Why WY established colony on LV-426 without investigating Derelict ship?

Started by Ingwar, Jan 17, 2017, 10:32:43 PM

Author
Why WY established colony on LV-426 without investigating Derelict ship? (Read 25,817 times)

oberonqa

oberonqa

#135
That was the point of having Gorman along in the first place.  An inexperienced leader would be more open to Burke's "suggestions".  If things had gone down differently and everyone made it back to the Sulaco, Gorman would have been convinced/bribed/whatever by Burke to leave the colony intact.

SM

Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 02, 2017, 12:28:09 AM
I wonder if anyone besides Ripley would have even bothered arguing the point.  The marines were full of bluster, but they were trained to follow orders and probably knew better than to stage a mutiny over something like that.

After what happened in the hive, I think Hicks, Hudson and Vasquez would've kicked up a stink.

Local Trouble

Perhaps, but do you think they'd mutiny?

SiL

Vasquez was ready to murder him.

So yes.

oberonqa

Quote from: SM on Feb 02, 2017, 12:43:09 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 02, 2017, 12:28:09 AM
I wonder if anyone besides Ripley would have even bothered arguing the point.  The marines were full of bluster, but they were trained to follow orders and probably knew better than to stage a mutiny over something like that.

After what happened in the hive, I think Hicks, Hudson and Vasquez would've kicked up a stink.

Vasquez would have for sure.  She already showed a certain knack for disobedience and a general disregard for orders she didn't agree with.  Hudson would have likely followed whoever was in command, expecially after surviving the hive and being shaken up by it (teetering on the slope of PTSD actually).  Hicks... he would have been the wild card.  He showed a willingness to follow his own judgement, but also believed in the chain of command.  He did stop Vasquez from assaulting an unconscious Gormon, after all.  He could have gone either way... a flip of the coin.

Local Trouble

I don't see Hicks going along with a mutiny over something like bringing back specimens or sparing the colony.  He didn't snap until Ripley convinced him that Burke released the facehuggers.

oberonqa

Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 02, 2017, 12:56:58 AM
I don't see Hicks going along with a mutiny over something like bringing back specimens or sparing the colony.  He didn't snap until Ripley convinced him that Burke released the facehuggers.

That's my thinking on the matter regarding Hicks.  He would have followed the chain of command and if Gormon turned a blind eye to it, then he would go along with it, even if he had reservations about it.  Now if that course of action led to the injury or death of one of his squadmates, then I could see him flipping.  Hence why I say he is a bit of a wild card in the mutiny idea.  He really could go either way, depending on the circumstances. 

In the trio (Vasquez, Hudson, and Hicks), Hicks likely serves as the balance between the two extremes that are Vasquez (hot-headed one) and Hudson (consummate follower).  His balance tempers Vazquez's anger issues and gives Hudson someone to follow (in the chain of command, Hicks would be Hudson's superior officer, Apone was Hick's superior officer, and Gormon was Apone's superior officer).

Now, using that trio imagery for a second... if Hicks and Vasquez were both in agreement on mutiny, then I can see Hudson following along.  However, if Vasquez and Hudson were in agreement on mutiny (in this scenario, Hudson would follow Vasquez's lead due to her displaying leadership that Hick's wasn't providing for one reason or another), Hicks would likely be against it.  However, I really don't see Hudson ever siding with Vasquez... they seem to be a part of different social circles within the squad (maybe social circles isn't the right way to put it... but I hope you get what I'm trying to get at).

SM

QuoteNow if that course of action led to the injury or death of one of his squadmates, then I could see him flipping.

The deaths of Frost, Dietrich, Crowe, Wierzbowski, Apone and Drake don't count?

oberonqa

Quote from: SM on Feb 02, 2017, 02:09:07 AM
QuoteNow if that course of action led to the injury or death of one of his squadmates, then I could see him flipping.

The deaths of Frost, Dietrich, Crowe, Wierzbowski, Apone and Drake don't count?

Clearly not, as he stopped Vasquez from attacking Gormon after he was knocked unconcious, which happened after those squadmates were taken.

SM

I don't see how the two things are connected.

One involves mutiny against a conscious CO and the other involves assaulting an unconscious CO.

oberonqa

Quote from: SM on Feb 02, 2017, 03:24:19 AM
I don't see how the two things are connected.

