User Information

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

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: [SPOILERS] So Covenant confirms that AvP and AvPR ...  (Read 14697 times)


TheBATMAN
May 14, 2017, 12:55:33 AM
Reply #16 on: May 14, 2017, 12:55:33 AM
Q
Prometheus retconned Weyland Corp. That was enough to confirm AVP as not canon. But I find it amusing that people believed they could co-exist and forced them together by inventing elements such as Guy Pierce being Charles Bishop's son etc. Now instead we have the David created/recreated the Alien argument which is essentially the same thing.



fiveways
May 14, 2017, 01:29:56 AM
Reply #18 on: May 14, 2017, 01:29:56 AM
Q
Covenant doesn't have to confirm that. AvP movies are cross-overs. They never been part of canon.

According to who? Both the AvP films and Prometheus/Covenant are produced by 20th Century Fox - and they have never (as far as I am aware) confirmed what is canon or not. The default position until Covenant was that they were canon due to be produced by the same company. Covenant confirms they are not though.

Ridley Scott said they weren't included in the continuity around the time of Prometheus.   So they have been out since at least 2012.


Do you have a link to a source/quote that proves Ridley said they weren't canon? That video you linked to was just Ridley saying he "doesn't know how he feels" about AvP.



Conversely, Ridley Scott had no interest in the Alien vs. Predator films. When asked in May 2012 if he had watched them, Scott laughed, "No. I couldn't do that. I couldn't quite take that step."

This was while he was promoting Prometheus.  It was in Empire Magazine.  That sounds like Scott, and Fox through Scott (as he seems to be the one calling the continuity shots) dismissing them completely.  They didn't fit into his vision of the Alien universe.


YutaniDitch
May 14, 2017, 03:42:56 AM
Reply #19 on: May 14, 2017, 03:42:56 AM
Q
Actually, COVENANT does not make AVP movies non-canonical because if it did, it would also make ALIEN and ALIENS non canonical as well, since COVENANT denies the existence of a Xeno Queen, denies the existence of the Xenos prior to David creating them therefore even denying the existence of the Derelict with the eggs in it... I think COVENANT does FAR MORE DAMAGE than just rendering the crossovers non-canonical... 😉😞

« Last Edit: May 14, 2017, 03:48:43 AM by YutaniDitch »

Xenomrph
May 14, 2017, 03:46:31 AM
Reply #20 on: May 14, 2017, 03:46:31 AM
Q
Do we really have to push our favorite version of cannon down each others throat to feel better about the whole thing?

Simply make your own version of cannon that suits.
I've been saying this for a good while now.


YutaniDitch
May 14, 2017, 03:54:27 AM
Reply #21 on: May 14, 2017, 03:54:27 AM
Q
Do we really have to push our favorite version of cannon down each others throat to feel better about the whole thing?

Simply make your own version of cannon that suits.
I've been saying this for a good while now.

Canon is not an individual choice, it is what has been established as OFFICIAL by the movies... So, no fan chooses what is canonical or not, that is just a ridiculous proposition... The movies set the canon, not the fans...


SiL
May 14, 2017, 03:55:17 AM
Reply #22 on: May 14, 2017, 03:55:17 AM
Q
Actually, COVENANT does not make AVP movies non-canonical because if it did, it would also make ALIEN and ALIENS non canonical as well, since COVENANT denies the existence of a Xeno Queen, denies the existence of the Xenos prior to David creating them therefore even denying the existence of the Derelict with the eggs in it... I think COVENANT does FAR MORE DAMAGE than just rendering the crossovers non-canonical... 😉😞
It does none of those things. The Queen can still come later, the derelict isn't as old as we think it is. The end.


YutaniDitch
May 14, 2017, 03:59:20 AM
Reply #23 on: May 14, 2017, 03:59:20 AM
Q
Actually, COVENANT does not make AVP movies non-canonical because if it did, it would also make ALIEN and ALIENS non canonical as well, since COVENANT denies the existence of a Xeno Queen, denies the existence of the Xenos prior to David creating them therefore even denying the existence of the Derelict with the eggs in it... I think COVENANT does FAR MORE DAMAGE than just rendering the crossovers non-canonical... 😉😞
It does none of those things. The Queen can still come later, the derelict isn't as old as we think it is. The end.

No, it can't...Scientifically, it can't... And the Derelict with the eggs on it is far older than just a decade... SiL, denial is cute, but you know Ridley has just retconned the hell outta the first two movies... David is the creator of Xenos now... Forget about Giger's ALIEN mural, forget about the Queen... Now, the eggs came first, not the chicken... 😂

« Last Edit: May 14, 2017, 04:02:14 AM by YutaniDitch »

SiL
May 14, 2017, 04:22:12 AM
Reply #24 on: May 14, 2017, 04:22:12 AM
Q
No, it can't...Scientifically, it can't...
Throwing the word "scientifically" into the sentence doesn't make your comment true.

