Interesting... some many people here openly interpreting what they see in the mural (and seeing different things), interpreting what they make of David's less than set-in-stone claims, and interpreting the true origin of the Xenomorph (and whether it WAS really a Xenomorph or something close), in a movie that is definitely and positively so cast-iron that it isn't open to interpretation. 😂 Like I said in the other thread, leave enough holes, and it can still be ambiguous. Directors intention, and what he would/might have done in a movie sequel that will never be made doesn't matter; it's all down to what we get on-screen in the final version. And calling it a Xenomorph in the credits to differentiate it from a neomorph (as opposed to simply saying 'Alien') I still feel is more for the audience's benefit. Nobody had heard of a neomorph until this movie...credit someone with neomorph and someone with protomorph or whatever name you could come up with, and everyone would be scratching their heads as to which creature was being referred to. The latter was clearly closer to Xenomorph than the former. And again, credits don't matter, nobody in the movie itself refers to it as a Xenomorph.
Of course Ridley wanted to make David the creator of the Alien, of course that was his intention. That's not being disputed. Thankfully he sucks at story telling, so the finished product, whilst suggestive, (and beyond a bold claim from an android with a god-complex) still has enough leeway that it can be interpreted multiple ways... such as how Alan Dean Foster interpreted it when adding dialogue in his novelisation. Such as how fans here all interpret it differently from one another.
'Directors intention' makes no difference if it isn't cemented in the final product. In the same way, Ridley's intended life cycle of the Xenomorph didn't matter for the sequel. That wasn't a retcon, as it didn't appear in the original release of the movie, no matter what Riddles intended, so the origin of the eggs were still open to interpretation.