One involves mutiny against a conscious CO and the other involves assaulting an unconscious CO.

Both are considered acts of insubordination and could be viewed as an act of mutiny.  Since Hicks stopped Vasquez from attacking Gormon, he clearly did not blame Gorman for the loss of his squadmates (or if he did, this belief did not compel him to cross the line by either assisting Vasquez or standing by and allowing her to proceed). 

Vasquez was pretty fired up and blamed Gorman for the loss of her teammates and was pretty intent on beating the living crap out of him.  I would say she was feeling rather mutinous at that point and it was only Hicks stepping in and providing solid and firm leadership that got her to stand down.

SM

QuoteSince Hicks stopped Vasquez from attacking Gormon, he clearly did not blame Gorman for the loss of his squadmates (or if he did, this belief did not compel him to cross the line by either assisting Vasquez or standing by and allowing her to proceed). 

He stopped her from doing something really dumb.

My point is more to do with your comment about Hicks' reaction to Gorman's actions leading to the death of squadmates.  Gorman's actions, right or wrong, have already lead to the deaths squadmates.

Xenomrph

Xenomrph

#147
Quote from: SiL on Feb 01, 2017, 03:11:29 AM
If ACMTM says Derelict is fine and WY report says it's trashed, the latter takes precedent. That was the point. You can argue it and try to twist it, but Fox don't care.
The WY Report doesn't say it's trashed, that's my point. :)

You are right that FOX don't care, though - this is the same FOX that said Colonial Marines was canon at a time when the text of the WY Report was likely already done, and Colonial Marines has you literally walk around inside the Derelict.
The Derelict was clearly going to have survived in Blomkamp's proposed Alien movie as well, based on his concept art.

Quote from: SM on Feb 01, 2017, 09:32:47 PM
No need. AP explosion took it out.
That's not what the WYR says. It says it was a "nonviable" source for the Auriga crew - which makes sense given their circumstances, as I mentioned several pages ago.

cliffhanger

Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 02, 2017, 08:48:40 AM
Quote from: SiL on Feb 01, 2017, 03:11:29 AM
If ACMTM says Derelict is fine and WY report says it's trashed, the latter takes precedent. That was the point. You can argue it and try to twist it, but Fox don't care.
The WY Report doesn't say it's trashed, that's my point. :)

You are right that FOX don't care, though - this is the same FOX that said Colonial Marines was canon at a time when the text of the WY Report was likely already done, and Colonial Marines has you literally walk around inside the Derelict.
The Derelict was clearly going to have survived in Blomkamp's proposed Alien movie as well, based on his concept art.

Quote from: SM on Feb 01, 2017, 09:32:47 PM
No need. AP explosion took it out.
That's not what the WYR says. It says it was a "nonviable" source for the Auriga crew - which makes sense given their circumstances, as I mentioned several pages ago.

exactly.

i live in europe, and have no visa for entering australia at this moment. so supermarkets in australia are a non-viable source for kangaroo steaks for me right now. however, there's somebody selling kangaroo steaks a dozen miles away from where i live. it costs a lot more than in a supermarket in australia, but that's the price i'll pay for it. so the exotic meat shop a dozen miles away IS a viable source for kangaroo steak for me.

that does not mean there aren't kangaroo steaks in australia. nor that the kangaroo steaks in australia can't be bought by anybody in australia, or for somebody that can get their hands on a visa. for me however, i can't go there. but if i could get my hands on a visa, i actually could. then, it becomes a viable source.

anyway im still hoping there will be a retcon of alien3 and  resurection. not because i think they're that bad - but because they trashed any decent story whilst giving a story for themselves.

at a certain point, the prometheus till alien movies are going to reach a point where it's been 'done'. then the only move is follow where alien, aliens, alien3 and resurrection left off, or jump somewhere in between.




SiL

Still not buying it was easier to spend years cloning someone than to fly three weeks out to the source to have a look.

Even if you assume the Auriga couldn't go there,  they clearly have no problem outsourcing work to other people. They could have got other people to collect specimens.

AvPGalaxy: About | Contact | Cookie Policy | Manage Cookie Settings | Privacy Policy | Legal Info
Facebook Twitter Instagram YouTube Patreon RSS Feed
Contact: General Queries | Submit News