User Information

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Alien 5 to be “Genetic Sibling” to Alien & Aliens  (Read 51337 times)

Xenomrph
Mar 02, 2015, 04:32:50 AM
Reply #435 on: Mar 02, 2015, 04:32:50 AM
Q
Alien Isolation - to my knowledge... Just expanded on her daughter's story. Was there something else added that contradicts anything in the Alien films? Apart from the idea of the Company lying to ripley about her daughter. Cause that's not the same thing as a retcon.

Burke had no reason to lie - and Ripley had every reason to look up her daughter's life details from non-company sources. She would have been at her utmost paranoid about trusting the company at that point. Finding out Amanda went off in search of her voice recorder to somewhere which came to grief, Nostromo-style, would have been a big red flag.

And the fact nobody's heard about anything remotely like the Alien... Nobody mentoning that the woman's daughter mentioned encountering something similar, at Ellen's own hearing? Not plausible.

And if the company was nefarious and evil, having a reason for covering it up, then they would have also had every reason to go and seek out LV-426 and actively scour it before Ellen returned. They didn't. It's just another colony to them. One which they never bothered putting any real dedicated bio-warfare personnel or facilities on.

The game's really well presented and worthy of being praised, but even its own writers copped out of providing an explanation for Amanda's inclusion. :)

So, again, if people can take that gaming experience to heart, they can enjoy a movie which retcons the third/fourth movie, too. 'Isolation' proved that, so well as something is done well, people just won't care.
To be fair, all of those "continuity" issues you bring up can all be explained away really, really easily.

Amanda's fate in the game and her fate in 'Aliens' don't line up, but the game ends on a massive cliffhanger so there's obviously more story to tell, and dozens of ways to tie it all together.

W-Y didn't scour LV-426 for Alien stuff because they didn't know it was there - you shut off the Derelict's beacon in Isolation, and all other data from the Nostromo incident was destroyed (or floating in the Narcissus, awaiting pickup decades later). Even the crew files in the inquest in 'Aliens' mention the Nostromo case had been closed years after Isolation is supposed to take place - W-Y had simply stopped searching. It was obviously getting to be cost prohibitive - they'd lost the Nostromo, and 15 years later they lost an entire space station, all with absolutely nothing to show for it.

I mean we're not talking Colonial Marines degrees of continuity speedbumps here.


No, they can't; unless you're the kind of mouthbreather par excellence that thinks Big Show really does hate Dolph Ziggler for taking his lunchmoney because it's all so, so very real. A:I shits all over Ripley's characterization and you can't say otherwise unless you're an apologist. Ripley was always ahead of the curve and that's why she and anyone else survived Acheron in the first place.
Yeah but that's just, like, your opinion, man.

I wasn't aware A:I had any bearing on Ripley's characterization seeing as how she's not in it and doesn't contribute to the plot or characters in any meaningful way (unless you want to count her "farewell" message to her daughter I guess?).


razeak
Mar 02, 2015, 04:50:03 AM
Reply #436 on: Mar 02, 2015, 04:50:03 AM
Q
There is a 42 year gap between A:I and Aliens. Everything is entirely plausible and easily explained at this point. A sequel may muddy things up, but as it stands, A:I fits rather neatly into the continuity.

1. Burke had plenty of reason to lie, especially if he uncovered something about the events of A:I. If someone else in the company was able to connect the dots with the loss of the Nostromo and the space station years later, then of course he is going to drum up something. It's his character. He's blind with greed and ambition.

2. The writers gave an explanation for Amanda's inclusion. She was looking for information about her mother. That's all the reason that is needed. As for no one looking into Amanda's reports, we don't have any evidence that is clear cut at this point that she survives to do that. Again, Burke isn't trustworthy.

3. If only a few corporate people were involved, maybe they thought it more prudent to just cover the Nostromo incident up rather than get exposed to lawsuits, fines and imprisonment.

4. It can't shit all over Ripley's character. Ellen is incredibly smart, but not all knowing for starters(egg on Sulaco, xeno in the Narcissus). Not checking into a very likely story that her daughter was dead 57 years later hardly sticks out as a bad characterization. If anything, blame Cameron for not showing that. It's just not a hard thing to believe someone died in their 60s. Isn't it only around 30 days before she's back on LV-426? Maybe it was something she was trying to look into. Bureaucracy and all that. On top of that, Van Leuwen admits there is a colony on LV-426. The fact that aliens aren't running amok on Earth or in the news and she knows a colony is there, probably made her realize that W/Y wasn't on to anything at that point, or that the creeps involved are long dead. Never mind that she is an emotional and mental train wreck at this point.

