AVP: part of the canon, or a separate universe?

[yhe1]

Charles bishop weyland is not mentioned in the wy report

[TurokSwe]

But the film doesn't even establish David as the creator, it leaves the issue up to interpretation, and other works contradict the idea of David as creator (eg. the official novel of Covenant and the home video release of Prometheus). You don't have to ignore anything, you simply need to put it all in context, so it turns out David is merely producing his very own variants of Xenomorphs, not creating the species as a whole.

Except it does. And no amount of handwaving about it "being open to interpretation" makes it so.

Who cares what the novel says? The novelizations of Aliens and Alien contradicted a lot of stuff in the movies, nobody thinks that is actually canon.

A marketing short from a previous movie contradicting the later movie also proofs nothing as it is just that, a special feature from a previous movie. And if that is not enough for you, Ridley, same director of Covenant   and Prometheus stated that David did it. Why do you give a little extra from the movie more weight than the word of the director of the same movie?

You can claim you proofed anything all you want, when you not even proved that the scene in the actual movie, the one with David going through his experiments, is actually up for interpretation, all the "evidence" outside of the movie does not matter, cause the actual movie trumps novelizations, previous crossover entries and home release extras of previous entries.

And no, how long the black goo existed is also no evidence for anything.

And of course we have old Ridles statement that you also conveniently handwave away because it does not fit your argument. All that while one of your arguments is what the directors and crew of the AVPs had to say on the matter. Is it because one fits your narrative and one does not?

Also please stop trying to guesswork Fox's intention on the whole matter to give your arguments some kind of "official" weight, when you actually get told how they see it again and again and again by one who actually works with them.

Except it doesn't, and refusing to make a case for it won't make your insistence any less unfounded. At least I made a hopefully well-reasoned case for my stance in my OP. The actual movie still indeed leaves the issue up to interpretation, and the official novel for Covenant and the home video release of Prometheus still contradicts the claim of David as creator (and so does various other previous works of course). The fact that the black goo has existed for billions of years provides a great deal of room for several different forms of Xenomorphs to develop and be designed by different individuals and factions of Engineers multiple times, and so if the black goo so easily produces Xenbomorph-like creatures and David could so easily produce his own variants, then why could they not have arisen many times before? Noting that the official novel states that they did. Noting that I'm not "guessworking" Fox's intention as we can make a good case for what their stance actually is, as argued in my OP.

Just because you can make a case for a share universe, that doesn't make it true. Fox, via the wy report, says there are two universes

It's the very fact that I did make a well-reasoned and well-evidenced case for the shared universe that does make it true. Also, I repeat, The Weyland-Yutani Report does NOT imply that there are supposedly "two different universes".

Please read my OP.

People did. It is just not the indisputable truth you claim it is. Regardless how often you claim it.

At best (if they've actually read it at all), they must have skimmed through it all out frustration at its contents.

I doubt they have, and at best they may have skimmed through it. Once again, I NEVER implied that my OP was supposedly "infallible" so please stop misrepresenting me. I merely suggested that it's the strongest case that can be made, and since you have not been able to properly respond to its arguments, I take that as confirmation that you reluctantly agree with its contents but refuse to endorse it because it's not what you want. Noting that my statement that Fox considers all twelve films canon is an overview of the contents of my OP and thus demonstrably accurate. You have not yet demonstrated anything to the contrary.

Dat arrogance 

What "arrogance"? Noting that this was quite the juvenile response on your part.

Then there is nothing more to argue. The wy report said that charles and peter don't exist in the same universe. So there are two universes

And I repeat once more, The Weyland-Yutani Report states NO SUCH THING.

[SiL]

Another baseless claim. Please elaborate.

Time and time again, it has been stated. People who work with Fox and are in contact with Fox have confirmed they do not hold all the films as canon to each other.

That is the fact. You can write a thousand page treatise on why you think that's not the case, but no amount of self-important rambling will change the fact that the company does not agree with the words you are trying to put in its mouth.

Put this in perspective: you are getting annoyed when you think people are misrepresenting your words. That is what you're doing to Fox. They have said they don't consider them canon to each other, you're trying to say they do regardless.

[TurokSwe]

Charles bishop weyland is not mentioned in the wy report

There's a lot of things that The Weyland-Yutani Report doesn't mention, but the mere fact that it doesn't cover something doesn't mean that said something isn't considered canonical.

[SiL]

There's a lot of things that The Weyland-Yutani Report doesn't mention, but the mere fact that it doesn't cover something doesn't mean that said something isn't considered canonical.

The fact the book about the Company doesn't mention the supposed earlier founder of the Company speaks volumes.

[The Old One]

Because it's arrogant to conclude that I agree with your argument, I do not. In any capacity.

What would seriously need to be on film to confirm Charles Bishop Weyland never existed?

Would they have to establish that Yutani built a space shuttle launch site in 1984 in Antarctica?
Which then you would claim is evidence of a cover up.
Or perhaps you'd ask for Peter Weyland's entire genealogy,
which then you'd claim has been falsified to make him look like more of a genius.
Do you need Michael Bishop's (falsified) genealogy too,
to certify that he's unrelated to the Peter Weyland bloodline?

This discussion is, as always: a farce- because you'll fanfiction your way around any contradiction.

