David the creator

Started by Dropship, Jun 25, 2018, 03:04:14 PM

Author
David the creator (Read 37,442 times)

Huggs

Huggs

#60
Then perhaps if David is going screwy, the xenomorph he created and that we've come to know isn't the true/original form. I shudder to think there's a meaner version out there. Maybe it's like comparing a great white shark to an extinct Megalodon. We're so used to the great white being the alpha predator that we don't often remember the original design was a lot bigger and meaner.

SM

SM

#61
Quote from: SiL on Jul 02, 2018, 11:19:27 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jul 02, 2018, 04:46:16 AM
Quote from: SM on Jul 02, 2018, 04:41:26 AM
Quote from: SiL on Jul 02, 2018, 01:52:12 AM
At least we got to "And even if I'm wrong I'll just imagine I'm right anyway" faster this time.

:laugh:
The best part is SM is laughing at something I didn't say, but couldn't know that because he's got me on ignore.

Straw man arguments are the best kind of arguments. ;D
It really is. The film isn't ambiguous. It's clear he's explaining how he made the Alien. But you don't care; you'll still imagine a scenario where you're right and David somehow isn't the creator.

And for SM's edification: you said that even if David isn't lying or mistaken in how he created the Alien, that doesn't mean somebody else at some other point didn't somehow follow the same steps to get to exactly the same creature earlier.

Which, yeah, is "I don't care what the film says I'm going to just believe what I want".

I agree with you.

But Hicks already scolded me once, and he had the ban hammer out yesterday....

Xenomrph

Xenomrph

#62
Quote from: SM on Jul 03, 2018, 12:45:54 AM
Quote from: SiL on Jul 02, 2018, 11:19:27 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jul 02, 2018, 04:46:16 AM
Quote from: SM on Jul 02, 2018, 04:41:26 AM
Quote from: SiL on Jul 02, 2018, 01:52:12 AM
At least we got to "And even if I'm wrong I'll just imagine I'm right anyway" faster this time.

:laugh:
The best part is SM is laughing at something I didn't say, but couldn't know that because he's got me on ignore.

Straw man arguments are the best kind of arguments. ;D
It really is. The film isn't ambiguous. It's clear he's explaining how he made the Alien. But you don't care; you'll still imagine a scenario where you're right and David somehow isn't the creator.

And for SM's edification: you said that even if David isn't lying or mistaken in how he created the Alien, that doesn't mean somebody else at some other point didn't somehow follow the same steps to get to exactly the same creature earlier.

Which, yeah, is "I don't care what the film says I'm going to just believe what I want".

I agree with you.

But Hicks already scolded me once, and he had the ban hammer out yesterday....
There's more context to my point that SiL left out, we'll see if he includes it if he posts in the thread again.

You know, for SM's edification. :)

I get SiL's reasoning - on the surface, it IS obvious that David is meant to be the creator. It's when you look at the details that it stops being "unambiguous".

The Cruentus

The Cruentus

#63
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jul 02, 2018, 11:28:33 PM
David saying he created something doesn't mean he actually did it just because he said it. That's the point of the Ozymandias bit - David is faulty and has issues with getting things right when it comes to creators. You're fixating on the fact that David said something and not looking at the broader context of what David says and does. He's a faulty, unreliable sociopath with a god complex, why on earth should I believe anything he says?

I don't think that is the reason why people are on this idea, at least some of us anyway, until I heard it from Scott's mouth that David created the Alien, I too was thinking you can't trust David, He is egotistical and faulty, he must have just recreated what the Engineers did. Because I really, really dislike the David creating them.

And yes, you can say Scott says a lot of things, he changes his mind a lot and that is true but until he actually does change his mind, his statements about David still goes. Hopefully he will change his stance.

SiL

SiL

#64
It goes to the core of David's character that he doesn't like humans or Engineers and isn't interested in following in their footsteps. He's interested in creation, but his creation. Why would he recreate what an Engineer made? It's entirely against his character. He would go out of his way to create something new, if simply in spite.

