User Information

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

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Danny McBride in talks for Covenant  (Read 14695 times)

426Buddy
Feb 23, 2016, 10:29:38 AM
Reply #60 on: Feb 23, 2016, 10:29:38 AM
I would argue that once he tried to kill newt & Ripley  via facehugger he made the leap to phsycopath and could be considered evil


HuDaFuK
Feb 23, 2016, 10:43:47 AM
Reply #61 on: Feb 23, 2016, 10:43:47 AM
I dunno, I still get the impression that was more to do with wanting the Alien as his prize, to improve his standing professionally and financially, than it was killing them.

Their deaths were just a side-effect of his greed. He didn't do it because he wanted them dead, he did it because he wanted the money when he got home. He just didn't care that they would die as a result. It's sociopathy rather than being a homicidal maniac.


PsyKore
Feb 23, 2016, 12:33:47 PM
Reply #62 on: Feb 23, 2016, 12:33:47 PM
He was compelled to try and kill Ripley (and Newt) once he properly revealed his motives to her, especially after Ripley threatened him.


426Buddy
Feb 23, 2016, 01:28:49 PM
Reply #63 on: Feb 23, 2016, 01:28:49 PM
He was compelled to try and kill Ripley (and Newt) once he properly revealed his motives to her, especially after Ripley threatened him.

If he would have succeeded in killing Newt, Ripley, and the marines he would have had quite a body count on his hands ( especially if you include the colonists).


Perfect-Organism
Feb 23, 2016, 04:31:11 PM
Reply #64 on: Feb 23, 2016, 04:31:11 PM
I dunno, I still get the impression that was more to do with wanting the Alien as his prize, to improve his standing professionally and financially, than it was killing them.

Their deaths were just a side-effect of his greed. He didn't do it because he wanted them dead, he did it because he wanted the money when he got home. He just didn't care that they would die as a result. It's sociopathy rather than being a homicidal maniac.

Your definition of evil is very frightening if you think that, just because you do something for money and people die as a result of that, you are not being evil.  Raising your own status at the expense of someone's life is fundamentally evil.  Even a homicidal maniac does what he does by getting pleasure from his actions, so in fulfilling his own objectives, he is being greedy.  You can't say that he is not being evil because he is just being greedy.  Greed itself is fundamentally evil, though society has harnessed it as a necessary evil.  Otherwise you couldn't have capitalism.  (Hey maybe that's why the engineers want to kill us)

The problem is that good and evil are concepts increasingly removed from the modern, natural view of the world.  So if someone is a murderer in order to get ahead, we clinically define him as a sociopath or psychopath as if it were merely a psychological condition or "ailment".  But if you bypass all that and accept that there is good and evil in this world, and a person consciously chooses one over the other, you have to conclude that Burke was EVIL with capital letters.


HuDaFuK
Feb 23, 2016, 04:43:41 PM
Reply #65 on: Feb 23, 2016, 04:43:41 PM
Evil to me would be doing terrible things just for the sheer enjoyment of it.

Burke's not doing that. He's doing it for the endgame profit. The only really awful thing he does is turn the Facehuggers loose. And by the point it seems more like desperation than anything. Sure, it's terrible, but it's not evil. He doesn't enjoy getting Ripley and Newt killed, he just wants the fame and fortune so bad he totally disconnects emotionally from the reality of what he's doing. He didn't pre-meditate it. It was just a spur of the moment thing to get him the big bucks and the kudos when he gets back to HQ.


426Buddy
Feb 23, 2016, 04:50:10 PM
Reply #66 on: Feb 23, 2016, 04:50:10 PM
Still... Setting a facehugger loose on a lil girl, regardless of motivation, is pretty evil. Even if he's not getting enjoyment from the killing, like a psychopath would, it would be hard to call it anything but evil.


Also it wasnt just for profit and glory. After Ripley found out what he had done, he was afraid she would nail him right to the wall when to they got back.

« Last Edit: Feb 23, 2016, 04:52:24 PM by 420Buddy »

Perfect-Organism
Feb 23, 2016, 07:54:21 PM
Reply #67 on: Feb 23, 2016, 07:54:21 PM
Evil to me would be doing terrible things just for the sheer enjoyment of it.

Burke's not doing that. He's doing it for the endgame profit. The only really awful thing he does is turn the Facehuggers loose. And by the point it seems more like desperation than anything. Sure, it's terrible, but it's not evil. He doesn't enjoy getting Ripley and Newt killed, he just wants the fame and fortune so bad he totally disconnects emotionally from the reality of what he's doing. He didn't pre-meditate it. It was just a spur of the moment thing to get him the big bucks and the kudos when he gets back to HQ.

Burke was doing it for the sheer enjoyment.  However, the enjoyment was deferred.  He would kill Newt and Ripley so that he could get a promotion and so he could get all the money he needs in order to enjoy himself in the way that he wants once he's rich.  At the end of the day, he's still putting his own joy ahead of someone else's.  We all do that from time to time, but in this case, he puts his own joy ahead of other people's lives.

I think you're kind of defending the indefensible here.  But this polemic could merit its own thread.


HuDaFuK
Feb 23, 2016, 08:04:01 PM
Reply #68 on: Feb 23, 2016, 08:04:01 PM
Burke was doing it for the sheer enjoyment.

