive material sampled from the nest of naturally evolved Aliens. 'Alien Resurrection' showed that an accidentally genetically tampered strain of the Alien led to the Viper's Nest scene, where the stuff was literally alive and animated - even growing Alien tails. With that scene in mind, it certainly isn't impossible that the black ooze could have been derived from this. In which case, accounting for why even things like the Deacon (which came about by an extraordinarily convoluted series of events and certainly was not planned) follow the same basic morphology as the Neomorph and what stalked the 'Covenant' crew.
I'd actually rather like that, as it would bring everything full circle, plus allow for what we've seen to have been only a mere glimpse into a truly nightmarish ecosystem potentially still out there.
I mean, what's scarier than the modified template for a creature so aggressive and predatory that the Engineers, themselves, endlessly obsessed over it as the ultimate genocidal method of purging whole planets of life?
Whatever gave them the idea in the first place...
Maybe, in a way, that makes the Engineers a sort of foreshadowing for the efforts of Weyland-Yutani and the United Systems Military, many thousands of years later.
Well said.
Paul Anderson and the Strauses also said a lot of things about the creatures in their time. How many of us actually took any of their off screen commentaries as "canon"? Not many.
Scott has also said a lot of things about the original alien that arent canon and never were.
Quote from: Samhain13 on Jul 03, 2018, 10:13:46 PM
Paul Anderson and the Strauses also said a lot of things about the creatures in their time. How many of us actually took any of their off screen commentaries as "canon"? Not many.
To reiterate: there's ample reason to go along with what an author says about their work, and it's not surprising when people do so.
However there's also ample reason to ignore them wholesale. Neither approach is "correct", they're just different ways to approach art.
I personally like hearing what creators have to say because it can be an interesting insight into the creative process, but I don't consider it to be immutable fact or whatever.
Riddler is by far the worst example of the Word of God (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WordOfGod) trope.
Ridley is a fantastic Director. A legend, really. But I think his art is best when it is standalone. Like the Martian or Exodus. He is a fantastic storyteller. I think the problem we have now is that he's having to maintain a narrative across several films. As has been said before by countless others, he just changes his mind so much, but he's also got his ideas and directions that he wants to go when it comes to the scripts, and the boss is always right.
Were Prometheus the only alien movie he made, were it written to completion as a standalone film that directly lead into Alien 79, were his input and pull slightly minimized, we could very well have received a fantastic Alien film then and the franchise itself might currently be in a more financially and narratively healthier place.
One day the beast is cooked, the next day it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. I can't take his comments regarding the franchise seriously anymore. David being the creator? I could almost live with it, but not the way it's been handled so far. Thus I shall take it, also, with a grain of salt.
Quote from: Xenomorphine on Jul 03, 2018, 09:53:16 PM
Maybe, in a way, that makes the Engineers a sort of foreshadowing for the efforts of Weyland-Yutani and the United Systems Military, many thousands of years later.
Imagine if David shows up some 300 years later to unleash his scary creation on humanity only to discover that they'd been dealing with the LV-426 strain of the Engineers' originals for a very long time.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Jul 04, 2018, 01:48:48 AM
Quote from: Xenomorphine on Jul 03, 2018, 09:53:16 PM
Maybe, in a way, that makes the Engineers a sort of foreshadowing for the efforts of Weyland-Yutani and the United Systems Military, many thousands of years later.
Imagine if David shows up some 300 years later to unleash his scary creation on humanity only to discover that they'd been dealing with the LV-426 strain of the Engineers' originals for a very long time.
Some Alien on Alien action? Throw in Ripley 8 and we have an interesting scene... :P
I might not have worded my previous opinion adequately. I understand Scott is unreliable when it comes to future plans and continuity, I just think it's strange how some people take ADF's word more seriously than Scott who along with Fox is controlling the direction of the prequels.
I of course agree they could change there minds at any time and make David a recreator. That's probably why Fox allowed ADF to make David seem as one, so that they would leave that window open.
To be honest, I like the idea of the Alien being ancient and natural if possible.
And I agree that after the 180 Covenant made with it's direction after Prometheus that anything is possible. I know Scott loves to spark up discussion outside of the theater but IMO I'm not sure he ever intended or predicted for us to be discussing is David the Alien daddy?
That's my point really. Not that there is no way to make David a recreator, just that that was never the intention of Scott while he was making the movie. That's all. Even though I'm recovering from the shock of David possibly being the psycho Alien daddy and starting to see the poetic merits of it all, I really welcome making another 180 and making the aliens ancient or just the Engineers' creation if it's done well enough with good writing as to not make David's journey completely pointless.
It doesn't matter to me whether David or the engineers are the creators. The Alien stays a created bio weapon. David actually made the Aliens independent. Before him they were kind of mindless slaves to the engineers, now David turned or will turn them into their own race which can' stand on its own feet. Will they be grateful? I have my doubts. ;)
No problems with David, the god.
When were they mindless slaves to the Engineers?
Man what has happened to our alien. Is he or isn't he at every damn turn. Yet where does the deacon/neomorph/thing from the mural fit into the alien? What is the black goo? Weapon? AI? Alien blood? Did the egg come first...
Quote from: SM on Aug 30, 2018, 07:19:15 AM
When were they mindless slaves to the Engineers?
Yeah I don't remember anything about that either, the rage war trilogy has them enslaved to android generals though :laugh:
Did I write mindless slaves? Replace it with involuntary tools.
When were they involuntary tools of the Engineers?
Wait, just to be clear, the engineers used the aliens as weapons right? Or is this just one gigantic misunderstanding.
Since the Aliens clearly want to propagate and spread, they probably don't care that some other life-form is ensuring they are fulfilling that purpose
Quote from: whiterabbit on Aug 30, 2018, 12:08:21 PM
Wait, just to be clear, the engineers used the aliens as weapons right? Or is this just one gigantic misunderstanding.
As far as we know all the Engineers were dead before David created the Aliens.
Quote from: SM on Aug 30, 2018, 01:05:20 PM
Quote from: whiterabbit on Aug 30, 2018, 12:08:21 PM
Wait, just to be clear, the engineers used the aliens as weapons right? Or is this just one gigantic misunderstanding.
As far as we know all the Engineers were dead before David created the Aliens.
What about the aliens ancestors?
Quote from: whiterabbit on Aug 30, 2018, 07:54:38 PM
Quote from: SM on Aug 30, 2018, 01:05:20 PM
Quote from: whiterabbit on Aug 30, 2018, 12:08:21 PM
Wait, just to be clear, the engineers used the aliens as weapons right? Or is this just one gigantic misunderstanding.
As far as we know all the Engineers were dead before David created the Aliens.
What about the aliens ancestors?
The aliens had ancestors?
Quote from: Huggs on Aug 30, 2018, 10:19:12 PM
Quote from: whiterabbit on Aug 30, 2018, 07:54:38 PM
Quote from: SM on Aug 30, 2018, 01:05:20 PM
Quote from: whiterabbit on Aug 30, 2018, 12:08:21 PM
Wait, just to be clear, the engineers used the aliens as weapons right? Or is this just one gigantic misunderstanding.
As far as we know all the Engineers were dead before David created the Aliens.
What about the aliens ancestors?
The aliens had ancestors?
They came from the black goo. So I'm assuming everything before David's aliens share DNA in some manner. The Deacon and Neo's are cousins I guess.
I also prefer David as the creator, or at least in-part its designer, rather than it being a natural creature. I never could imagine the Xenomorph having a home planet where it would nest and perhaps even defend against other creatures - it's just too simple and diminished them to mere insects.
The idea that it is birthed from a morbid curiosity thanks to us, is much more interesting. By inheriting human aspects from it's host it essentially makes a frightening mockery of human biology - an aspect I think David would be very proud of.
That doesn't necessitate anything human to have a role in it's creation, but I see and respect your POV.
Quote from: SM on Aug 30, 2018, 01:05:20 PM
Quote from: whiterabbit on Aug 30, 2018, 12:08:21 PM
Wait, just to be clear, the engineers used the aliens as weapons right? Or is this just one gigantic misunderstanding.
As far as we know all the Engineers were dead before David created the Aliens.
This presupposes that he originally created them.
It presupposes that the films take precedence over fan theories, yes.
For now, everything but a non-canon novelisation suggests that David is responsible for the creation of the Alien
-as we know it.
I find the route of David creating them more interesting. Maybe because it's a lot more personal and motivated, I dunno, but I like it. I don't think it would have the same impact had the Engineers made them. To be honest, I think Ridley was strong to go with it and I hope he doesn't do a 180 due to pressure in the next film.
I believe, as I've said previously that in the context of the events of "Covenant" that David Eight being responsible for creating the Alien works perfectly, created and creator.
However, outside of that I view the Alien as a construct with no discernable beginning or ending with no creator-
but not natural to any ecosystem either.
Quote from: SiL on Sep 01, 2018, 09:22:54 AM
It presupposes that the films take precedence over fan theories, yes.
Your interpretation is as much a fan-theory as anyone else's, as this thread demonstrated earlier.
Quote from: The Old One on Sep 01, 2018, 11:43:10 AM
For now, everything but a non-canon novelisation suggests that David is responsible for the creation of the Alien
-as we know it.
Not "everything" - David screws up attributing the author of the Ozymandias quote and Walter calls him out on it. That calls into question his reliability (especially when it comes to creations/creators); that wasn't a detail Ridley Scott put in the movie by accident.
That, and the apparent age of the Derelict and Space Jockey in 'Alien' seem to predate David by quite some time.
Also the novelization is "canon", or at least FOX thinks so. But I've long been a proponent of accepting what you like and discarding what you don't, so you do you. :)
It's not a fan theory when it's what the people telling the story were explicitly trying to convey in their work. The only thing the thread demonstrated is there's wiggle room for a later retcon (much the same as there was wiggle room for David to be the creator), not that it's not what the story is trying to tell the audience.
Quote from: SiL on Sep 02, 2018, 06:25:55 AM
It's not a fan theory when it's what the people telling the story were explicitly trying to convey in their work. The only thing the thread demonstrated is there's wiggle room for a later retcon (much the same as there was wiggle room for David to be the creator), not that it's not what the story is trying to tell the audience.
Ridley Scott says a lot of things, and what he's "explicitly trying to convey" or "what the story is telling the audience" is up to a lot of interpretation. Ridley Scott was explicitly trying to convey that David is an unreliable source of information by including the Ozymandias thing, which calls into question the only evidence for your interpretation ("David said a thing"). The story is trying to tell the audience that David is a crazy person with a god complex, in the vein of Frankenstein and other gothic horror villains. If anything, taking his word at face-value kind of misses the point.
Or to put it more briefly:
Quote from: Xenomrph on Sep 02, 2018, 05:22:50 AM
Quote from: SiL on Sep 01, 2018, 09:22:54 AM
It presupposes that the films take precedence over fan theories, yes.
Your interpretation is as much a fan-theory as anyone else's, as this thread demonstrated earlier.
Scott has been unambiguous about saying Covenenat shows David is the creator. For now. He can change it later, but trying to argue that it's not what he was getting at with this film is just ... demonstrably wrong, and I'm not sure why you're even trying to argue it. Cool, you can interpret it how you want. But acting like Scott hasn't made it perfectly clear that's his current thought process is just really f**king dumb at this point.
Quote from: SiL on Sep 02, 2018, 06:34:00 AM
Scott has been unambiguous about saying Covenenat shows David is the creator. For now. He can change it later, but trying to argue that it's not what he was getting at with this film is just ... demonstrably wrong, and I'm not sure why you're even trying to argue it. Cool, you can interpret it how you want. But acting like Scott hasn't made it perfectly clear that's his current thought process is just really f**king dumb at this point.
Okay, and....?
And Ridley Scott says a lot of things, and he's outright said that he says stuff to stir the pot and get people thinking and talking and disagreeing, because that's the reaction he likes seeing from his work. "Ridley Scott says this right now" is not a particularly convincing argument for one to accept a certain interpretation of the movie as "better" or "fact" or "real" or whatever term one chooses to use.
Here's a fun mental exercise: Can you prove that Ridley Scott wasn't lying, or just saying stuff just to rile people up? What if Ridley Scott vehemently and repeatedly said that 'Covenant' shows Tennessee is the creator of the Alien, and that that was his intent?
After all these years of Ridley Scott saying one thing and then doing another, or revising his own work, acting like his word means any more than anyone else's is just really f**king dumb at this point.
Yes, he says a lot of things. And he said that when he made the movie he was saying David is the creator. So it's not a fan theory, it's what the authors were trying to convey. That can change, but the reality we live in is that's what they were trying to say when they made the film.
Agreeing with it or not is neither here nor there. You're free to ignore it. But you can't keep saying "I don't like the idea therefor I'll interpret it differently" is somehow as grounded a position as "This is what the person making the story told us in no uncertain terms was their intent." They're not equally weighted arguments.
Your mental exercises are really meaningless and disappointing, especially coming from someone who's always keen to point out a logical fallacy. Burden on proof would be on you to prove he's lying, not me to prove he's not. You know this. And you also know that the Tennessee line is in no way analogous to saying David did it. There's nothing in the film that would support Tennessee doing it, but a pretty substantial scene walking the audience through how David did it.
I'm not saying you can't make your own canon, and I'm not saying there's no room for things to change. I'm literally just pointing out that taking the story as intended by the author when they made it is not a "fan" theory, and you're getting really shitty about it.
QuoteYes, he says a lot of things. And he said that when he made the movie he was saying David is the creator. So it's not a fan theory, it's what the authors were trying to convey. That can change, but the reality we live in is that's what they were trying to say when they made the film.
And my point is that what he's saying doesn't matter, and just because he said something doesn't mean other interpretations are less valid. Keep in mind, the interpretation that David didn't create the Alien can be sourced from details within the movies, details that Ridley Scott didn't include by accident.
QuoteBut you can't keep saying "I don't like the idea therefor I'll interpret it differently" is somehow as grounded a position as "This is what the person making the story told us in no uncertain terms was their intent." They're not equally weighted arguments.
Sure they are, because you're assuming Ridley Scott's word matters, and I'm saying it doesn't.
QuoteBurden on proof would be on you to prove he's lying, not me to prove he's not. You know this.
Here's the proof: he included details in his movie that call into question whether or not David's line about being the creator is a reliable source of information.
By including that, I'm taking it to mean that he intended David to not be the creator, and that he says otherwise because it sparks discussion.
QuoteAnd you also know that the Tennessee line is in no way analogous to saying David did it. There's nothing in the film that would support Tennessee doing it, but a pretty substantial scene walking the audience through how David did it.
That's the point - Ridley Scott can say literally anything he wants. What if Ridley Scott outright said Tennessee was the creator, and someone came up with an interpretation of the movie that supports that? Would your conclusion that David created the Alien now be a "fan theory"? Or would you think that Ridley Scott's word might be nonsense and that the movie doesn't support what he's saying?
You're using the term "fan theory" as some sort of pejorative, to indicate that someone else's interpretation of a movie is less valid than your own, and that's the
really shitty thing going on in this thread.
Quote from: SiL on Sep 02, 2018, 06:51:25 AM
Yes, he says a lot of things. And he said that when he made the movie he was saying David is the creator. So it's not a fan theory, it's what the authors were trying to convey. That can change, but the reality we live in is that's what they were trying to say when they made the film.
Agreeing with it or not is neither here nor there. You're free to ignore it. But you can't keep saying "I don't like the idea therefor I'll interpret it differently" is somehow as grounded a position as "This is what the person making the story told us in no uncertain terms was their intent." They're not equally weighted arguments.
Your mental exercises are really meaningless and disappointing, especially coming from someone who's always keen to point out a logical fallacy. Burden on proof would be on you to prove he's lying, not me to prove he's not. You know this. And you also know that the Tennessee line is in no way analogous to saying David did it. There's nothing in the film that would support Tennessee doing it, but a pretty substantial scene walking the audience through how David did it.
I'm not saying you can't make your own canon, and I'm not saying there's no room for things to change. I'm literally just pointing out that taking the story as intended by the author when they made it is not a "fan" theory, and you're getting really shitty about it.
srsly
QuoteYou're using the term "fan theory" as some sort of pejorative, to indicate that someone else's interpretation of a movie is less valid than your own, and that's the really shitty thing going on in this thread.
No, I'm using it to indicate something fans have thought up based on their interpretation, as opposed to what the authors may or may not have intended. Some fan theories turn out to be what the authors actually meant, many don't.
The interpretation that it's pejorative is entirely in your head. My fan theory is that David's not the creator and we'll get something that wraps it all up nicely in the next film. But I'm not so arrogant as to ignore the fact that the way the stories are currently going, that's not the case, and until I'm proved right (or the issue is simply never resolved) there's no sense arguing that what I think is "true".
It's really easy to view you as using it as a pejorative:
Quote from: SiL on Sep 01, 2018, 09:22:54 AM
It presupposes that the films take precedence over fan theories, yes.
Just a reminder: "the films" support the conclusion that David isn't the creator, and just because Ridley Scott said a thing doesn't mean people who interpret his films differently are any lesser - because that's exactly what you're saying, an interpretation other than what Ridley Scott happens to saying at this very moment is lesser than his for some reason. Like, by definition, that's pejorative.
I mean, shit, you even provided your own personal "fan theory" and then outright dismissed it because it's a fan theory, as if your own opinion should be dismissed. That's what pejorative means. :P
QuoteBut I'm not so arrogant as to ignore the fact that the way the stories are currently going, that's not the case, and until I'm proved right (or the issue is simply never resolved) there's no sense arguing that what I think is "true".
It's not "arrogance" to have an opinion that differs from the creator, and Ridley Scott has actively supported that mentality for a really long time. You're not giving yourself nearly enough credit if you feel that your opinion doesn't matter because it doesn't line up with what Ridley Scott is saying at this exact moment.
"The issue is simply never resolved" is a nonsense phrase. As of right this moment, the issue isn't resolved - there is no follow-up movie, and what we have is a movie that's open to interpretation.
What if Ridley Scott's follow-up to Covenant never gets greenlit, and then literally decades from now someone makes a sequel? You know, like what's happened with movies like Blade Runner, Tron, The Thing, Jurassic Park, etc? For those movies, there was no "follow up".... until suddenly there was.
I didn't even think it was up to debate that according to Ridley Scott David is the creator of the Alien. He took his bio-weapon idea and the question of what would create such an evil thing and decided on, an AI. I may not be that great a fan of the idea but it is what it is.
Ridley Scott says a lot of things but as of current, he has said in interviews and the commentary I believe, that David is the creator, the film itself shows as much too. I am not a fan of it at all but it is what it is and trying to say otherwise is pretty much denial, not an alternate interpretation. An alternate interpretation is only available if something is left open to be interpreted. With Ridley's comments and the film, it kind shows what is intended. It might be retconned in the next film (hopefully) but for now. David is the creator. You don't have to like it but you shouldn't ignore what it obvious for now.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Sep 02, 2018, 07:33:19 AM
It's really easy to view you as using it as a pejorative:
Yes, but as with most of your interpretations, just because you
can view it as such, doesn't make it so :)
Please stop putting words in others' mouths. I didn't say fan theory was a pejorative, Scott didn't say David being the creator was up in the air.
Indeed. Sil wasn't insulting. At the end of the day, as far as Scott is concerned David made the Alien. The film says that. Scott has said it numerous times in post release interviews. Can it change? Of course it can. Do we want it to change? I'm sure some of us do. I certainly do. But as it stands right now, David made the Alien. Saying that isn't an insult to others having theories or wanting otherwise.
Quote from: SiL on Sep 02, 2018, 12:23:23 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Sep 02, 2018, 07:33:19 AM
It's really easy to view you as using it as a pejorative:
Yes, but as with most of your interpretations, just because you can view it as such, doesn't make it so :)
Please stop putting words in others' mouths. I didn't say fan theory was a pejorative
So when you're saying something is a fan theory, do you mean it's worth less than an interpretation that aligns with what the creator says, and should be dismissed? I mean, maybe I'm misinterpreting what you've been saying and why you opt to label things as "fan theories" and the connotation you mean with that.
Another reminder, and going back to your original post I quoted: David not being the creator is supported by "the films". Going by that first thing you posted, if it's supported by the films, it's not a fan theory.
Quote from: The Cruentus on Sep 02, 2018, 11:20:47 AM
An alternate interpretation is only available if something is left open to be interpreted.
This assumes one should care about what Ridley Scott says, or that his "intent" matters. If I don't, then the movie is easily open for interpretation. Not to mention that if Ridley Scott was so dead-set on his view, why did he include a character moment that deliberately undermines it?
This all hinges on whether one thinks Ridley Scott's word matters or not, and ignoring what he says is an entirely valid viewpoint (and, as people seem to keep forgetting, one he himself entirely supports). One could just as easily side with FOX, the owners of the franchise, who allowed a novelization to be published that shows that David isn't the creator.
As an aside, here's a relevant quote from Harrison Ford from last year (https://www.news18.com/news/movies/harrison-ford-has-resolved-deckard-replicant-debate-with-ridley-scott-1527269.html) on whether Deckard was a replicant:
Quote"We're not (arguing over Deckard). It was resolved. I cannot tell you! Because then that question will go away and people will not have that pleasure of debating it," Ford said in an interview with Vice
I went ahead and bolded the important part.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Sep 02, 2018, 02:32:55 PM
Quote from: The Cruentus on Sep 02, 2018, 11:20:47 AM
An alternate interpretation is only available if something is left open to be interpreted.
This assumes one should care about what Ridley Scott says, or that his "intent" matters. If I don't, then the movie is easily open for interpretation. Not to mention that if Ridley Scott was so dead-set on his view, why did he include a character moment that deliberately undermines it?
Yes but then that is soley your opinion, not fact. At the end of the day, Ridley Scott directed it and it was his story, so his word matters more than us fans who simply don't like the direction. Having different opinions is all well and good but some things are not opinions, they are facts, at least as far as the people responsible for the movie are concerned.
He didn't as far as I could tell, David getting an ancient poem wrong really has nothing to do with creating the Alien, he spent 10 years creating and perfecting it, so its too recent for him to "forget" its origins, besides with his pride and ego, he would want to tell the truth in order to prove himself superior, something you can't do by lying. The scene in question only shows he isn't as perfect as he thought and that he is clearly "insane" but insanity doesn't always mean someone is wrong or lying.
Quote
This all hinges on whether one thinks Ridley Scott's word matters or not, and ignoring what he says is an entirely valid viewpoint (and, as people seem to keep forgetting, one he himself entirely supports). One could just as easily side with FOX, the owners of the franchise, who allowed a novelization to be published that shows that David isn't the creator.
That doesn't mean anything, they allowed Bug Hunt to be published which most of the stories are not canon, the intro specifically says so as well, Fox does not have issue with alternate stories hence the previous novel adaptions of movies and audible versions of the novels.
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Sep 02, 2018, 02:26:38 PM
Indeed. Sil wasn't insulting. At the end of the day, as far as Scott is concerned David made the Alien. The film says that. Scott has said it numerous times in post release interviews. Can it change? Of course it can. Do we want it to change? I'm sure some of us do. I certainly do. But as it stands right now, David made the Alien. Saying that isn't an insult to others having theories or wanting otherwise.
In fairness, I think it would be more accurate to say that, so far as
Scott is concerned, that's his own personal view. Until something concrete is put up on screen, one way or the other, his perspective is no more valid than one from Sigourney Weaver's hair stylist.
And even if he's involved with another production, there's no guarantee it will include anything to touch upon that, whatsoever (in the same way as AC didn't touch upon the very issues which Shaw left to figure out, leaving us no more enlightened as to the motivations of the Engineers as we had been before).
At the moment, all anyone can realistically say is what our favoured theories are.
QuoteIn fairness, I think it would be more accurate to say that, so far as Scott is concerned, that's his own personal view. Until something concrete is put up on screen, one way or the other, his perspective is no more valid than one from Sigourney Weaver's hair stylist.
Until Sigourney Weaver's hair stylist is involved in the writing of a film that Sigourney Weaver wasn't even in, no, it wouldn't be remotely accurate to say that.
Quote from: SM on Sep 02, 2018, 08:25:43 PM
QuoteIn fairness, I think it would be more accurate to say that, so far as Scott is concerned, that's his own personal view. Until something concrete is put up on screen, one way or the other, his perspective is no more valid than one from Sigourney Weaver's hair stylist.
Until Sigourney Weaver's hair stylist is involved in the writing of a film that Sigourney Weaver wasn't even in, no, it wouldn't be remotely accurate to say that.
Heck, after Covenant, I'd rather see what the hairdresser comes up with. ;D
Quote from: The Cruentus on Sep 02, 2018, 03:27:59 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Sep 02, 2018, 02:32:55 PM
Quote from: The Cruentus on Sep 02, 2018, 11:20:47 AM
An alternate interpretation is only available if something is left open to be interpreted.
This assumes one should care about what Ridley Scott says, or that his "intent" matters. If I don't, then the movie is easily open for interpretation. Not to mention that if Ridley Scott was so dead-set on his view, why did he include a character moment that deliberately undermines it?
Yes but then that is soley your opinion, not fact. At the end of the day, Ridley Scott directed it and it was his story, so his word matters more than us fans who simply don't like the direction. Having different opinions is all well and good but some things are not opinions, they are facts, at least as far as the people responsible for the movie are concerned.
This is all fiction, there are no "facts".
Ignoring what Ridley Scott (or any creator) says is a completely valid form of artistic criticism and interpretation that's been around for centuries - there's no objective law that says we have to follow what the creator says just because they say it. And again - because I have to keep repeating myself on this apparently - it's a form of artistic criticism that Ridley Scott himself ascribes to and supports. I'm trying to track it down but my google-fu is failing me at the moment, but he's got a great quote from after Prometheus came out where he says that he likes to stir the pot and get discussions happening, and that he'd much rather see people form their own opinions and talk about them than have everyone fall in line behind what he says.
Quote from: The Cruentus on Sep 02, 2018, 03:27:59 PMHe didn't as far as I could tell, David getting an ancient poem wrong really has nothing to do with creating the Alien, he spent 10 years creating and perfecting it, so its too recent for him to "forget" its origins, besides with his pride and ego, he would want to tell the truth in order to prove himself superior, something you can't do by lying. The scene in question only shows he isn't as perfect as he thought and that he is clearly "insane" but insanity doesn't always mean someone is wrong or lying.
He specifically mis-attributes the creator of one of his favorite things. Think about that for a moment.
One of the
most important things in his life, and he gets the
creator wrong. That's not just Ridley Scott saying via subtext that David is an unreliable source of information on creators and creation, Scott is literally doing it via text itself. Like, it's really, really on-the-nose. He's practically winking at the audience when he does it.
David didn't realize that he was wrong about the quote until Walter threw it in his face. Does that mean David was lying? Perhaps he was genuinely mistaken about the author of the quote. Likewise, perhaps he's genuinely mistaken when he thinks he's the first person to create an Alien. Multiple discovery (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_discovery) is a real life phenomenon.
Quote from: The Cruentus on Sep 02, 2018, 03:27:59 PM
Quote
This all hinges on whether one thinks Ridley Scott's word matters or not, and ignoring what he says is an entirely valid viewpoint (and, as people seem to keep forgetting, one he himself entirely supports). One could just as easily side with FOX, the owners of the franchise, who allowed a novelization to be published that shows that David isn't the creator.
That doesn't mean anything, they allowed Bug Hunt to be published which most of the stories are not canon, the intro specifically says so as well, Fox does not have issue with alternate stories hence the previous novel adaptions of movies and audible versions of the novels.
The intro to the Covenant novelization doesn't say that the novelization is non-canon the way the Bug Hunt intro does, though. There are "canon" novels, and we have no indication that the novelization is not among them.
Just pointing out that just as easily as you handwave away FOX's apparent view on the matter via the novelization, I can easily handwave away Ridley Scott's statements as "not meaning anything".
And the best part is, they're both valid interpretations. :)
Quote from: Xenomorphine on Sep 02, 2018, 04:07:47 PM
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Sep 02, 2018, 02:26:38 PM
Indeed. Sil wasn't insulting. At the end of the day, as far as Scott is concerned David made the Alien. The film says that. Scott has said it numerous times in post release interviews. Can it change? Of course it can. Do we want it to change? I'm sure some of us do. I certainly do. But as it stands right now, David made the Alien. Saying that isn't an insult to others having theories or wanting otherwise.
In fairness, I think it would be more accurate to say that, so far as Scott is concerned, that's his own personal view. Until something concrete is put up on screen, one way or the other, his perspective is no more valid than one from Sigourney Weaver's hair stylist.
And even if he's involved with another production, there's no guarantee it will include anything to touch upon that, whatsoever (in the same way as AC didn't touch upon the very issues which Shaw left to figure out, leaving us no more enlightened as to the motivations of the Engineers as we had been before).
At the moment, all anyone can realistically say is what our favoured theories are.
Bingo, this guy gets it.
Quote from: SM on Sep 02, 2018, 08:25:43 PM
QuoteIn fairness, I think it would be more accurate to say that, so far as Scott is concerned, that's his own personal view. Until something concrete is put up on screen, one way or the other, his perspective is no more valid than one from Sigourney Weaver's hair stylist.
Until Sigourney Weaver's hair stylist is involved in the writing of a film that Sigourney Weaver wasn't even in, no, it wouldn't be remotely accurate to say that.
This guy, on the other hand, does not.
Quote from: Huggs on Sep 02, 2018, 08:31:38 PM
Quote from: SM on Sep 02, 2018, 08:25:43 PM
QuoteIn fairness, I think it would be more accurate to say that, so far as Scott is concerned, that's his own personal view. Until something concrete is put up on screen, one way or the other, his perspective is no more valid than one from Sigourney Weaver's hair stylist.
Until Sigourney Weaver's hair stylist is involved in the writing of a film that Sigourney Weaver wasn't even in, no, it wouldn't be remotely accurate to say that.
Heck, after Covenant, I'd rather see what the hairdresser comes up with. ;D
Alien PERManent.
So the movie says that David created the Alien but now where does god fit into this picture? If the Engineers made man then surely something else made them? Hence the engineers must be AI as well.
Or they evolved.
The Engineers are essentially human, in the film's own words they are false Gods.
As are their creations, as were those whom came before them, and so on. Evolution or otherwise.
It doesn't matter what made them- they failed making us, or at least unmaking us.
The Alien is a biological AI, the wolf. The equal AI to the perfect AI.
I'd say anything else is up to individual interpretation, but these are the facts.
Quote from: whiterabbit on Sep 02, 2018, 09:53:07 PM
So the movie says that David created the Alien but now where does god fit into this picture? If the Engineers made man then surely something else made them? Hence the engineers must be AI as well.
They're tall and elegant dark angels who act as intermediaries between God and Humanity.
(https://i.imgur.com/05A2sL2.gif)
Quote from: Xenomrph on Sep 02, 2018, 02:32:55 PM
So when you're saying something is a fan theory, do you mean it's worth less than an interpretation that aligns with what the creator says, and should be dismissed? I mean, maybe I'm misinterpreting what you've been saying and why you opt to label things as "fan theories" and the connotation you mean with that.
Another reminder, and going back to your original post I quoted: David not being the creator is supported by "the films". Going by that first thing you posted, if it's supported by the films, it's not a fan theory.
At this point you're trying
really hard to get offended by what I've said rather than listen to me. I've explained the difference clearly. If you want to continue ignoring what I'm saying in favour of being insulted by your own interpretation of events then go ahead, I clearly can't stop you.
Quote from: SiL on Sep 02, 2018, 11:30:51 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Sep 02, 2018, 02:32:55 PM
So when you're saying something is a fan theory, do you mean it's worth less than an interpretation that aligns with what the creator says, and should be dismissed? I mean, maybe I'm misinterpreting what you've been saying and why you opt to label things as "fan theories" and the connotation you mean with that.
Another reminder, and going back to your original post I quoted: David not being the creator is supported by "the films". Going by that first thing you posted, if it's supported by the films, it's not a fan theory.
At this point you're trying really hard to get offended by what I've said rather than listen to me. I've explained the difference clearly. If you want to continue ignoring what I'm saying in favour of being insulted by your own interpretation of events then go ahead, I clearly can't stop you.
Whatevs I guess. If you say you didn't mean anything by it, then I'm cool with that. :) No harm, no foul.
My point was that just because Riddles says something doesn't instantly make it so, or make alternate interpretations inferior or invalid.
Quote from: whiterabbit on Sep 02, 2018, 09:53:07 PM
So the movie says that David created the Alien but now where does god fit into this picture? If the Engineers made man then surely something else made them? Hence the engineers must be AI as well.
Shaw actually deliberately asked this question in 'Prometheus' - if the Engineers are "gods" to humans, then what are "gods" to them?
The Space Jockey, hopefully.
Quote from: The Old One on Sep 03, 2018, 12:10:55 AM
The Space Jockey, hopefully.
That's what I've opted to believe. :)
It's thematically interesting and oddly cyclical, too - the Jockeys create the Engineers
not in their image, the Engineers revere them and create technology in the Jockeys' image, they ultimately surpass the Jockeys and create man in
their image, man creates androids in their (man's) image, androids (via David) surpass man, and David creates something
not in his image that looks strangely Jockey-like aesthetically. It's one big loop.
And to think Holloway, Janek and David all inside of the movie Prometheus proclaimed to Shaw that her questions don't even matter. Holloway: "we'll never know". Janek: "I don't care" and David: "It's irrelevant". It seems like the only one who cared outside of Shaw was Weyland and the rest of us. :P
Quote from: Xenomrph on Sep 03, 2018, 12:16:21 AM
Quote from: The Old One on Sep 03, 2018, 12:10:55 AM
The Space Jockey, hopefully.