But hey he misquoted somebody so nothing else in the film or his development over two movies means a thing ::)

Xenomrph

Xenomrph

#65
Quote from: The Cruentus on Jul 03, 2018, 10:52:45 AM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jul 02, 2018, 11:28:33 PM
David saying he created something doesn't mean he actually did it just because he said it. That's the point of the Ozymandias bit - David is faulty and has issues with getting things right when it comes to creators. You're fixating on the fact that David said something and not looking at the broader context of what David says and does. He's a faulty, unreliable sociopath with a god complex, why on earth should I believe anything he says?

I don't think that is the reason why people are on this idea, at least some of us anyway, until I heard it from Scott's mouth that David created the Alien, I too was thinking you can't trust David, He is egotistical and faulty, he must have just recreated what the Engineers did. Because I really, really dislike the David creating them.

And yes, you can say Scott says a lot of things, he changes his mind a lot and that is true but until he actually does change his mind, his statements about David still goes. Hopefully he will change his stance.
Your interpretation of the movie carries just as much weight as Scott's does, and there's no harm in disagreeing with him. I'm trying to dig it up, but there's a quote from him where he says that he makes his movies in order to spark discussion and interpretation, and that he finds disagreement to be a lot more interesting than consensus.

Well, here we are.

Quote from: SiL on Jul 03, 2018, 11:57:41 AM
It goes to the core of David's character that he doesn't like humans or Engineers and isn't interested in following in their footsteps. He's interested in creation, but his creation. Why would he recreate what an Engineer made? It's entirely against his character. He would go out of his way to create something new, if simply in spite.

But hey he misquoted somebody so nothing else in the film or his development over two movies means a thing ::)
That's one way of interpreting it, the point is that it's not the only way. This thread is proof of that - we've got multiple people saying "hey, it makes sense that David could be wrong". Even The Cruentus said that the only reason he thinks David is the creator is because Ridley Scott said so (and Ridley Scott says a lot of things :P ).

Let's try this: the movie draws really specific attention to David misattributing the creator of "Ozymandias" wrong. Why does the movie do this?

The series up to this point has shown us two seemingly contradictory things: David seeming to create the Alien or something like it, and the Derelict full of Alien eggs that seems to be very old.
You can reconcile it, but it requires taking the stance that either David is wrong, or the Derelict isn't as old as we thought. You've opted to believe one, and I've opted to believe the other. And that's okay.

SiL

SiL

#66
QuoteLet's try this: the movie draws really specific attention to David misattributing the creator of "Ozymandias" wrong. Why does the movie do this
To show he's gone nuts and is now a homicidal maniac, which is the payoff of the revelation. He's gone screwy and needs to be shut down. That's it.

Before, during and after it heavily showcases his interest in autonomy and creation. He's nobody's slave. He wouldn't recreate something from the Engineers and try to pass it off as his own; he'd have no reason to. Why not claim the accelerant was his own?

Your comparison is dishonest. Covenant doesn't "seem" to tell us David made them, it just says it. It's not implying it, it's not subtle, it's not a background detail or set dressing. The choice is "Telling us in no uncertain terms that David made the Alien" vs "the Derelict full of Alien eggs that seems old". It's never confirmed the Derelict is old, it just looks it. Even Dallas doesn't speak in an absolute. "Looks fossilised", having seen it for two minutes, not knowing that he's (apparently) looking at a space suit.

Your choice is between a definite answer and set dressing, so excuse me if I don't act like they're equivalent.

Xenomrph

Xenomrph

#67
Quote from: SiL on Jul 03, 2018, 12:26:30 PM
QuoteLet's try this: the movie draws really specific attention to David misattributing the creator of "Ozymandias" wrong. Why does the movie do this
To show he's gone nuts and is now a homicidal maniac, which is the payoff of the revelation. He's gone screwy and needs to be shut down. That's it.
He was already a homicidal maniac prior to that point, and the audience knew it. There were a million ways to show that David was screwy, and the movie deliberately fixates on David getting the author of his favorite quote wrong. He's literally misattributing the creation of one of his favorite things. Like, it's really on-the-nose.
If you think it's not important, then that's okay. That's your interpretation.