5. A recent novel contradicts the notion that W/Y doesn't know something is on LV-426.

I think he refers to Ripley's characterization as in she didn't check out Burke's information on Amanda for herself or search for any mention of aliens.

I just don't see how anyone can take a hardline stance that A:I screws up continuity. I'm open to evidence to the contrary. Good night :)

« Last Edit: Mar 02, 2015, 04:54:17 AM by razeak »

Xenomrph
Mar 02, 2015, 04:54:23 AM
Reply #437 on: Mar 02, 2015, 04:54:23 AM
Q
Quote
I think he refers to Ripley's characterization as in she didn't check out Burke's information on Amanda for herself or search for any mention of aliens.
It assumes Ripley would have found anything to contradict what Burke said, as well. Amanda Ripley's life (not to mention, how her life would be documented) between A:I and her death is one huge blank slate with dozens of ways to fill in the gaps leading to 'Aliens'.


Xhan
Mar 02, 2015, 04:55:32 AM
Reply #438 on: Mar 02, 2015, 04:55:32 AM
Q
Cameron did show that; it was the entire f**king reason for Ripley to take anything Burke said at face value, which is the entire reason for Ripley to be on board in the first place.

Cameron wouldn't have wasted film on it otherwise.

A novel? You mean the same article of faith that are routinely contradicted by other novels and media every couple of years?

What an absolutely definitive source you discovered.

(Actually you just made my earlier point for me)


SpeedyMaxx
Mar 02, 2015, 07:37:20 AM
Reply #439 on: Mar 02, 2015, 07:37:20 AM
Q
It's good to see you're still taking Alien: Isolation's success in stride.


NetworkATTH
Mar 02, 2015, 07:53:27 AM
Reply #440 on: Mar 02, 2015, 07:53:27 AM
Q
Alien Isolation - to my knowledge... Just expanded on her daughter's story. Was there something else added that contradicts anything in the Alien films? Apart from the idea of the Company lying to ripley about her daughter. Cause that's not the same thing as a retcon.

Burke had no reason to lie - and Ripley had every reason to look up her daughter's life details from non-company sources. She would have been at her utmost paranoid about trusting the company at that point. Finding out Amanda went off in search of her voice recorder to somewhere which came to grief, Nostromo-style, would have been a big red flag.

And the fact nobody's heard about anything remotely like the Alien... Nobody mentoning that the woman's daughter mentioned encountering something similar, at Ellen's own hearing? Not plausible.

And if the company was nefarious and evil, having a reason for covering it up, then they would have also had every reason to go and seek out LV-426 and actively scour it before Ellen returned. They didn't. It's just another colony to them. One which they never bothered putting any real dedicated bio-warfare personnel or facilities on.

The game's really well presented and worthy of being praised, but even its own writers copped out of providing an explanation for Amanda's inclusion. :)

So, again, if people can take that gaming experience to heart, they can enjoy a movie which retcons the third/fourth movie, too. 'Isolation' proved that, so well as something is done well, people just won't care.
To be fair, all of those "continuity" issues you bring up can all be explained away really, really easily.

Amanda's fate in the game and her fate in 'Aliens' don't line up, but the game ends on a massive cliffhanger so there's obviously more story to tell, and dozens of ways to tie it all together.

W-Y didn't scour LV-426 for Alien stuff because they didn't know it was there - you shut off the Derelict's beacon in Isolation, and all other data from the Nostromo incident was destroyed (or floating in the Narcissus, awaiting pickup decades later). Even the crew files in the inquest in 'Aliens' mention the Nostromo case had been closed years after Isolation is supposed to take place - W-Y had simply stopped searching. It was obviously getting to be cost prohibitive - they'd lost the Nostromo, and 15 years later they lost an entire space station, all with absolutely nothing to show for it.

I mean we're not talking Colonial Marines degrees of continuity speedbumps here.