Quote
And the Derelict with the eggs on it is far older than just a decade...
Apparently not. The only thing to say otherwise is a single line from one person taking one look at the Jockey.


gantarat
May 14, 2017, 04:31:03 AM
Reply #25 on: May 14, 2017, 04:31:03 AM
Q
I don't expect to see queen on ridley movie.


Xenomrph
May 14, 2017, 04:40:36 AM
Reply #26 on: May 14, 2017, 04:40:36 AM
Q
Do we really have to push our favorite version of cannon down each others throat to feel better about the whole thing?

Simply make your own version of cannon that suits.
I've been saying this for a good while now.

Canon is not an individual choice, it is what has been established as OFFICIAL by the movies... So, no fan chooses what is canonical or not, that is just a ridiculous proposition... The movies set the canon, not the fans...
Sure it is, watch:

I see the Space Jockey and Engineers as two different things, and can make a case for it based on my interpretations of the movies.

Now, I guess it's up to you to stop me? Or is FOX going to kick in my door and take all my Aliens merchandise away for not following "the canon"?

Quote
And the Derelict with the eggs on it is far older than just a decade...
Apparently not. The only thing to say otherwise is a single line from one person taking one look at the Jockey.
Well that and just looking at the thing, it looks old as shit (and was intentionally designed by the filmmakers to appear that way).
Like, making the Derelict not-ancient is a pretty blatant and obvious retcon of the intent behind what we saw in 'Alien', and Ridley Scott would be the first to admit it (just as he did when he talked about the Space Jockey in the preface to the 'Prometheus' art book).


YutaniDitch
May 14, 2017, 04:52:09 AM
Reply #27 on: May 14, 2017, 04:52:09 AM
Q
No, it can't...Scientifically, it can't...
Throwing the word "scientifically" into the sentence doesn't make your comment true.

Quote
And the Derelict with the eggs on it is far older than just a decade...
Apparently not. The only thing to say otherwise is a single line from one person taking one look at the Jockey.

We are fans, SiL... Hardly anything we say is true... We just think it is...😂😜 Still, ALIENS established the eggs came from a Queen, not preexisting it... That is science... And since there was no scientific explanation given as to how David manage to create a three-stage creature lifecycle, the Queen makes sense, this retarded retcon does not... And be honest, before PROMETHEUS, did you ever question Dallas' remark... EVERYONE stated the Derelict was very old, like millenia-old... But since Ridley, who said himself before the Derelict was indeed more than decades' old, now changed his tune to fit his creative agenda, and now makes people question Dallas... And actually, the SpaceJockey's corpse would not deteriorate like on Earth for lack of microorganisms... So, it would become rock hard like it was, and certainly, what Dallas meant was not fossilized but CALCIFIED, like the facehugger Miller analyzed in AVP... Which would mean that the Engineer Spacejockey would have to have been dead for more than decades for that to happen... So, if science does not matter in science-fiction, like eggs coming from an android's arse instead of a Queen, or an Engineer ship seemingly dated, in ALIEN AND IN PROMETHEUS but now denied in AC, as having landed about the same time the outbreak occurred on the next moon over, which would make far more sense than this new AC nonsense, then this is no science-fiction, but just fiction...And a very incoherent, inconsistent one at that...

Do we really have to push our favorite version of cannon down each others throat to feel better about the whole thing?

Simply make your own version of cannon that suits.
I've been saying this for a good while now.

Canon is not an individual choice, it is what has been established as OFFICIAL by the movies... So, no fan chooses what is canonical or not, that is just a ridiculous proposition... The movies set the canon, not the fans...
Sure it is, watch:

I see the Space Jockey and Engineers as two different things, and can make a case for it based on my interpretations of the movies.

Now, I guess it's up to you to stop me? Or is FOX going to kick in my door and take all my Aliens merchandise away for not following "the canon"?

Quote
And the Derelict with the eggs on it is far older than just a decade...
Apparently not. The only thing to say otherwise is a single line from one person taking one look at the Jockey.
Well that and just looking at the thing, it looks old as shit (and was intentionally designed by the filmmakers to appear that way).
Like, making the Derelict not-ancient is a pretty blatant and obvious retcon of the intent behind what we saw in 'Alien', and Ridley Scott would be the first to admit it (just as he did when he talked about the Space Jockey in the preface to the 'Prometheus' art book).

Not at all... Your take is just objectively inconsistent with what transpires from the movies... It is just your unsubstantiated opinion... 😁 and why would I wanna stop you making me laugh...? Two different beings flying very identical ships... gotcha... And can you quote what Ridley said...? I do not have the book... But I agree, a retcon is usually a lazy narrative tool when you do not want to do fit your prequel to the original but rather change the original to fit your prequel... Very lazy and creatively bankrupt way to address the elephant in the room...