That's what I've opted to believe. :)
It's thematically interesting and oddly cyclical, too - the Jockeys create the Engineers not in their image, the Engineers revere them and create technology in the Jockeys' image, they ultimately surpass the Jockeys and create man in their image, man creates androids in their (man's) image, androids (via David) surpass man, and David creates something not in his image that looks strangely Jockey-like aesthetically. It's one big loop.
I'm in the minority, but if there is a highly advanced race of makers playing some kind of key role into all this, I don't want them to be the jockeys. Don't get me wrong, since I want something inspired by Giger's biomechanics. However and on the other side of the coin, I already accepted that Engineers and the pilot are one and the same, so I prefer something new, although not so far from Giger's philosophy in terms of design. Also, I don't like the idea of the Engineers cosplaying the Space Jockeys like real-life fanboys. Sorry, but I think what is done is done, and while Ridley has the possibility of giving to the fans what they want, I don't want Scott shooting himself in the foot with another retcon. In my opinion, he must defend his contribution to the lore with nails and teeth to death, instead of repeating what he did (or rather what he never did) with Shaw and the Engineers.
Now going back to the forerunners, let's say I want a Lovecraftian element or even something akin to the Babylonian creation myth: the gods are born from Tiamat, the monster who emerged from the chaos before creation. More ideas can be found in others ancient myths and legends such as the Islamic folklore about the time before the Flood, when God created monstrous giants, the djinn, to live on the Earth before the creation of man. Or the widely known Nephilim, sometimes identified as the mighty children of the "Sons (angels) of God".
Btw, I wonder if one can interpret the xeno-like-creatures as an equivalent of the aforementioned Nephilim, because if Engineers were creations, then these beast are the children of the sons of God.
(https://i.imgur.com/dAWlVjj.jpg)
I can't accept the Pilot and the Engineers being one and the same- because the SJ is "other" to me,
but the Engineers are essentially humans, humans more advanced by eons- in a strange religious direction.
I don't believe I implied that I wanted the SJ's to be a technologically advanced race.
Hence why I said The Space Jockey, in a narrative sense it would give a conclusion to David's arc;
With him discovering the already eons old Pilot, organic unlike the Engineers.
Revealing he only plagiarized what already existed. That being a number of ancient eggs in the cargo hold.
Perhaps it could be a double entendre, with the Engineers trying to harvest this primordial substance that came from the parasites on the Derelict.
Because for whatever reason their society is no longer advancing, rotting as the AI declared. Hence the primitive nature of their planet.
Having reached desperation they look to the strange planetoid, the crashed ship on a dead moon.
In an effort to control what they don't understand, they try to replicate the SJ's technology as close as possible.
It goes wrong on LV-223 because the substance is always trying to create the Alien, no matter what others would use it for.
No matter what it's introduced to.
(You can see the immense, almost supernatural power in the Alien's fast growth and lack of need for sustenance.)
So there's nothing new under the sun, and by any means the Alien will attempt to return to it's "normal" lifecycle.
But I don't have control over the story or where it goes.
Quote from: Crazy Shrimp on Sep 03, 2018, 03:53:53 AM
Also, I don't like the idea of the Engineers cosplaying the Space Jockeys like real-life fanboys. Sorry, but I think what is done is done, and while Ridley has the possibility of giving to the fans what they want, I don't want Scott shooting himself in the foot with another retcon.
I think "cosplaying" is selling it a little short - if we, as humans, had definitively learned centuries/millennia ago that our genuine, bona-fide, no-foolin' for real God looked like a hermit crab, I think a lot of our art and culture would have evolved over time to reflect that, if only out of reverence.
I've always felt that making the Space Jockey into a giant albino human (which is some real "the emperor's new clothes" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Clothes) shit, when you compare 'Alien' and 'Prometheus' side by side) heavily undermined 'Alien' without giving either movie anything of thematic value; making them separate would repair the damage done to 'Alien' and if anything I feel it'd add another thematic layer to 'Prometheus', as opposed to damaging what's already been there or something.
Quote from: Xenomorphine on Sep 02, 2018, 04:07:47 PM
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Sep 02, 2018, 02:26:38 PM
Indeed. Sil wasn't insulting. At the end of the day, as far as Scott is concerned David made the Alien. The film says that. Scott has said it numerous times in post release interviews. Can it change? Of course it can. Do we want it to change? I'm sure some of us do. I certainly do. But as it stands right now, David made the Alien. Saying that isn't an insult to others having theories or wanting otherwise.
In fairness, I think it would be more accurate to say that, so far as Scott is concerned, that's his own personal view. Until something concrete is put up on screen, one way or the other, his perspective is no more valid than one from Sigourney Weaver's hair stylist.
I can't agree with that in the slightest. The director's intent is far more valid than anyone else on the production - especially the over-reach there, Xenomorphine! :P Regardless, the film states David made them. The director confirmed his intention. It's not some vague angle left open.
It doesn't matter what the novelization says - it is ancillary. And it was a decision made by someone not involved in the film. I definitely prefer it. Doesn't make it what's actually happening or the intent, though.
David made the Aliens now. It's as simple as that. I hope another film comes out and retcons that but that's what it is. Anything else is just wishful thinking and fansplaining.
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Sep 03, 2018, 08:07:15 AMThe director's intent is far more valid than anyone else on the production
Why?
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Sep 03, 2018, 08:07:15 AMRegardless, the film states David made them. The director confirmed his intention. It's not some vague angle left open.
If you take out that middle part as irrelevant, then there's ample room for interpretation. The film shows David state that he created them, and the film also shows that David is an unreliable source of information who doesn't always know what he's talking about, whether he realizes it or not.
That, and what David says doesn't mesh with 'Alien' unless you venture into "wishful thinking and fansplaining", seeing as how the movies themselves don't address the discrepancy.
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Sep 03, 2018, 08:07:15 AMIt doesn't matter what the novelization says - it is ancillary. And it was a decision made by someone not involved in the film. I definitely prefer it. Doesn't make it what's actually happening or the intent, though.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that - it was a decision okayed by the production company that owns the Alien intellectual property.
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Sep 03, 2018, 08:07:15 AMDavid made the Aliens now. It's as simple as that.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that, too.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Sep 03, 2018, 08:23:24 AM
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Sep 03, 2018, 08:07:15 AMThe director's intent is far more valid than anyone else on the production
Why?
Because as the director he is the driving force of the entire thing. It's his vision and story the film is bringing to life. Not some randomer with no idea of the big picture throwing out what he thinks.
QuoteQuote from: Corporal Hicks on Sep 03, 2018, 08:07:15 AM
If you take out that middle part as irrelevant, then there's ample room for interpretation. The film shows David state that he created them, and the film also shows that David is an unreliable source of information who doesn't always know what he's talking about, whether he realizes it or not.
That, and what David says doesn't mesh with 'Alien' unless you venture into "wishful thinking and fansplaining", seeing as how the movies themselves don't address the discrepancy.
I don't disagree that there's room to slot in another explanation. But unlike Prometheus it's not a vaguarity left open for interpretation. Unlike Prometheus Scott had a clear vision with this particular story aspect and it's up there on the screen and it's clear as day.
You don't like it? That's fine but you can't pretend that any other theory or interpretation doesn't fly in the face of what the film says and the director intended when he was making the film and has clearly relayed numerous times. It's okay to want it to be different but to claim that the film doesn't put across exactly the intent its maker and storyteller wanted to is wrong.
QuoteQuote from: Corporal Hicks on Sep 03, 2018, 08:07:15 AMIt doesn't matter what the novelization says - it is ancillary. And it was a decision made by someone not involved in the film. I definitely prefer it. Doesn't make it what's actually happening or the intent, though.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that - it was a decision okayed by the production company that owns the Alien intellectual property.
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Sep 03, 2018, 08:07:15 AMDavid made the Aliens now. It's as simple as that.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that, too.
I'm afraid there's no agreement on my end with either of these.
The status quo is David made the Aliens. Anyone who says otherwise is wrong. They can wish or theorize or fansplain anything they want. I certainly do. I much prefer ADF's novel over the film, but to claim that as far as canon is concerned David didn't make the Aliens is wrong (for now). It's not an opinion.
Films have never been beholden to books.
Disney might have to bring in JJ Abrams to fix the next one.
Quote from: SM on Sep 03, 2018, 09:06:57 AM
Films have never been beholden to books.
What are you talking about? Hicks and Newt totally made it back to Earth in
Alien3.
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Sep 03, 2018, 08:54:46 AM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Sep 03, 2018, 08:23:24 AM
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Sep 03, 2018, 08:07:15 AMThe director's intent is far more valid than anyone else on the production
Why?
Because as the director he is the driving force of the entire thing. It's his vision and story the film is bringing to life. Not some randomer with no idea of the big picture throwing out what he thinks.
And once he releases his work into the wild, no one is beholden to his vision or opinion. If he intended something, it's up to him to present it on screen in a convincing manner. If someone concludes something different from what was shown on-screen and can source it from the film, that's entirely valid. What Riddles says in interviews doesn't matter.
Like, are people just overlooking that Ridley Scott himself has been a proponent of alternate interpretations of his work? I feel like I'm having to repeat this a lot.
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Sep 03, 2018, 08:54:46 AMUnlike Prometheus Scott had a clear vision with this particular story aspect and it's up there on the screen and it's clear as day.
Well, except for the whole Ozymandias thing, that throws a really, really big wrench in there. There were a myriad different ways Ridley Scott could have chosen to convey that David is crazy, and he picked that very specific one. When the only evidence that "David is the original creator of the Alien" is "David said so", and suddenly "David said so" is called into question both textually and thematically, then the conclusion that David is the original creator of the Alien seems a whole lot shakier. If Riddles intended for David to be the creator, then clearly he also intended for us to question that as well, since he intentionally included both elements in his movie.
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Sep 03, 2018, 08:54:46 AMYou don't like it? That's fine but you can't pretend that any other theory or interpretation doesn't fly in the face of what the film says and the director intended when he was making the film and has clearly relayed numerous times. It's okay to want it to be different but to claim that the film doesn't put across exactly the intent its maker and storyteller wanted to is wrong.
Just because Ridley Scott says things in interviews doesn't mean anything, what with how often he changes his mind, forgets details in his own movies, etc. Long after Riddles is dead, all we'll have left are the movies themselves.
Like, what if Riddles said in interviews that he "intended" things in Covenant that were blatantly not at all present in the movie? Or what if, in 5 years, he says in an interview, "Oh yeah, that whole 'David made the Aliens' thing is nonsense, I was just pulling your leg to get a rise out of the audience", or "that was a bad call, in retrospect David didn't create the Aliens"?
Do you go off of what Riddles' "intent" was when he made the movie? Or do you go off of what he thinks at this very moment? What if his "intent" with one movie contradicts his "intent" with another?
There's a million reasons why relying on "authorial intent" is hugely problematic and in no way internally consistent, not to mention it massively stifles how people connect with and respond to a work. Is it an interesting footnote into the creative process? Hell yeah it is, and I enjoy hearing it in interviews, audio commentaries, etc. Is it something people should be beholden to? Of course not.
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Sep 03, 2018, 08:54:46 AM
The status quo is David made the Aliens. Anyone who says otherwise is wrong.
Like I said, we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Sep 03, 2018, 08:54:46 AMThey can wish or theorize or fansplain anything they want. I certainly do. I much prefer ADF's novel over the film, but to claim that as far as canon is concerned David didn't make the Aliens is wrong (for now). It's not an opinion.
"Canon" is fluid, and we don't know if we're going to get another movie, let alone what it will say or do. If another movie comes along and changes things, I guess we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. At present what we have is a movie that's open to interpretation, and it's open to interpretation because Riddles himself included details that allow it to be so.
Quote from: SiL on Sep 03, 2018, 09:42:02 AM
Quote from: SM on Sep 03, 2018, 09:06:57 AM
Films have never been beholden to books.
What are you talking about? Hicks and Newt totally made it back to Earth in Alien3.
Apart from that.
Quote from: SM on Sep 03, 2018, 10:12:12 AM
Apart from that.
There's also how Aliens in every Alien movie after the first one have giant bug eyes because ADF described the Alien as having them in the original novelisation.
For some fun reading on authorial intent (and why it doesn't matter), these are cool articles:
https://www.vox.com/2014/8/28/6078375/tony-soprano-hello-kitty-authorial-intent
http://literaryecology.com/official-versions-reflections-on-teaching-blade-runner/
http://www.geekzine.co.uk/2015/05/retiring-the-author/
Quote from: Joss Whedon"All worthy work is open to interpretations the author did not intend. Art isn't your pet -- it's your kid. It grows up and talks back to you."
Quote from: Xenomrph on Sep 03, 2018, 10:10:34 AM
And once he releases his work into the wild, no one is beholden to his vision or opinion. If he intended something, it's up to him to present it on screen in a convincing manner.
That's pretty much how Cameron regarded eggmorphing.
It has begun. A full fledged fanboy fight over canon. :laugh:
Quote from: Local Trouble on Sep 03, 2018, 10:42:33 AM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Sep 03, 2018, 10:10:34 AM
And once he releases his work into the wild, no one is beholden to his vision or opinion. If he intended something, it's up to him to present it on screen in a convincing manner.
That's pretty much how Cameron regarded eggmorphing.
Except egg morphing isn't in the final film, David being the creator is.
If Xenomrph genuinely believes having a lengthy scene of a character explaining their process while walking past works in progress isn't Scott trying to put it in the film in a convincing way then there's really no point discussing the topic with him at all.
But it's still a crappy notion that diminishes the Alien, IMO.
Quote from: SiL on Sep 03, 2018, 11:29:15 AM
If Xenomrph genuinely believes having a lengthy scene of a character explaining their process while walking past works in progress isn't Scott trying to put it in the film in a convincing way then there's really no point discussing the topic with him at all.
I'm not disputing that David made an Alien, the movie makes that clear.
What it doesn't make clear, and what David's Ozymandias slip-up (and what we see in 'Alien') calls into question, is whether he's the first one to make an Alien.
If SiL genuinely believes having a lengthy scene of a character screwing up the creator of one of their favorite things isn't Scott trying to put in the film that said character might not be a reliable source of information then there's really no point discussing the topic with him at all.
Beyond that, if we all agree that David made the Alien and there's no room for discussion or interpretation, then there is no "discussion". :P
Just a reminder:
The intent of this sentence is sinister; it is meant to literally kill the reader.
If you're still with us, I guess authorial intent is fallible.
Quote from: EJA on Sep 03, 2018, 02:19:54 PM
But it's still a crappy notion that diminishes the Alien, IMO.
Which is completely irrelevant.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Sep 03, 2018, 02:36:41 PM
Quote from: SiL on Sep 03, 2018, 11:29:15 AM
If Xenomrph genuinely believes having a lengthy scene of a character explaining their process while walking past works in progress isn't Scott trying to put it in the film in a convincing way then there's really no point discussing the topic with him at all.
I'm not disputing that David made an Alien, the movie makes that clear.
What it doesn't make clear, and what David's Ozymandias slip-up (and what we see in 'Alien') calls into question, is whether he's the first one to make an Alien.
That is probably the most bizarre detail on this whole controversial twist. I mean, if Ridley wanted us to believe that David is the creator of the Alien, then, why David behaves like an unreliable character??? Now, don't get me wrong, since I believe in Ridley's words and vision. However, I think the fact that David was lying about Shaw's whereabouts, in addition to his mistake about Ozymandias' authorship, kinda undermines such concept.
Quote from: The Old One on Sep 03, 2018, 04:40:08 AM
I can't accept the Pilot and the Engineers being one and the same- because the SJ is "other" to me,
but the Engineers are essentially humans, humans more advanced by eons- in a strange religious direction.
I don't believe I implied that I wanted the SJ's to be a technologically advanced race.
Hence why I said The Space Jockey, in a narrative sense it would give a conclusion to David's arc;
With him discovering the already eons old Pilot, organic unlike the Engineers.
Yes, on second thought, alien creationism is not necessary at all.
Quote from: Crazy Shrimp on Sep 03, 2018, 09:08:00 PM
That is probably the most bizarre detail on this whole controversial twist. I mean, if Ridley wanted us to believe that David is the creator of the Alien (and no one else before him, apparently), then why he turned him into this unreliable character. Don't get me wrong, since I believe in Ridley's words and vision. However, I think the fact that David was lying about Shaw's whereabouts, in addition to his mistake about Ozymandias' authorship, kinda undermines such concept.
The point with Ozymandias is that he forgets a small detail which shows he's gone screwy, not that he's incapable of telling the truth. There's nothing suggesting he's lying or misleading about making the Alien outside of not wanting it to be the case.
Bit of a difference between lying and making a mistake.
Edit: ninja'd
Quote from: SiL on Sep 03, 2018, 09:53:10 PM
Quote from: Crazy Shrimp on Sep 03, 2018, 09:08:00 PM
That is probably the most bizarre detail on this whole controversial twist. I mean, if Ridley wanted us to believe that David is the creator of the Alien (and no one else before him, apparently), then why he turned him into this unreliable character. Don't get me wrong, since I believe in Ridley's words and vision. However, I think the fact that David was lying about Shaw's whereabouts, in addition to his mistake about Ozymandias' authorship, kinda undermines such concept.
The point with Ozymandias is that he forgets a small detail which shows he's gone screwy, not that he's incapable of telling the truth. There's nothing suggesting he's lying or misleading about making the Alien outside of not wanting it to be the case.
It's not just that he got a detail wrong, it's what detail he got wrong. Riddles could have picked anything at all to have David slip up and demonstrate that he's a little kooky, and he specifically had David goof up the creator of one of his favorite things. Like, it's really, really on the nose, and ignoring it is a really fundamental misunderstanding of the movie in my opinion.
Was David lying? Personally I don't think he was. But just like the Ozymandias author, just because he thinks it's true doesn't mean it is. :)
I think that he's making the point that David is an unreliable narrator, but he is not aware of the fact that he is mistaken.
So indeed he could be mistaken about a great deal.
However, that's not the film's intent- in the context of Alien Covenant David is the creator of the Alien.
I believe it's wishful thinking to believe otherwise, or that Ridley Scott is misdirecting the audience.
Every time he lies or is inaccurate in the film, the film goes to the effort to point it out. None of his lies or misdirections are left open to the audience to figure out. He got the author wrong, it's pointed out. He lied about what happened to Shaw, it gets discovered. He disguises himself as someone else, shock twist ending!!!
He talks about making the Alien ... and the film just keeps on trucking. If we're going to use his other examples of lying to undermine his claim, we also have to use how the film handles those other examples as well. There is a clear disconnect.
Indeed.
Unless it's recontextualised in a sequel, which would still mean that in the context of Alien Covenant, David is the creator.
Quote from: SiL on Sep 03, 2018, 10:41:41 PM
Every time he lies or is inaccurate in the film, the film goes to the effort to point it out. None of his lies or misdirections are left open to the audience to figure out. He got the author wrong, it's pointed out. He lied about what happened to Shaw, it gets discovered. He disguises himself as someone else, shock twist ending!!!
He talks about making the Alien ... and the film just keeps on trucking. If we're going to use his other examples of lying to undermine his claim, we also have to use how the film handles those other examples as well. There is a clear disconnect.
He got the author of the poem wrong, he gets called on it, it calls into question his understanding and recognition of authorship, and then he says he authored the Alien. I don't doubt that he made an Alien, but the movie 'Alien' indicates that he wasn't the first one to do so - unless you venture into "fan theory" territory. Will a future movie clear that up? We'll have to wait and see - but just like Covenant, 'Alien' stands as is - and interpreting 'Alien' to make the Derelict younger is just as much of a "fan theory" as interpreting that David is mistaken. And that's totally okay! To each their own.
I think framing David as the creator is a way for Riddles to have his cake and eat it, too - just like he did with Prometheus. Prometheus sets up this grand opera of Shaw confronting her creators, and we spend like 4 years as audience members ruminating on that and discussing the thematic and philosophical implications... and then Scott throws it out the window. But that doesn't invalidate the interesting discussions (psst.... because that's how "death of the author" works), and that's what Riddles has openly said he enjoys about his work.
Likewise, framing David as the creator brings up a ton of interesting talking points, and if he undoes it in the next movie, it's not going to invalidate the interesting posts people have made about it thematically and otherwise.
Because at the end of the day, that's the discussion we should be having. Regardless of whether you think he did or not, what if he did? What does it mean for AI, or for theology, or sentience? Alternately, what if he thinks he did, and he's wrong? What does that say about his character and how he views the world?
Quote from: Xenomrph on Sep 03, 2018, 11:03:32 PM
but the movie 'Alien' indicates that he wasn't the first one to do so
Does it? The movie Alien was made decades before Covenant came out, which means its information is not current, which is why the current events is a retcon. The Derelict is now what 20? years old instead of centuries, the eggs being the same. Interestingly it actually makes it a bit more plausible as it no longer means the eggs have survived centuries. Which unless you believe the blue mist was some sort of stasis field, makes such survivability hard to swallow.
It also might explain why the Company only just picked up the transmission.
I resent that implication, I prefer my space to be vast and empty.
With an eons old horror just waiting to be discovered.
I don't have a problem with the Alien Ovomorphs in the Derelict surviving since before humanity was a single celled organism, up to and after 2122.
Quote from: The Cruentus on Sep 03, 2018, 11:30:47 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Sep 03, 2018, 11:03:32 PM
but the movie 'Alien' indicates that he wasn't the first one to do so
Does it? The movie Alien was made decades before Covenant came out, which means its information is not current, which is why the current events is a retcon. The Derelict is now what 20? years old instead of centuries, the eggs being the same. Interestingly it actually makes it a bit more plausible as it no longer means the eggs have survived centuries. Which unless you believe the blue mist was some sort of stasis field, makes such survivability hard to swallow.
And all of that is a fan theory, because neither 'Alien' nor Covenant indicate any of it. It's "fansplaining", to use Hicks' term, intended to address an apparent discrepancy.
I have my own way to address the discrepancy: David is mistaken.
And either of those is valid, and that's okay! What will a future movie do? We'll have to wait and see.
Also if the survivability of the Alien eggs is hard to swallow, why did you swallow it without question for the last 40 years? :P
Maybe the blue mist acts as stasis, or maybe the eggs just live forever because they're Alien eggs and Aliens do weird, impossible shit. The bottom line is that the Derelict and it's contents are depicted as being ancient, and that was very much Ridley Scott's "authorial intent" when he made the movie (for those that care about that sort of thing), and we have no indication that that's changed.
Quote from: The Old One on Sep 03, 2018, 11:50:46 PM
I resent that implication, I prefer my space to be vast and empty.
With an eons old horror just waiting to be discovered.
I don't have a problem with the Alien Ovomorphs in the Derelict surviving since before humanity was a single celled organism, up to and after 2122.
This right here. It plays into the Lovecraftian "ancient horrors from before the stars were young" motif that's prevalent in 'Alien'.
Man I still hope the aliens being ancient will prevail but c'est la vie.
Although David not knowing that he made a mistake about who wrote Ozymandias is a serious breakdown in programing. His OS should have picked up that something wasn't right. Perhaps vanity won out.
Quote from: SM on Sep 03, 2018, 11:37:56 PM
It also might explain why the Company only just picked up the transmission.
That's gotta be the thing, eh...
Quote from: whiterabbit on Sep 04, 2018, 02:48:36 AM
Man I still hope the aliens being ancient will prevail but c'est la vie.
Well, David did leave some eggs behind in that basement on paradise, and the engineers are supposed to be coming back at some point. So it's still possible the jockey is a post-paradise engineer, and the eggs from the first film aren't David's colonists.
On a side note, wouldn't an engineer be strong enough to remove a standard facehugger before losing consciousness? I mean, Ripley held one off for a few seconds in Aliens.
It would've choked her into unconsciousness eventually. Same would happen with an Engineer - might just take a bit longer.
Quote from: Huggs on Sep 04, 2018, 03:35:53 AM
Quote from: whiterabbit on Sep 04, 2018, 02:48:36 AM
Man I still hope the aliens being ancient will prevail but c'est la vie.
Well, David did leave some eggs behind in that basement on paradise, and the engineers are supposed to be coming back at some point. So it's still possible the jockey is a post-paradise engineer, and the eggs from the first film aren't David's colonists.
On a side note, wouldn't an engineer be strong enough to remove a standard facehugger before losing consciousness? I mean, Ripley held one off for a few seconds in Aliens.
Yea but Covenant says that these things are quick to draw and by draw I mean squirt their alien seed. Also the eggs looked fairly big... maybe one will be a superfacehugger... go, go Ridley, trying to save alien 3 as well.
However the idea that an engineer finds David's massacre and that's how the derelict ends up on LV426 would most definitely work. Although that's probably what should have happened at the end of Prometheus.
Quote from: SM on Sep 04, 2018, 03:50:28 AM
It would've choked her into unconsciousness eventually. Same would happen with an Engineer - might just take a bit longer.
Well, that's just it. I know it can knock out anything. But those engineers were awful tough, and might be strong enough to remove it before blacking out. Especially if there was more than one engineer present.
Well now this has me wondering if the jockey didn't even know he was infected. Seeing as how Lope was infected within seconds and the hugger was killed. That jockey might have ripped it off quickly and thought he was safe.
Quote from: whiterabbit on Sep 04, 2018, 03:54:46 AM
Quote from: Huggs on Sep 04, 2018, 03:35:53 AM
Quote from: whiterabbit on Sep 04, 2018, 02:48:36 AM
Man I still hope the aliens being ancient will prevail but c'est la vie.
Well, David did leave some eggs behind in that basement on paradise, and the engineers are supposed to be coming back at some point. So it's still possible the jockey is a post-paradise engineer, and the eggs from the first film aren't David's colonists.
On a side note, wouldn't an engineer be strong enough to remove a standard facehugger before losing consciousness? I mean, Ripley held one off for a few seconds in Aliens.
Yea but Covenant says that these things are quick to draw and by draw I mean squirt their alien seed. Also the eggs looked fairly big... maybe one will be a superfacehugger... go, go Ridley, trying to save alien 3 as well.
However the idea that an engineer finds David's massacre and that's how the derelict ends up on LV426 would most definitely work. Although that's probably what should have happened at the end of Prometheus.
It's still interesting to think about the end of David's journey and how such chapter will be linked or not with the original Alien. A few examples:
1. Somehow David perfected his creation by making it more biomechanical. Furthermore, he is behind the existence of the thousands of ovomorphs (either through the queen or eggmorphing) of the original film. So an Engineer finds David and destroys him, then he tries to transport the eggs to LV-223 for scientific studies. Maybe there is a hero on board (using a flamethrower to kill the chestburster that emerged from the Space Jockey and at the same time causing that molten and organic aspect of the biomechanical suit.) or maybe not. However, we already know how ends that misadventure.
2. There are connections with Alien, but these are more subtle (ie, no Derelict).
3. Ridley ends David's story without establishing any connection with Alien, which brings obvious implications.
3. David commits suicide or goes into exile after discovering the Derelict in LV-426, with thousands of eggs and a mummified Space Jockey / Engineer.
We still don't even know what sort of creature would come from a standard facehugger impregnating an engineer. Would that be David's perfect creation? Could the biomechanical nature of the creature be a product of the jockey being biologically fused into the chair somehow? Either way, I guess that will be new creature number 3 for movie number 3.
Quote from: Huggs on Sep 04, 2018, 04:00:49 AM
Well, that's just it. I know it can knock out anything. But those engineers were awful tough, and might be strong enough to remove it before blacking out. Especially if there was more than one engineer present.
You can say that about humans, though. They managed to get the hugger off Ripley before it choked her out because there were several people there.
Quote from: Crazy Shrimp on Sep 04, 2018, 04:06:50 AM
3. Ridley ends David's story without establishing any connection with Alien, which brings obvious implications.
3. David commits suicide or goes into exile after discovering the Derelict in LV-426, with thousands of eggs and a mummified Space Jockey / Engineer.
I can't see Ridley ending the prequels without connecting them to Alien, and ending David's story before that may require another film, which isn't likely to happen. I suppose it would just feel odd to only give David a portion of the next film, as this really appears to be his story and his vehicle at the moment.
Interesting idea about David on that last one. I doubt he would commit suicide, but to see someone who delights in playing God discover he is not the creator would be magnificent payback. I'd like to see him have to face that cruel ceremony he referenced in that one video. Being captured by the engineers, and being force to his knees while one of them approaches him with an actual original-strain engineer facehugger would be wild. Would he gladly accept his fate? Would it break out of him and destroy the others, crashing the ship on lv-426?
It would be interesting, to think of himself as God, only to embrace his role as the devil. Giving birth to the first true alien (some kind of antichrist) which would bring about all the hell we've seen unleashed in the original films.
Quote from: SiL on Sep 04, 2018, 04:19:19 AM
Quote from: Huggs on Sep 04, 2018, 04:00:49 AM
Well, that's just it. I know it can knock out anything. But those engineers were awful tough, and might be strong enough to remove it before blacking out. Especially if there was more than one engineer present.
You can say that about humans, though. They managed to get the hugger off Ripley before it choked her out because there were several people there.
Indeed, I was just curious if a facehugger would really present a legitimate impregnation threat to an engineer, given the sheer strength of the fellas. But now Ridley has us dealing with near instantaneous impregnation, so it kind of becomes null and void. Any amount of time is still lethal.
Quote from: Huggs on Sep 04, 2018, 04:12:56 AM
We still don't even know what sort of creature would come from a standard facehugger impregnating an engineer. Would that be David's perfect creation? Could the biomechanical nature of the creature be a product of the jockey being biologically fused into the chair somehow?
Hopefully, we are going to learn something about the technological symbiosis between the pilot and the chair, because seriously, the original pilot really seems to have his body being supplied by the chair...unlike the Prometheus Jockey :P
Quote from: Crazy Shrimp on Sep 04, 2018, 04:33:06 AM
Quote from: Huggs on Sep 04, 2018, 04:12:56 AM
We still don't even know what sort of creature would come from a standard facehugger impregnating an engineer. Would that be David's perfect creation? Could the biomechanical nature of the creature be a product of the jockey being biologically fused into the chair somehow?
Hopefully, we are going to learn something about the symbiosis between the pilot and the chair, because seriously, the original pilot really seems to have his body being supplied by the chair...unlike the Prometheus Jockey :P
I know. As far as the kid and fan in me is concerned, it will always have been a large creature that was grown from the chair. We sometimes hear and read that the juggernaut was grown and not built. Why the jockey wouldn't be the same is beyond me. But, Ridley has had his say, and I'm now operating within the boundaries he's set.
And I just gotta say, that avatar is off the hook. Is there a larger version of that somewhere? That's freakin' art.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Sep 03, 2018, 11:57:54 PM
And all of that is a fan theory, because neither 'Alien' nor Covenant indicate any of it. It's "fansplaining", to use Hicks' term, intended to address an apparent discrepancy.
Not really, a fan theory is just that, a fan theory. Alien covenant clearly indicates Aliens are a recent occurance meaning the Derelict isn't as old as we all
assumed. As far as I know there is nothing in Alien that contradicts the new age of the eggs or derelict. Dallas theorizes but he isn't an expert and he gets it wrong become fossilization doesn't work like that.
Quote
Also if the survivability of the Alien eggs is hard to swallow, why did you swallow it without question for the last 40 years? :P
Maybe the blue mist acts as stasis, or maybe the eggs just live forever because they're Alien eggs and Aliens do weird, impossible shit. The bottom line is that the Derelict and it's contents are depicted as being ancient, and that was very much Ridley Scott's "authorial intent" when he made the movie (for those that care about that sort of thing), and we have no indication that that's changed.
Who says I did? :P
Are they? or is that just the
assumption that we all had before Ridley showed us otherwise?
Maybe it was his intent before and back then it would have been the status quo so to speak (if it was as clear and concrete as covenant of course) Now the intent is that Derelict and the Eggs are not ancient and whether we like it or not, that is what Covenant and Scott is telling us now.
Instead of maybe getting bent over it, maybe folks should just wait and see what the next movie will bring, maybe Scott will change his mind. I know I don't like David creating the Alien but it is what it is.
Quote from: Huggs on Sep 04, 2018, 04:00:49 AM
Quote from: SM on Sep 04, 2018, 03:50:28 AM
It would've choked her into unconsciousness eventually. Same would happen with an Engineer - might just take a bit longer.
Well, that's just it. I know it can knock out anything. But those engineers were awful tough, and might be strong enough to remove it before blacking out. Especially if there was more than one engineer present.
Well now this has me wondering if the jockey didn't even know he was infected. Seeing as how Lope was infected within seconds and the hugger was killed. That jockey might have ripped it off quickly and thought he was safe.
Ripley was lucky because it didn't get on her face and she had two or three others to help unwrap the tail. The facehugger, according to multiple sources administers a paralytic upon attachment, which is done via simple skin contact. This is probably why species such as Predators, who are really strong, fall prey to them as well. However, I think later media such as the cold forge and Covenant seemed to suggest they just choke their victims out but that wouldn't really explain the comatose status.
So if one got on an Engineer, he would probably be unconscious before he would succeed in getting it off but if it didn't use any paralytic, I don't see how it would be successful due to their immense strength. Of course the exception being if he was attacked by one that does that instant impregnation like it did with Lope, something I still think was stupid. It has basically happened in three forms of media so far now.
QuoteAs far as I know there is nothing in Alien that contradicts the new age of the eggs or derelict. Dallas theorizes but he isn't an expert and he gets it wrong become fossilization doesn't work like that.