Quote from: SiL on Jul 03, 2018, 12:26:30 PMYour comparison is dishonest. Covenant doesn't "seem" to tell us David made them, it just says it. It's not implying it, it's not subtle, it's not a background detail or set dressing.
No, the movie doesn't tell us that - David tells us that, and David is a dishonest, faulty sociopath who gets it wrong when asked who created one of his favorite things. That's a really, really important distinction. Your interpretation hinges on two things: the fact that David said something, and your interpretation of his character.

That's why it seems like David created them - there's ample evidence to believe that he's wrong, especially compounded by what we see in 'Alien'. Did David actually, literally create the Alien for the first time ever? If you discard what he says because he's unreliable and literally gets creators wrong, then we actually don't know.
If you don't think the Derelict is old, then that's fine. If you want to make up reasons to rationalize why it looks old, then that's cool, too.
There's more than enough room here for more than one interpretation, and it's a shame that you don't recognize that. :)

But hey, you believe what you'd like, and I'll believe what I'd like.

SiL

SiL

#68
Quote from: Xenomrph on Jul 03, 2018, 12:57:55 PM
No, the movie doesn't tell us that - David tells us that,
The film isn't saying David misattributes his favourite quote to show he's gone crazy, Walter is!

Characters are tools used by stories to communicate ideas, concepts, emotions, etc. In this instance the film uses David to explain that he, David, made the Alien. The film does nothing specifically to contest this claim because this is what the film wants you to think. This is the intent of the author that is being communicated through the story by way of a character.

You'll argue you don't care, death of the authors, whatever. That's fine. But trying to argue that the story isn't trying to use David to communicate this information is demonstrably wrong. You can disagree with it doing so, but you can't disagree it's happening.

EDIT

I mean, you can and will disagree it's happening, sure. But you'll still be wrong.

Xenomrph

Xenomrph

#69
No, I'm not wrong, because there's more than one way to interpret what we're seeing onscreen. Your failure to recognize that people can have opinions other than your own kind of makes you look belligerent and unreasonable. Like, "other people can have different opinions" is right there in the forum rules.
You can *think* I'm wrong, just like I think you're wrong. But you aren't some holy arbiter of Univeral Truth, and excuse me if I find it distasteful when you act like you are.

Again, I agree that the movie is showing that David is creating an Alien. However, it's also showing through Walter that David gets creators wrong and that he's an unreliable source of information about creation. You're cherry-picking which characters' words to listen to - you can believe that Walter's words mean nothing, but you're demonstrably wrong. The film contests David's claim by specifically having him get the creator of one of his favorite things wrong. Like, it's not just subtext, it's full-on text. :D

Corporal Hicks

Corporal Hicks

#70
That's enough, Sil.  You're just making personal digs now and it's unwarranted.

Local Trouble

Local Trouble

#71
FWIW, I'm in the same boat as Xenomrph on this point.  I guess we're both sailing along that river in Egypt together.

𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔈𝔦𝔤𝔥𝔱𝔥 𝔓𝔞𝔰𝔰𝔢𝔫𝔤𝔢𝔯



Why has SM got Xenomrph on ignore and who got banhammered yesterday?

Xenomrph

Xenomrph

#73
Quote from: The Eighth Passenger on Jul 03, 2018, 05:25:44 PM
https://i.imgflip.com/61u9a.jpg

Why has SM got Xenomrph on ignore and who got banhammered yesterday?
I have my ideas but I won't presume to speak for SM, although it might be a conversation better suited for PMs.

I think Scorpio got banhammered yesterday in one of the threads in the AvP Literature subforum.

Quote from: Local Trouble on Jul 03, 2018, 04:41:00 PM
FWIW, I'm in the same boat as Xenomrph on this point.  I guess we're both sailing along that river in Egypt together.
Sup, Egypt sailing buddy. Want a beer?

𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔈𝔦𝔤𝔥𝔱𝔥 𝔓𝔞𝔰𝔰𝔢𝔫𝔤𝔢𝔯

Ah alright, won't pry any further, none of my business anyway. Just strange because you seem to be a decent fella.

Scorpio had it coming to him though, he's had enough warnings regarding his blatant trolling.


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