« Last Edit: May 14, 2017, 05:00:52 AM by YutaniDitch »

Xenomrph
May 14, 2017, 05:01:36 AM
Reply #28 on: May 14, 2017, 05:01:36 AM
Q
To be fair, the Alien series has always played it real fast and loose with "science" since the first movie. Faster-than-light travel is "scientifically" impossible, as is artificial gravity as portrayed in the movies. The Alien itself is an "impossible" creature with abilities beyond anything we know of (such as the gestation period, rapid growth rate, or the ability to stick to walls, to name a few off the top of my head), and the acid blood is wildly inconsistent from one scene to the next in order to serve the plot. The motion trackers shown in the first two movies couldn't function the way they're depicted, as is stacking 99 10mm caseless bullets in a Pulse Rifle magazine as shown. :P

Is the Alien series "science fiction"? Well yeah, when it suits the plot, or when it's trying to make a thematic point. But it isn't hard science fiction, and the science goes right out the window the moment it doesn't serve the story being told.

Not at all... Your take is just objectively inconsistent with what transpires from the movies... It is just your unsubstantiated opinion... 😁 and why would I wanna stop you making me laugh...? Two different beings flying very identical ships... gotcha... And can you quote what Ridley said...? I do not have the book... But I agree, a retcon is usually a lazy narrative tool when you do not want to do fit your prequel to the original but rather change the original to fit your prequel... Very lazy and creatively bankrupt way to address the elephant in the room...
No, it isn't "objectively" inconsistent - the Derelict and the Juggernaut are different shapes, sizes, and designs, and the Space Jockey corpse looks similar to the Engineer "flight" suit, but the Space Jockey is much, much larger and has radically different proportions.
If Ridley Scott wanted to make the Engineers and their ships 100% identical to the Space Jockey and the Derelict and erase all doubt, he absolutely could have done that. But instead he made a conscious choice not to.

Why do you think that is? :)

I don't have the Prometheus art book handy to get an exact quote (my copy is still in a box, I'm still unpacking), but he briefly mentions the Space Jockey and says something to the effect of, "When I was making 'Alien', the Space Jockey was a giant corpse. And then I got to thinking, what if it was a man in a suit?"

« Last Edit: May 14, 2017, 05:06:18 AM by Xenomrph »

YutaniDitch
May 14, 2017, 05:22:21 AM
Reply #29 on: May 14, 2017, 05:22:21 AM
Q
To be fair, the Alien series has always played it real fast and loose with "science" since the first movie. Faster-than-light travel is "scientifically" impossible, as is artificial gravity as portrayed in the movies. The Alien itself is an "impossible" creature with abilities beyond anything we know of (such as the gestation period, rapid growth rate, or the ability to stick to walls, to name a few off the top of my head), and the acid blood is wildly inconsistent from one scene to the next in order to serve the plot. The motion trackers shown in the first two movies couldn't function the way they're depicted, as is stacking 99 10mm caseless bullets in a Pulse Rifle magazine as shown. :P

Is the Alien series "science fiction"? Well yeah, when it suits the plot, or when it's trying to make a thematic point. But it isn't hard science fiction, and the science goes right out the window the moment it doesn't serve the story being told.

Not at all... Your take is just objectively inconsistent with what transpires from the movies... It is just your unsubstantiated opinion... 😁 and why would I wanna stop you making me laugh...? Two different beings flying very identical ships... gotcha... And can you quote what Ridley said...? I do not have the book... But I agree, a retcon is usually a lazy narrative tool when you do not want to do fit your prequel to the original but rather change the original to fit your prequel... Very lazy and creatively bankrupt way to address the elephant in the room...
No, it isn't "objectively" inconsistent - the Derelict and the Juggernaut are different shapes, sizes, and designs, and the Space Jockey corpse looks similar to the Engineer "flight" suit, but the Space Jockey is much, much larger and has radically different proportions.
If Ridley Scott wanted to make the Engineers and their ships 100% identical to the Space Jockey and the Derelict and erase all doubt, he absolutely could have done that. But instead he made a conscious choice not to.

Why do you think that is? :)

I don't have the Prometheus art book handy to get an exact quote (my copy is still in a box, I'm still unpacking), but he briefly mentions the Space Jockey and says something to the effect of, "When I was making 'Alien', the Space Jockey was a giant corpse. And then I got to thinking, what if it was a man in a suit?"

First part, partially concur... Second part, absolutely not... the Derelict and the Juggernaut are externally identical in shape, size, etc... And the pilot's chair, idem... Ridley just developed it more in P, whereas in ALIEN, he needed not to...  nor did he have Giger anymore to make it more visually consistent... And you know full well that the practical reason the Engineer is shorter is because he would have had to be an expensive visual effect, hence why Ridley chose Ian White, a 2-meter guy, to portray him... why not just make him more human regular size, if Ridley was not trying to approximate the Engineer size to the Jockey one...?

« Last Edit: May 14, 2017, 05:25:11 AM by YutaniDitch »

 

Facebook Twitter Instagram Steam RSS Feed