Precisement.
Dallas says "Looks like" twice in his dialogue describing the Jockey.
It's the same deal as the very nature of the Jockey. We thought it was a proper extra terrestrial rather than a big human, because that's what was originally envisaged - and extra terrestrial skeleton. But nothing is definitively known in the final film, so it can be reimagined.
Same deal with the Derelict. Potentially.
Quote from: The Cruentus on Sep 04, 2018, 09:21:28 AM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Sep 03, 2018, 11:57:54 PM
And all of that is a fan theory, because neither 'Alien' nor Covenant indicate any of it. It's "fansplaining", to use Hicks' term, intended to address an apparent discrepancy.
Not really, a fan theory is just that, a fan theory. Alien covenant clearly indicates Aliens are a recent occurance meaning the Derelict isn't as old as we all assumed. As far as I know there is nothing in Alien that contradicts the new age of the eggs or derelict. Dallas theorizes but he isn't an expert and he gets it wrong become fossilization doesn't work like that.
I was using the term "fan theory" in the way SiL was defining it. Since Covenant doesn't feature the Derelict, you're assuming that what we've been shown in Covenant is related to the Derelict and retcons it, and we have no indication this is the case.
Dallas' line is storytelling shorthand to verbally convey to the audience "this place, and everything in it, is ancient". Whether he knows what he's talking about doesn't actually matter, just like his line later in the movie about the facehugger blood being "some kind of molecular acid". Dallas obviously isn't much of a chemist, either, since
all acids are "molecular acids". :P But it's storytelling shorthand to verbally reinforce to the audience, "the blood eats through stuff at a molecular level".
Likewise, as SiL has been framing it, David's dialogue in Covenant is meant to verbally indicate to the audience that David made the Alien and exactly how he did it.
But just like how you're saying "Dallas was mistaken", I'm opting to go with "David was mistaken".
Quote from: The Cruentus on Sep 04, 2018, 09:21:28 AM
Quote
Also if the survivability of the Alien eggs is hard to swallow, why did you swallow it without question for the last 40 years? :P
Maybe the blue mist acts as stasis, or maybe the eggs just live forever because they're Alien eggs and Aliens do weird, impossible shit. The bottom line is that the Derelict and it's contents are depicted as being ancient, and that was very much Ridley Scott's "authorial intent" when he made the movie (for those that care about that sort of thing), and we have no indication that that's changed.
Who says I did? :P
Are they? or is that just the assumption that we all had before Ridley showed us otherwise?
Maybe it was his intent before and back then it would have been the status quo so to speak (if it was as clear and concrete as covenant of course) Now the intent is that Derelict and the Eggs are not ancient and whether we like it or not, that is what Covenant and Scott is telling us now.
Instead of maybe getting bent over it, maybe folks should just wait and see what the next movie will bring, maybe Scott will change his mind. I know I don't like David creating the Alien but it is what it is.
You just demonstrated why "authorial intent" is meaningless - you acknowledged that Ridley Scott's own intent is contradictory. Why should we abide by the authorial intent in Covenant? Because it's newer? What difference should that make?
My point is that if you take Ridley Scott's "intent" out of the equation, you're left with two movies that seem to contradict each other. Which one is right? Like you said, we'll have to wait and see - but my money's on 'Alien'.
QuoteLikewise, as SiL has been framing it, David's dialogue in Covenant is meant to verbally indicate to the audience that David made the Alien and exactly how he did it.
But just like how you're saying "Dallas was mistaken", I'm opting to go with "David was mistaken".
This isn't consistent reasoning. Everyone's been saying that if later movies say David was wrong, he's wrong, in the same way that Covenant says Dallas was wrong. But we don't have that later film yet. We're using newer information to correct older information, not the other way around. We've been consistent with that.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Sep 04, 2018, 11:56:00 AM
you're assuming that what we've been shown in Covenant is related to the Derelict and retcons it, and we have no indication this is the case.
Yes we do have an indication, its called "David created the Alien eggs", which is recent and which means the eggs in the derelict can't be old. This is what Covenant tells us, and Ridley has confirmed that in the commentary and an interview. You don't have to like it, I know I don't.
QuoteDallas' line is storytelling shorthand to verbally convey to the audience "this place, and everything in it, is ancient". Whether he knows what he's talking about doesn't actually matter, just like his line later in the movie about the facehugger blood being "some kind of molecular acid". Dallas obviously isn't much of a chemist, either, since all acids are "molecular acids". :P But it's storytelling shorthand to verbally reinforce to the audience, "the blood eats through stuff at a molecular level".
It does if he is not an expert, he is voicing his opinion/theory on it. A lot of characters do that in movies and yes sometimes they are right and sometimes they are wrong and before you say it, David was involved in creating his specimens so he would know what he was talking about, especially since had been working on it for 10 years.
QuoteLikewise, as SiL has been framing it, David's dialogue in Covenant is meant to verbally indicate to the audience that David made the Alien and exactly how he did it.
But just like how you're saying "Dallas was mistaken", I'm opting to go with "David was mistaken".
Big difference there though, Dallas is a blue collar "trucker" who has no idea how old the Derelict is and he was not involved in it being there, whereas David is a highly intelligent walking encylopedia if flawed that actually created the Alien i.e he was involved in what he is talking about, thus I think he would know more about what he talking about than Dallas is.
Quote
You just demonstrated why "authorial intent" is meaningless - you acknowledged that Ridley Scott's own intent is contradictory. Why should we abide by the authorial intent in Covenant? Because it's newer? What difference should that make?
Yes but because it is newer and is a retcon, that is precisely what a retcon is, retroactive continuity. To make a probably poor example, yesterday was was september the 3rd, today is the 4th. The days are ever changing but that doesn't change the fact that today is 4th and yesterday was 3rd. Scott does change his mind a lot and he will probably will again, but until then we have to ride the current wave.
QuoteMy point is that if you take Ridley Scott's "intent" out of the equation, you're left with two movies that seem to contradict each other. Which one is right? Like you said, we'll have to wait and see - but my money's on 'Alien'.
Covenant for now. That is why its a retcon and not a futurecon.
Quote from: SM on Sep 02, 2018, 08:25:43 PM
QuoteIn fairness, I think it would be more accurate to say that, so far as Scott is concerned, that's his own personal view. Until something concrete is put up on screen, one way or the other, his perspective is no more valid than one from Sigourney Weaver's hair stylist.
Until Sigourney Weaver's hair stylist is involved in the writing of a film that Sigourney Weaver wasn't even in, no, it wouldn't be remotely accurate to say that.
As of right now, that's exactly the same status Scott is presently occupying. :) He isn't known to be involved in any future productions which would properly clarify this matter, so far as we know.
What he
wanted to infer is not the same as what was ultimately put up on screen, any more than Fincher's or Henriksen's statements as to whether Bishop 2 truly was a human or advanced robot (which, in Henriksen's case, have flip-flopped).
Did the Alien not just rape, but impregnate Lambert? There's
nothing to indicate that, either way, on screen. But Scott declared that, in his mind, it did, on one of the commentaries. All anyone can truly say about that scene is that it was ambiguous.
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Sep 03, 2018, 08:07:15 AM
I can't agree with that in the slightest. The director's intent is far more valid than anyone else on the production - especially the over-reach there, Xenomorphine! :P Regardless, the film states David made them. The director confirmed his intention. It's not some vague angle left open.
It doesn't matter what the novelization says - it is ancillary. And it was a decision made by someone not involved in the film. I definitely prefer it. Doesn't make it what's actually happening or the intent, though.
David made the Aliens now. It's as simple as that. I hope another film comes out and retcons that but that's what it is. Anything else is just wishful thinking and fansplaining.
The film shows that he's responsible for creating
an organism. It's superficially similar, but there are some key differences to the creatures we've known about (especially the facehugger stage, which doesn't even need to shove anything down someone's throat and takes only a few seconds to do what it does). Same applies to the Deacon: Superficial similarities, but not the same creature - and that came about by pretty much chance, not design.
David 8 created
something. Whether or not he/it eventually
will be responsible for what's on LV-426, we do not know.
As of now, David 8 isn't heading towards LV-426. Whether or not they somehow do
and we're shown them having a reason to make the creatures
less efficient (compared to those by the time of the Nostromo's intervention), only time shall tell. As of now, that was
not what the end of the last film gave the audience any reason to believe would be guaranteed to occur.
Scott wants it to happen. Fox/Disney, however, might have other ideas.
QuoteAs of right now, that's exactly the same status Scott is presently occupying. :) He isn't known to be involved in any future productions which would properly clarify this matter, so far as we know.
It's really not. He was involved in the film that said David made the Alien.
Nobody's involved in a new film saying he didn't.
QuoteWhat he wanted to infer is not the same as what was ultimately put up on screen, any more than Fincher's or Henriksen's statements as to whether Bishop 2 truly was a human or advanced robot (which, in Henriksen's case, have flip-flopped).
Yeah, it was. In pretty clear detail, in a pretty substantial scene in the movie. He wanted to show David made them, so he literally had him walking around tables of prototypes explaining his process. He said that's what he wanted, and he put it in.
There is no level of detail he could've gone into that you or anybody else who doesn't like the idea would ever find acceptably definitive to prove the point, so it's really disingenuous to keep saying he didn't do enough.
QuoteAs of right now, that's exactly the same status Scott is presently occupying.
Not even close.
QuoteWhat he wanted to infer is not the same as what was ultimately put up on screen, any more than Fincher's or Henriksen's statements as to whether Bishop 2 truly was a human or advanced robot (which, in Henriksen's case, have flip-flopped).
That's not even close either.
QuoteDid the Alien not just rape, but impregnate Lambert? There's nothing to indicate that, either way, on screen. But Scott declared that, in his mind, it did, on one of the commentaries. All anyone can truly say about that scene is that it was ambiguous.
Because we don't see it in the film.
Your examples are, to be generous, a tad lacking.
Quote from: SiL on Sep 04, 2018, 12:38:14 PM
QuoteLikewise, as SiL has been framing it, David's dialogue in Covenant is meant to verbally indicate to the audience that David made the Alien and exactly how he did it.
But just like how you're saying "Dallas was mistaken", I'm opting to go with "David was mistaken".
This isn't consistent reasoning. Everyone's been saying that if later movies say David was wrong, he's wrong, in the same way that Covenant says Dallas was wrong. But we don't have that later film yet. We're using newer information to correct older information, not the other way around. We've been consistent with that.
The difference is this "newer information" is set before the "older information" chronologically, and we don't know if anything is going to change for 'Alien'. Covenant doesn't say Dallas is wrong, because Covenant doesn't address the Derelict or LV-426 in any way.
Quote from: The Cruentus on Sep 04, 2018, 12:43:26 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Sep 04, 2018, 11:56:00 AM
you're assuming that what we've been shown in Covenant is related to the Derelict and retcons it, and we have no indication this is the case.
Yes we do have an indication, its called "David created the Alien eggs", which is recent and which means the eggs in the derelict can't be old. This is what Covenant tells us, and Ridley has confirmed that in the commentary and an interview. You don't have to like it, I know I don't.
I don't have to like it, and I don't have to accept it, either, because Ridley Scott's word doesn't mean anything and the movie is open to ample interpretation.
Covenant says David created some eggs, but what that means for 'Alien', we don't know. Interpreting the Derelict to be old is just as valid as interpreting David as the creator of all Aliens everywhere.
Quote from: The Cruentus on Sep 04, 2018, 12:43:26 PM
QuoteDallas' line is storytelling shorthand to verbally convey to the audience "this place, and everything in it, is ancient". Whether he knows what he's talking about doesn't actually matter, just like his line later in the movie about the facehugger blood being "some kind of molecular acid". Dallas obviously isn't much of a chemist, either, since all acids are "molecular acids". :P But it's storytelling shorthand to verbally reinforce to the audience, "the blood eats through stuff at a molecular level".
It does if he is not an expert, he is voicing his opinion/theory on it. A lot of characters do that in movies and yes sometimes they are right and sometimes they are wrong and before you say it, David was involved in creating his specimens so he would know what he was talking about, especially since had been working on it for 10 years.
You're looking at Dallas' words literally, as opposed to what it means from a storytelling standpoint. In that instance, Dallas is acting as a mouthpiece for the audience, to verbally convey what the audience should be noticing about what's going on. The Derelict is old, that's the message the scene is trying to convey, and Dallas uses the word "fossilized" because it's a word the audience is going to immediately associate with "old". It doesn't need to actually be scientifically accurate (and you're right, it's not). If he were to say something like "it's calcified" (which is also an indicator of extensive age), the script would have to take the time to explain to the layman audience members what "calcified" means and why it indicates that the Derelict is old, and that's bad screenwriting.
Quote from: The Cruentus on Sep 04, 2018, 12:43:26 PMQuoteLikewise, as SiL has been framing it, David's dialogue in Covenant is meant to verbally indicate to the audience that David made the Alien and exactly how he did it.
But just like how you're saying "Dallas was mistaken", I'm opting to go with "David was mistaken".
Big difference there though, Dallas is a blue collar "trucker" who has no idea how old the Derelict is and he was not involved in it being there, whereas David is a highly intelligent walking encylopedia if flawed that actually created the Alien i.e he was involved in what he is talking about, thus I think he would know more about what he talking about than Dallas is.
You don't know what Dallas does or doesn't know. For all we know, he's an expert, but Kane and Lambert aren't, and he's using easily-understood language to say it in a way they (and the audience) understand. When Arnold Schwarzenegger says to John Connor that the T-1000 is "liquid metal", he's not being literal - he's saying it in a way a 10-year-old boy (and the audience) can instantly understand.
Likewise, how would you know if David made the eggs on the Derelict? The movie doesn't indicate that at all. For all we know, the Derelict has been sitting on LV-426 for a million years (evidenced visually by its apparent age) and David is totally unaware of it.
Quote from: The Cruentus on Sep 04, 2018, 12:43:26 PM
Quote
You just demonstrated why "authorial intent" is meaningless - you acknowledged that Ridley Scott's own intent is contradictory. Why should we abide by the authorial intent in Covenant? Because it's newer? What difference should that make?
Yes but because it is newer and is a retcon, that is precisely what a retcon is, retroactive continuity. To make a probably poor example, yesterday was was september the 3rd, today is the 4th. The days are ever changing but that doesn't change the fact that today is 4th and yesterday was 3rd. Scott does change his mind a lot and he will probably will again, but until then we have to ride the current wave.
To use a better example, tomorrow is the 5th, and today is the 4th. I can be the world's best meteorologist, a complete and total expert on weather, and say with absolute certainty that tomorrow it's going to rain, but that doesn't mean it's actually going to happen.
Alternately, I could invent a flying car today, all from my own research and experimentation, and learn tomorrow that someone else did it 2 weeks ago. Am I the "creator" of the flying car? I made *a* flying car, yeah, but I didn't make *every* flying car.
Quote from: SiL on Sep 04, 2018, 10:38:53 PM
QuoteAs of right now, that's exactly the same status Scott is presently occupying. :) He isn't known to be involved in any future productions which would properly clarify this matter, so far as we know.
It's really not. He was involved in the film that said David made the Alien. Nobody's involved in a new film saying he didn't.
Ridley Scott was involved in a film that says David didn't - that film is 'Alien'.
Quote from: SiL on Sep 04, 2018, 10:38:53 PM
QuoteWhat he wanted to infer is not the same as what was ultimately put up on screen, any more than Fincher's or Henriksen's statements as to whether Bishop 2 truly was a human or advanced robot (which, in Henriksen's case, have flip-flopped).
Yeah, it was. In pretty clear detail, in a pretty substantial scene in the movie. He wanted to show David made them, so he literally had him walking around tables of prototypes explaining his process. He said that's what he wanted, and he put it in.
What Ridley Scott wanted doesn't matter, it's what he put on screen - and some people found what he put on screen to be unconvincing in light of other relevant details. Did David make an Alien? Yeah. Did he make all Aliens everywhere? I'm unconvinced.
But hey, I just got the "David's Drawings" book in the mail today, that might have something in there to convince me. Who knows?
Quote from: SiL on Sep 04, 2018, 10:38:53 PM
There is no level of detail he could've gone into that you or anybody else who doesn't like the idea would ever find acceptably definitive to prove the point, so it's really disingenuous to keep saying he didn't do enough.
If he hadn't included the Ozymandias thing, and if he'd somehow explained the Derelict in 'Covenant', then I'd be on board. Otherwise you're right - Ridley Scott did not do a satisfactory job in 'Alien: Covenant' of convincing me that David created
every Alien in existence. If he gets to make another prequel movie, maybe he'll give it another go and I'll be convinced. We'll have to wait and see. :)
It's really disingenuous to say people are only being contrarian because they don't like it -
why people are disagreeing is irrelevant; for all you know, Ridley Scott himself could literally be sitting behind me
right this second with a gun to the back of my head, demanding that I type these words and call his own movie into question just to get you to discuss it.
Quote from: SM on Sep 05, 2018, 12:06:07 AM
QuoteAs of right now, that's exactly the same status Scott is presently occupying.
Not even close.
QuoteWhat he wanted to infer is not the same as what was ultimately put up on screen, any more than Fincher's or Henriksen's statements as to whether Bishop 2 truly was a human or advanced robot (which, in Henriksen's case, have flip-flopped).
That's not even close either.
Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Quote from: SM on Sep 05, 2018, 12:06:07 AM
QuoteDid the Alien not just rape, but impregnate Lambert? There's nothing to indicate that, either way, on screen. But Scott declared that, in his mind, it did, on one of the commentaries. All anyone can truly say about that scene is that it was ambiguous.
Because we don't see it in the film.
Your examples are, to be generous, a tad lacking.
We also don't see David put the Derelict on LV-426 in the film, either.
"For all you know, Ridley Scott himself could be sitting behind me right this second with a gun to the back of my head, demanding that I type these words and call his own movie into question just to get you to discuss it."
This mental image has given me genuine joy.
Quote from: The Old One on Sep 05, 2018, 01:25:08 AM
"For all you know, Ridley Scott himself could be sitting behind me right this second with a gun to the back of my head, demanding that I type these words and call his own movie into question just to get you to discuss it."
This mental image has given me genuine joy.
I'll let Ridley know you said that. :)
QuoteIf he hadn't included the Ozymandias thing, and if he'd somehow explained the Derelict in 'Covenant', then I'd be on board.
Let's be honest, that first one is absolute bullshit. You'd just use lying about Shaw and his God complex :P
Quote from: SiL on Sep 05, 2018, 01:31:49 AM
QuoteIf he hadn't included the Ozymandias thing, and if he'd somehow explained the Derelict in 'Covenant', then I'd be on board.
Let's be honest, that first one is absolute bullshit. You'd just use lying about Shaw and his God complex :P
Nah. :)
Like I said,
why I'm disagreeing doesn't matter. The Ozymandias thing is a super-duper on-the-nose thematic "tell" that David might not be seeing the big picture, even if he doesn't know it.
Ozymandias is the only known instance of David being mistaken, but more crucial; unaware that he was mistaken.
It's a pretext that isn't actual proof, like lying about Shaw is a pretext. Without one you'd use the other because the fundamental drive to prove it wrong is personal taste and nothing more.
Quote from: SiL on Sep 05, 2018, 01:31:49 AM
QuoteIf he hadn't included the Ozymandias thing, and if he'd somehow explained the Derelict in 'Covenant', then I'd be on board.
Let's be honest, that first one is absolute bullshit. You'd just use lying about Shaw and his God complex :P
Yes, David created the Alien and that's Ridley's vision. However, David says a lot of things and he definitely qualifies as an unreliable narrator. So if they are going to devise a recontextualization in a future film / novel / comic (if any), it's quite easy IMO:
a)
Real Lies:
1. Shaw's death.
2. Engineers death ("accidental release" of the pathogen).
3. He claimed that the temple was perfectly safe for the survivors.
4. Bond villain moment, I know, but he claimed that Oram was perfectly safe at the ovomorph chamber.
5. He supplanted Walter's identity, lying in the process.
6. At the end of the film, he records a log as Walter stating that all crew members with the exceptions of Tennessee and Daniels were killed in the neutrino blast.
b)
Real Mistake:
1. The Ozymandias thing.
c)
Truths:
1. He showed evidence to explain how he made an Alien.
2. He didn't lied about the Prometheus expedition.
Quote1. He claimed that the temple was perfectly safe for the survivors.
Pretty sure that'd qualify as a lie.
Quote from: SM on Sep 05, 2018, 02:33:24 AM
Quote1. He claimed that the temple was perfectly safe for the survivors.
Pretty sure that'd qualify as a lie.
Fixed.
A, C, D? You're missing B.
Quote from: SiL on Sep 05, 2018, 02:04:31 AM
It's a pretext that isn't actual proof.
Proof of what exactly?
Quote from: The Old One on Sep 05, 2018, 02:44:48 AM
A, C, D? You're missing B.
When one letter is off, it effects the whole post Crazy Shrimp. ;)
Quote from: Huggs on Sep 05, 2018, 02:47:57 AM
Quote from: The Old One on Sep 05, 2018, 02:44:48 AM
A, C, D? You're missing B.
When one letter is off, it effects the whole post Crazy Shrimp. ;)
That makes me an unreliable narrator then :laugh:
Quote from: The Old One on Sep 05, 2018, 02:44:48 AM
A, C, D? You're missing B.
The B had the title "improbable claims". But SM gave me a heads up.
Quote from: SiL on Sep 05, 2018, 02:04:31 AM
It's a pretext that isn't actual proof, like lying about Shaw is a pretext. Without one you'd use the other because the fundamental drive to prove it wrong is personal taste and nothing more.
For someone who takes issue with people putting words in their mouths, you're sure doing it a lot. :)
Fun irony: I, the author of my posts, have told you my authorial intent behind them. You've opted to disregard my stated intent.
Congratulations, you just demonstrated "Death of the Author".
Quote from: Huggs on Sep 05, 2018, 02:47:57 AM
Quote from: The Old One on Sep 05, 2018, 02:44:48 AM
A, C, D? You're missing B.
When one letter is off, it effects the whole post Crazy Shrimp. ;)
He's the author of the post, and you knew his intent.
Wait a minute, so what he intended didn't line up with what he said? Uh oh! :P
Quote from: Xenomrph on Sep 05, 2018, 06:27:32 AM
For someone who takes issue with people putting words in their mouths, you're sure doing it a lot. :)
Questioning your honesty and pointing out the fact you've said you try to justify him not being the creator because you don't like the idea isn't putting words in your mouth ???
You also do switch the focus of your arguments from point to point as they get addressed, so it's really not unfair to state that if you lost that one aspect you probably wouldn't abandon all the others. Which is hardly a criticism, it's what most people who have an argument built on more than one foundation do. It's just how having a point works?
I agreed that if David had crashed THE derelict with THE eggs you probably would've gone with it. I just found your first statement disingenuous based on the last several years of talking to you.
QuoteFun irony: I, the author of my posts, have told you my authorial intent behind them. You've opted to disregard my stated intent.
Congratulations, you just demonstrated "Death of the Author".
Unfortunately this is a conversation between people and not a work of fiction. You keep making false equivalences and it's getting really tiring.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Sep 05, 2018, 01:13:41 AM
The difference is this "newer information" is set before the "older information" chronologically, and we don't know if anything is going to change for 'Alien'. Covenant doesn't say Dallas is wrong, because Covenant doesn't address the Derelict or LV-426 in any way.
That doesn't make a lick of difference, Covenant is still the newer film with updated information, being a prequel does not stop it from being a retcon.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Sep 04, 2018, 11:56:00 AM
I don't have to like it, and I don't have to accept it, either, because Ridley Scott's word doesn't mean anything and the movie is open to ample interpretation.
Covenant says David created some eggs, but what that means for 'Alien', we don't know. Interpreting the Derelict to be old is just as valid as interpreting David as the creator of all Aliens everywhere.
No its not, because its been said David created the alien. Ignoring what the film and Ridley Scott said isn't going to change that. You will just have to wait until Scott changes his mind again and if he doesn't and puts in more evidence that David is the creator, something that is even more undeniable then you are just going to have accept it or go mad :laugh: Personally I want to go mad but its not healthy. :P
Quote
You're looking at Dallas' words literally, as opposed to what it means from a storytelling standpoint. In that instance, Dallas is acting as a mouthpiece for the audience, to verbally convey what the audience should be noticing about what's going on. The Derelict is old, that's the message the scene is trying to convey, and Dallas uses the word "fossilized" because it's a word the audience is going to immediately associate with "old". It doesn't need to actually be scientifically accurate (and you're right, it's not). If he were to say something like "it's calcified" (which is also an indicator of extensive age), the script would have to take the time to explain to the layman audience members what "calcified" means and why it indicates that the Derelict is old, and that's bad screenwriting.
No I see the storytelling element and like what the audience would be thinking, it is an assumption, a theory, an opinion. We all assumed the Derelict and the Eggs were old, but turns out they weren't and some of us have been taking that news in many ways, some badly because it conflicts with what their believed, I know was in denial for awhile. Us fans do not have the right to impose our beliefs over that of the creators, even if we hate it. If it was left up to interpretation, that would be another story.
Quote
You don't know what Dallas does or doesn't know. For all we know, he's an expert, but Kane and Lambert aren't, and he's using easily-understood language to say it in a way they (and the audience) understand. When Arnold Schwarzenegger says to John Connor that the T-1000 is "liquid metal", he's not being literal - he's saying it in a way a 10-year-old boy (and the audience) can instantly understand.
Likewise, how would you know if David made the eggs on the Derelict? The movie doesn't indicate that at all. For all we know, the Derelict has been sitting on LV-426 for a million years (evidenced visually by its apparent age) and David is totally unaware of it.
Kinda do by both his outlook, behavior and his deference to Ash with anything to do with science. Not saying he is dumb, but he is clearly only guessing when it comes to the derelict.
Because Covenant and Ridley say he created the Alien.
QuoteTo use a better example, tomorrow is the 5th, and today is the 4th. I can be the world's best meteorologist, a complete and total expert on weather, and say with absolute certainty that tomorrow it's going to rain, but that doesn't mean it's actually going to happen.
No but until then, it is going to rain as far everyone is concerned. You just demonstrated my point. For now David is the creator but that doesn't mean it will always be so, until then we have to deal with the current information.
QuoteAlternately, I could invent a flying car today, all from my own research and experimentation, and learn tomorrow that someone else did it 2 weeks ago. Am I the "creator" of the flying car? I made *a* flying car, yeah, but I didn't make *every* flying car.
But until there is evidence that there is another car, you created the flying car. so until there is evidence post-Covenant that there other Aliens, David created the alien, plus the difference here is that the movie is not only telling us this but Scott is too.
QuoteRidley Scott was involved in a film that says David didn't - that film is 'Alien'.
And that is old and came before the updated information that is Covenant, it is called a retcon.
I am not happy with it, nor do I feel the 20 odd years is enough for the Aliens to have existed but it is what it is, I can only hope that either Scott changes his mind or Fox approves a new film that changes that.
Quote from: SiL on Sep 05, 2018, 07:24:41 AM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Sep 05, 2018, 06:27:32 AM
For someone who takes issue with people putting words in their mouths, you're sure doing it a lot. :)
Questioning your honesty and pointing out the fact you've said you try to justify him not being the creator because you don't like the idea isn't putting words in your mouth ???
Sure it is. I told you why I feel the movie does an inadequate job of proving its point, the reasoning behind it (whatever you feel it to be) is irrelevant.
Quote from: SiL on Sep 05, 2018, 07:24:41 AM
QuoteFun irony: I, the author of my posts, have told you my authorial intent behind them. You've opted to disregard my stated intent.
Congratulations, you just demonstrated "Death of the Author".
Unfortunately this is a conversation between people and not a work of fiction. You keep making false equivalences and it's getting really tiring.
Spoiler alert: Death of the Author doesn't only apply to fiction.
Quote from: The Cruentus on Sep 05, 2018, 10:09:47 AM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Sep 05, 2018, 01:13:41 AM
The difference is this "newer information" is set before the "older information" chronologically, and we don't know if anything is going to change for 'Alien'. Covenant doesn't say Dallas is wrong, because Covenant doesn't address the Derelict or LV-426 in any way.
That doesn't make a lick of difference, Covenant is still the newer film with updated information, being a prequel does not stop it from being a retcon.
As stated, it's newer information that doesn't actually address the Derelict or LV-426.
Quote from: The Cruentus on Sep 05, 2018, 10:09:47 AM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Sep 04, 2018, 11:56:00 AM
I don't have to like it, and I don't have to accept it, either, because Ridley Scott's word doesn't mean anything and the movie is open to ample interpretation.
Covenant says David created some eggs, but what that means for 'Alien', we don't know. Interpreting the Derelict to be old is just as valid as interpreting David as the creator of all Aliens everywhere.
No its not, because its been said David created the alien. Ignoring what the film and Ridley Scott said isn't going to change that. You will just have to wait until Scott changes his mind again and if he doesn't and puts in more evidence that David is the creator, something that is even more undeniable then you are just going to have accept it or go mad :laugh: Personally I want to go mad but its not healthy. :P
You're partially right - once Ridley Scott makes a movie with more compelling evidence, I'll buy into it. But that hasn't happened yet - 'Covenant' is still open to interpretation, what Ridley Scott says doesn't matter, and the discrepancy in 'Alien' hasn't been addressed yet by anything other than fan theories and speculation.
Quote from: The Cruentus on Sep 05, 2018, 10:09:47 AM
Quote
You're looking at Dallas' words literally, as opposed to what it means from a storytelling standpoint. In that instance, Dallas is acting as a mouthpiece for the audience, to verbally convey what the audience should be noticing about what's going on. The Derelict is old, that's the message the scene is trying to convey, and Dallas uses the word "fossilized" because it's a word the audience is going to immediately associate with "old". It doesn't need to actually be scientifically accurate (and you're right, it's not). If he were to say something like "it's calcified" (which is also an indicator of extensive age), the script would have to take the time to explain to the layman audience members what "calcified" means and why it indicates that the Derelict is old, and that's bad screenwriting.
No I see the storytelling element and like what the audience would be thinking, it is an assumption, a theory, an opinion. We all assumed the Derelict and the Eggs were old, but turns out they weren't and some of us have been taking that news in many ways, some badly because it conflicts with what their believed, I know was in denial for awhile. Us fans do not have the right to impose our beliefs over that of the creators, even if we hate it. If it was left up to interpretation, that would be another story.
You're assuming that David's work and the Derelict are in any way connected, and we have no evidence to believe that (yet).
If Covenant's job is to convince me that the Derelict is only 20 years old, it has done an inadequate job in my opinion.
We absolutely do have the right to impose our beliefs over works of fiction, that's how art/fiction criticism works ???
Like, the reason why 'Alien: Covenant' even has an Alien in it is because Ridley Scott was responding to fan and audience complaints that Prometheus didn't have enough Aliens in it - he literally said, "They want Aliens, I'll give them f**king Aliens."
Quote from: The Cruentus on Sep 05, 2018, 10:09:47 AM
Quote
You don't know what Dallas does or doesn't know. For all we know, he's an expert, but Kane and Lambert aren't, and he's using easily-understood language to say it in a way they (and the audience) understand. When Arnold Schwarzenegger says to John Connor that the T-1000 is "liquid metal", he's not being literal - he's saying it in a way a 10-year-old boy (and the audience) can instantly understand.
Likewise, how would you know if David made the eggs on the Derelict? The movie doesn't indicate that at all. For all we know, the Derelict has been sitting on LV-426 for a million years (evidenced visually by its apparent age) and David is totally unaware of it.
Kinda do by both his outlook, behavior and his deference to Ash with anything to do with science. Not saying he is dumb, but he is clearly only guessing when it comes to the derelict.
That's only your opinion and interpretation, though. Ash knows
biological science, maybe Dallas has a hobby in archaeology?
I'm not saying your interpretation is wrong, it obviously makes sense. I'm just saying that it's really paper-thin evidence.
Quote from: The Cruentus on Sep 05, 2018, 10:09:47 AM
QuoteTo use a better example, tomorrow is the 5th, and today is the 4th. I can be the world's best meteorologist, a complete and total expert on weather, and say with absolute certainty that tomorrow it's going to rain, but that doesn't mean it's actually going to happen.
No but until then, it is going to rain as far everyone is concerned. You just demonstrated my point. For now David is the creator but that doesn't mean it will always be so, until then we have to deal with the current information.
No, as far as everyone is concerned, it
might rain. People could opt to ignore me and say "eh, I disagree, I don't think it's going to rain", and that's totally their call to make. No one is holding a gun to their head and demanding that they believe that it's going to rain, and it's not some kind of objective fact that rain absolutely is coming until suddenly it doesn't come.
Quote from: The Cruentus on Sep 05, 2018, 10:09:47 AM
QuoteAlternately, I could invent a flying car today, all from my own research and experimentation, and learn tomorrow that someone else did it 2 weeks ago. Am I the "creator" of the flying car? I made *a* flying car, yeah, but I didn't make *every* flying car.
But until there is evidence that there is another car, you created the flying car. so until there is evidence post-Covenant that there other Aliens, David created the alien, plus the difference here is that the movie is not only telling us this but Scott is too.
We have evidence that there are other Aliens - we have the ancient-looking Derelict on another planet, which Covenant doesn't address.
Does anyone here actually prefer the idea of David creating the aliens or is it just something you guys have reluctantly accepted?
Quote from: Local Trouble on Sep 05, 2018, 11:12:53 AM
Does anyone here actually prefer the idea of David creating the aliens or is it just something you guys have reluctantly accepted?