[TurokSwe]

Another baseless claim. Please elaborate.

Time and time again, it has been stated. People who work with Fox and are in contact with Fox have confirmed they do not hold all the films as canon to each other.

That is the fact. You can write a thousand page treatise on why you think that's not the case, but no amount of self-important rambling will change the fact that the company does not agree with the words you are trying to put in its mouth.

Put this in perspective: you are getting annoyed when you think people are misrepresenting your words. That is what you're doing to Fox. They have said they don't consider them canon to each other, you're trying to say they do regardless.

Yes, time and time again the claim has been made, and mostly it seems people have been referring to a single individual in this forum (being SM), who is NOT an actual representative of Fox to begin with, and his arguments seem to be more personal than representative of Fox's views. Once more, you're proving your stance to be more empty than may have initially been implied.

[yhe1]

Charles bishop weyland is not mentioned in the wy report

There's a lot of things that The Weyland-Yutani Report doesn't mention, but the mere fact that it doesn't cover something doesn't mean that said something isn't considered canonical.

Honestly, at this point I think the burden of proof is on you to prove that Charles and peter exists in the same universe and is father and son.

[The Kurgan]

What "arrogance"? Noting that this was quite the juvenile response on your part.

Assuming people either get too frustarted with the content of your OP so they just skim it and don't see the truth because of that or that they secretly agree, swayed by your arguing but don't want to admit it.

Assuming there is no way somebody actually read it and still does not agree.

[SiL]

and his arguments seem to be more personal than representative of Fox's views.

This is your supposition, which is baseless and incorrect.

[TurokSwe]

There's a lot of things that The Weyland-Yutani Report doesn't mention, but the mere fact that it doesn't cover something doesn't mean that said something isn't considered canonical.

The fact the book about the Company doesn't mention the supposed earlier founder of the Company speaks volumes.

No, it doesn't, you're reading too much into nothing. If you want a reason for why it doesn't mention it then it could simply be stated that Weyland Corporation is a new iteration of the company founded by Peter, taking the assets from the former company to build the new, whereas Charles died eight years before Peter claimed the throne and brought the company to where it's at now. It doesn't have to mention Charles or its earlier history.

Because it's arrogant to conclude that I agree with your argument, I do not. In any capacity.

What would seriously need to be on film to confirm Charles Bishop Weyland never existed?

Would they have to establish that Yutani built a space shuttle launch site in 1984 in Antarctica?
Which then you would claim is evidence of a cover up.
Or perhaps you'd ask for Peter Weyland's entire genealogy,
which then you'd claim has been falsified to make him look like more of a genius.
Do you need Michael Bishop's (falsified) genealogy too,
to certify that he's unrelated to the Peter Weyland bloodline?

This discussion is, as always: a farce- because you'll fanfiction your way around any contradiction.

It's not fan-fiction, it's a demonstration that there is no contradiction (noting that "not mentioning something" does not equate to said something being "contradicted"), because then it wouldn't be able to be explained, but as it turns out it's far too easy to explain.

Charles bishop weyland is not mentioned in the wy report

There's a lot of things that The Weyland-Yutani Report doesn't mention, but the mere fact that it doesn't cover something doesn't mean that said something isn't considered canonical.

Honestly, at this point I think the burden of proof is on you to prove that Charles and peter exists in the same universe and is father and son.

I already presented my case in my OP. You just need to go back and read it.

[yhe1]

No, you have proven they could be father and son, not actually father and son. And to proof that its all one universe, you need to actually prove they are father and son.

[TurokSwe]

What "arrogance"? Noting that this was quite the juvenile response on your part.

Assuming people either get too frustarted with the content of your OP so they just skim it and don't see the truth because of that or that they secretly agree, swayed by your arguing but don't want to admit it.

Assuming there is no way somebody actually read it and still does not agree.

Well their behavior clearly indicates some level of frustration and since they refuse to properly address my arguments in the OP (which they could easily do if they had a case to make against it) then I can only assume that it's all due to some uncomfortable experience with the contents of my OP, which would be understandable, especially judging from past experiences with people within this fanbase (as well as others). This all brings me to doubt that some people actually care to carefully read it through. I can understand that they don't agree with it, but whether or not they can justify why they don't agree with is another thing.

and his arguments seem to be more personal than representative of Fox's views.

This is your supposition, which is baseless and incorrect.

No, that conclusion came as a result of my discussion with SM.

No, you have proven they could be father and son, not actually father and son. And to proof that its all one universe, you need to actually prove they are father and son.

Again, I'm confident I made more than enough of a well-reasoned case for this in my OP.

[SiL]

No, that conclusion came as a result of my discussion with SM.

How you choose to interpret a conversation is not proof of anything. Your supposition is still baseless and incorrect.

[The Old One]

It's a chronicle of the Company's Founding and history with the Alien, if Charles Bishop Weyland (The Company's original founder, according to you) first discovered the Alien in a pyramid in 2004, don't you think that'd rate a mention?

1. Stop assuming things about me.
2. Everyone's read your goddamn OP, stop shoving it down people's throats it's still...

Spoiler

\ \/ I (  |\ |

Spoiler

\/\/ I () |\ G

Spoiler

WRONG

[close]

[close]

[close]