No, they can't; unless you're the kind of mouthbreather par excellence that thinks Big Show really does hate Dolph Ziggler for taking his lunchmoney because it's all so, so very real. A:I shits all over Ripley's characterization and you can't say otherwise unless you're an apologist. Ripley was always ahead of the curve and that's why she and anyone else survived Acheron in the first place.

Brah, relax. You're overlooking some things. Some many things.


Xenomrph
Mar 02, 2015, 08:36:57 AM
Reply #441 on: Mar 02, 2015, 08:36:57 AM
Q
Cameron did show that; it was the entire f**king reason for Ripley to take anything Burke said at face value, which is the entire reason for Ripley to be on board in the first place.

Cameron wouldn't have wasted film on it otherwise.

A novel? You mean the same article of faith that are routinely contradicted by other novels and media every couple of years?

What an absolutely definitive source you discovered.

(Actually you just made my earlier point for me)
To claim the novels are contradicted every couple of years, aside from being objectively false, ignores the fact that the movies "contradict" each other to the same degree as well (that is to say, very very little).

Ripley takes Burke's statements at face value, and we learn everything Burke says is full of shit and meant to steer Ripley into helping him get an Alien. That means it's hardly out of character for anything Burke says about Amanda to be totally full of shit. As for Ripley, either she takes what he says at face value and doesn't look into Amanda's history, which leaves the door wide open for A:I to take place, or she does look into it and finds who-knows-what, which also leaves the door wide open for A:I to take place. Whether the "official records" of Amanda's life were doctored, or incomplete, literally wrong due to a clerical error, or actually 100% correct, A:I's whopper of a cliffhanger ending leaves the door wide open for a huge number of potential explanations for what is otherwise an amazingly tiny continuity speedbump in the grand scheme of things.


SiL
Mar 02, 2015, 08:40:04 AM
Reply #442 on: Mar 02, 2015, 08:40:04 AM
Q
Quote
To claim the novels are contradicted every couple of years, aside from being objectively false,
All comics made from 1987-1992 were contradicted by Alien3 when it killed Hicks and Newt, then everything between 1992-1997 was contradicted by Alien Resurrection when it made it clear the Alien died with Ripley, so, y'know, every five years or so for a while there.

Quote
ignores the fact that the movies "contradict" each other to the same degree as well (that is to say, very very little).
Until it turns out Blomkamp is actually ignoring A3 and Resurrection to have Hicks still be alive, no.



Xenomrph
Mar 02, 2015, 08:53:09 AM
Reply #444 on: Mar 02, 2015, 08:53:09 AM
Q
Quote
To claim the novels are contradicted every couple of years, aside from being objectively false,
All comics made from 1987-1992 were contradicted by Alien3 when it killed Hicks and Newt, then everything between 1992-1997 was contradicted by Alien Resurrection when it made it clear the Alien died with Ripley, so, y'know, every five years or so for a while there.

Quote
ignores the fact that the movies "contradict" each other to the same degree as well (that is to say, very very little).
Until it turns out Blomkamp is actually ignoring A3 and Resurrection to have Hicks still be alive, no.
Novels, not comics. :)
Xhan was referring to the more recent novels of the DH Press/Titan era, which don't contradict each other like that (and don't even contradict the Bantam novels, and in fact directly reference them). Or at least, the person he was quoting was referring to them.
So the whole "contradicted every few years" idea hasn't even been remotely true for almost the past 20 years. :P

« Last Edit: Mar 02, 2015, 08:55:28 AM by Xenomrph »



Xenomrph
Mar 02, 2015, 09:02:44 AM
Reply #447 on: Mar 02, 2015, 09:02:44 AM
Q
I know, right? It feels crazy that the first round of DH Press novels are a few years away from being a decade old. What the f**k.


SpeedyMaxx
Mar 02, 2015, 09:03:47 AM
Reply #448 on: Mar 02, 2015, 09:03:47 AM
Q
I saw Alien 3 (and Resurrection) in the theater and I'm just trying not to think about the time span.

I probably should've held onto my old DH/Earth War trades from before they retconned all the f**king character names. Wilkes and Billie my ass!


Corporal Hicks
Mar 02, 2015, 09:04:06 AM
Reply #449 on: Mar 02, 2015, 09:04:06 AM
Q
Sad panda. I already feel old enough without that realization.


 

Facebook Twitter Instagram Steam RSS Feed