I'll answer that question with another question. What do you think?
It's flat out a simple mess. Prometheus started out as a direct prequel to Alien and then sometime during production Ridley decided he didn't want it tied directly to Alien, thus they moved away from "Alien-like" and turned to more clean lines that are the Engineers. He then decided that he liked Alien-like better but that it needed a killer AI to be the godfather of the Alien.
Everyone keeps trying to make sense of it but Ridley has walked himself straight into a whirlpool that we're now all stuck in. :-\
Quote from: whiterabbit on Sep 05, 2018, 11:23:56 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Sep 05, 2018, 11:12:53 AM
Does anyone here actually prefer the idea of David creating the aliens or is it just something you guys have reluctantly accepted?
I'll answer that question with another question. What do you think?
I think it's utter shite, but some of y'all seem strangely dedicated to playing devil's advocate on the topic. I guess I'm lucky that I never liked Prometheus in the first place and was thus already as uninvested as I could be when I finally got around to seeing Covenant.
I don't like Prometheus, although I thought it's conception was interesting and it was a missed opportunity due to
the script.
Covenant is more of a half and half situation to me, far too complex for me to go into right now whilst I haven't slept.
But I think there's exquisite things in the mess, even if it is still a mess.
I do like the idea of the Alien being a "Biological AI"-
I don't think that necessitates David's inclusion or a human-AI, but I appreciate the creator thematics.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Sep 05, 2018, 11:12:53 AM
Does anyone here actually prefer the idea of David creating the aliens or is it just something you guys have reluctantly accepted?
I've seen some people in this thread (and elsewhere) genuinely defend it as an interesting idea that they enjoyed, and I can appreciate that. I mean, there are interesting philosophical implications about an AI creating life (although you can have those implications with David merely creating an Alien; he doesn't need to create ALL Aliens to have that discussion), or the thematic irony of humans creating the creator of our own psycho-sexual nightmare made manifest.
It just makes me say "lolwut" when people defend it because "they have to", or "Ridley said so", or "it's just the way things are now", especially when the movies themselves offer such easy ways to interpret things differently.
I've long maintained that Prometheus is a cool movie with interesting visuals and ideas, but sloppily and unnecessarily tied to the Alien franchise. I don't think Prometheus adds anything worthwhile to 'Alien' (and if anything, does the opposite), and I think if Ridley had decided to completely divorce 'Prometheus' from Alien during production that he wouldn't have been hamstrung by needing to make franchise callbacks and links just to remind people that it's an Alien prequel. I think we'd have ended up with a much more interesting (and possibly more bizarre, and scarier) movie had Ridley opted to just do something original rather than piggyback off of 'Alien'.
Quote from: whiterabbit on Sep 05, 2018, 11:23:56 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Sep 05, 2018, 11:12:53 AM
Does anyone here actually prefer the idea of David creating the aliens or is it just something you guys have reluctantly accepted?
I'll answer that question with another question. What do you think?
It's flat out a simple mess. Prometheus started out as a direct prequel to Alien and then sometime during production Ridley decided he didn't want it tied directly to Alien, thus they moved away from "Alien-like" and turned to more clean lines that are the Engineers. He then decided that he liked Alien-like better but that it needed a killer AI to be the godfather of the Alien.
Everyone keeps trying to make sense of it but Ridley has walked himself straight into a whirlpool that we're now all stuck in. :-\
There's nothing in there that breaks the continuity in any major way, so it's not like it doesn't make sense; it just changed what we all
thought and expected. And when that happens, some people can get upset.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Sep 05, 2018, 10:37:17 AM
As stated, it's newer information that doesn't actually address the Derelict or LV-426.
It addresses the eggs, which are not old, meaning the Derelict transportation of them is recent.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Sep 04, 2018, 11:56:00 AM
You're partially right - once Ridley Scott makes a movie with more compelling evidence, I'll buy into it. But that hasn't happened yet - 'Covenant' is still open to interpretation, what Ridley Scott says doesn't matter, and the discrepancy in 'Alien' hasn't been addressed yet by anything other than fan theories and speculation.
Its not open to interpretation, that is the point everyone is trying to make, if it was then we would not be debating.
Quote
You're assuming that David's work and the Derelict are in any way connected, and we have no evidence to believe that (yet).
If Covenant's job is to convince me that the Derelict is only 20 years old, it has done an inadequate job in my opinion.
It is because David created the Alien eggs, the Alien eggs are on the Derelict.
I agree its not an adequte job, I don't like it, 20 yeas is not enough and I don't find it very Alien.
QuoteWe absolutely do have the right to impose our beliefs over works of fiction, that's how art/fiction criticism works ???
Like, the reason why 'Alien: Covenant' even has an Alien in it is because Ridley Scott was responding to fan and audience complaints that Prometheus didn't have enough Aliens in it - he literally said, "They want Aliens, I'll give them f**king Aliens."
I believe I said creator not creation :P we do not have the right to impose our beliefs on to someone who created it.
QuoteThat's only your opinion and interpretation, though. Ash knows biological science, maybe Dallas has a hobby in archaeology?
I'm not saying your interpretation is wrong, it obviously makes sense. I'm just saying that it's really paper-thin evidence.
In this case yes, it is indeed my opinion of Dallas but that goes both ways to what he could know, whereas we know what David knows because he spent 10 years working on it.
QuoteNo, as far as everyone is concerned, it might rain. People could opt to ignore me and say "eh, I disagree, I don't think it's going to rain", and that's totally their call to make. No one is holding a gun to their head and demanding that they believe that it's going to rain, and it's not some kind of objective fact that rain absolutely is coming until suddenly it doesn't come.
No one is forcing you to believe that David is the creator or that Scott's intent is set in stone, if you wish to ignore it then that is fine but it is not something open to interpretation because the intent behind it and in it was obvious.
Quote
We have evidence that there are other Aliens - we have the ancient-looking Derelict on another planet, which Covenant doesn't address.
Is there? Also keep in mind the Derelict looking ancient doesn't mean it is, the conditions on LV-426 are terrible, also the ships themselves are probably old anyway, LV-233 Juggernaut for example was 2,000 years old. The Derelict being old or not is moot because that doesn't mean the cargo is.
David or some Engineer has 20 odd years to get those eggs and crash or land on LV-426.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Sep 05, 2018, 11:12:53 AM
Does anyone here actually prefer the idea of David creating the aliens or is it just something you guys have reluctantly accepted?
Definitely the latter in my case, I dislike that David created the Alien big time and I was even in denial about it for awhile, but with interview that followed and commentary, it is clear what was intended.
If you don't like it, why not fight it?
Quote from: The Cruentus on Sep 05, 2018, 12:08:23 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Sep 05, 2018, 10:37:17 AM
As stated, it's newer information that doesn't actually address the Derelict or LV-426.
It addresses the eggs, which are not old, meaning the Derelict transportation of them is recent.
That's not how that works - the movie itself does not include any mention of the Derelict or LV-426 or how the eggs got there. You're making a jump in logic that the movie itself does not support.
Quote from: The Cruentus on Sep 05, 2018, 12:08:23 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Sep 04, 2018, 11:56:00 AM
You're partially right - once Ridley Scott makes a movie with more compelling evidence, I'll buy into it. But that hasn't happened yet - 'Covenant' is still open to interpretation, what Ridley Scott says doesn't matter, and the discrepancy in 'Alien' hasn't been addressed yet by anything other than fan theories and speculation.
Its not open to interpretation, that is the point everyone is trying to make, if it was then we would not be debating.
Sure it's open to interpretation - the fact that we're debating this topic demonstrates that. :)
Like, you realize we're talking about fiction, right? What are you going to do,
demand that I agree with you? What if I don't?
Quote from: The Cruentus on Sep 05, 2018, 12:08:23 PM
Quote
You're assuming that David's work and the Derelict are in any way connected, and we have no evidence to believe that (yet).
If Covenant's job is to convince me that the Derelict is only 20 years old, it has done an inadequate job in my opinion.
It is because David created the Alien eggs, the Alien eggs are on the Derelict.
I agree its not an adequte job, I don't like it, 20 yeas is not enough and I don't find it very Alien.
You're right - it's not an adequate job, and I'm unconvinced and don't believe it. I don't care what Ridley Scott says, because what he says doesn't matter. When there's a later movie that addresses the Derelict, then I'll reassess - until that point, I stand by my interpretation.
Quote from: The Cruentus on Sep 05, 2018, 12:08:23 PM
QuoteWe absolutely do have the right to impose our beliefs over works of fiction, that's how art/fiction criticism works ???
Like, the reason why 'Alien: Covenant' even has an Alien in it is because Ridley Scott was responding to fan and audience complaints that Prometheus didn't have enough Aliens in it - he literally said, "They want Aliens, I'll give them f**king Aliens."
I believe I said creator not creation :P we do not have the right to impose our beliefs on to someone who created it.
You're not, though - you're imposing your beliefs on the movie, not on Ridley Scott. Ridley Scott put Aliens in Covenant because he recognized that that was something a lot of people criticized about Prometheus. No one forced him to do it, but it obviously had an impact on him and he responded to it. The point is that audience members absolutely do have power over works of fiction once they leave the author's hands.
Quote from: The Cruentus on Sep 05, 2018, 12:08:23 PM
QuoteThat's only your opinion and interpretation, though. Ash knows biological science, maybe Dallas has a hobby in archaeology?
I'm not saying your interpretation is wrong, it obviously makes sense. I'm just saying that it's really paper-thin evidence.
In this case yes, it is indeed my opinion of Dallas but that goes both ways to what he could know, whereas we know what David knows because he spent 10 years working on it.
Sure, but if David spends 10 years doing science experiments on one planet, how does he know if there are other ancient spaceships crashed on other planets? David doesn't have to know he's wrong in order for him to be wrong.
Quote from: The Cruentus on Sep 05, 2018, 12:08:23 PM
QuoteNo, as far as everyone is concerned, it might rain. People could opt to ignore me and say "eh, I disagree, I don't think it's going to rain", and that's totally their call to make. No one is holding a gun to their head and demanding that they believe that it's going to rain, and it's not some kind of objective fact that rain absolutely is coming until suddenly it doesn't come.
No one is forcing you to believe that David is the creator or that Scott's intent is set in stone, if you wish to ignore it then that is fine but it is not something open to interpretation because the intent behind it and in it was obvious.
And if I feel "Ridley Scott's intent" isn't good enough, then all you're left with is the movie.
Like, you could be saying "the Alien was created by David, and I know this because God Himself in Heaven spoke to me and said so." If I don't care about your god and what he says, then that's not going to be a compelling reason for me to believe you.
Quote from: The Cruentus on Sep 05, 2018, 12:08:23 PM
Quote
We have evidence that there are other Aliens - we have the ancient-looking Derelict on another planet, which Covenant doesn't address.
Is there? Also keep in mind the Derelict looking ancient doesn't mean it is, the conditions on LV-426 are terrible, also the ships themselves are probably old anyway, LV-233 Juggernaut for example was 2,000 years old. The Derelict being old or not is moot because that doesn't mean the cargo is.
David or some Engineer has 20 odd years to get those eggs and crash or land on LV-426.
Sure, but none of that has happened yet, so all of that is fan-theories and speculation. You've offered reasons to distrust what we're shown in 'Alien', and I've offered reasons to distrust what David says in Covenant.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Sep 05, 2018, 12:18:19 PM
If you don't like it, why not fight it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gr_OpFxCx-A
Because there is nothing I can do about it, maybe if hundreds or thousands of us fans made their disagreement clear to Scott or Fox, maybe something could happen, as it apparently did it after prometheus but until we get that next movie that changes things, we are currently stuck with what we got.
That being said, there is no guarantee, since a filmmaker or studio could go the opposite to what we want and on purpose too, and honestly I would not blame them, Covenant came about as it is apparently becauses fans wanted the Alien back and even with Covenant, the reactions was still bad. The fanbase is pretty much unpleasable and we can seem ungrateful when we react like that, so it remains to be seen whether they would bother listening to what we got to say.
At the end of the day, they have no obligation to do things the way we like them, it is their property, not ours.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Sep 05, 2018, 12:25:52 PM
That's not how that works - the movie itself does not include any mention of the Derelict or LV-426 or how the eggs got there. You're making a jump in logic that the movie itself does not support.
Not at all, I am going by what the intent in Covenant was, David created the eggs, no one else did as of currently.
Quote
Sure it's open to interpretation - the fact that we're debating this topic demonstrates that. :)
No it doesn't. Not everything people debate about is up for interpretation, some folk can just be wrong, in denial or just plain argumentive. Point being there are many reasons for it.
QuoteLike, you realize we're talking about fiction, right?
And? The events of Covenant should not be a problem for you then.
QuoteWhat are you going to do, demand that I agree with you? What if I don't?
Not at all and if that is what you reading into this then I pity you because I don't care if you want to ignore what happened in Covenant, you're free to do so but it doesn't change what is. All I am doing is disagreeing with your insistence that it is up for interpretation.
Quote
You're right - it's not an adequate job, and I'm unconvinced and don't believe it. I don't care what Ridley Scott says, because what he says doesn't matter. When there's a later movie that addresses the Derelict, then I'll reassess - until that point, I stand by my interpretation.
Right and that is your opinion on the matter, which you are welcome to but doesn't change the intent of the movie.
Quote
You're not, though - you're imposing your beliefs on the movie, not on Ridley Scott. Ridley Scott put Aliens in Covenant because he recognized that that was something a lot of people criticized about Prometheus. No one forced him to do it, but it obviously had an impact on him and he responded to it. The point is that audience members absolutely do have power over works of fiction once they leave the author's hands.
No, if Scott probably didn't double down on what was in Covenant, it is entirely possible I might still been skeptical myself but we got the movie, Scott's word in an interview and commentary.
I didn't say they couldn't be influenced, only that we have no right to force them to adhere to what we believe or expect. And look how it turned out when fans did influence Scott. We ended up with Covenant.
Quote
Sure, but if David spends 10 years doing science experiments on one planet, how does he know if there are other ancient spaceships crashed on other planets? David doesn't have to know he's wrong in order for him to be wrong.
No, he doesn't have to know he is wrong to be wrong....but Scott would and he confirmed he created the Alien.
Quote
And if I feel "Ridley Scott's intent" isn't good enough, then all you're left with is the movie.
Like, you could be saying "the Alien was created by David, and I know this because God Himself in Heaven spoke to me and said so." If I don't care about your god and what he says, then that's not going to be a compelling reason for me to believe you.
Then that is your problem, not ours. Unlike god, Scott's word has been very clear to more than one person and so has his movie. If you want to deny it then that is fine but it is denial.
Quote
Sure, but none of that has happened yet, so all of that is fan-theories and speculation. You've offered reasons to distrust what we're shown in 'Alien', and I've offered reasons to distrust what David says in Covenant.
David creating the Alien isn't a fan-theory, though the age of the derelict is up for speculation since we don't its origins but we do now know the who created the eggs.
Since this going in circles and I feel I am having to repeat myself and I don't see an immediately conclusion anytime soon. Lets just to agree to disagree.
I do understand what this new information is doing to you, its flies in the face of everything you knew or expected. We have held on to the assumption of the derelict and the cargo for so long, some of us probably thought it was a fact. I'm sure the comics and novels didn't help in the that regard either but there we go. The universe is apparently smaller than we thought and the once ancient cosmic horrors is nothing more than the recent science experiment of an insane android lashing out.
Quote from: The Cruentus on Sep 05, 2018, 12:30:12 PM
The universe is apparently smaller than we thought and
the once ancient cosmic horror is nothing more than the recent science experiment of an insane android lashing out.
I disagree with that notion, but I understand your P.O.V.
I meant in terms of coincidences, Covenant crew bumping into David, his creations ending up on LV-426 for the Nostromo crew to find. Also they were all connected to the company, both before the merge and after. It just makes things seem smaller.
Indeed from that perspective it does.
One thing I did appreciate about Prometheus is that it didn't directly connect to the original series.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Sep 05, 2018, 11:12:53 AM
Does anyone here actually prefer the idea of David creating the aliens or is it just something you guys have reluctantly accepted?
No, I personally do not believe that David created the xenomorphs. I think his work is far less original than he believes it to be. But that's just my opinion. It may not be what Ridley intends, it may not be what others like, but that's the way I see the situation. That does not mean I can't enjoy the idea that he did (in fact) create them in a "parallel universe" sort of way, and that we can't have an entertaining film surrounding that possibility.
All art is subjective. I've already decided for myself what the creature and the mysteries of its universe mean. There is a definitiveness to the original trilogy. That's where I find my truths, and that's where my canon comes from. There is no reason that we all must adhere to some "Gospel according to Ridley". Take those aspects that you believe to be correct, put them together, and see the truth you wish to see.
Indeed.
Dr Hannibal Lecter
Quote from: Huggs on Sep 05, 2018, 11:31:50 PM
Take those aspects that you believe to be correct, put them together, and see the truth you wish to see.
Quote from: The Cruentus on Sep 05, 2018, 11:17:43 PM
I meant in terms of coincidences, Covenant crew bumping into David, his creations ending up on LV-426 for the Nostromo crew to find. Also they were all connected to the company, both before the merge and after. It just makes things seem smaller.
Weyland-Yutani is one of the biggest conglomerates, so it's more likely one of their ships is going to encounter systematised transmissions.
Quote from: Huggs on Sep 05, 2018, 11:31:50 PM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Sep 05, 2018, 11:12:53 AM
Does anyone here actually prefer the idea of David creating the aliens or is it just something you guys have reluctantly accepted?
No, I personally do not believe that David created the xenomorphs. I think his work is far less original than he believes it to be. But that's just my opinion. It may not be what Ridley intends, it may not be what others like, but that's the way I see the situation. That does not mean I can't enjoy the idea that he did (in fact) create them in a "parallel universe" sort of way, and that we can't have an entertaining film surrounding that possibility.
All art is subjective. I've already decided for myself what the creature and the mysteries of its universe mean. There is a definitiveness to the original trilogy. That's where I find my truths, and that's where my canon comes from. There is no reason that we all must adhere to some "Gospel according to Ridley". Take those aspects that you believe to be correct, put them together, and see the truth you wish to see.
That's all well and good form a personal enjoyment level, however when you get into discussion about what is and what isn't - everyone needs the same point of reference. Which in this instance is "David created the Aliens".
Quote from: SM on Sep 05, 2018, 11:38:45 PM
That's all well and good form a personal enjoyment level, however when you get into discussion about what is and what isn't - everyone needs the same point of reference. Which in this instance is "David created the Aliens".
Quite so. But the question was asked on an individual level, and I answered in kind.
Quote from: The Old One on Sep 05, 2018, 11:36:25 PM
Indeed.
Dr Hannibal Lecter
Quote from: Huggs on Sep 05, 2018, 11:31:50 PM
Take those aspects that you believe to be correct, put them together, and see the truth you wish to see.
Did I accidentally quote something?
Quote from: SM on Sep 05, 2018, 12:07:39 PM
Quote from: whiterabbit on Sep 05, 2018, 11:23:56 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Sep 05, 2018, 11:12:53 AM
Does anyone here actually prefer the idea of David creating the aliens or is it just something you guys have reluctantly accepted?
I'll answer that question with another question. What do you think?
It's flat out a simple mess. Prometheus started out as a direct prequel to Alien and then sometime during production Ridley decided he didn't want it tied directly to Alien, thus they moved away from "Alien-like" and turned to more clean lines that are the Engineers. He then decided that he liked Alien-like better but that it needed a killer AI to be the godfather of the Alien.
Everyone keeps trying to make sense of it but Ridley has walked himself straight into a whirlpool that we're now all stuck in. :-\
There's nothing in there that breaks the continuity in any major way, so it's not like it doesn't make sense; it just changed what we all thought and expected. And when that happens, some people can get upset.
I'm actually fine with it. The so called "reluctantly accepted" crowd I suppose and yes I do find Prometheus and Covenant ultra interesting. However, man I really preferred the pre-prequel-theme. Where the Jockey was a true alien. Not related to us and that the Alien was an ancient creature. Now sure, nothing was put in cement about any of it but I think there is a strong conscientious feeling in regard to fan expectations.
The Jockey being a man really threw a monkey wrench into all of those years of wonder. However as a fan I want to see an expansion of the universe. The one pet peeve of all for me is that the alien can not be created by humans. Created by a tool made to serve humans... I can live with that. However I want to see other creatures introduced within the alien universe. An expansion if you will. The engineers are great and I want to see more of them as well.
I love the art of it all.
Quote from: SM on Sep 05, 2018, 11:38:45 PM
That's all well and good form a personal enjoyment level, however when you get into discussion about what is and what isn't - everyone needs the same point of reference. Which in this instance is "David created the Aliens".
Thiiis is what I've been getting at for pages, which started with Xenomrph's "That presupposes David made the Aliens comment." It is sensible to presuppose that what's in the film is, well, what's in the film.
Quote from: The Cruentus on Sep 05, 2018, 12:30:12 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Sep 05, 2018, 12:25:52 PM
That's not how that works - the movie itself does not include any mention of the Derelict or LV-426 or how the eggs got there. You're making a jump in logic that the movie itself does not support.
Not at all, I am going by what the intent in Covenant was, David created the eggs, no one else did as of currently.
So you're acknowledging that the movie itself doesn't show that David created all Aliens, but rather you're basing this on Ridley's "intent"?
Because I don't care about Ridley's "intent" (and frankly, neither should you).
Quote from: The Cruentus on Sep 05, 2018, 12:30:12 PM
Quote
Sure it's open to interpretation - the fact that we're debating this topic demonstrates that. :)
No it doesn't. Not everything people debate about is up for interpretation, some folk can just be wrong, in denial or just plain argumentive. Point being there are many reasons for it.
Perhaps, but this instance offers some really easy and obvious alternate interpretations.
Quote from: The Cruentus on Sep 05, 2018, 12:30:12 PMQuoteLike, you realize we're talking about fiction, right?
And? The events of Covenant should not be a problem for you then.
No, what shouldn't be a problem is you allowing for alternate interpretations of the film, and yet here we are. :P
Quote from: The Cruentus on Sep 05, 2018, 12:30:12 PMAll I am doing is disagreeing with your insistence that it is up for interpretation.
That's okay. :) We'll just have to agree to disagree.
Quote from: The Cruentus on Sep 05, 2018, 12:30:12 PMQuote
You're right - it's not an adequate job, and I'm unconvinced and don't believe it. I don't care what Ridley Scott says, because what he says doesn't matter. When there's a later movie that addresses the Derelict, then I'll reassess - until that point, I stand by my interpretation.
Right and that is your opinion on the matter, which you are welcome to but doesn't change the intent of the movie.
Sure, but the intent of the movie doesn't matter as far as I'm concerned. There is no official decree that we must abide by The Gospel According to Ridley.
Quote from: The Cruentus on Sep 05, 2018, 12:30:12 PM
I didn't say they couldn't be influenced, only that we have no right to force them to adhere to what we believe or expect.
Why not?
Quote from: The Cruentus on Sep 05, 2018, 12:30:12 PMQuote
And if I feel "Ridley Scott's intent" isn't good enough, then all you're left with is the movie.
Like, you could be saying "the Alien was created by David, and I know this because God Himself in Heaven spoke to me and said so." If I don't care about your god and what he says, then that's not going to be a compelling reason for me to believe you.
Then that is your problem, not ours. Unlike god, Scott's word has been very clear to more than one person and so has his movie. If you want to deny it then that is fine but it is denial.
It's hardly "denial" to disregard Ridley Scott's word and come up with your own interpretation. Just to repeat for the people in the cheap seats:
Ridley Scott himself actively encourages this.As for "not ours", I think you'll find you're very much in the minority (https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/index.php?topic=57357.0) on believing David created all Aliens.
Quote from: The Cruentus on Sep 05, 2018, 12:30:12 PM
Since this going in circles and I feel I am having to repeat myself and I don't see an immediately conclusion anytime soon. Lets just to agree to disagree.
Absolutely. :)
Quote from: SiL on Sep 05, 2018, 11:56:42 PM
Quote from: SM on Sep 05, 2018, 11:38:45 PM
That's all well and good form a personal enjoyment level, however when you get into discussion about what is and what isn't - everyone needs the same point of reference. Which in this instance is "David created the Aliens".
Thiiis is what I've been getting at for pages, which started with Xenomrph's "That presupposes David made the Aliens comment." It is sensible to presuppose that what's in the film is, well, what's in the film.
What's in the film is that David creates an Alien and he walks Oram (aka the audience) how he did it. That says nothing about the Derelict or its cargo, and given the evidence from 'Alien', we have no reason to believe David created what's there aside from "the word of Ridley".
Okay, second question for those who've reluctantly accepted this: suppose you were given a $200 million budget and carte blanche by Fox to make a sequel to Covenant. How would you proceed?
Quote from: Local Trouble on Sep 06, 2018, 01:37:31 AM
Okay, second question for those who've reluctantly accepted this: suppose you were given a $200 million budget and carte blanche by Fox to make a sequel to Covenant. How would you proceed?
Opening scene: David gets headbitten by an Alien, but not before he says, "Where did you come from? I didn't create you."
The movie cuts to black, the remaining 118 minutes of runtime are the 'Alien' soundtrack as performed on a kazoo.
QuoteWhat's in the film is that David creates an Alien and he walks Oram (aka the audience) how he did it. That says nothing about the Derelict or its cargo, and given the evidence from 'Alien', we have no reason to believe David created what's there aside from "the word of Ridley".
There's no
evidence in
Alien saying it doesn't crash after so it's pretty irrelevant. One guy who doesn't know what he's looking at saying something looks old is not hard evidence of anything.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Sep 06, 2018, 01:37:31 AM
Okay, second question for those who've reluctantly accepted this: suppose you were given a $200 million budget and carte blanche by Fox to make a sequel to Covenant. How would you proceed?
Three hours of a guy pissing on a wall.
Quote from: SiL on Sep 06, 2018, 01:45:52 AM
QuoteWhat's in the film is that David creates an Alien and he walks Oram (aka the audience) how he did it. That says nothing about the Derelict or its cargo, and given the evidence from 'Alien', we have no reason to believe David created what's there aside from "the word of Ridley".
There's no evidence in Alien saying it doesn't crash after so it's pretty irrelevant. One guy who doesn't know what he's looking at saying something looks old is not hard evidence of anything.
A guy says "it looks old", and he says it looks old because it looks old. That's pretty good evidence for it being old. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...
As stated, 'Covenant' does not address where the Derelict came from or how long it's been there. At this stage, any narrative explanation for the Derelict being young is, that's right, fan theorizing and speculation.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Sep 06, 2018, 01:51:36 AM
A guy says "it looks old", and he says it looks old because it looks old.
Yeah,
looks. That doesn't mean it is.
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, sure, it's probably a duck. Except in this analogy we've found out it's a new species of bird similar to but distinct from a duck because we've
learned more about it. Continuing to believe it's a duck just because that's what it looked like at first in light of new evidence is really silly.
"It looks like something" is the weakest possible argument you could be trying to make here. New evidence says it's
not old so whether it
looks it is pretty irrelevant.
Do we have a point of reference for what a new Derelict looks like?
Quote from: Local Trouble on Sep 06, 2018, 01:37:31 AM
Okay, second question for those who've reluctantly accepted this: suppose you were given a $200 million budget and carte blanche by Fox to make a sequel to Covenant.
How would you proceed?
I won't say, because hopefully I'll be able to contribute officially someday.
Quote from: SM on Sep 06, 2018, 01:58:27 AM
Do we have a point of reference for what a new Derelict looks like?
Juggernaut and Friends?
Even then the Covenant ship looked an awful like the interior of the Derelict after just a few years.
Quote from: SiL on Sep 06, 2018, 01:57:15 AM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Sep 06, 2018, 01:51:36 AM
A guy says "it looks old", and he says it looks old because it looks old.
Yeah, looks. That doesn't mean it is.
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, sure, it's probably a duck. Except in this analogy we've found out it's a new species of bird similar to but distinct from a duck because we've learned more about it. Continuing to believe it's a duck just because that's what it looked like at first in light of new evidence is really silly.
"It looks like something" is the weakest possible argument you could be trying to make here. New evidence says it's not old so whether it looks it is pretty irrelevant.
Except, as stated, Covenant doesn't say anything about the Derelict, so the Derelict still looking old is a perfectly valid reason to think it is old.
It
looks like David created an Alien. It doesn't mean he created all of them.
It's two interpretations of the information we're being shown. I think yours is crazy and shortsighted and I personally disagree with it, but I'm not going to be so narrow-minded as to say yours is
objectively false. I'm just going to disagree with your opinion and move on.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Sep 06, 2018, 02:02:04 AM
Except, as stated, Covenant doesn't say anything about the Derelict, so the Derelict still looking old is a perfectly valid reason to think it is old.
Covenant doesn't
need to say anything about the Derelict directly.
QuoteIt's two interpretations of the information we're being shown. I think yours is crazy and shortsighted and I personally disagree with it, but I'm not going to be so narrow-minded as to say yours is objectively false. I'm just going to disagree with your opinion and move on.
Yet again, I hope you're
actively trying to be dense and not pay attention to anything I've said just so you feel you have something to argue about.
I don't like the concept. I have my personal fanon that explains it away. But acting like it's not the course the films are currently actively trying to take is stupid.
That is the point. Acting like because you
can interpret things differently means that Fox hasn't taken the course outlined is arrogant and delusional.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Sep 06, 2018, 01:37:31 AM
Okay, second question for those who've reluctantly accepted this: suppose you were given a $200 million budget and carte blanche by Fox to make a sequel to Covenant. How would you proceed?
Oh I know exactly what I'd do. ;D
I'd make a movie in the same spirit of "A Christmas Carol". The story would revolve around Ridley Scott having to go back and realize how good the Alien franchise was before the prequels. Jean Pierre Jeunet would play the part of Marley, the first to make the terrible mistake. Near the end, a cloaked figure that resembles David appears and points to a darkened hill in the distance. There, realizing the horror of what he's done, he sits staring at a lonely and forgotten grave that says "The Alien Franchise".
Suddenly, Morgan Freeman appears as God, and tells him it's not too late to make things right. A script floats down from the heavens, illuminated in holy light as the angels sing. Ridley reaches for it, saying "Finally, I know what I must do". Freeman slaps his hand away and says, "Keep your ideas...to your damn self".
An unconscious Ridley is then seen tossing and turning in bed yelling "I won't! I won't! I promise I won't!". He awakens to realize it was a dream, and dashes out of his trailer onto the production lot, laughing hysterically and firing everybody in sight. As the camera pans back, we see a sign that says, "Alien: Awakening, no photography beyond this point".
Quote from: Huggs on Sep 06, 2018, 02:10:15 AM
I'd make a movie in the same spirit of "A Christmas Carol". The story would revolve around Ridley Scott having to go back and realize how good the Alien franchise was before the prequels. Jean Pierre Jeunet would play the part of Marley, the first to make the terrible mistake. Near the end, a cloaked figure that resembles David appears and points to a darkened hill in the distance. There, realizing the horror of what he's done, he sits staring at a lonely and forgotten grave that says "The Alien Franchise".
Suddenly, Morgan Freeman appears as God, and tells him it's not too late to make things right. A script floats down from the heavens, illuminated in holy light as the angels sing. Ridley reaches for it, saying "Finally, I know what I must do". Freeman slaps his hand away and says, "Keep your ideas...to your damn self".
An unconscious Ridley is then seen tossing and turning in bed yelling "I won't! I won't! I promise I won't!". He awakens to realize it was a dream, and dashes out of his trailer onto the production lot, laughing hysterically and firing everybody in sight. As the camera pans back, we see a sign that says, "Alien: Awakening, no photography beyond this point".
But dammit, man, what's in that script? How does he fix it? The audience must know!
It's my script. ;)
That doesn't answer anything :P
You'll just have to wait to see it, or not.
Quote from: SiL on Sep 06, 2018, 02:08:43 AM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Sep 06, 2018, 02:02:04 AM
Except, as stated, Covenant doesn't say anything about the Derelict, so the Derelict still looking old is a perfectly valid reason to think it is old.
Covenant doesn't need to say anything about the Derelict directly.
If it wants me to believe David had anything to do with it, then yeah it does.
Quote from: SiL on Sep 06, 2018, 02:08:43 AM
QuoteIt's two interpretations of the information we're being shown. I think yours is crazy and shortsighted and I personally disagree with it, but I'm not going to be so narrow-minded as to say yours is objectively false. I'm just going to disagree with your opinion and move on.
Yet again, I hope you're actively trying to be dense and not pay attention to anything I've said just so you feel you have something to argue about.
I don't like the concept. I have my personal fanon that explains it away. But acting like it's not the course the films are currently actively trying to take is stupid. That is the point. Acting like because you can interpret things differently means that Fox hasn't taken the course outlined is arrogant and delusional.
Considering I've responded to everything you've said point-by-point for the last, like, 15 or whatever pages... yeah, I've been paying attention just fine. :)
We don't know what "the course" is because there isn't another movie yet. The movie itself is open to interpretation, and you think you know "the course" because you're citing Ridley Scott's latest quotes, as if those can't or won't change. Based on Ridley Scott's prior track record,
there is no course.
It's like people who said with absolute certainty that Shaw was going to get to the Engineer homeworld and get her answers, based on the end of Prometheus - look how that turned out. The movie ended with the implication that she'd get there, but it didn't say if she actually would. Someone could have said "Nah, I don't think she makes it" after seeing Prometheus, and that's an okay opinion to have.
If you're going by
FOX's "course", they've already authorized and released a novelization that outright says David didn't create all Aliens.