Not once does he ever appear to be enjoying it in the film. In fact most of the time he looks terrified. He's hardly relishing in what he's doing.

I think you're kind of defending the indefensible here.  But this polemic could merit its own thread.

When have I ever tried to defend his actions? All I'm saying is, to me, he isn't evil. He's mentally unhinged. In my eyes there's a difference.


426Buddy
Feb 23, 2016, 08:14:26 PM
Reply #69 on: Feb 23, 2016, 08:14:26 PM
I think your view of evil is just a bit too narrow imo, you can be evil and do evil things and not enjoy doing them. Most evil is done with the best of intentions. On the other hand psychopath vs sociopath is is different, there is a real argument to be made that Burke is a sociopath because he isn't getting enjoyment from trying to kill as a psychopath would. But we are  at a point on the whole evil topic where it comes down to personal opinion of what is considered evil.

good discussion though, would make a good thread.  :)


Perfect-Organism
Feb 23, 2016, 08:56:03 PM
Reply #70 on: Feb 23, 2016, 08:56:03 PM
Burke was doing it for the sheer enjoyment.

Not once does he ever appear to be enjoying it in the film. In fact most of the time he looks terrified. He's hardly relishing in what he's doing.

What I'm saying is that the joy is deferred.  He still has his own personal motivations for what he does.  The whole time he is doing what he is doing is because he is envisioning himself on a yacht somewhere drinking margaritas.  He is just doing EVERYTHING it takes to get there.

I think you're kind of defending the indefensible here.  But this polemic could merit its own thread.

When have I ever tried to defend his actions? All I'm saying is, to me, he isn't evil. He's mentally unhinged. In my eyes there's a difference.

When you say he's not evil, that basically defends his actions.  "Mentally unhinged" and "evil" are terms from two different disciplines of thought.  It is almost an apples to oranges comparison.  The opposite of mentally unhinged, is mentally balanced, or sane, whereas the opposite of evil is good.  You're comparing psychology with ethics and beliefs.  In psychological terms, there is no true good and evil.  There are simply states of mind which vary from functional to dysfunctional.  The classic understanding of states of mind or psychology in general never really factored into belief systems based on good and evil.  Only in recent times do the ideas of mental state factor into notions of good and evil or ethics.  There is a lot of gray area here, and even legal systems are often at a loss as to if someone is evil or insane.

One of the key factors here is soundness of mind.  It would say that Burke was being particularly shrewd.  All his ducks were in a row.  From a psychological perspective, he might still be called a sociopath because although his actions were largely logical, he didn't factor in any empathy for his fellow human beings whatsoever.  However, if you recognize the basic ideas of good and evil, then you have to conclude that he was evil, especially because there was no ostensible mental impairment clouding his judgment.  He knew exactly what he was doing, and the lives of the people around him were just numbers on a page to be added or subtracted.


Primordial
Feb 23, 2016, 09:13:03 PM
Reply #71 on: Feb 23, 2016, 09:13:03 PM
... you have to conclude that Burke was EVIL with capital letters.

Then what would you call a person who tortures slowly another one to death with a big smile ? For HudaFuk, evil is when intentions are the worse possible, and the acts match these intentions and it didn't seem the case with Burke... unless if he was secretly killing two birds with one stone i.e. satisfying his lowest instincts when seeing Ripley and Newt in distress AND being able to let them through quarantine afterwards which would guarantee him fortune and/or fame.

On the contrary, if a famous person makes a donation for charity, but you learn that his/her intentions weren't altruistic but rather to be seen in a good light by others, then wouldn't you be a bit disappointed ? Intentions are important.
But don't get me wrong, if ever Burke had made it back to Earth and had got a trial, I would hope for him a very severe sentence.

Between you guys and HuDa, it is just a matter of definition of the word 'evil'.


Perfect-Organism
Feb 23, 2016, 09:25:59 PM
Reply #72 on: Feb 23, 2016, 09:25:59 PM

Between you guys and HuDa, it is just a matter of definition of the word 'evil'.
[/quote]

True.  The thing with ideas like evil and good is that they are not scientific ideas but more related to beliefs.  So you can't quantify good and evil.  You can only qualify it within the context of an existing set of dogmatic rules.  For example, a Catholic may see evil as very different from a Muslim's perspective or an Atheist's.



Perfect-Organism
Feb 23, 2016, 11:13:51 PM
Reply #74 on: Feb 23, 2016, 11:13:51 PM
For example, a Catholic may see evil as very different from a Muslim's perspective or an Atheist's.

I'm really going off topic here but it reminds me a Muslim saying that believing in two Gods (or more) is a greater sin than to kill a man.

Yes, totally OT.  But this is the basis of the rift between Christians and Muslims.  From the Muslim perspective, the idea of Jesus implies that there are two Gods.  From the perspective of Christians, Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit are the Trinity that forms God.

Yes, sorry Bro!  So how 'bout that Danny McBride?  Do you think they're going to go for some more comedic effect here?  We are now in a post-Deadpool era and I am wondering if the future holds non-stop jokes in even the most hard-r films.  I hope not.  I think James Cameron struck the right balance with Hudson, but if you go beyond that, it would be too much.

« Last Edit: Feb 24, 2016, 08:08:57 AM by Corporal Hicks »

 

Facebook Twitter Instagram Steam RSS Feed