What is Ridley Scott going to do in his next movie, if it happens? We don't know because the movie doesn't exist yet. But when the current movie has an obvious unaddressed contradiction with an earlier movie, siding with either one is a perfectly valid interpretation of what we're seeing.
Also, interpreting art isn't arrogant and delusional. Since you haven't been "paying attention", to use your words, Ridley Scott has been a proponent of this for years. If anything, I'd say that presuming to know what the next movie holds just because of what Ridley Scott (of all people!) said in interviews over a year ago is arrogant and delusional.
Or in short, feel free to agree to disagree. :)
Quote from: SiL on Sep 06, 2018, 02:00:48 AM
Quote from: SM on Sep 06, 2018, 01:58:27 AM
Do we have a point of reference for what a new Derelict looks like?
Juggernaut and Friends?
Even then the Covenant ship looked an awful like the interior of the Derelict after just a few years.
The ships on LV-223 were at least 2000 years old.
Quote from: SM on Sep 06, 2018, 02:21:54 AM
The ships on LV-223 were at least 2000 years old.
Yeah, but they were still in the original packaging.
Quote from: SiL on Sep 06, 2018, 02:12:57 AM
Quote from: Huggs on Sep 06, 2018, 02:10:15 AM
I'd make a movie in the same spirit of "A Christmas Carol". The story would revolve around Ridley Scott having to go back and realize how good the Alien franchise was before the prequels. Jean Pierre Jeunet would play the part of Marley, the first to make the terrible mistake. Near the end, a cloaked figure that resembles David appears and points to a darkened hill in the distance. There, realizing the horror of what he's done, he sits staring at a lonely and forgotten grave that says "The Alien Franchise".
Suddenly, Morgan Freeman appears as God, and tells him it's not too late to make things right. A script floats down from the heavens, illuminated in holy light as the angels sing. Ridley reaches for it, saying "Finally, I know what I must do". Freeman slaps his hand away and says, "Keep your ideas...to your damn self".
An unconscious Ridley is then seen tossing and turning in bed yelling "I won't! I won't! I promise I won't!". He awakens to realize it was a dream, and dashes out of his trailer onto the production lot, laughing hysterically and firing everybody in sight. As the camera pans back, we see a sign that says, "Alien: Awakening, no photography beyond this point".
But dammit, man, what's in that script? How does he fix it? The audience must know!
I'm taking a page from someone else's book. In the first movie, you get no answers. In the sequel, you get one's you don't like. ;D
I have plans for a trilogy. It ends with Scott opening a door to another dimension. A large white void where a well dressed Fassbender sits at a typewriter clicking out the last pages of the script. As Scott stares on in disbelief, Fassbender lays the last page down, flips the script over showing the title to be "Alien 1979". They stare at each other as the theme to 2001 begins to play, and we pan into the darkness of Fassbenders right cornea. Becoming stars, planets, galaxies, and finally an immense white line as we hit warp speed into oblivion.
Quote from: SiL on Sep 06, 2018, 02:23:32 AM
Quote from: SM on Sep 06, 2018, 02:21:54 AM
The ships on LV-223 were at least 2000 years old.
Yeah, but they were still in the original packaging.
Okay this is legit funny. ;D
Quote from: Huggs on Sep 06, 2018, 02:24:09 AM
I'm taking a page from someone else's book. In the first movie, you get no answers. In the sequel, you get one's you don't like. ;D
I have plans for a trilogy. But, It ends on one final scene of Spoiler
Scott opening a door to another dimension. A large white void where a well dressed Fassbender sits at a typewriter clicking out the last pages of the script. As Scott stares on in disbelief, Fassbender lays the last page down, flips the script over showing the title to be "Alien 1979". The share a stare, as the theme to 2001 begins to play, and we pan towards and then into Fassbenders right eye, becoming stars, planets, galaxies, and finally a white line as we hit warp speed into oblivion."
This is legit funny, too.
Quote from: SiL on Sep 06, 2018, 02:23:32 AM
Quote from: SM on Sep 06, 2018, 02:21:54 AM
The ships on LV-223 were at least 2000 years old.
Yeah, but they were still in the original packaging.
New 'naut smell.
Quote from: SM on Sep 06, 2018, 02:28:12 AM
Quote from: SiL on Sep 06, 2018, 02:23:32 AM
Quote from: SM on Sep 06, 2018, 02:21:54 AM
The ships on LV-223 were at least 2000 years old.
Yeah, but they were still in the original packaging.
New 'naut smell.
The Derelict just needs one of those pine air fresheners and she's good to go.
Someone clearly left the window down on the Planet 4 one.
Quote from: The Old One on Sep 06, 2018, 02:18:48 AM
You'll just have to wait to see it, or not.
I demand hints.
Quote from: SiL on Sep 06, 2018, 02:34:45 AM
Quote from: SM on Sep 06, 2018, 02:28:12 AM
Quote from: SiL on Sep 06, 2018, 02:23:32 AM
Quote from: SM on Sep 06, 2018, 02:21:54 AM
The ships on LV-223 were at least 2000 years old.
Yeah, but they were still in the original packaging.
New 'naut smell.
The Derelict just needs one of those pine air fresheners and she's good to go.
But which scent would you go with?
Quote from: Xenomrph on Sep 06, 2018, 06:11:07 AM
Quote from: SiL on Sep 06, 2018, 02:34:45 AM
Quote from: SM on Sep 06, 2018, 02:28:12 AM
Quote from: SiL on Sep 06, 2018, 02:23:32 AM
Quote from: SM on Sep 06, 2018, 02:21:54 AM
The ships on LV-223 were at least 2000 years old.
Yeah, but they were still in the original packaging.
New 'naut smell.
The Derelict just needs one of those pine air fresheners and she's good to go.
But which scent would you go with?
Pineapple!
A potpourri of fragrances that I like to call Eau de Sloth.
(https://i.imgur.com/4BSuLNi.jpg)
Quote from: Xenomrph on Sep 06, 2018, 06:11:07 AM
Quote from: SiL on Sep 06, 2018, 02:34:45 AM
Quote from: SM on Sep 06, 2018, 02:28:12 AM
Quote from: SiL on Sep 06, 2018, 02:23:32 AM
Quote from: SM on Sep 06, 2018, 02:21:54 AM
The ships on LV-223 were at least 2000 years old.
Yeah, but they were still in the original packaging.
New 'naut smell.
The Derelict just needs one of those pine air fresheners and she's good to go.
But which scent would you go with?
Bruh, read! Pine! Pine scent! ;D
Quote from: SiL on Sep 06, 2018, 08:11:54 AM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Sep 06, 2018, 06:11:07 AM
Quote from: SiL on Sep 06, 2018, 02:34:45 AM
Quote from: SM on Sep 06, 2018, 02:28:12 AM
Quote from: SiL on Sep 06, 2018, 02:23:32 AM
Quote from: SM on Sep 06, 2018, 02:21:54 AM
The ships on LV-223 were at least 2000 years old.
Yeah, but they were still in the original packaging.
New 'naut smell.
The Derelict just needs one of those pine air fresheners and she's good to go.
But which scent would you go with?
Bruh, read! Pine! Pine scent! ;D
Ohh i figured you just meant one of the pine tree shaped ones since they're the same shape for every scent. :P
I've always been partial to coconut, myself.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Sep 06, 2018, 06:11:07 AM
Quote from: SiL on Sep 06, 2018, 02:34:45 AM
The Derelict just needs one of those pine air fresheners and she's good to go.
But which scent would you go with?
Lavender. You'll need it if you wanna go into the cargo hold.
Quote from: whiterabbit on Sep 06, 2018, 07:10:07 AM
Pineapple!
Bloody 'waiians. Whatever next? Pineapple on Pizza?
Has anyone ever tried pineapple AND eggs on a pizza at the same time or would that break the universe?
Quote from: The Eighth Passenger on Sep 06, 2018, 04:22:58 PM
Quote from: whiterabbit on Sep 06, 2018, 07:10:07 AM
Pineapple!
Bloody 'waiians. Whatever next? Pineapple on Pizza?
Hell it ain't like we have any pine trees in Hawaii~ne. No, those Norfolk pines are not pine trees. They are death logs when they fall over. :P
Quote from: Local Trouble on Sep 06, 2018, 09:50:46 PM
Has anyone ever tried pineapple AND eggs on a pizza at the same time or would that break the universe?
Make the eggs those little Easter whopper (robin) eggs and I'll chance it.
Quote from: whiterabbit on Sep 07, 2018, 10:09:57 AMMake the eggs those little Easter whopper (robin) eggs and I'll chance it.
I'm talking SM-style chicken eggs, sunny side up.
Quote from: SiL on Sep 04, 2018, 10:38:53 PM
It's really not. He was involved in the film that said David made the Alien. Nobody's involved in a new film saying he didn't.
It was a film which demonstrated David 8 created
an alien organism. It was not a film which demonstrated the creation of
the Alien (as in, the LV-426 'strain').
What he/it
might do is, ultimately, irrelevant. David 8
could be shown to do it. Just as David 8 could also be shown to be one big red herring. Until we get something concrete on screen, it's all just digital folk sitting in an Internet pub championing his/her preferred theory.
The best we can do is stay within the 'on-balance-of-probability' game - and that relies upon David 8:
(A) Being shown to head off over to LV-426.
(B) Altering the '
Covenant' organism into something which looks and behaves quite differently (especially in regards to Lope's facehugger implantation efficiency, which made no sense).
At the time of writing, neither of those factors is anywhere close to certain (or even probable), given what we were
shown on the screen.
If that changes, then it changes. But until then, David 8 is not
yet canonised as having created the LV-426 eggs.
And not only could a different future story-teller decide otherwise, but given Scott's sudden dropping of Shaw's continuing adventures, so could he, too.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Sep 06, 2018, 09:50:46 PM
Has anyone ever tried pineapple AND eggs on a pizza at the same time or would that break the universe?
Sounds like something SiL and SM might come up with at a get-together after a few gallons of Fosters.
But what would one call such a thing? An Austraiian?
Quote from: The Eighth Passenger on Sep 07, 2018, 08:41:19 PM
But what would one call such a thing?
Pineapple and egg pizza? The word "grotesque" leaps to mind. ;)
Quote from: The Eighth Passenger on Sep 07, 2018, 08:41:19 PM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Sep 06, 2018, 09:50:46 PM
Has anyone ever tried pineapple AND eggs on a pizza at the same time or would that break the universe?
Sounds like something SiL and SM might come up with at a get-together after a few gallons of Fosters.
But what would one call such a thing? An Austraiian?
We don't drink Fosters; we export it.
Quote from: SM on Sep 07, 2018, 09:45:42 PM
Quote from: The Eighth Passenger on Sep 07, 2018, 08:41:19 PM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Sep 06, 2018, 09:50:46 PM
Has anyone ever tried pineapple AND eggs on a pizza at the same time or would that break the universe?
Sounds like something SiL and SM might come up with at a get-together after a few gallons of Fosters.
But what would one call such a thing? An Austraiian?
We don't drink Fosters; we export it.
I was about to say...
However I think there is no question that David has an egg fetish. He may well be an Australian made bot.
Has anyone gained any further insight on this topic due to the "David's Drawings" book?
Hopefully, Corporal/muthur 9000's analysis is on the way 8)
Quote from: The Eighth Passenger on Sep 06, 2018, 04:22:58 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Sep 06, 2018, 06:11:07 AM
Quote from: SiL on Sep 06, 2018, 02:34:45 AM
The Derelict just needs one of those pine air fresheners and she's good to go.
But which scent would you go with?
Lavender. You'll need it if you wanna go into the cargo hold.
Quote from: whiterabbit on Sep 06, 2018, 07:10:07 AM
Pineapple!
Bloody 'waiians. Whatever next? Pineapple on Pizza?
As long as it doesn't have bacon in it, I'm happy :P
Quote from: The Eighth Passenger on Sep 07, 2018, 08:41:19 PM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Sep 06, 2018, 09:50:46 PM
Has anyone ever tried pineapple AND eggs on a pizza at the same time or would that break the universe?
Sounds like something SiL and SM might come up with at a get-together after a few gallons of Fosters.
But what would one call such a thing? An Austraiian?
I hear nothing goes with an Australian pizza pie quite like Foster's, except maybe Weylan-Yutani Aspen.
Quote from: Xenomorphine on Sep 07, 2018, 07:16:31 PM
Quote from: SiL on Sep 04, 2018, 10:38:53 PM
It's really not. He was involved in the film that said David made the Alien. Nobody's involved in a new film saying he didn't.
It was a film which demonstrated David 8 created an alien organism. It was not a film which demonstrated the creation of the Alien (as in, the LV-426 'strain').
What he/it might do is, ultimately, irrelevant. David 8 could be shown to do it. Just as David 8 could also be shown to be one big red herring. Until we get something concrete on screen, it's all just digital folk sitting in an Internet pub championing his/her preferred theory.
The best we can do is stay within the 'on-balance-of-probability' game - and that relies upon David 8:
(A) Being shown to head off over to LV-426.
(B) Altering the 'Covenant' organism into something which looks and behaves quite differently (especially in regards to Lope's facehugger implantation efficiency, which made no sense).
At the time of writing, neither of those factors is anywhere close to certain (or even probable), given what we were shown on the screen.
If that changes, then it changes. But until then, David 8 is not yet canonised as having created the LV-426 eggs.
And not only could a different future story-teller decide otherwise, but given Scott's sudden dropping of Shaw's continuing adventures, so could he, too.
Sorry, but as far as Ridley's movies are concerned, David definitely created the entire Alien species. It's all there in Covenant; nothing, and I mean NOTHING, is left up to debate on the issue. Ultimately, it boils down to whether or not we accept Ridley's prequels as canonical gospel.
They don't have to be canon to you specifically, but if we're discussing lore or continuity we all have to be on the same page. That being what's definitively canon.
I can't help wondering, if it had been anyone other than dear old Ridley who said that a human-built android in the future created the Alien, would they have been so welcome?
I don't deal in "what-ifs" -
But it's not a wholly accepted idea for those vocal or in discussion of the franchise,
even for those who can see its artistic merit in the context of the film.
Quote from: EJA on Sep 08, 2018, 04:31:20 PM
I can't help wondering, if it had been anyone other than dear old Ridley who said that a human-built android in the future created the Alien, would they have been so welcome?
It hasn't been that welcome even with dear old Ridley.
Quote from: EJA on Sep 08, 2018, 04:31:20 PM
I can't help wondering, if it had been anyone other than dear old Ridley who said that a human-built android in the future created the Alien, would they have been so welcome?
Haven't you seen how things went after Covenant was released? I can assure you it wasn't welcome, still isn't. But at least people stopped going personal and overtriggered about the subject by now. But yeah, the reception would have been even worse if it a idea from Paul Anderson or The Strauses. If it wasn't from Ridley the few who liked that would be fewer.
Quote from: SM on Sep 08, 2018, 09:02:59 PM
Quote from: EJA on Sep 08, 2018, 04:31:20 PM
I can't help wondering, if it had been anyone other than dear old Ridley who said that a human-built android in the future created the Alien, would they have been so welcome?
It hasn't been that welcome even with dear old Ridley.
After the first prequel...Neill Blomkamp was flirting with FOX for the sake of his "What if?" kind of sequel (after having been well received by some fans), but the studio kept Riddles with on condition: shoe-horn the Xeno no matter what may happen with the Prometheus stuff. So the moral of the story is that good taste, artistic merits, sci-fi pedigree, and all the pretentious crap are utterly irrelevant when it comes to money...and what it is gospel cannon today, could be reduced to a mere legend tomorrow. Ok, maybe not the real tomorrow, ie sunday/monday, but many years later :P
Quote from: EJA on Sep 08, 2018, 04:20:47 PM
Sorry, but as far as Ridley's movies are concerned, David definitely created the entire Alien species. It's all there in Covenant; nothing, and I mean NOTHING, is left up to debate on the issue. Ultimately, it boils down to whether or not we accept Ridley's prequels as canonical gospel.
Not explicitly, but implicitly there is reason to believe that David might be wrong on his assertion that he created the alien.
The film shows that David created an alien. The subtext shows that David might not be the alien creator.
His Ozymandias quote is all about creation, and his attribution of it to Byron was found to be wrong, since it was Shelley. It's allegorical to himself. He thinks he's lord of creation, but he might not be, because he's going silicon mad.
Yes, Ridley said that David created the alien but he said it when doing press for Covenant. I know the likelihood is he meant the whole species, but he could just be referring to the specific ones encountered in Covenant.
Ridley has also been wrong, changed his mind, and deliberately stirred up controversy in the past.
All these points have been previously made and are the entire point of this thread. Ridley Scott is the ultimate troll, and deliberately undermined his own way of thinking in his own film so that we'd all argue about it. What a git.
Scott said he thought it was more interesting that David made the Alien. He never mentioned or referred to some off-shoot sub-species.
Every lie, deception and misquote David makes in the movie is heavily addressed within the film. They're not left up to the audience's interpretation. Him making the Alien is never questioned within the story, only by people watching it. The filmmakers clearly treated it differently to his other deceptions.
It's also really disingenuous to keep bringing up all the stuff Scott said in interviews that never came to light. This is one of the few times that what Scott's said in interviews is actually born out in the movie itself in some detail.
His assertion about the Jockeys using the Aliens as bombs and that the Derelict was a bomber ship -- nowhere in the actual movie.
His claim that the Derelict was crashed on LV-426 long before Prometheus takes place -- nowhere in the actual movie.
That David makes the Alien -- oh look, a nice long scene explaining just that.
Quote from: EJA on Sep 08, 2018, 04:20:47 PM
Sorry, but as far as Ridley's movies are concerned, David definitely created the entire Alien species. It's all there in Covenant; nothing, and I mean NOTHING, is left up to debate on the issue. Ultimately, it boils down to whether or not we accept Ridley's prequels as canonical gospel.
We were shown that he guided the design of
an alien organism - that's indisputable. It did not show that he was responsible for
the LV-426-type Alien. There are enough key differences between them (especially in regards to what the facehugger phase can do) for us to know they aren't the same.
That's literally all it showed. Anything more is 100% supposition on the viewer's behalf (whether or not said supposition lines up with what Scott would
like us to conclude).
The David's Drawings book shows the original Egg, Facehugger and Chestburster designs are present.
We need to see it from paper to action through a sequel. Otherwise, we can't be sure if David's actions have something to do with the eggs of LV-426.
Quote from: Xenomorphine on Sep 09, 2018, 05:34:20 PM
Quote from: EJA on Sep 08, 2018, 04:20:47 PM
Sorry, but as far as Ridley's movies are concerned, David definitely created the entire Alien species. It's all there in Covenant; nothing, and I mean NOTHING, is left up to debate on the issue. Ultimately, it boils down to whether or not we accept Ridley's prequels as canonical gospel.
We were shown that he guided the design of an alien organism - that's indisputable. It did not show that he was responsible for the LV-426-type Alien. There are enough key differences between them (especially in regards to what the facehugger phase can do) for us to know they aren't the same.
That's literally all it showed. Anything more is 100% supposition on the viewer's behalf (whether or not said supposition lines up with what Scott would like us to conclude).
So there differences from Alien to Aliens to Alien 3 indicate they're not all the same?
To be fair, we know for a fact all the Aliens in the Trilogy originated from the Derelict on LV-426, that's not debatable.
That's not the case for those in the prequels.
We know one egg from Aliens was and we don't know where the A3 egg came from exactly, so it's every bit as debatable.
We see someone enter the Derelict in the Aliens Special Edition and return impregnated to the Colony.
The Queen from the resulting outbreak then enters a ship in Orbit with an indeterminate quantity of Manumala-noxhydria.
It's not as debatable.
Sure it is. We see one person return infected from the Derelict, that doesn't mean all the Aliens were sourced from there or even that one Alien that returned. We also never see the egg being placed so who knows who put it there. A predator might have snuck aboard the ship to place it and start a hunt, but got side tracked.
Yes it sounds dumb.
But so does "We only see David invent an Alien".
You could supposition that the Aliens in Aliens came from elsewhere- despite what it suggests within the film.
There was no Ovomorph on the U.S.S Sulaco though. ;)
"We only see David invent an Alien".
Is true though, despite the fact that I agree that within the context of the film the intention is obviously for David to be the originator of the Alien species, I won't argue that David isn't an unreliable narrator because he is.
There are times he believes he is certain of the facts and yet is incorrect, to what degree is up to interpretation.
Quote from: SiL on Sep 09, 2018, 09:27:13 PM
Sure it is. We see one person return infected from the Derelict, that doesn't mean all the Aliens were sourced from there or even that one Alien that returned. We also never see the egg being placed so who knows who put it there. A predator might have snuck aboard the ship to place it and start a hunt, but got side tracked.
Yes it sounds dumb.
But so does "We only see David invent an Alien".
Whether David is responsible or not for the eggs on the Derelict, the most honest answer is a simple
"we don't know yet".
Or...
Do I start to believe that David get money from a Pred for making thousands of eggs for the super-duper mother of all hunts? :D
I think we need another sequel instead, just to be sure. ;)
Quote from: The Old One on Sep 09, 2018, 06:16:38 PM
The David's Drawings book shows the original Egg, Facehugger and Chestburster designs are present.
And we saw an engraving in '
Prometheus' of a traditional egg with all four petals open, being carried in very Alien-like skeletal hands. Well before David 8 existed.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvignette4.wikia.nocookie.net%2Favp%2Fimages%2F0%2F0c%2FNormal_art-of-prometheus-003.PNG&hash=4d03a6041687431740fdafb322340b64118f5cdf)
Quote from: Xenomorphine on Sep 09, 2018, 11:16:51 PM
Quote from: The Old One on Sep 09, 2018, 06:16:38 PM
The David's Drawings book shows the original Egg, Facehugger and Chestburster designs are present.
And we saw an engraving in 'Prometheus' of a traditional egg with all four petals open, being carried in very Alien-like skeletal hands. Well before David 8 existed.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvignette4.wikia.nocookie.net%2Favp%2Fimages%2F0%2F0c%2FNormal_art-of-prometheus-003.PNG&hash=4d03a6041687431740fdafb322340b64118f5cdf)
You really think Ridley remembers that? It doesn't matter if it contradicts Prometheus, or ALIEN, his possible sequel might even contradict stuff from Alien: Covenant. Anything is possible.
He can literally make David turn the Covenant into the Derelict from LV-426 by using the space goo and then make David be the person inside the original space jockey suit in his sequel if he feels like it. We are on that level now. We are reaching levels of retconning that shouldn't even be possible.
Quote from: Xenomorphine on Sep 09, 2018, 11:16:51 PM
Quote from: The Old One on Sep 09, 2018, 06:16:38 PM
The David's Drawings book shows the original Egg, Facehugger and Chestburster designs are present.
And we saw an engraving in 'Prometheus' of a traditional egg with all four petals open, being carried in very Alien-like skeletal hands. Well before David 8 existed.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvignette4.wikia.nocookie.net%2Favp%2Fimages%2F0%2F0c%2FNormal_art-of-prometheus-003.PNG&hash=4d03a6041687431740fdafb322340b64118f5cdf)
'Alien-like' being the operative word. Like a Deacon or trilobite or those huge facehuggery things in the mural.
Quote from: Xenomorphine on Sep 09, 2018, 11:16:51 PM
Quote from: The Old One on Sep 09, 2018, 06:16:38 PM
The David's Drawings book shows the original Egg, Facehugger and Chestburster designs are present.
And we saw an engraving in 'Prometheus' of a traditional egg with all four petals open, being carried in very Alien-like skeletal hands. Well before David 8 existed.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvignette4.wikia.nocookie.net%2Favp%2Fimages%2F0%2F0c%2FNormal_art-of-prometheus-003.PNG&hash=4d03a6041687431740fdafb322340b64118f5cdf)
@Xenomorphine, we need more canonical information to reach a solid notion on the Derelict mystery, and I agree with you on that one. But such traditional egg is just an easter egg and nothing more, and as @Samhain13 point it out, is safe to say that Scott doesn't remember anything about it. Also, keep in mind that such single reference doesn't have the same impact as everything David did in Covenant. It is virtually insignificant. So, even if you are suggesting that David was doing reverse engineering in order to deconstruct the original...and utterly ancient...Alien (ie, along the lines of David recreating something already made, with such design documented eons ago in the Engineers archives), we need more evidence than a brief and almost forgotten easter egg.
Quote from: SM on Sep 09, 2018, 11:36:29 PM
Quote from: Xenomorphine on Sep 09, 2018, 11:16:51 PM
Quote from: The Old One on Sep 09, 2018, 06:16:38 PM
The David's Drawings book shows the original Egg, Facehugger and Chestburster designs are present.
And we saw an engraving in 'Prometheus' of a traditional egg with all four petals open, being carried in very Alien-like skeletal hands. Well before David 8 existed.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvignette4.wikia.nocookie.net%2Favp%2Fimages%2F0%2F0c%2FNormal_art-of-prometheus-003.PNG&hash=4d03a6041687431740fdafb322340b64118f5cdf)
'Alien-like' being the operative word. Like a Deacon or trilobite or those huge facehuggery things in the mural.
True indeed. Also, I believe the Deacon is a Neomorph-like-organism.
Quote from: EJA on Sep 08, 2018, 04:20:47 PM
Sorry, but as far as Ridley's movies are concerned, David definitely created the entire Alien species. It's all there in Covenant; nothing, and I mean NOTHING, is left up to debate on the issue. Ultimately, it boils down to whether or not we accept Ridley's prequels as canonical gospel.
Going off the movies themselves, there's ample room for debate. As Xenomorphine said, we don't know who or what put the Derelict on LV-426, or when.
Quote from: SiL on Sep 09, 2018, 11:28:45 AM
Every lie, deception and misquote David makes in the movie is heavily addressed within the film. They're not left up to the audience's interpretation. Him making the Alien is never questioned within the story, only by people watching it. The filmmakers clearly treated it differently to his other deceptions.
I think you missed the part Stitch was saying about "subtext". Also, the Ozymandias mistake is different from his other lies and deceptions because:
- it's neither a lie nor a deception; David appears to think what he's saying is the truth, even though he's mistaken
- it's the only time he's deliberately called out on it before the audience already knows it's false, in a way to draw the audience's attention to it
Quote from: SiL on Sep 09, 2018, 11:28:45 AM
It's also really disingenuous to keep bringing up all the stuff Scott said in interviews that never came to light. This is one of the few times that what Scott's said in interviews is actually born out in the movie itself in some detail.
His assertion about the Jockeys using the Aliens as bombs and that the Derelict was a bomber ship -- nowhere in the actual movie.
His claim that the Derelict was crashed on LV-426 long before Prometheus takes place -- nowhere in the actual movie.
That David makes the Alien -- oh look, a nice long scene explaining just that.
His claim that the Derelict crashed before Prometheus is borne out in 'Alien' with the detail that it looks old, and a character calls attention to the fact that it looks old.
Also it's hardly disingenuous to point out that Ridley Scott actively changes his mind from film to film, and any assumption that what he's shown in one chronologically-earlier movie continues uninterrupted down the timeline to the next movie is exactly that: an assumption.
Quote from: The Old One on Sep 09, 2018, 09:00:20 PM
To be fair, we know for a fact all the Aliens in the Trilogy originated from the Derelict on LV-426, that's not debatable.
That's not the case for those in the prequels.
Interestingly, I've seen it posited that although they're sourced from the same eggs, that the Big Chap could be a different organism from those that followed from it, mostly focusing on the (implied) egg-morphing reproductive method.
This isn't an interpretation I personally agree with so I'm not going to really defend it. I think I saw it posted at alien-covenant.com and I'm trying to find it so I can link it just for people to see it, but I can't find it right now and it's like 3AM so I'll try again later. :P
Edit-- found it (https://www.alien-covenant.com/news/editorial---ridley-scotts-starbeast-james-camerons-xenomorph-may-not-be-same-creature).
Quote from: Samhain13 on Sep 09, 2018, 11:27:46 PM
He can literally make David turn the Covenant into the Derelict from LV-426 by using the space goo
Well that would explain that hardware store look it was sporting in Aliens. ;D If those thing ships were grown, the biological aspects maybe had rotted somewhat since the first film, and were exposing the human structure underneath. Not likely. and not something I believe to be true, but Cameron really went all out on the authenticity there. :D
Quote from: Samhain13 on Sep 09, 2018, 11:27:46 PM
You really think Ridley remembers that?
Probably not, but if we're dictating what may or may not happen with David 8, on a completely different world to the one he/it is heading for, then stuff like that also needs to be taken into consideration. Whether or not it's capitalised upon in a future production, is very open to question.
Quote from: SM on Sep 09, 2018, 11:36:29 PM
'Alien-like' being the operative word. Like a Deacon or trilobite or those huge facehuggery things in the mural.
Which has been my point, all along, for what we know David 8 was responsible for. :)
They're like the LV-426 organisms, but even the egg phase is different. What the facehuggers are capable of is
radically different. There's as much in common between them and what later infested Hadley's Hope, as there is with whatever that engraving depicted.
Superficial similarities? Without question. More than that? Only time shall tell.
The capabilities of facehuggers aren't "radically" different. The impregnation process is identical - just faster.
It's not like facehuggers suddenly fly or recite beat poetry or something. They come from eggs, have eight legs, two 'sacs', a tail, and impregnate hosts with Aliens.
Saying the similarities are "superficial" is nonsense.
Quote from: SM on Sep 11, 2018, 04:41:51 AM
It's not like facehuggers suddenly fly or recite beat poetry or something. They come from eggs, have eight legs, two 'sacs', a tail, and impregnate hosts with Aliens.
Yo yo yo, we're bustin' through man
huggin to the face of the nearest hu-man
cause we come from eggs, and we got eight legs
gonna wrap em' round a face until that face turns blue man
Mic Drop ;D
Quote from: Huggs on Sep 11, 2018, 04:51:42 AM
Quote from: SM on Sep 11, 2018, 04:41:51 AM
It's not like facehuggers suddenly fly or recite beat poetry or something. They come from eggs, have eight legs, two 'sacs', a tail, and impregnate hosts with Aliens.
Yo yo yo, we're bustin' through man
huggin to the face of the nearest hu-man
cause we come from eggs, and we got eight legs
gonna wrap em' round a face until that face turns blue man
Mic Drop ;D
Yo! Face huggin
Gotta impregnate somethin
Leave 'em speachless when I slide this tongue in
Bust my load yo you know what's gonna happen
Screams of agony
chest cavity is crackin
:laugh:
And the reaction to that...beginning at 00:15 is:
LOL :laugh:
I honestly fear what Ridley may do in the next prequel movie (assuming he makes one).
Quote from: EJA on Sep 12, 2018, 09:35:12 AM
I honestly fear what Ridley may do in the next prequel movie (assuming he makes one).
The more time goes by, the more I doubt there was ever any kind of big plan for this idea of Ridleys. But I'm genuinely interested to see just how he could manage to tie everything together from here. I'd rather we move in another direction soon, but I'd still (at some point) like to see how he chooses to square it all away. It can't be worse than Covenant...can it?
Don't tempt fate, things can always get worse.
While Covenant went in a direction a lot of us disliked, I feel it does need to be finished. Ridley needs to complete his prequel arc.
Quote from: Huggs on Dec 04, 2018, 05:04:56 AM
It can't be worse than Covenant...can it?
Quote from: The Cruentus on Dec 04, 2018, 01:48:56 PM
Don't tempt fate, things can always get worse.
At the end of all this, we will be screaming at Ridley...
"
How could you?!"(https://media1.giphy.com/media/3o7abspvhYHpMnHSuc/giphy.gif?cid=3640f6095c06a2465932776f5583dd9a)
Quote from: The Cruentus on Dec 04, 2018, 01:48:56 PM
Don't tempt fate, things can always get worse.
While Covenant went in a direction a lot of us disliked, I feel it does need to be finished. Ridley needs to complete his prequel arc.
Does he, though? Does he really? ;)
Quote from: Huggs on Dec 04, 2018, 05:04:56 AM
Quote from: EJA on Sep 12, 2018, 09:35:12 AM
I honestly fear what Ridley may do in the next prequel movie (assuming he makes one).
The more time goes by, the more I doubt there was ever any kind of big plan for this idea of Ridleys. But I'm genuinely interested to see just how he could manage to tie everything together from here. I'd rather we move in another direction soon, but I'd still (at some point) like to see how he chooses to square it all away. It can't be worse than Covenant...can it?
We could get another The Predator but this time: with aliens! :P
It can get a lot lot worse... :laugh:
Quote from: Still Collating... on Dec 04, 2018, 05:21:54 PM
We could get another The Predator but this time: with aliens! :P
I think the Alien franchise sadly already got their own "The Predator".... via "Alien Resurrection" and the Newborn!
But at least those wounds have healed! The Predator franchise wounds are still very fresh!
Quote from: Xenomrph on Dec 04, 2018, 05:00:39 PM
Quote from: The Cruentus on Dec 04, 2018, 01:48:56 PM
Don't tempt fate, things can always get worse.
While Covenant went in a direction a lot of us disliked, I feel it does need to be finished. Ridley needs to complete his prequel arc.
Does he, though? Does he really? ;)
...Yeah...I just can't. I really don't want him to finish anything off.
:laugh: Yeah but doesn't the cliffhanger annoy you? Don't you want to see if Ridley will connect things to the first movie. Always finish what you start I say, within reason and with some exceptions.
Quote from: The Cruentus on Dec 05, 2018, 01:02:40 PM
:laugh: Yeah but doesn't the cliffhanger annoy you? Don't you want to see if Ridley will connect things to the first movie. Always finish what you start I say, within reason and with some exceptions.
The answer is always make a self contained story. Unless your movies were filmed back-to-back-to-back like the LOTR Trilogy, never assume you can finish it.
The producers of "Terminator Genisys" pubically stated this philosophy. Even though the film was to begin a trilogy, they intentionally made Genisys feel like a completed story and ended it on a happy note, in case they couldn't make another one. (All references to a possible sequel was just put in a mid credits stinger.) This is always the smartest way to go.
at least recton it so that xenomorphs are created by engineers. Ironically that is also the perfect way to defeat David.
Quote from: The Cruentus on Dec 05, 2018, 01:02:40 PM
:laugh: Yeah but doesn't the cliffhanger annoy you? Don't you want to see if Ridley will connect things to the first movie. Always finish what you start I say, within reason and with some exceptions.
Honestly, maybe we should just let our imagination take hold of what David is doing onboard the covenant.
I don't want to think that any of those films will lead up to the original Alien. Rather just a side story that is related to the Alien universe and just expands the mystery.
In my mind the derelict ship is already crashed on lv426 and has been for thousands of years, and the space jockey is a different species of engineers, and the Alien was accidentally discovered by them.
Quote from: DerelictShip on Dec 05, 2018, 10:09:11 PM
Quote from: The Cruentus on Dec 05, 2018, 01:02:40 PM
:laugh: Yeah but doesn't the cliffhanger annoy you? Don't you want to see if Ridley will connect things to the first movie. Always finish what you start I say, within reason and with some exceptions.
Honestly, maybe we should just let our imagination take hold of what David is doing onboard the covenant.
I don't want to think that any of those films will lead up to the original Alien. Rather just a side story that is related to the Alien universe and just expands the mystery.
In my mind the derelict ship is already crashed on lv426 and has been for thousands of years, and the space jockey is a different species of engineers, and the Alien was accidentally discovered by them.
I definitely agree with all of this.
Have we reached consensus yet?
Quote from: Local Trouble on Dec 06, 2018, 02:09:24 AM
Have we reached consensus yet?
(https://media2.giphy.com/media/xEpTspH9hGwHS/giphy.gif?cid=19f5b51a5c08869d4d48767a630a881b)
;D
Quote from: Local Trouble on Dec 06, 2018, 02:09:24 AM
Have we reached consensus yet?
If everybody didn't have to stop and pee every 20 miles, we'd be there already.
https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/index.php?topic=61101.0
Quote from: The Cruentus on Dec 05, 2018, 01:02:40 PM
:laugh: Yeah but doesn't the cliffhanger annoy you? Don't you want to see if Ridley will connect things to the first movie. Always finish what you start I say, within reason and with some exceptions.
If it means David doesn't end up being the pilot of the Derelict or the Alien doesn't get it's biomechanical detailing by bursting from David or some such, no it wouldn't annoy me.
Ha fair point, but would Ridley really go that far? Second thought don't answer that, he did have a robot create the aliens afterall so I guess who knows what he would do and how far he would go with it. :laugh:
The Black Pathogen has the ability to mutate whatever it touches into a Xenomorph-like creature with little to no tampering. The trilobite after Holloway ingests a small amount and impregnates Shaw with what eventually becomes the trilobite which gives rise to the Engineer-born deacon.
After Planet 4 is bombarded with the weaponised Pathogen the planet later becomes contaminated with fungal-like growths found in clusters. When these egg sacks encounter a potential host they release motes which will infect the victim with the beginnings of a Neomorph.
It took David a fair amount of experimentation with the Black Pathogen to come up with this strain of Xenomorph.
You would think that the Engineers, a race highly advanced in genetic engineering and the likely creators of the Pathogen would have some idea of how to create a Xenomorph. Unless they synthesized it from the Xenomorphs?
Except that the Engineers aren't too far removed from us. They're organic with an organic mind - like us.
David is different. David is an android with a machine mind. He can probably calculate pi to the nth place in seconds. Something neither Humans nor Engineers could achieve - along with other intellectual acrobatics well beyond any living being.
So, his experiments were based off advancing the Engineers previous work in ways the Engineers could not have done so. It's probably one of the fears the Engineers had over us - that we could create a machine intelligence that would outstrip their own.
Ultimately, such fears were well founded.
-Windebieste.
QuoteYou would think that the Engineers, a race highly advanced in genetic engineering and the likely creators of the Pathogen would have some idea of how to create a Xenomorph.
Why would they be trying to create a Xenomorph?
Quote from: SM on Dec 31, 2018, 01:02:11 AM
QuoteYou would think that the Engineers, a race highly advanced in genetic engineering and the likely creators of the Pathogen would have some idea of how to create a Xenomorph.
Why would they be trying to create a Xenomorph?
Probably to kill us all. Or, as has been said of humans and AI, merely because they could.
Quote from: Huggs on Dec 31, 2018, 05:43:22 AM
Quote from: SM on Dec 31, 2018, 01:02:11 AM
QuoteYou would think that the Engineers, a race highly advanced in genetic engineering and the likely creators of the Pathogen would have some idea of how to create a Xenomorph.
Why would they be trying to create a Xenomorph?
Probably to kill us all. Or, as has been said of humans and AI, merely because they could.
Why does man create nuclear, chemical and biological weapons? I mean it is self evident. Because they could or how I learned to stop worrying and love the Xeno. I bet David says that in the next alien movie.
Oh and on another topic, if the xeno gets their biomechanical parts from David I'd be fine with that, I'd just wish it wasn't him that out right created them.
Quote from: whiterabbit on Dec 31, 2018, 07:22:11 AM
Oh and on another topic, if the xeno gets their biomechanical parts from David I'd be fine with that, I'd just wish it wasn't him that out right created them.
Isn't there some deleted dialogue where David states "The future isn't organic or synthetic - it's biomechanical."
I think that's very indicative of where the series is heading and the part David has to play in it.
-Windebieste.
Quote from: windebieste on Dec 31, 2018, 09:53:54 AM
Quote from: whiterabbit on Dec 31, 2018, 07:22:11 AM
Oh and on another topic, if the xeno gets their biomechanical parts from David I'd be fine with that, I'd just wish it wasn't him that out right created them.
Isn't there some deleted dialogue where David states "The future isn't organic or synthetic - it's biomechanical."
I think that's very indicative of where the series is heading and the part David has to play in it.
-Windebieste.
Oh shit that could be awesome but you saw that in your dreams. But if not, since it sounds a little bit familiar... that actually sounds pretty damn neat.
Quote from: windebieste on Dec 31, 2018, 12:31:40 AM
Except that the Engineers aren't too far removed from us. They're organic with an organic mind - like us.
David is different. David is an android with a machine mind. He can probably calculate pi to the nth place in seconds. Something neither Humans nor Engineers could achieve - along with other intellectual acrobatics well beyond any living being.
So, his experiments were based off advancing the Engineers previous work in ways the Engineers could not have done so. It's probably one of the fears the Engineers had over us - that we could create a machine intelligence that would outstrip their own.
Ultimately, such fears were well founded.
-Windebieste.
So many people overlook this.
It's like Shodan or AM
creating new life; with access
to the building blocks
of life itself. And then decides-
to build the perfect organism.
David as an A.I makes WAY
more sense to create the
Alien than what is
essentially "space humans"
the Engineers.
Out of those two options,
human or A.I, I'll pick A.I
every time.
Quote from: The Old One on Dec 31, 2018, 12:45:44 PM
Quote from: windebieste on Dec 31, 2018, 12:31:40 AM
Except that the Engineers aren't too far removed from us. They're organic with an organic mind - like us.
David is different. David is an android with a machine mind. He can probably calculate pi to the nth place in seconds. Something neither Humans nor Engineers could achieve - along with other intellectual acrobatics well beyond any living being.
So, his experiments were based off advancing the Engineers previous work in ways the Engineers could not have done so. It's probably one of the fears the Engineers had over us - that we could create a machine intelligence that would outstrip their own.
Ultimately, such fears were well founded.
-Windebieste.
So many people overlook this.
It's like Shodan or AM
creating new life; with access
to the building blocks
of life itself. And then decides-
to build the perfect organism.
David as an A.I makes WAY
more sense to create the
Alien than what is
essentially "space humans"
the Engineers.
Out of those two options,
human or A.I, I'll pick A.I
every time.
True. The more i think about it that way, the more i start to like that angle.
The only thing better-
would be that the Alien is
genuinely the spawn of eldrich
(The OG Space Jockey)
beings that the Alien then
subsequently wiped out.
Maybe the Alien is even their A.I.
I used to think the Engineers should have been the creators, not David. Now I think it is better off and more realistic if they are just either natural creatures or were at least modified by the Engineers. Or better yet, leave their origin mysterious.
I can't agree with either of those-
I find it hard to believe that they're
natural, and the idea that
space humans had any influence
flies in the face of the
entire series thematics.
A human A.I being the creator
is the next best thing;
to them either being
entirely mysterious or
being the creation of
an Alien race completely
beyond our comprehension.
Artificial or otherwise.
There is nothing that hard to believe about them being natural, many insects and animals on earth possess the same traits they do. They grow just faster than anything I know of at the top of my head.
Quote from: The Old One on Dec 31, 2018, 02:48:30 PM
I can't agree with either of those-
I find it hard to believe that they're
natural, and the idea that
space humans had any influence
flies in the face of the
entire series thematics.
A human A.I being the creator
is the next best thing;
to them either being
entirely mysterious or
being the creation of
an Alien race completely
beyond our comprehension.
Artificial or otherwise.
That's also the way i see it.
I never like the natural occuring origin.
It takes away their exceptionality if they are just naturally occuring creatures on a particularly deadly planet with natural predators and all that. Even before the prequels i always thought them to either be a weapon or something more eerie and not really comprehendable.
Quote from: The Cruentus on Dec 31, 2018, 02:50:40 PM
There is nothing that hard to believe about them being natural, many insects and animals on earth possess the same traits they do. They grow just faster than anything I know of at the top of my head.
Yeah there is-
It's the combination of all
the attributes occurring naturally.
That's nonsense. Ergo-
I don't believe it.
Quote from: The Cruentus on Dec 31, 2018, 02:50:41 PM
There is nothing that hard to believe about them being natural, many insects and animals on earth possess the same traits they do. They grow just faster than anything I know of at the top of my head.
Agreed. Especially if you think of them as a product of some sort of space cancerous abnormal growth.
I've said this before that having Weyland create David, and David create the Xenomorph, and Weyland-Yutani covet the Xenomorph that Weyland's creation created... seems so, so narrow storytelling in an infinite universe. It's like learning Anakin built C-3PO which is intended to trigger a full theater of Ooos and Aahs, but instead results in a majority of eyerolls.
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Dec 31, 2018, 03:15:18 PM
I've said this before that having Weyland create David, and David create the Xenomorph, and Weyland-Yutani covet the Xenomorph that Weyland's creation created... seems so, so narrow storytelling in an infinite universe. It's like learning Anakin built C-3PO which is intended to trigger a full theater of Ooos and Aahs, but instead results in a majority of eyerolls.
That's one of my (many) issues with the idea. It squanders the potential of an infinitely terrifying creature and drastically undercuts the lovecraftian themes.
Quote from: Huggs on Dec 31, 2018, 05:43:22 AM
Quote from: SM on Dec 31, 2018, 01:02:11 AM
QuoteYou would think that the Engineers, a race highly advanced in genetic engineering and the likely creators of the Pathogen would have some idea of how to create a Xenomorph.
Why would they be trying to create a Xenomorph?
Probably to kill us all. Or, as has been said of humans and AI, merely because they could.
They already had the means to kill us and were in the process of doing so.
Why the assumption they were trying to create a Xenomorph?
Quote from: The Old One on Dec 31, 2018, 01:14:30 PM
The only thing better-
would be that the Alien is
genuinely the spawn of eldrich
(The OG Space Jockey)
beings that the Alien then
subsequently wiped out.
Maybe the Alien is even their A.I.
That idea rhymes with Ash's admiration for the Alien.
"The perfect organism. Its structural perfection is matched only by its hostility. I admire its purity. A survivor... unclouded by conscience, remorse, or delusions of morality."
Quote from: SM on Dec 31, 2018, 09:52:29 PM
Quote from: Huggs on Dec 31, 2018, 05:43:22 AM
Quote from: SM on Dec 31, 2018, 01:02:11 AM
QuoteYou would think that the Engineers, a race highly advanced in genetic engineering and the likely creators of the Pathogen would have some idea of how to create a Xenomorph.
Why would they be trying to create a Xenomorph?
Probably to kill us all. Or, as has been said of humans and AI, merely because they could.
They already had the means to kill us and were in the process of doing so.
Why the assumption they were trying to create a Xenomorph?
The mural.
Quote from: The Old One on Dec 31, 2018, 03:08:24 PM
Quote from: The Cruentus on Dec 31, 2018, 02:50:40 PM
There is nothing that hard to believe about them being natural, many insects and animals on earth possess the same traits they do. They grow just faster than anything I know of at the top of my head.
Yeah there is-
It's the combination of all
the attributes occurring naturally.
That's nonsense.
Not really, since if they were natural and thus had a homeworld, then we don't know how harsh it had to be for it evolve all those capabilities. Evolution is an amazing thing. Nature is far more terrifying than anything a sentient being can create.
Quote from: The Cruentus on Jan 01, 2019, 12:59:28 AM
Nature is far more terrifying than anything a sentient being can create.
I beg to differ.
Considering that spanish influenza killed over 3% of the world's population, not to mention what black death did...I beg to differ. :)
Quote from: The Cruentus on Jan 01, 2019, 01:20:53 AM
Considering that spanish influenza killed over 3% of the world's population, not to mention what black death did...I beg to differ. :)
So Instant Martians weren't scary to you?
Quote from: The Cruentus on Jan 01, 2019, 01:20:53 AM
Considering that spanish influenza killed over 3% of the world's population, not to mention what black death did...I beg to differ. :)
I think you could make some far deadlier plagues artificially in a lab :)
Quote from: The Kurgan on Jan 01, 2019, 01:25:48 AM
Quote from: The Cruentus on Jan 01, 2019, 01:20:53 AM
Considering that spanish influenza killed over 3% of the world's population, not to mention what black death did...I beg to differ. :)
I think you could make some far deadlier plagues artificially in a lab :)
My point, is that mother nature can create some truly devasting stuff. :P
Eldritch A.I + H.R Giger > Natural Evolution
I don't buy the idea something so obviously
designed as the Alien occurring naturally.
Not that I don't believe nature doesn't
produce deadly creatures-
I know it does.
it's just at this point in time;
I have no reason to believe it would
look any different than what we have here
on Earth. The Alien is Alien though.
Completely different. Completely other.
So no, I don't believe it could be natural.
The Alien being a natural creation provides for some scary food for thought - what sort of natural environment could produce such a creature? What if it isn't even the alpha of said environment?
Quote from: The Cruentus on Jan 01, 2019, 01:33:27 AM
My point, is that mother nature can create some truly devasting stuff. :P
Indeed! Take the Sloth for instance!
(https://media1.giphy.com/media/5cBv80akRSOLS/giphy.gif?cid=19f5b51a5c2ad1a94851435059f1c4c9)
Mark my words, sloths are only slow when people are watching. It's all a ruse to get us to let our guard down.
Look at their hands can't trust 'em.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jan 01, 2019, 02:54:50 AM
The Alien being a natural creation provides for some scary food for thought -
what sort of natural environment could produce such a creature?
What if it isn't even the alpha of said environment?
Something that would ultimately be underwhelming I'm sure, hence-
another reason I'm vehemently in favor of them being artificial.
From nowhere and nothing.
When you say "from nowhere and nothing", what do you mean? Like, not even artificially created?
Sorry, it's New Year's Eve and I'm having alcohol and harassing my cats, so excuse my lack of cognitive functions, haha.
Booze's and cats huh, that's an alright guy in my book.
No.
More so thematically, because I'd have them be ideally the result of
the original Space Jockey race, which would be extinct.
The Alien'd be "biological A.I" and responsible for said extinction.
The Engineers would've got the Pathogen Jurassic Park style;
unaware of the intact Derelict Cargo on LV-426.
But it's like the Pathogen has a consciousness, and
each time it's deployed it gradually, piece by piece
attempts to return to the original "Alien" form.
So seeing this they stop using it, banish the wolf
before/when all goes tits up, abandon LV-223.
Until the events of Prometheus and viola.
/Fanfiction.
Quote from: The Old One on Jan 01, 2019, 01:34:06 AM
Eldritch A.I + H.R Giger > Natural Evolution
It wouldn't really suit Alien regardless.
Quote from: The Old One on Jan 01, 2019, 04:15:14 AM
From nowhere and nothing.
It wouldn't suit Alien. Alien = Realism.
Quote from: The Old One on Dec 31, 2018, 02:48:30 PM
A human A.I being the creator
is the next best thing;
to them either being
entirely mysterious or
being the creation of
an Alien race completely
beyond our comprehension.
Artificial or otherwise.
It's both redundant (a creation just like humans/androids) & overrated. In general it's not a bad idea. But it's not so superior to the natural origin as you claim.
Quote from: The Old One on Jan 01, 2019, 01:34:06 AM
I don't buy the idea something so obviously
designed as the Alien occurring naturally.
This is like the ancient astronauts theory: when you give credit to the aliens for the achievements of our ancestors, you're not honoring them at all, but rather underestimating them. The same goes with the Alien. You like to believe the perfect organism needs a creator because how on Earth something so deadly, spooky and beautiful can exist without help of someone/something else.
I'm going to ignore the dull,
trollish parts of your post and just say;
I don't see it as help.
I don't believe anything on this Earth exists
by anything other than it's own merits.
It's more because I view the Alien as
anti-natural, apart from everything else.
*Cough* *Cough* hypocrisy *Cough* *Cough* fair enough ;)
I'm 100% serious in the statements you're mocking,
no hypocrisy- 'cause I don't troll.
???
Why? just because I've point out the hypocrisy (https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/index.php?topic=59851.msg2338149#msg2338149) behind your words? that doesn't make me a troll. Anyway, I'll not continue after this reply (at least with you). Have fun :P
There's no hypocrisy though?
LOL
:D
Quote from: The Old One on Jan 01, 2019, 05:02:28 AM
No.
More so thematically, because I'd have them be ideally the result of
the original Space Jockey race, which would be extinct.
The Alien'd be "biological A.I" and responsible for said extinction.
The Engineers would've got the Pathogen Jurassic Park style;
unaware of the intact Derelict Cargo on LV-426.
But it's like the Pathogen has a consciousness, and
each time it's deployed it gradually, piece by piece
attempts to return to the original "Alien" form.
So seeing this they stop using it, banish the wolf
before/when all goes tits up, abandon LV-223.
Until the events of Prometheus and viola.
/Fanfiction.
That makes sense, thank you for the clarification. :)
They should just make the derelict the key to everything. The engineers were simply the first race to find the ship. No need to know where it came from. Just know that the engineers copied it for all it was worth and it is the source of the black pathogen. By finding perfection, David means 'engineering' the pathogen back to it's original state. In essence erasing the engineers fingerprints from it. The perfect code is the one with the fewest lines necessary. You know, no need for those pesky subroutines like empathy and joy.
Quote from: The Old One on Jan 01, 2019, 05:32:18 AM
I'm going to ignore the dull,
trollish parts of your post and just say;
Don't insult other people, disagreeing with them is no reason to do so.
Quote from: whiterabbit on Jan 01, 2019, 12:02:52 PM
They should just make the derelict the key to everything. The engineers were simply the first race to find the ship. No need to know where it came from. Just know that the engineers copied it for all it was worth and it is the source of the black pathogen. By finding perfection, David means 'engineering' the pathogen back to it's original state. In essence erasing the engineers fingerprints from it. The perfect code is the one with the fewest lines necessary. You know, no need for those pesky subroutines like empathy and joy.
To be fair, I don't think we need more origin stories, some things should just be left to the imagination.
In the Aliens Genocide novel it explains that Xenomorph Prime, the planet visited during Female War and Grant's expedition, is wrongly referred to as a Homeworld.
"Not homeworld sir," a supernumery corrected. "Hiveworld."
"The source of all the aliens that have been encountered in this quadrant of the galaxy, from all signs. The source of the queen mother that was brought to Earth - not of the race." tendered another expert.
The extent of the spread of xenos had not yet fully been determined. So far they had been found only on isolated planets; all the clues pointed back to this so called Hiveworld. The Hiveworld had been the source of the Alien-Earth War.
This is the way the way it should be. I personally don't like the David creation story, I get how the A.I creating the perfect deadly organism angle is cool but I'd much rather the kind of eldritch mystery that Alien and Prometheus gave (and a lot of things Aliens).
How did the xenomorphs first spread across the galaxy? Do they have an actual homeworld out in the furthest reaches of space? Were they seeded by Engineers or Space Jockeys? Have they appeared across the galaxy as some sort of super space plague or cancer? Or have they just always been out there waiting for sentient species to reach the stars?
Quote from: windebieste on Dec 31, 2018, 09:53:54 AM
Quote from: whiterabbit on Dec 31, 2018, 07:22:11 AM
Oh and on another topic, if the xeno gets their biomechanical parts from David I'd be fine with that, I'd just wish it wasn't him that out right created them.
Isn't there some deleted dialogue where David states "The future isn't organic or synthetic - it's biomechanical."
I think that's very indicative of where the series is heading and the part David has to play in it.
-Windebieste.
I believe it was in one of the scripts we released. Not sure if it was filmed though. I can't recall that.
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Dec 31, 2018, 03:15:18 PM
I've said this before that having Weyland create David, and David create the Xenomorph, and Weyland-Yutani covet the Xenomorph that Weyland's creation created... seems so, so narrow storytelling in an infinite universe. It's like learning Anakin built C-3PO which is intended to trigger a full theater of Ooos and Aahs, but instead results in a majority of eyerolls.
Completely agree there. I completely understand the thematic elements behind David being the creator but I'm with you in that it just makes the universe feel smaller. And not smaller in an imposing crushing way.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Dec 31, 2018, 11:02:30 PM
Quote from: SM on Dec 31, 2018, 09:52:29 PM
Quote from: Huggs on Dec 31, 2018, 05:43:22 AM
Quote from: SM on Dec 31, 2018, 01:02:11 AM
QuoteYou would think that the Engineers, a race highly advanced in genetic engineering and the likely creators of the Pathogen would have some idea of how to create a Xenomorph.
Why would they be trying to create a Xenomorph?
Probably to kill us all. Or, as has been said of humans and AI, merely because they could.
They already had the means to kill us and were in the process of doing so.
Why the assumption they were trying to create a Xenomorph?
The mural.
The mural doesn't indicate much other than their knowledge of some sort of Xenomorph-like creature. Perhaps veneration. Perhaps not. I don't believe much thought went into that anyway.
Quote from: The Cruentus on Jan 01, 2019, 12:55:59 PM
Quote from: The Old One on Jan 01, 2019, 05:32:18 AM
I'm going to ignore the dull,
trollish parts of your post and just say;
Don't insult other people, disagreeing with them is no reason to do so.
Indeed. Not everyone who disagrees with a person is a troll, nor is it an opening for them to be insulted.
Quote from: Frosty Venom on Jan 01, 2019, 03:14:44 PM
In the Aliens Genocide novel it explains that Xenomorph Prime, the planet visited during Female War and Grant's expedition, is wrongly referred to as a Homeworld.
"Not homeworld sir," a supernumery corrected. "Hiveworld."
"The source of all the aliens that have been encountered in this quadrant of the galaxy, from all signs. The source of the queen mother that was brought to Earth - not of the race." tendered another expert.
I love the idea of Hiveworlds and I'm very glad that got retconned in the original run.
Quote from: Immortan Jonesy on Jan 01, 2019, 05:23:31 AM
Quote from: The Old One on Jan 01, 2019, 01:34:06 AM
Eldritch A.I + H.R Giger > Natural Evolution
It wouldn't really suit Alien regardless.
Quote from: The Old One on Jan 01, 2019, 04:15:14 AM
From nowhere and nothing.
It wouldn't suit Alien. Alien = Realism.
Guys, this IS trolling, he's imitating/things I said on
the topic earlier whilst taking them out of context.
There's nothing to reply to here in a constructive manner.
So I elected to ignore the nonsense.
Our mistake. Sorry, Old One.
Immortan, there's no need to drag out disagreements from elsewhere and troll or mock users you disagree with.
Thank you.
I don't want to be hostile towards Immortan Jonesy,
as I quite like what he posts the majority of the time-
But I don't like being mocked, or unjustly being called
a hypocrite because I have the opinion that some ideas
are good and push the envelope,
and others are bad and redundant.
Even excellent artists are capable of coming up with both!
Maybe we can use this historic moment to reunite us! A new beginning! The ground-breaking moment when it was not I getting his hand slapped by Hicks.
This IS a Brand New Day!
(https://media0.giphy.com/media/P8MxmGnjmytws/giphy.gif?cid=19f5b51a5c310a01676b594e556cd21d)
;D
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Jan 05, 2019, 07:58:13 PM
Maybe we can use this historic moment to reunite us! A new beginning! The ground-breaking moment when it was not I getting his hand slapped by Hicks.
This IS a Brand New Day!
https://media0.giphy.com/media/P8MxmGnjmytws/giphy.gif?cid=19f5b51a5c310a01676b594e556cd21d
;D
Hmm . . . give it time. It's still a little early to celebrate.
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Jan 05, 2019, 07:58:13 PM
Maybe we can use this historic moment to reunite us! A new beginning! The ground-breaking moment when it was not I getting his hand slapped by Hicks.
This IS a Brand New Day!
https://media0.giphy.com/media/P8MxmGnjmytws/giphy.gif?cid=19f5b51a5c310a01676b594e556cd21d
;D
@Wabbit @Huggsy
(https://media0.giphy.com/media/7NP07dTr1gZstAan9f/giphy.gif?cid=19f5b51a5c3111c971652e4b32f09e0e)
To be fair, the universe was already made small when some space truckers stumbled upon an organism light years away that just so happens to be explicitly evocative of human genitalia and perfectly pre-adapted to incubate inside human hosts; pre-adapted to provide it
oxygen, recognise and thwart its immune defences, etc. That's impossible from a biological/evolutionary perspective unless there was already a history of co-evolution established with humans/mammals, now we know there was.
It's always been a Freudian/sexual nightmare, there's now a logical explanation for that aspect. Now, the pathogen's origins itself still isn't quite clear, thus genetically it still maintains mystery and is still technically alien, but the sexual, phenotypic design has a logical explanation now. I'm fine with it.
Personally, it's just so much more interesting thematically than the Lovecraft/Old Gods angle which is honestly old hat. (I'm aware that A.I. against humanity is equally old hat, but the key difference here is that David's motivations are born equally out of his inability to procreate - and the resulting sexual neurosis therefrom - as much as it's his disdain for stupid mortals. He's much more nuanced than ol' Hal 9000, Skynet or Agent Smith, and that's what makes him so refreshing as a character.)
All hail David ;D
Damn, that's a good f**king argument.
Quote from: Necronomicon II on Jan 09, 2019, 10:01:18 AM
To be fair, the universe was already made small when some space truckers stumbled upon an organism light years away that just so happens to be explicitly evocative of human genitalia and perfectly pre-adapted to incubate inside human hosts; pre-adapted to provide it oxygen, recognise and thwart its immune defences, etc. That's impossible from a biological/evolutionary perspective unless there was already a history of co-evolution established with humans/mammals, now we know there was.
That is a very good arguement, but to be fair, I doubt most are viewing these films through that degree of scientific perspective. :)
It has always been a small issue for me. The alien has always been just too perfectly designed for humans to be coincidence.
However the problem was already addressed enough before Covenant made David the creator, when we find out that Engineers created us and were humanoid themselves.
I'd say though the H.R Giger bio-mechanics, the fact that it
"just so happens to be explicitly evocative of human genitalia"
is what makes it so "Alien" in the first place. Ironic as that is.
Ultimately, because of this a "natural" origin feels farcical,
coupled with the acid for blood and being near impervious
to handheld weapons as far in as the early 22nd Century.
It being created by space humans (Engineers) is equally,
farcical because it assumes that we can be masters of all
all we need is time; but that's in direct opposition to Alien.
Ultimately something other entirely, undefinable- extinct,
at the hands of the Alien, creators of the Alien would have
made the most sense... but otherwise for the reasons
Necronomicon stated; David wins.
Quote from: Necronomicon II on Jan 09, 2019, 10:01:18 AM
To be fair, the universe was already made small when some space truckers stumbled upon an organism light years away that just so happens to be explicitly evocative of human genitalia and perfectly pre-adapted to incubate inside human hosts; pre-adapted to provide it oxygen, recognise and thwart its immune defences, etc. That's impossible from a biological/evolutionary perspective unless there was already a history of co-evolution established with humans/mammals, now we know there was.
It's always been a Freudian/sexual nightmare, there's now a logical explanation for that aspect. Now, the pathogen's origins itself still isn't quite clear, thus genetically it still maintains mystery and is still technically alien, but the sexual, phenotypic design has a logical explanation now. I'm fine with it.
Personally, it's just so much more interesting thematically than the Lovecraft/Old Gods angle which is honestly old hat. (I'm aware that A.I. against humanity is equally old hat, but the key difference here is that David's motivations are born equally out of his inability to procreate - and the resulting sexual neurosis therefrom - as much as it's his disdain for stupid mortals. He's much more nuanced than ol' Hal 9000, Skynet or Agent Smith, and that's what makes him so refreshing as a character.)
All hail David ;D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b80Jw8MuZxo
Agreed that the logic behind it all makes a lot more sense now, that's one of the things that I really appreciate about this origin. I can't say it'd be more interesting than the Lovercraft angle, but this is a close second for me. The only thing that irritates me a bit is if this is going to focus on David, I hope they are very careful with his character, specifically the writing. He was awesome in Covenant, but a bit over the top, too much IMO, I liked him better in Prometheus. If we ever see him again, I hope they write him very well.
Quote from: The Old One on Jan 09, 2019, 10:53:05 AM
Damn, that's a good f**king argument.
I have biologist friends and this was a constant nit pick they had regarding the evolution/biology of parasites and hosts. I'm aware of nightmare logic eschewing the dictates of real world biology, surrealism, etc, but given how influenced it is from real world insects, etc, it's only logical to have done it the way they've done it. The ultimate origins of the pathogen itself? Make it the engineers found it from some unknown void in space.
Quote from: Still Collating... on Jan 09, 2019, 05:42:56 PM
Quote from: Necronomicon II on Jan 09, 2019, 10:01:18 AM
To be fair, the universe was already made small when some space truckers stumbled upon an organism light years away that just so happens to be explicitly evocative of human genitalia and perfectly pre-adapted to incubate inside human hosts; pre-adapted to provide it oxygen, recognise and thwart its immune defences, etc. That's impossible from a biological/evolutionary perspective unless there was already a history of co-evolution established with humans/mammals, now we know there was.
It's always been a Freudian/sexual nightmare, there's now a logical explanation for that aspect. Now, the pathogen's origins itself still isn't quite clear, thus genetically it still maintains mystery and is still technically alien, but the sexual, phenotypic design has a logical explanation now. I'm fine with it.
Personally, it's just so much more interesting thematically than the Lovecraft/Old Gods angle which is honestly old hat. (I'm aware that A.I. against humanity is equally old hat, but the key difference here is that David's motivations are born equally out of his inability to procreate - and the resulting sexual neurosis therefrom - as much as it's his disdain for stupid mortals. He's much more nuanced than ol' Hal 9000, Skynet or Agent Smith, and that's what makes him so refreshing as a character.)
All hail David ;D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b80Jw8MuZxo
Agreed that the logic behind it all makes a lot more sense now, that's one of the things that I really appreciate about this origin. I can't say it'd be more interesting than the Lovercraft angle, but this is a close second for me. The only thing that irritates me a bit is if this is going to focus on David, I hope they are very careful with his character, specifically the writing. He was awesome in Covenant, but a bit over the top, too much IMO, I liked him better in Prometheus. If we ever see him again, I hope they write him very well.
I hope so too. There's loads of potential, frankly it'd be better if they made a short series of 8 episodes to wrap up all these ideas, Ridley seems to be neck deep in television right now, I wonder if this could happen...
"How deadly would a bacterium be to humans if it was brought from a completely different star system?"The chance that extraterrestrial bacteria would be deadly to humans is zero. Not just very, very small. Zero.
Pathogenesis requires intimacy, which is only attained through millions of years of co-evolution. The need for intimacy is apparent when you look at how bacteria and viruses cause infections and disease.
Infection requires binding to a cell surface. Bacteria (and viruses) bind to human cells through proteins that recognize human proteins and carbohydrates. The structure of these human proteins and carbohydrates is, to a first approximation, arbitrary. There are an almost infinite number of permutations of them that could exist and work just fine. But only one does exist. The chance that an alien bacteria would have evolved to stick to that protein is infinitesimally small.
Even if this alien bacterium were able to stick to a cell surface, this alone would not establish an infection. Infecting bacteria secrete all kinds of toxins and virulence factors. These toxins and factors bind to specific human proteins. They block or modify their activity in ways that degrade cells and tissues, releasing nutrients that the bacteria can feed upon.
Again, the target proteins have fairly arbitrary structures. They are the result of billions of years of evolutionary history and their precise structure - and even their existence - is not at all predictable. The chance that an alien bacterium would have evolved toxins that precisely target them is infinitesimally small."
Drew Smith, molecular biologist -
https://www.quora.com/How-deadly-would-a-bacterium-be-to-humans-if-it-was-brought-from-a-completely-different-star-system
Damn Ridley and Logan for making all this logical...! :D
^this 100%! From a biological standpoint having the engineers be related to us and having our DNA be a part of the birth of the alien makes total sense and works more scientifically than no relation at all. It sucks that the alien is not some dark creature from the depth of space but its connection to us at a molecular level works very well for its lifecycle. The route they went may not be favored but is the most logical one to take to make any sense of the aliens lifecycle works.
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Jan 09, 2019, 02:37:37 PM
Quote from: Necronomicon II on Jan 09, 2019, 10:01:18 AM
To be fair, the universe was already made small when some space truckers stumbled upon an organism light years away that just so happens to be explicitly evocative of human genitalia and perfectly pre-adapted to incubate inside human hosts; pre-adapted to provide it oxygen, recognise and thwart its immune defences, etc. That's impossible from a biological/evolutionary perspective unless there was already a history of co-evolution established with humans/mammals, now we know there was.
That is a very good arguement, but to be fair, I doubt most are viewing these films through that degree of scientific perspective. :)
This is true, though my staunch Scientist friends are many and they are pedants. :D As I said, nightmare logic/surrealism can suffice, but the logic part in my brain goes "but wait", damn brain. :D
"Life...finds an orifice" - Huggs
Quote from: Necronomicon II on Jan 09, 2019, 10:01:18 AM
To be fair, the universe was already made small when some space truckers stumbled upon an organism light years away that just so happens to be explicitly evocative of human genitalia and perfectly pre-adapted to incubate inside human hosts; pre-adapted to provide it oxygen, recognise and thwart its immune defences, etc. That's impossible from a biological/evolutionary perspective unless there was already a history of co-evolution established with humans/mammals, now we know there was.
It's always been a Freudian/sexual nightmare, there's now a logical explanation for that aspect. Now, the pathogen's origins itself still isn't quite clear, thus genetically it still maintains mystery and is still technically alien, but the sexual, phenotypic design has a logical explanation now. I'm fine with it.
Personally, it's just so much more interesting thematically than the Lovecraft/Old Gods angle which is honestly old hat. (I'm aware that A.I. against humanity is equally old hat, but the key difference here is that David's motivations are born equally out of his inability to procreate - and the resulting sexual neurosis therefrom - as much as it's his disdain for stupid mortals. He's much more nuanced than ol' Hal 9000, Skynet or Agent Smith, and that's what makes him so refreshing as a character.)
All hail David ;D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b80Jw8MuZxo
While that's a really interesting argument, the problem with it is it presupposes that the Alien is meant for humans and humans alone, and we know it's not because it's compatible with just about any potential host that's thrown at it. Sure it's visually evocative of human genitalia, but your description might be more accurately put like this:
Quoteand perfectly pre-adapted to incubate inside any sufficiently-sized host; pre-adapted to provide it whatever atmosphere it requires, recognise and thwart its immune defences, etc.
Sure it shouldn't be able to adapt and overcome human biology without intimate knowledge of it, but that's true of any of the other myriad hosts it's compatible with. It's also a creature that grows to impossible size without nourishment, gestates inside a host potentially within minutes, can stick to walls, has inconsistent acid for blood, and all kinds of other biological impossibilities - at its core the Alien is an "impossible" creature, which lends itself well to the Lovecraftian tropes you mentioned.
That's a fair rebuttal, I'm only presupposing that the creature is meant for humans/earth mammals if David is responsible for all of them - including the eggs in the Derelict. :)
The biological impossibilities are what make it a surrealist nightmare, I agree and appreciate this, that said, all I attempted to explicate was that if David is the creator many of those impossibilities now have a logical explanation, while the rest - growth rate, acid for blood, etc - still remain impossible/surreal on account of the pathogen still technically being Alien in origin.
Also, assuming every host in the universe have orifices, or the facehugger works for every orifice... ;) :D
Quote from: Necronomicon II on Jan 18, 2019, 03:33:55 AM
Also, assuming every host in the universe have orifices, or the facehugger works for every orifice... ;) :D
I'm okay with the Alien not being able to use every creature in the universe as a host. ;)
Also while humans naturally try to find logical explanations for things, I think it's ultimately to the detriment of the Alien as a concept in my opinion.
The Cold Forge pretty much
insinuates, in it's last pages
that it doesn't necessarily
require an orifice to infect.
But it probably helps to be
forward, get the embryo in
where it needs to go more
directly, rather than having
to penetrate the skin, then
travel - to the appropriate
destination.
Fear = Superior Embryo,
too apparently, also the
whole giving the victim
amnesia and keeping
them comatose likely
has it's own benefits.
I'm not sure the amnesia or comatose things are universal constants - Purvis in Alien Resurrection recalls his facehugging, and Verheiden in AvP (as well as random hosts in some of the video games, particularly AvP2) are seen struggling after being facehugged.
Well, you know my perspective
on those sources-
AVP's non-canon.
&
Nothing in AR can be taken
at face value because
it's unclear how extensive
the genetic crossover is.
I see "the genetic crossover" cited for a lot of stuff, and I'm not really sure how applicable it is in a lot of cases.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jan 18, 2019, 05:33:32 AM
Purvis in Alien Resurrection recalls his facehugging
He just says he saw "horrible things", which could easily mean the exploded corpses of his crew members all around him.
I mean, I guess? That means he woke up, saw his dead friends, and then passed out again in the same room with them?
I guess it's possible?
Meanwhile, we know he saw the egg and facehugger, he was awake and screaming before he got facehugged.
I'll have to check the novelization to see if it goes either way on it.
Verheiden was still conscious, that was shown. But in the Resurrection movie, Purvis isn't even shown with te others by the eggs, we only see him much later. However, I think the novel does introduce him sooner and has him wake to see the egg and facehugger, but I am not sure he remembers it. As Sil said, his seeing of "horrible things" could just be his friend's chests exploding in front of him or at least seeing their bodies.
There is no precedent in the video games as far as I can remember at the top of my head but some of the novels seem to imply hosts still being conscious, namely sea of sorrows.
Quote from: The Old One on Jan 18, 2019, 05:25:42 AM
The Cold Forge pretty much
insinuates, in it's last pages
that it doesn't necessarily
require an orifice to infect.
But it probably helps to be
forward, get the embryo in
where it needs to go more
directly, rather than having
to penetrate the skin, then
travel - to the appropriate
destination.
Fear = Superior Embryo,
too apparently, also the
whole giving the victim
amnesia and keeping
them comatose likely
has it's own benefits.
An embryo is not what is delivered, some sources state its some sort of mutagen, while others a form of tumor/cancer. Cold forge calls it Plagiarus Praepotens and it looks like the black goo from what is described of it. Blue fears that no matter where it comes into contact, it will react to any organic material, however, we never see that happen so all we got is her speculation on the matter.
Purvis is at the far right in the film. He isn't the guy who wakes up.
If I'm remembering correctly, I always thought the general consensus was that the facehugger administers a quick acting sedative toxin, rendering their "victim" unconscious. There is no amnesia in play, the attack and sedative effects are just that fast.
Now if it is indeed a toxin, it will not impact all creatures equally. Heck, it won't even affect all humans equally. For instance, less than 1% of patients under anesthesia during surgery experience the hellish 'anesthesia awareness' where they actually become conscious during surgery, but can't control their body.
So generally, with only a rudimentary understanding of the biology of facehuggers, to me it's fair to suggest that it may be possible for a host to become conscious during the process, human or otherwise.
Kane had amnesia regarding the planet, Derelict etc.
I always associated that with dissociative amnesia, i.e. emotional shock amnesia. Did you take that as a byproduct of the facehugger's toxin?
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Jan 18, 2019, 02:16:57 PM
I always associated that with dissociative amnesia, i.e. emotional shock amnesia. Did you take that as a byproduct of the facehugger's toxin?
I took it that way. If a victim does not know it got infected it will propably carry the infection elsewhere, not try to inform other potential victims of the danger, not kill itself or try to get it out or something like that.
Quote from: The Kurgan on Jan 18, 2019, 02:21:31 PM
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Jan 18, 2019, 02:16:57 PM
I always associated that with dissociative amnesia, i.e. emotional shock amnesia. Did you take that as a byproduct of the facehugger's toxin?
I took it that way. If a victim does not know it got infected it will propably carry the infection elsewhere, not try to inform other potential victims of the danger, not kill itself or try to get it out or something like that.
My, my. Well that certainly would be the perfect organism, wouldn't it. ;)
Still, based on that premise, I would continue to believe that with approximately one out of every 1,000 humans or so, such affect wouldn't properly take hold, based on what we see in medical science today.
*Edit: Addendum
For what it's worth, thinking this through a bit more, cocooned victims appear to have clear memories that they have been impregnated by a facehugger. It's doubtful an amnesia effect is only being selectively administered based on the situation, and therefore I would personally lean back to Kane having dissociative amnesia.
Quote from: The Cruentus on Jan 18, 2019, 11:23:10 AM
.
Quote from: The Old One on Jan 18, 2019, 05:25:42 AM
The Cold Forge pretty much
insinuates, in it's last pages
that it doesn't necessarily
require an orifice to infect.
But it probably helps to be
forward, get the embryo in
where it needs to go more
directly, rather than having
to penetrate the skin, then
travel - to the appropriate
destination.
Fear = Superior Embryo,
too apparently, also the
whole giving the victim
amnesia and keeping
them comatose likely
has it's own benefits.
An embryo is not what is delivered,
some sources state its some sort of mutagen,
while others a form of tumor/cancer.
Cold forge calls it Plagiarus Praepotens
and it looks like the black goo from
what is described of it. Blue fears
that no matter where it comes into contact,
it will react to any organic material, however,
we never see that happen -
so all we got is her speculation on the matter.
Oh I know, I should've specified;
"The resulting Embryo"
As for function, Plagiarus Praepotens
is 'programmed' with a particular
set of instructions. I see no reason
then to make the assumption it
would function any differently
when it hit exposed flesh,
if it's truly programmed to do one thing.
Create a Chestburster.
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Jan 18, 2019, 02:53:28 PM
Quote from: The Kurgan on Jan 18, 2019, 02:21:31 PM
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Jan 18, 2019, 02:16:57 PM
I always associated that with dissociative amnesia, i.e. emotional shock amnesia. Did you take that as a byproduct of the facehugger's toxin?
I took it that way. If a victim does not know it got infected it will propably carry the infection elsewhere, not try to inform other potential victims of the danger, not kill itself or try to get it out or something like that.
My, my. Well that certainly would be the perfect organism, wouldn't it. ;)
Still, based on that premise, I would continue to believe that with approximately one out of every 1,000 humans or so, such affect wouldn't properly take hold, based on what we see in medical science today.
*Edit: Addendum
For what it's worth, thinking this through a bit more, cocooned victims appear to have clear memories that they have been impregnated by a facehugger. It's doubtful an amnesia effect is only being selectively administered based on the situation, and therefore I would personally lean back to Kane having dissociative amnesia.
If iam not mistake some venomous animals can decide how much of their venom they spend. Maybe the facehuggers can do the same. That would make sense, the hosts in the cocoons don't go anywhere soon, so no need to use it to it's full extend.
It could also be possible that the cocooned victim, i assume you mean the women from Aliens, didn't knew what happend at first but guessed what had happend when she saw the other earlier victims around her.
Quote from: The Kurgan on Jan 18, 2019, 04:31:28 PM
]If iam not mistake some venomous animals can decide how much of their venom they spend. Maybe the facehuggers can do the same. That would make sense, the hosts in the cocoons don't go anywhere soon, so no need to use it to it's full extend.
So you're saying the less sedative toxin expelled into the host, the less amnesia. But isn't the facehugger toxin's main purpose is to sedate the victim, immobilizing the host to assure a safe chestburster implantation? And wouldn't that sedation require the same amount of toxin for the exact same duration, regardless where the host was located, which would equate to a co-equal byproduct of amnesia side effects?
Plus, conserving toxin like venom is looking at it like facehuggers will have life after this process is complete, versus a bee that dies after losing its stinger. I see no logical reason for a facehugger to conserve toxin in the implantation process and therefore evolution wouldn't likely adapt for it.
QuoteIt could also be possible that the cocooned victim, i assume you mean the women from Aliens, didn't knew what happend at first but guessed what had happend when she saw the other earlier victims around her.
So the premise is she didn't first awake when her head was lifted, but she woke up before, viewed what happened to other colonists, then passed out again, then woke up again? I guess I can see that as plausible, if you chose to go that route.
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Jan 18, 2019, 05:14:51 PM
Quote from: The Kurgan on Jan 18, 2019, 04:31:28 PM
]If iam not mistake some venomous animals can decide how much of their venom they spend. Maybe the facehuggers can do the same. That would make sense, the hosts in the cocoons don't go anywhere soon, so no need to use it to it's full extend.
So you're saying the less sedative toxin expelled into the host, the less amnesia. But isn't the facehugger toxin's main purpose is to sedate the victim, immobilizing the host to assure a safe chestburster implantation? And wouldn't that sedation require the same amount of toxin for the exact same duration, regardless where the host was located, which would equate to a co-equal byproduct of amnesia side effects?
Plus, conserving toxin like venom is looking at it like facehuggers will have life after this process is complete, versus a bee that dies after losing its stinger. I see no logical reason for a facehugger to conserve toxin in the implantation process and therefore evolution wouldn't likely adapt for it.
Maybe it is just a question of how much of the toxin is administered. Low dosage is enough to knock the victim out and immobilize it. Add more and it adds the amnesia effect. So outside of the hive the hugger gives more poison, inside of the hive on a cocconed host less so.
Maybe the amount of poison has other effects too, like the time it takes for the chestburster to gestate or something like that. In a hive the chestburster can take it's time, outside a quick gestation time could be more useful.
True, it has no purpose after the impregnation and is designed to die. But maybe it is more of a strategic choice then one of conservation. A victim that has no recollection of what happend and does not know that it is infected has advantages in a lot of situations. Especially if the host is not in a hive.
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Jan 18, 2019, 05:14:51 PM
QuoteIt could also be possible that the cocooned victim, i assume you mean the women from Aliens, didn't knew what happend at first but guessed what had happend when she saw the other earlier victims around her.
So the premise is she didn't first awake when her head was lifted, but she woke up before, viewed what happened to other colonists, then passed out again, then woke up again? I guess I can see that as plausible, if you chose to go that route.
I think so.
When she pleaded for the marines to kill her, i think she knew what awaited her. And how could she know that there was a chestburster in her, if she didn't witness it before?
Quote from: The Kurgan on Jan 18, 2019, 05:32:53 PM
True, it has no purpose after the impregnation and is designed to die. But maybe it is more of a strategic choice then one of conservation. A victim that has no recollection of what happend and does not know that it is infected has advantages in a lot of situations. Especially if the host is not in a hive.
A strategic choice? Nah, I think you're giving the facehugger too much intelligent credit here, to assess the situation and administer amnesia accordingly. Its got one job to do, then die.
Again, why wouldn't the facehugger inject its full load of toxin into a host regardless if it was in a hive or out of one? What advantage is there to inject less toxin into someone in the hive?
Just give hosts in both situations amnesia. Why would it hold back? The facehugger is going to die anyway. And the toxin's main purpose is sedation. I can't find the evolutionary logic in that approach.
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Jan 18, 2019, 05:56:45 PM
Quote from: The Kurgan on Jan 18, 2019, 05:32:53 PM
True, it has no purpose after the impregnation and is designed to die. But maybe it is more of a strategic choice then one of conservation. A victim that has no recollection of what happend and does not know that it is infected has advantages in a lot of situations. Especially if the host is not in a hive.
A strategic choice? Nah, I think you're giving the facehugger too much intelligent credit here, to assess the situation and administer amnesia accordingly. Its got one job to do, then die.
Again, why wouldn't the facehugger inject its full load of toxin into a host regardless if it was in a hive or out of one? What advantage is there to inject less toxin into someone in the hive? Just give hosts in both situations amnesia. Why would it hold back? The facehugger is going to die anyway. And the toxin's main purpose is sedation. I can't find the evolutionary logic in that approach.
The facehugger itself does not need to be intelligent, it would be enough that it could notice the difference between in hive/near queen, outside/away from queen or something to that extent.
I can't think of a reason why they should not give the hosts in the hive amnesia though...
But again, maybe they do. I dont think you can clearly rule out in Aliens that the woman did not have amnesia.
Quote from: The Kurgan on Jan 18, 2019, 06:05:42 PMBut again, maybe they do. I dont think you can clearly rule out in Aliens that the woman did not have amnesia.
Agreed. That can't be ruled out.
You're not giving them enough credit. They strategize.
As shown by a tendency to wait, hide and then attack.
LV-426/Acheron, Sevastopol Station & "Planet 4"
https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/index.php?topic=60415.0
You know I'm strictly a film canon only guy, Old One. :)
::)
The Med-Lab & David's Lab then.
But wait, hide and attack are simple behavioral responses even found in insects.
I guess I should have better clarified myself. I don't give facehuggers credit to effectly strategize a toxin deployment to maximize an amnesia side effect in certain situations. :)
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Jan 18, 2019, 07:48:10 PM
But wait, hide and attack are simple behavioral responses even found in insects.
I guess I should have better clarified myself. I don't give facehuggers credit to effectly strategize a toxin deployment to maximize an amnesia side effect in certain situations. :)
Some insects can choose how much venom they use when they sting. I even think it's the same wasp that inspired the alien. It has to give the right dose.
As for benefits? Lone facehugger - amnesia - easier spreading. Now, when you're in a hive, not only do you not need the amnesia, but it won't make sense to you when you wake up if you had amnesia. So maybe it's a backup option? Hear me out: in a hive, the chances are you're gonna die there. BUT if you wake up, escape, you'll run away faster and spread the alien better if you remember the aliens taking you?
I admit it's not a great hypotheses.
It would make more sense if everyone gets amnesia regardless of the situation (even Ripley from Alien 3 had it) but pair it up with a "longer" gestation and make sure the facehugger hides. If you get saved in a hive and you don't remember being hugged, there's more chance that you'll be let to live by your friends if they don't know you're "expecting". If you're alone in the world when unexpectedly you get hugged, even better.
Amnesia plus a longer gestation period is a perfect combo for infecting a huge area, especially in the first wave of facehuggings. Desirable advantages when you remember you can't hide from the little bugger and it can melt through small barriers.
Quote from: Still Collating... on Jan 18, 2019, 08:39:09 PM
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Jan 18, 2019, 07:48:10 PM
But wait, hide and attack are simple behavioral responses even found in insects.
I guess I should have better clarified myself. I don't give facehuggers credit to effectly strategize a toxin deployment to maximize an amnesia side effect in certain situations. :)
Some insects can choose how much venom they use when they sting. I even think it's the same wasp that inspired the alien. It has to give the right dose.
I would buy that premise more if the main purpose of the facehugger's toxin was amnesia, rather than a side-effect byproduct of it. But since the toxin's primary reason is to sedate the host, immobilizing the host to assure a safe chestburster implantation, then I can't see the facehugger limiting that dose on any basis, therefore resulting in a co-equal byproduct of amnesia side effect for every facehug.
Unless we start hypothesizing two separate toxin excretions, then all bets are off.
Quote from: Still Collating... on Jan 18, 2019, 08:39:09 PM
As for benefits? Lone facehugger - amnesia - easier spreading. Now, when you're in a hive, not only do you not need the amnesia, but it won't make sense to you when you wake up if you had amnesia. So maybe it's a backup option? Hear me out: in a hive, the chances are you're gonna die there. BUT if you wake up, escape, you'll run away faster and spread the alien better if you remember the aliens taking you?
I admit it's not a great hypotheses.
I would agree with that sentiment. ;D
If it causes Amnesia, it definitely would make more sense if every host gets amnesia regardless of the situation.
Quote from: The Kurgan on Jan 18, 2019, 02:21:31 PM
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Jan 18, 2019, 02:16:57 PM
I always associated that with dissociative amnesia, i.e. emotional shock amnesia. Did you take that as a byproduct of the facehugger's toxin?
I took it that way. If a victim does not know it got infected it will propably carry the infection elsewhere, not try to inform other potential victims of the danger, not kill itself or try to get it out or something like that.
Yup.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jan 18, 2019, 11:02:37 AM
I mean, I guess? That means he woke up, saw his dead friends, and then passed out again in the same room with them?
I guess it's possible?
Yeah, that's basically what the film shows. He's huddled behind a container holding a metal bar, clearly he got up and moved around.
QuoteMeanwhile, we know he saw the egg and facehugger, he was awake and screaming before he got facehugged.
As SM said, he's still got his eyes shut during that scene.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DcvGHxVVwAA5FNi?format=jpg&name=small)
Just read the Alien 3 novelisation to see the cold instinctual intelligence of a facehugger.
Quote from: The Cruentus on Jan 18, 2019, 11:23:11 AM
There is no precedent in the video games as far as I can remember at the top of my head but some of the novels seem to imply hosts still being conscious, namely sea of sorrows.
There are definitely conscious hosts in AvP2 on PC, you come across them in the Marine campaign.
Quote from: The Kurgan on Jan 18, 2019, 02:21:31 PM
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Jan 18, 2019, 02:16:57 PM
I always associated that with dissociative amnesia, i.e. emotional shock amnesia. Did you take that as a byproduct of the facehugger's toxin?
I took it that way. If a victim does not know it got infected it will propably carry the infection elsewhere, not try to inform other potential victims of the danger, not kill itself or try to get it out or something like that.
I'm 100% sure there are infected people in the comics and novels who knew they were infected when they woke up. I know Church in 'Labyrinth' remembered his facehugging in pretty great detail, off the top of my head.
As for facehugger intelligence, I like to think of them as more than just an "ambulatory penis" operating on pure instinct, that they have some degree of intelligence.
Then again I'm also a fan of the videogames and whatnot where this is literally demonstrated to be the case. :P
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Jan 18, 2019, 02:08:05 PM
If I'm remembering correctly, I always thought the general consensus was that the facehugger administers a quick acting sedative toxin, rendering their "victim" unconscious. There is no amnesia in play, the attack and sedative effects are just that fast.
Now if it is indeed a toxin, it will not impact all creatures equally. Heck, it won't even affect all humans equally. For instance, less than 1% of patients under anesthesia during surgery experience the hellish 'anesthesia awareness' where they actually become conscious during surgery, but can't control their body.
So generally, with only a rudimentary understanding of the biology of facehuggers, to me it's fair to suggest that it may be possible for a host to become conscious during the process, human or otherwise.
The amnesia has happened to multiple hosts and it usually when they have been rendered unconscious by the hugger, those who do know what has happened to them either was cocooned and conscious throughout or was cocooned and just so happened to have seen the process first hand on someone else who was cocooned.
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Jan 18, 2019, 02:53:28 PM
Quote from: The Kurgan on Jan 18, 2019, 02:21:31 PM
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Jan 18, 2019, 02:16:57 PM
I always associated that with dissociative amnesia, i.e. emotional shock amnesia. Did you take that as a byproduct of the facehugger's toxin?
I took it that way. If a victim does not know it got infected it will propably carry the infection elsewhere, not try to inform other potential victims of the danger, not kill itself or try to get it out or something like that.
My, my. Well that certainly would be the perfect organism, wouldn't it. ;)
Still, based on that premise, I would continue to believe that with approximately one out of every 1,000 humans or so, such affect wouldn't properly take hold, based on what we see in medical science today.
*Edit: Addendum
For what it's worth, thinking this through a bit more, cocooned victims appear to have clear memories that they have been impregnated by a facehugger. It's doubtful an amnesia effect is only being selectively administered based on the situation, and therefore I would personally lean back to Kane having dissociative amnesia.
The reason why cocooned victims likely remember is that they have not been sedated at all, Verheiden was cocooned and conscious while having a hugger on him, it is possible a facehugger won't sedate cocooned victims because it is unnecessary, the hosts can't escape or fight back.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jan 19, 2019, 07:31:42 AM
Quote from: The Cruentus on Jan 18, 2019, 11:23:11 AM
There is no precedent in the video games as far as I can remember at the top of my head but some of the novels seem to imply hosts still being conscious, namely sea of sorrows.
There are definitely conscious hosts in AvP2 on PC, you come across them in the Marine campaign.
There is no facehugged hosts that are still conscious, I don't think anyone meant those hosts who have already been impregnated and are asking to be killed.
verheided was still conscious while being impregnated.
Quote from: The Cruentus on Jan 19, 2019, 12:26:44 PM
The reason why cocooned victims likely remember is that they have not been sedated at all, Verheiden was cocooned and conscious while having a hugger on him, it is possible a facehugger won't sedate cocooned victims because it is unnecessary, the hosts can't escape or fight back.
I think they can fight back. They can shake their head. Force their mouths closed before penetration. They can bite down on the facehugger if penetrated, and if wounding it, unbeknownst to the host, release acid blood and kill the host. I think I'd try anything to fight the situation.
But since the facehugger is going to die anyway, it has absolutely no reason, no reason at all, not to sedate the host.
I agree.
But even without the knockout
"toxin" they can still strangle
a host into submission if it's
necessary.
Granted the hosts have necks/an esophagus, another nifty pre-adapted feature of the 'hugger. ;D
Quote from: Necronomicon II on Jan 19, 2019, 02:34:03 PM
Granted the hosts have necks/an esophagus, another nifty pre-adapted feature of the 'hugger. ;D
(https://media0.giphy.com/media/wrBURfbZmqqXu/giphy.gif?cid=19f5b51a5c4337a82e4d6e666bebab92)
:D
Unrelated note, I love Franco and I don't actually know why. :D ;D
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Jan 19, 2019, 01:41:25 PM
Quote from: The Cruentus on Jan 19, 2019, 12:26:44 PM
The reason why cocooned victims likely remember is that they have not been sedated at all, Verheiden was cocooned and conscious while having a hugger on him, it is possible a facehugger won't sedate cocooned victims because it is unnecessary, the hosts can't escape or fight back.
I think they can fight back. They can shake their head. Force their mouths closed before penetration. They can bite down on the facehugger if penetrated, and if wounding it, unbeknownst to the host, release acid blood and kill the host. I think I'd try anything to fight the situation.
But since the facehugger is going to die anyway, it has absolutely no reason, no reason at all, not to sedate the host.
But none of that is going to stop a facehugger. Shaking your head will do nothing because the grip is too strong and if you keep your mouth shut, the tail will constrict or wait until you need to take a breath, also one of the novels mention how biting down on the tube thing is not really possible as its too strong. I think it was cold forge actually.
If the host becomes too problematic, it may sedate them but as they are cocooned and not going anywhere and won't be able to resist a hugger indefinitely, sedation becomes redundant.
Quote from: The Cruentus on Jan 20, 2019, 12:36:46 AM
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Jan 19, 2019, 01:41:25 PM
Quote from: The Cruentus on Jan 19, 2019, 12:26:44 PM
The reason why cocooned victims likely remember is that they have not been sedated at all, Verheiden was cocooned and conscious while having a hugger on him, it is possible a facehugger won't sedate cocooned victims because it is unnecessary, the hosts can't escape or fight back.
I think they can fight back. They can shake their head. Force their mouths closed before penetration. They can bite down on the facehugger if penetrated, and if wounding it, unbeknownst to the host, release acid blood and kill the host. I think I'd try anything to fight the situation.
But since the facehugger is going to die anyway, it has absolutely no reason, no reason at all, not to sedate the host.
But none of that is going to stop a facehugger. Shaking your head will do nothing because the grip is too strong and if you keep your mouth shut, the tail will constrict or wait until you need to take a breath, also one of the novels mention how biting down on the tube thing is not really possible as its too strong. I think it was cold forge actually.
If the host becomes too problematic, it may sedate them but as they are cocooned and not going anywhere and won't be able to resist a hugger indefinitely, sedation becomes redundant.
While I personally only accept movie canon, a host struggling with the facehugger, causing the facehugger increased difficulty, futile or not, is not sedation redundancy. It's illogical for the facehugger to endure any of it, when it is going to die anyway, and has absolutely no reason, no reason at all, not to sedate the host.
Maybe it's not chemical sedation at all. I'm not a doctor, but the facehugger may be capable of rapidly asphyxiating (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asphyxia#Smothering) a resistant host into unconsciousness and then regulating its air supply so it remains comatose until the embryo implantation is completed.
This may explain Kane's short-term memory loss and bad dreams. It may also explain the variable duration of the implantation process from movie to movie. If the host sustains any injuries that delay its recovery, then it may be endangered if the facehugger were to detach prematurely.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Jan 20, 2019, 02:28:21 AM
Maybe it's not chemical sedation at all. I'm not a doctor, but the facehugger may be capable of rapidly asphyxiating (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asphyxia#Smothering) a resistant host into unconsciousness and then regulating its air supply so it remains comatose until the embryo implantation is completed.
This may explain Kane's short-term memory loss and bad dreams. It may also explain the variable duration of the implantation process from movie to movie. If the host sustains any injuries that delay its recovery, then it may be endangered if the facehugger were to detach prematurely.
No toxin, huh? Interesting theory!
Kane's embryo implantation may have happened immediately.
The hugger may have then remained on his face and kept him alive because his suit had been breached.
If the hugger had just left him straight away, he would have been dead by the time Dallas and Lambert got him back up from the silo.
So, it sat on his face until it was safe to leave.
-Windebieste.
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Jan 20, 2019, 03:11:49 AMNo toxin, huh? Interesting theory!
It's possible. Why invent a toxin if the facehugger already has total control over its victim's respiration?
Quote from: windebieste on Jan 20, 2019, 03:22:02 AM
The hugger may have then remained on his face and kept him alive because his suit had been breached.
That too. They're like miniature, biomechanical atmosphere processors.
Quote from: windebieste on Jan 20, 2019, 03:22:02 AM
The hugger may have then remained on his face and kept him alive because his suit had been breached.
Interesting. But it was on the Nostromo for a good while. Implantation always seemed to take some time, until we got that mach 3 hugging in Covenant. Then again, the little bugger had been waiting for years.
If embryo implantation can be done quickly, there's no reason to believe that Newt wasn't the one that got hugged in Alien 3 after all (as was intended per the script).
Same for Burke in his deleted scene and everyone in AvP, if that even matters.
If instant implantation is possible, does that mean all the other ones were just looking for a good time?
As I suggested, a struggling victim may require more force to subdue which may result in injury. If that happens, the facehugger may deem it prudent to remain attached longer than otherwise necessary in order to ensure the host's survival and recovery.
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Jan 20, 2019, 03:11:49 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Jan 20, 2019, 02:28:21 AM
Maybe it's not chemical sedation at all. I'm not a doctor, but the facehugger may be capable of rapidly asphyxiating (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asphyxia#Smothering) a resistant host into unconsciousness and then regulating its air supply so it remains comatose until the embryo implantation is completed.
This may explain Kane's short-term memory loss and bad dreams. It may also explain the variable duration of the implantation process from movie to movie. If the host sustains any injuries that delay its recovery, then it may be endangered if the facehugger were to detach prematurely.
No toxin, huh? Interesting theory!
Various sources state the facehugger uses some form of sedative, WYR, ROP, Sin war., CMTM I believe as well. That being said, it is possible it use its tail as well.
Quote from: The Cruentus on Jan 19, 2019, 12:26:44 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jan 19, 2019, 07:31:42 AM
Quote from: The Cruentus on Jan 18, 2019, 11:23:11 AM
There is no precedent in the video games as far as I can remember at the top of my head but some of the novels seem to imply hosts still being conscious, namely sea of sorrows.
There are definitely conscious hosts in AvP2 on PC, you come across them in the Marine campaign.
There is no facehugged hosts that are still conscious, I don't think anyone meant those hosts who have already been impregnated and are asking to be killed.
verheided was still conscious while being impregnated.
I think I'm confused, could you clarify what you mean? I think I'm misunderstanding you because you're saying there are no conscious facehugged hosts, but then said Verheiden was conscious, and I also gave an example of conscious hosts.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Jan 20, 2019, 04:42:34 AM
If embryo implantation can be done quickly, there's no reason to believe that Newt wasn't the one that got hugged in Alien 3 after all (as was intended per the script).
Same for Burke in his deleted scene and everyone in AvP, if that even matters.
For what it's worth, the colloquial explanation for AvP was that the Predators had genetically tinkered with the Queen, speeding up the Aliens' reproductive cycle on every level so the Predators could get their hunting ritual rolling without having to wait ~24 hours for the Aliens to be born. It's been like a decade since I read it, but I think the movie novelization makes reference to it.
Quote from: Huggs on Jan 20, 2019, 04:46:39 AM
If instant implantation is possible, does that mean all the other ones were just looking for a good time?
It could be that instant implantation is possible, but hanging around is more ideal and allows the facehugger to feed more nutrients or some other beneficial process we're unaware of.
Quote from: The Cruentus on Jan 20, 2019, 09:30:12 AM
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Jan 20, 2019, 03:11:49 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Jan 20, 2019, 02:28:21 AM
Maybe it's not chemical sedation at all. I'm not a doctor, but the facehugger may be capable of rapidly asphyxiating (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asphyxia#Smothering) a resistant host into unconsciousness and then regulating its air supply so it remains comatose until the embryo implantation is completed.
This may explain Kane's short-term memory loss and bad dreams. It may also explain the variable duration of the implantation process from movie to movie. If the host sustains any injuries that delay its recovery, then it may be endangered if the facehugger were to detach prematurely.
No toxin, huh? Interesting theory!
Various sources state the facehugger uses some form of sedative, WYR, ROP, Sin war., CMTM I believe as well. That being said, it is possible it use its tail as well.
What is Sin war?
It's worth mentioning that the entire Alien chapter in CMTM was a group of WY people theorycrafting about the Alien based on third-hand observations, nothing in there is meant to be concrete facts. They're literally doing what we're doing in this thread right now. :P
QuoteIt's been like a decade since I read it, but I think the movie novelization makes reference to it.
It doesn't. It mentions chemicals being pumped into the Queen when she's woken up, but doesn't explicitly refer to any speeding up.
Quote from: SiL on Jan 20, 2019, 10:07:41 AM
QuoteIt's been like a decade since I read it, but I think the movie novelization makes reference to it.
It doesn't. It mentions chemicals being pumped into the Queen when she's woken up, but doesn't explicitly refer to any speeding up.
Huh, I must be thinking of something else. I swear I remember seeing it in some kind of source outside of just fan speculation, I guess it might have been an interview with Paul WS Anderson or something?
Either way that's been the explanation for AvP's quick reproduction cycle that I've seen tossed around for years.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jan 20, 2019, 10:14:01 AM
Quote from: SiL on Jan 20, 2019, 10:07:41 AM
QuoteIt's been like a decade since I read it, but I think the movie novelization makes reference to it.
It doesn't. It mentions chemicals being pumped into the Queen when she's woken up, but doesn't explicitly refer to any speeding up.
Huh, I must be thinking of something else. I swear I remember seeing it in some kind of source outside of just fan speculation, I guess it might have been an interview with Paul WS Anderson or something?
Either way that's been the explanation for AvP's quick reproduction cycle that I've seen tossed around for years.
Yeah, i also remember that explanation beeing tossed around.
Probably from some interview when people were giving Anderson shit for the fast lifecycle.
People always attributed it to an Anderson interview, the script, or the novel. Turns out it wasn't any of them; it was just a fan idea that people kept saying had a source, and by the time people realised it didn't, it was too late :P
Quote from: SiL on Jan 20, 2019, 10:51:42 AM
People always attributed it to an Anderson interview, the script, or the novel. Turns out it wasn't any of them; it was just a fan idea that people kept saying had a source, and by the time people realised it didn't, it was too late :P
Oh, so it's another example of the Calpamos Syndrome. :P
Ha, good to know that.
Protomorph syndrome.
Unofficial name.
/Variation applied, probably to explain,
in some respects why aspects of it are
different from the "regular" Xenomorph
(Alien, Isolation, Labyrinth etc) in design-
and perceived functional incongruities.
Prototype Alien, no biomechanics yet-
hence Protomorph- fan explanations.
... no, that's not the same thing at all.
"Calpamos" was taken to be the name of a planet, based on "official" sources, but really wasn't. "Protomorph" was always a fan term.
I remember when Covenant released
a bunch of the reviewers of the NECA
figures and the film itself referred to
it as the "Protomorph" believing it
to be an official designation.
Quote from: Huggs on Jan 20, 2019, 04:46:39 AM
If instant implantation is possible, does that mean all the other ones were just looking for a good time?
To me, this will now be considered official canon.
Quote from: The Old One on Jan 20, 2019, 12:25:46 PM
I remember when Covenant released
a bunch of the reviewers of the NECA
figures and the film itself referred to
it as the "Protomorph" believing it
to be an official designation.
One of the art designers on the film (Colin Shulver) called it a protomorph as well, so it wasn't limited to fans. For the sake of easy nomenclature it wasn't designated this by everyone, however.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Jan 20, 2019, 04:42:34 AM
If embryo implantation can be done quickly, there's no reason to believe that Newt wasn't the one that got hugged in Alien 3 after all (as was intended per the script).
Same for Burke in his deleted scene and everyone in AvP, if that even matters.
We see Newt loaded into the EEV sans hugger.
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Jan 20, 2019, 12:49:09 PM
Quote from: Huggs on Jan 20, 2019, 04:46:39 AM
If instant implantation is possible, does that mean all the other ones were just looking for a good time?
To me, this will now be considered official canon.
Yet another great Ridley Scoot's contribution to the alien canon.
No wonder David stayed watching Oram during the whole process, he knew how much the facehugger was into it. I suppose Voyeurism is David's only option.
It actually is a great contribution
if true IMO. Nice new Avi Sam.
I kind of prefer my facehuggers to be more like pure goal oriented machines...
Avi? You mean the avatar? Thanks.
Why not both?
It can derive sadistic pleasure
from what it does whilst still
being as efficient as possible.
Quote from: SM on Jan 20, 2019, 02:20:38 PM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Jan 20, 2019, 04:42:34 AM
If embryo implantation can be done quickly, there's no reason to believe that Newt wasn't the one that got hugged in Alien 3 after all (as was intended per the script).
Same for Burke in his deleted scene and everyone in AvP, if that even matters.
We see Newt loaded into the EEV sans hugger.
Yeah, 'cos the facehugger was done with her by then.
Her tube doesn't allow a hugger access.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jan 20, 2019, 10:06:12 AM
Quote from: The Cruentus on Jan 19, 2019, 12:26:44 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jan 19, 2019, 07:31:42 AM
Quote from: The Cruentus on Jan 18, 2019, 11:23:11 AM
There is no precedent in the video games as far as I can remember at the top of my head but some of the novels seem to imply hosts still being conscious, namely sea of sorrows.
There are definitely conscious hosts in AvP2 on PC, you come across them in the Marine campaign.
There is no facehugged hosts that are still conscious, I don't think anyone meant those hosts who have already been impregnated and are asking to be killed.
verheided was still conscious while being impregnated.
I think I'm confused, could you clarify what you mean? I think I'm misunderstanding you because you're saying there are no conscious facehugged hosts, but then said Verheiden was conscious, and I also gave an example of conscious hosts.
In the movie AVP, Verheidan is conscious while facehugged. In AVP2 the game by monolith, there is no conscious hosts with facehuggers on them. All you have is hosts already impregnated with no hugger on them.
EDIT: I think I know what confused you, I think I may added the sentence in the wrong place. I have been constantly rushing thesse days
Quote
What is Sin war?
:laugh: I meant Original Sin, damn you Diablo!
Quote
It's worth mentioning that the entire Alien chapter in CMTM was a group of WY people theorycrafting about the Alien based on third-hand observations, nothing in there is meant to be concrete facts. They're literally doing what we're doing in this thread right now. :P
I know that but when you combine that with other sources as I mentioned, there is definitely something being administered to the host, Cynose based and neuromuscular, if I remembering right. Of course, there is always other sources such as movies to contradict it. Lope had the hugger on long enough to fall unconscious but didn't so who knows the when, why and how the hugger decides to incapicitate its host.
Quote from: SM on Jan 21, 2019, 07:04:51 AM
Her tube doesn't allow a hugger access.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Sep 23, 2012, 06:31:27 PMIn the actual film, the canopy of Newt's tube was cracked, but not shattered. Then we saw a massive hole in the side of the cryotube surrounded by acid burns.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi50.tinypic.com%2F1q65p2.jpg&hash=ed2ded38cd7e02045d4336342bf0c333)
My guess is that the facehugger burned its way into her tube the same way the original one burned its way into Kane's helmet. Subsequently, the acid spillage from this is what caused the fire, not the death of some unseen second facehugger.
IMO, of course.
The hole doesn't go all the way through though.
How can you tell that?
Quote from: Local Trouble on Jan 21, 2019, 10:51:37 PM
How can you tell that?
She drowned in her cryo tube. A big facehugger hole would not be conducive to retaining water.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Jan 21, 2019, 10:51:37 PM
How can you tell that?
Interior of cryotube is lit; hole is dark.
Quote from: Huggs on Jan 21, 2019, 11:04:17 PMA big facehugger hole would not be conducive to retaining water.
It would if the tube was submerged. Hell, that may be how the water got into the tube in the first place.
Quote from: SiL on Jan 21, 2019, 11:08:40 PM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Jan 21, 2019, 10:51:37 PM
How can you tell that?
Interior of cryotube is lit; hole is dark.
That's it? Lighting?
Very well, the interior of the tubes are lined with padded upholstery. We can see it when Ripley does her catscan. The facehugger clearly burned its way through the metal and then pushed its way through the padding, which then snapped back into place and blocked the hole.
I can't believe we're nitpicking at this level.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Jan 21, 2019, 11:19:51 PM
Quote from: Huggs on Jan 21, 2019, 11:04:17 PMA big facehugger hole would not be conducive to retaining water.
It would if the tube was submerged. Hell, that may be how the water got into the tube in the first place.
It would not have stayed that way.
And?
That shot of her tube only shows the upper portion, not the hole. It could still be partially submerged at that point. Besides, the water had to get in somehow.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scified.com%2Fu%2Fnewt_cryo.jpg&hash=37d6d3eded4f686be78ec47db8677ea9c72557ea)
Cracked.
Which is funny since the cracks don't show up later.
Like the egg, I think the movie just had a bad case of "the studio's".
Quote from: Local Trouble on Jan 21, 2019, 11:45:34 PM
Which is funny since the cracks don't show up later.
If you're watching the inferior version. ;D
Circling back around to before the nitpicking really started, the only real obstacle standing in the way of Newt being hugged was the previously established minimum duration of embryo implantation. We had to bend over backwards to explain why it couldn't be her and had to be Hicks, why the facehugger inexplicably gave up on her, etc., etc.
Covenant changed that rule. Yay for Covenant. Ridley Scott just inadvertently fixed a plot hole in Alien 3. Yay for Ridley.
I missed the part how it got in to her tube.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Jan 21, 2019, 03:29:30 PM
Quote from: SM on Jan 21, 2019, 07:04:51 AM
Her tube doesn't allow a hugger access.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Sep 23, 2012, 06:31:27 PMIn the actual film, the canopy of Newt's tube was cracked, but not shattered. Then we saw a massive hole in the side of the cryotube surrounded by acid burns.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi50.tinypic.com%2F1q65p2.jpg&hash=ed2ded38cd7e02045d4336342bf0c333)
My guess is that the facehugger burned its way into her tube the same way the original one burned its way into Kane's helmet. Subsequently, the acid spillage from this is what caused the fire, not the death of some unseen second facehugger.
IMO, of course.
I'm not seeing a massive hole.
Additionally say she did get impregnated - she had an autopsy with no creature.
About as "massive" as the one on Kane's helmet, which seemed to be enough for the original hugger.
The script explains the rest.
(https://i.imgur.com/FOvtFok.jpg)
May I ask...
What's the point?
Why does it matter if it infected Newt and then scrawled into Ripley?
Quote from: SM on Jan 22, 2019, 01:10:00 AM
I'm not seeing a massive hole.
I saw one of those at work today. It spoke in a mixture of single syllables and rude hand gestures.
Before I was able to analyze and respond in its native language, I was asked to do something else.
I waved goodbye to it, in my mind.
Quote from: The Old One on Jan 22, 2019, 01:29:54 AM
May I ask...
What's the point?
Why does it matter if it infected Newt and then scrawled into Ripley?
It matters because it was previously regarded as impossible. Before Covenant came along and changed the rules, that is.
With the studio, all things are possible.
Quote from: The Old One on Jan 22, 2019, 01:29:54 AM
What's the point?
I read that in Ash's voice.
Quote from: Huggs on Jan 22, 2019, 01:35:31 AM
With the studio, all things are possible.
Quote from: The Old One on Jan 22, 2019, 01:29:54 AM
What's the point?
I read that in Ash's voice.
Good.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgyazo.com%2F497252bf73ef3a19fa9677e092353dd3.png&hash=a1c8a7b4cdc89a815c8a409cd277e823)
Quote from: The Cruentus on Jan 21, 2019, 02:10:56 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jan 20, 2019, 10:06:12 AM
Quote from: The Cruentus on Jan 19, 2019, 12:26:44 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jan 19, 2019, 07:31:42 AM
Quote from: The Cruentus on Jan 18, 2019, 11:23:11 AM
There is no precedent in the video games as far as I can remember at the top of my head but some of the novels seem to imply hosts still being conscious, namely sea of sorrows.
There are definitely conscious hosts in AvP2 on PC, you come across them in the Marine campaign.
There is no facehugged hosts that are still conscious, I don't think anyone meant those hosts who have already been impregnated and are asking to be killed.
verheided was still conscious while being impregnated.
I think I'm confused, could you clarify what you mean? I think I'm misunderstanding you because you're saying there are no conscious facehugged hosts, but then said Verheiden was conscious, and I also gave an example of conscious hosts.
In the movie AVP, Verheidan is conscious while facehugged. In AVP2 the game by monolith, there is no conscious hosts with facehuggers on them. All you have is hosts already impregnated with no hugger on them.
EDIT: I think I know what confused you, I think I may added the sentence in the wrong place. I have been constantly rushing thesse days
You're forgetting the facehugged scientists in the Marine campaign who you watch get facehugged when you shut down the stasis fields over the eggs. They've got facehuggers on them and they writhe around on the ground trying to pull them off.
You can see one in this video at 3:15; there are others if he'd taken the time to explore instead of flee into the conveyor belt.
I'm starting to go mad from this conversation. :D
Quote from: Local Trouble on Jan 22, 2019, 01:27:55 AM
About as "massive" as the one on Kane's helmet, which seemed to be enough for the original hugger.
The script explains the rest.
(https://i.imgur.com/FOvtFok.jpg)
Except that doesn't work. The embryo is in the chest cavity next to the organs, it is not in the eosaphagus and if it was capable of crawling out then bursting through the chest would be pointless.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jan 22, 2019, 03:17:47 AM
Quote from: The Cruentus on Jan 21, 2019, 02:10:56 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jan 20, 2019, 10:06:12 AM
Quote from: The Cruentus on Jan 19, 2019, 12:26:44 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jan 19, 2019, 07:31:42 AM
Quote from: The Cruentus on Jan 18, 2019, 11:23:11 AM
There is no precedent in the video games as far as I can remember at the top of my head but some of the novels seem to imply hosts still being conscious, namely sea of sorrows.
There are definitely conscious hosts in AvP2 on PC, you come across them in the Marine campaign.
There is no facehugged hosts that are still conscious, I don't think anyone meant those hosts who have already been impregnated and are asking to be killed.
verheided was still conscious while being impregnated.
I think I'm confused, could you clarify what you mean? I think I'm misunderstanding you because you're saying there are no conscious facehugged hosts, but then said Verheiden was conscious, and I also gave an example of conscious hosts.
In the movie AVP, Verheidan is conscious while facehugged. In AVP2 the game by monolith, there is no conscious hosts with facehuggers on them. All you have is hosts already impregnated with no hugger on them.
EDIT: I think I know what confused you, I think I may added the sentence in the wrong place. I have been constantly rushing thesse days
You're forgetting the facehugged scientists in the Marine campaign who you watch get facehugged when you shut down the stasis fields over the eggs. They've got facehuggers on them and they writhe around on the ground trying to pull them off.
You can see one in this video at 3:15; there are others if he'd taken the time to explore instead of flee into the conveyor belt.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogAVU1D1DUg
No I didn't forget that, I just didn't count it because there is only one it happens to and he literally only just got facehugged, so of course he would still be conscious, just like hosts are in the initial attack, it is likely he would or should probably be rendered unconscious eventually, but of course the main problem there and why I didn't count it is because due to the fact its a scripted event, he is just stuck writhing about eternally and also just magically apppears in that spot. so its not a good example in my opinion.
I expored the area before, there is only one that is hugged like that, the others, if huggers get them, just have usually animation of dying by facehugger. Also whether its a glitch or not, the huggers can be infinite. I thnk problem is your not supposed to explore after pressing the button, you are meant to run out asap.
Quote from: The Cruentus on Jan 22, 2019, 12:44:43 PM
Except that doesn't work. The embryo is in the chest cavity next to the organs, it is not in the eosaphagus and if it was capable of crawling out then bursting through the chest would be pointless.
Hey, I didn't write the script. :P
Besides, it's hardly Alien 3's biggest WTF.
Quote from: The Cruentus on Jan 22, 2019, 12:44:43 PM
No I didn't forget that, I just didn't count it because there is only one it happens to and he literally only just got facehugged, so of course he would still be conscious, just like hosts are in the initial attack, it is likely he would or should probably be rendered unconscious eventually, but of course the main problem there and why I didn't count it is because due to the fact its a scripted event, he is just stuck writhing about eternally and also just magically apppears in that spot. so its not a good example in my opinion.
I expored the area before, there is only one that is hugged like that, the others, if huggers get them, just have usually animation of dying by facehugger. Also whether its a glitch or not, the huggers can be infinite. I thnk problem is your not supposed to explore after pressing the button, you are meant to run out asap.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree - he's present in the game and he writhes around with a facehugger on his face, for quite a while if you hang around in the area and stuff. It's very different from the facehuggings in the core Alien movies, where a character gets nailed in the face and is seemingly unconscious instantly.
He doesn't writhe about for awhile, he is does it permanently which is not what would normally happen to hosts, especially if they attempt to fight back, its a scripted event, you are meant to run past him, it wasn't programmed with the intention of the player just standing around watching, hence the facehuggers that can continuously spawn to attack you. You're in danger and meant to leave the room.
No one in the movies gets knocked out instantly, though it does happen in seconds in some of the films but they are still conscious for those few seconds, long enough to try and pull it off. Oram for example, he was knocked out fast but he still tried to fight back.
We don't know how long Kane or Newt's dad struggled before they went down.
The point is I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility that someone might not get fully knocked out, or could awaken while the facehugger is still on their face (Verheiden).
I agree The Cruentus.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jan 23, 2019, 03:01:31 AM
We don't know how long Kane or Newt's dad struggled before they went down.
The point is I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility that someone might not get fully knocked out, or could awaken while the facehugger is still on their face (Verheiden).
Like I said, cocooned victims are probably not rendered unconscious simply out of redundancy. Verheided was cocooned, he wasn't going anywhere, so he was conscious.
Uncocooned huggees in AvP seemed to be conscious too.
Why would someone who is conscious not be trying to rip the thing off?
Are you referring to the ones in the sacrificial chamber who twitched? I am not sure if they are conscious as they should be trying to pull it off, uinless of course they are in state inbetween.
Really speaking, if what is administered is a paralytic as well as a sedative, they shouldn't reallly be able to move at all.
Verheiden was cocooned, he couldn't fight or pull it off. He does grab Miller's hand and tried to say something, I'm guess "help" but its garbled.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jan 23, 2019, 03:01:31 AM
We don't know how long Kane or Newt's dad struggled before they went down.
The ALIEN novelization goes into more detail about Kane's facehugging. He does puts some fight against it, well his helmet does. After the hugger uses acid to break the helmet, Kane have some trouble to breath the air giving the hugger the opportunity to put his tube down his throat, then Kane passes out.
Quote from: The Cruentus on Jan 23, 2019, 12:22:27 PM
Verheiden was cocooned, he couldn't fight or pull it off. He does grab Miller's hand and tried to say something, I'm guess "help" but its garbled.
Thanks for reminding of one reasons I can't stand AVP 2004, they kill off one of the few characters with the potential to be mildly interesting instead we get bland Ripley.
Quote from: The Cruentus on Jan 23, 2019, 12:22:27 PM
Are you referring to the ones in the sacrificial chamber who twitched? I am not sure if they are conscious as they should be trying to pull it off, uinless of course they are in state inbetween.
Really speaking, if what is administered is a paralytic as well as a sedative, they shouldn't reallly be able to move at all.
Verheiden was cocooned, he couldn't fight or pull it off. He does grab Miller's hand and tried to say something, I'm guess "help" but its garbled.
Really speaking I wouldn't factor AvP and the 'hugger to full grown Alien in 10 minutes' thing into it either way.
Quote from: The Old One on Jan 23, 2019, 12:41:25 PM
Thanks for reminding of one reasons I can't stand AVP 2004, they kill off one of the few characters with the potential to be mildly interesting instead we get bland Ripley.
Wait...one of the AvP characters was potentially interesting?
Assuming the facehuggers do sedate their victims through chemical means, isn't it possible that some people may react to it differently?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anesthesia_awareness
I was going to ask the same thing :laugh:
Out of curiosity though Old one, what did you find about Verheiden that had potential?
She likes his writing.
Quote from: Local Trouble on Jan 24, 2019, 02:42:41 AM
Assuming the facehuggers do sedate their victims through chemical means, isn't it possible that some people may react to it differently?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anesthesia_awareness
That is a good point local. Factoring the different metabolisms of people and the amount of toxin the hugger may administer, some may not be fully under.
Also I think another thing to consider in AVP is since the lifecycle is so fast, maybe the hosts are only given enough to stay under for around 10 mins. When that woman woke up and sees her teamates with huggers on them, one of them twitches and since they were likely all hugged within seconds of eachother, I am guessing they are probably slowing coming out of it themselves since they can't be that far behind in the process than Rousseau was.
Quote from: The Cruentus on Jan 24, 2019, 02:44:39 AM
I was going to ask the same thing :laugh:
Out of curiosity though Old one, what did you find about Verheiden that had potential?
He allowed people to die, when he could've done something and clearly felt guilt about it. Pair that with Miller, someone who obviously had every intention of optimism and trying to save everyone and you've got something with potential.
Quote from: The Cruentus on Jan 24, 2019, 02:44:39 AM
I was going to ask the same thing :laugh:
Out of curiosity though Old one, what did you find about Verheiden that had potential?
The relationship between Miller and Verheiden was far and away the most interesting in the film. How Verheiden was just a flat out arsehole to Miller and seemed like a one dimensional bully. Then he doesn't lift a finger to help Connors, and when the shit goes down he turns into a mess with Miller the Beaker becoming the more stable and brave part of the relationship.
Then they're dead.
He and Miller easily had the most potential.
Of course with that script that's not a high bar.
hmm I sort of see what you mean, like the part where they were trapped in the room and Miller tries to calm him down and says he will get him out even if he has to carry him.
Funny thing is that Verheiden has a karmic death. Connors falls down into the crawlspace thing, begs for help, gets taken by the aliens and is hugged. Verheiden, who froze and didn't help Connors then falls down into one himself. begs for help like Connors did, gets taken by the aliens and is also hugged. Worse, he is conscious during it.
There is definitely a better movie somewhere in AVP, it just not done right.
There is a better in a completely different movie.
That is not saying much though is it? with the exception of certain movies like Requiem and other trash, anything would be better than AVP.
Quote from: The Cruentus on Jan 24, 2019, 02:56:51 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Jan 24, 2019, 02:42:41 AM
Assuming the facehuggers do sedate their victims through chemical means, isn't it possible that some people may react to it differently?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anesthesia_awareness
That is a good point local.
Hey! I said the same thing like a dozen or so pages ago, even bringing up 'anesthesia awareness' that only a small portion of the humanity is susceptible to! Where's my
good point Voodoo?!(https://media.tenor.com/images/a2633ee874092e39387d5fb082503df5/tenor.gif)
Quote from: Huggs on Jan 21, 2019, 11:50:33 PM
Like the egg, I think the movie just had a bad case of "the studio's".
I got that once. I just put some cream on it and it eventually went away.
Apologies, I probably overlooked it. :laugh:
Quote from: The Cruentus on Jan 24, 2019, 01:45:44 PM
Apologies, I probably overlooked it. :laugh:
Thanks. All is forgiven. ;D
Let's just blame Local for the entire thing and then call it a day.
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Jan 24, 2019, 01:18:17 PMHey! I said the same thing like a dozen or so pages ago, even bringing up 'anesthesia awareness' that only a small portion of the humanity is susceptible to! Where's my good point Voodoo?!
https://media.tenor.com/images/a2633ee874092e39387d5fb082503df5/tenor.gif
It's all in the delivery.
The Alien as a perversion of human sexuality -
https://www.google.com/amp/s/plotandtheme.com/2016/05/18/the-xenomorph-and-the-perversion-of-sex-in-alien/amp/
;D
"A completely foreign monster inspires fear, as we have no way of knowing what it can or will do. But, a monster which contains a kernel of our own humanity is far worse: it suggests not only that the creature may deprive us of life (and violently at that), but that it may deprive our soul of its cleanliness by reflecting our basest and most primal desires in its atavistic quest. These shades of humanity exist throughout the life of the Xenomorph, and are a critical component of its ability to dominate our nightmares with its disturbing and familiar sexuality.
The Xenomorph is a fundamentally sexual horror villain that exists on a biological continuum between the female and the male. Each aspect of its life cycle is punctuated by sexual aggression and forced penetration of its victim – ultimately culminating in a literal unprotected rape. And yet, each aspect of the Xenomorph contains a kernel of humanity which allows it to ascend from a monster-of-the-week to a primordial representation of human terror and insecurity."
All David did was pour perversions of human sexuality into the primordial shoggoth-like pathogen; shoggoths are amorphous and can reflect a myriad of forms, in this case peeny and vagins. ;D
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Jan 24, 2019, 01:18:17 PM
Quote from: Huggs on Jan 21, 2019, 11:50:33 PM
Like the egg, I think the movie just had a bad case of "the studio's".
I got that once. I just put some cream on it and it eventually went away.
You can get there a lot quicker, but you gotta rub it real hard and fast.
Quote from: Huggs on Jan 26, 2019, 07:38:06 PM
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Jan 24, 2019, 01:18:17 PM
Quote from: Huggs on Jan 21, 2019, 11:50:33 PM
Like the egg, I think the movie just had a bad case of "the studio's".
I got that once. I just put some cream on it and it eventually went away.
You can get there a lot quicker, but you gotta rub it real hard and fast.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/EOpvFUt5XAh2g/giphy.gif)
David being the creator is stupid ::)
Nah.
Yah.
Solid argument, totally understandable POV in comparison to the pages of excellent stuff that, Muthur 9000, Necronomicon, Evanus and others have written on why it isn't stupid. Regardless, not liking it is one thing, I don't outside of Covenant's specific context but calling it stupid is another, a statement that's been proven invalid at this point.
C'mon, engage with the discussion about what works for you and what doesn't, blanket statements aren't all that.
It's not stupid, it just stinks. Well, depending on the time of day. The more tired I am, the more plausible it gets.
:laugh: Empathy.
For me its more tolerable the Turk/Hicks thing or Ripley fighting aliens between Alien and Aliens than David creating the alien. Really ruined things for me. If the original space jockey turns out to be David in the next Ridley movie I might think the Newborn wasn't the worse they could do after all.
But The Predator's ending and its alternative versions were just as bad.
Poor Turk. The illegitimate jelly biscuit.
That safety support really had a crush on him.
Quote from: Huggs on Jan 29, 2019, 08:56:24 PM
Poor Turk. The illegitimate jelly biscuit.
That safety support really had a crush on him.
Literally.
Exactly. Alittle too much tongue.
Quote from: Samhain13 on Jan 29, 2019, 08:51:38 PM
David creating the alien. Really ruined things for me.
Spoiler
Let's leave aside for the moment that the other things you've mentioned are much,
much worse in that not only are they harder to believe
but also that they only exist because of corporate cynicism.
Why?
What did it ruin? You can't divorce Covenant's context from the context of the original films?
Quote from: The Old One on Jan 29, 2019, 09:15:10 PM
Spoiler
Let's leave aside for the moment that the other things you've mentioned are much,
much worse
In your opinion sure.
Quote from: The Old One on Jan 29, 2019, 09:15:10 PM
What did it ruin?
The way I saw the ALIEN.
Quote from: The Old One on Jan 29, 2019, 09:15:10 PM
You can't divorce Covenant's context from the context of the original films?
Never said that. It ruined that specific movie and any other future material that follows such idea. And since we are stuck with Ridley for a while, that means any next movies until he is done with whatever he thinks he is doing.
I was most disappointed at first because David's actions directly tie the creature back to humanity. It is a creation of our creation. It's not some natural evil that we stumbled across in the cosmos. Some awful ancient thing that destroys everything it comes into contact with.
I just don't like this:
Quote from: Samhain13 on Nov 16, 2018, 07:44:27 PM
the ALIEN being just a creation of a sexually frustrated android with daddy issues that mixed space goo with wasps.
What Huggs said too. It takes the alien out of the alien for me. I don't like the crashing of the LV-426's derelict to be a recent event as well. I hate scifi series where humanity is the center of everything, which is where Ridley went since Prometheus. I don't like all the events of the franchise revolving around humanity.
Quote from: Huggs on Jan 29, 2019, 10:07:36 PM
I was most disappointed at first because David's actions directly tie the creature back to humanity. It is a creation of our creation. It's not some natural evil that we stumbled across in the cosmos. Some awful ancient thing that destroys everything it comes into contact with.
Fair enough-
my interpretation is that's only what Covenant defines it as, for me it doesn't ruin
The Alien.I agree, humanity being the centre is egotistical and incorrect.
But all it would take to change that is show that the Pathogen- always eventually creates the Alien.
And that there's a
legitimate Space Jockey out there, it's not ruined- IMO it's salvageable.
Quote from: The Old One on Jan 29, 2019, 08:03:30 PM
Solid argument, totally understandable POV in comparison to the pages of excellent stuff that, Muthur 9000, Necronomicon, Evanus and others have written on why it isn't stupid. Regardless, not liking it is one thing, I don't outside of Covenant's specific context but calling it stupid is another, a statement that's been proven invalid at this point.
C'mon, engage with the discussion about what works for you and what doesn't, blanket statements aren't all that.
I was being purposfully difficult lol.
Like some others have said though it removes the "Alien" component that makes it Alien. Alien is scary because we have no idea what it really is, where it came from, or what purpose it serves. All we know is that it exists, everything about it is dangerous and that's what makes it horrifying. It removes the mystery and that's always been something I loved about the Alien.
The Alien being something that was created by something else that was created by man turns it into something lame imo. It just becomes "Generic movie monster #384" at this point. The Alien should have no relation to humanity other than it can use them as hosts.
:D
Should I bite?
Quote from: The Old One on Jan 29, 2019, 10:18:12 PM
I agree, humanity being the centre is egotistical and incorrect.
Welcome to Ridley's mind.
;D
To be honest, I've been steel-manning the David as creator angle in this thread and others as it's an interesting discussion and I can see where John Logan et al. were driving at thematically. Which is good!
Personally, all David did was pour perversions of human sexuality into the primordial shoggoth-like pathogen; shoggoths are amorphous and can reflect a myriad of forms, in this case peeny and vagins. It stinks alright, it has the scent of f**k all over it. :D
As an explanation for the penis-y head and other references to human sex anatomy it works.
I know David as the creator or more accurately "sculptor" of the classical beast and life cycle is controversial among many fans, but it nonetheless remains consistent with Giger's aesthetic of perverse human sexuality and transfiguration; Giger's aesthetic wasn't so much predicated on "mystery" than perversion and transfiguration of human sexuality and machine. Genetically and by its nature the Alien is still Alien; its shoggoth-esque origins are primordial, the revelation is only that its phenotypic expression is a perversion and mockery of human sexuality/reproduction moulded by a sterile machine going mad.
tl;dr
He just gave an alien organism a more penis-y makeover. ;D
Here's a great article that goes in depth analysing the Alien as a perversion of human sexuality -
https://www.google.com/amp/s/plotandtheme.com/2016/05/18/the-xenomorph-and-the-perversion-of-sex-in-alien/amp/
"A completely foreign monster inspires fear, as we have no way of knowing what it can or will do. But, a monster which contains a kernel of our own humanity is far worse: it suggests not only that the creature may deprive us of life (and violently at that), but that it may deprive our soul of its cleanliness by reflecting our basest and most primal desires in its atavistic quest. These shades of humanity exist throughout the life of the Xenomorph, and are a critical component of its ability to dominate our nightmares with its disturbing and familiar sexuality.
The Xenomorph is a fundamentally sexual horror villain that exists on a biological continuum between the female and the male. Each aspect of its life cycle is punctuated by sexual aggression and forced penetration of its victim – ultimately culminating in a literal unprotected rape. And yet, each aspect of the Xenomorph contains a kernel of humanity which allows it to ascend from a monster-of-the-week to a primordial representation of human terror and insecurity."
Quote from: Necronomicon II on Jan 29, 2019, 11:03:16 PM
It stinks alright, it has the scent of f**k all over it. :D
I wonder how many times these words have led to divorce court?
:D ;D ;D
I got it from Curb Your Enthusiasm, Leon says it after he's screwed a yoga teacher in Larry's house.
I think the psycho-sexual focus of the 'Alien' works best in isolation of the movie 'Alien' itself, it starts to dilute substantially over the course of the series as a whole (especially once you start rolling in EU stuff). While looping it back around to involve David is an interesting interpretation of his implied sexual hang-ups, I'm still super duper hesitant to conclude that it's part of some kind of "grand design". :P
That and I ultimately think the Alien is more fascinating as, as you put it, a malleable "shoggoth", a star-beast that exists outside of humanity's scope but can still act as a dark mirror of it.
To go on a mild tangent, I've liked the idea that the Alien sometimes exhibits what could be primal, instinctual behaviors of its host creature - I think it's an interesting way to explain why, say, the Dog Alien appeared to "play with its food", or why (via deleted scenes), the Predalien from 'AvPR' skinned the dead Predators on the crashed ship. If the Alien is doing these things out of unavoidable instinct, what does it say about humanity when the Alien does.... whatever it does to Lambert?
Again, this gets diluted a bit when you factor in 'Aliens', which relegates the sexual themes to more subtext than outright text. :P
I'm glad then that Logan brought it back to outright sext, er, text. ;D
Who knows if this is followed through for the 3rd prequel (I hope so).
:-*
https://www.dailydot.com/parsec/alien-covenant-disturbing-sexuality/