Quote from: No Name on Dec 10, 2018, 05:14:48 AM
QuoteI don't think "a whole lot of sense" is in Ridley's vocabulary. 
True, but RS's word is just one part of the equation.
Not even - "death of the author", "Ridley says a lot of things", take your pick.
Quote from: No Name on Dec 10, 2018, 05:14:48 AMQuoteThat's one interpretation, sure, but it's not the only one.
Its not an interpretation if its what we see in the movie. Again, I'm fairly sure the difference in design was due to budgetary constraints.
Do you have a source on that budgetary constraints thing? Even if it's true, I don't think it'd be much of a factor in this case. Budgetary constraints shouldn't affect an art style, not when there are literally people posting 'Alien' fan-art on deviantart that is damn near identical to Giger's style.
Quote from: No Name on Dec 10, 2018, 05:14:48 AMQuoteDialogue can have more than one meaning.
Normally true, but it looks like you're looking for scraps in this case.
You're welcome to that opinion.
Quote from: No Name on Dec 10, 2018, 05:14:48 AMQuoteI'd be okay with that. Like I said, my main issue is with the differences between the Jockey and the Engineers; I just think it would be thematically appropriate if, in addition to them being separate, that one worshipped the other.
See the issue with this approach is you're speculating on something which you think may happen, but in the process are disregarding what the film intends to show. You can do that, sure, but your speculation cannot be as equally valid as what the film directly intends. By this logic, I can say something as silly as the events in all the films after "Alien" being all a dream in Ripley's head, whose actually still in cryo sleep, and floating in space since the end of Alien.
You're acting like "intent" matters (hint: it doesn't).
Quote from: No Name on Dec 10, 2018, 05:14:48 AMQuoteIf you mean my idea that the Derelict is still ancient, as shown in 'Alien', isn't "true", then by all means prove it's false using evidence from the movies.
The movies that actually exist, since I guess I have to clarify that. 
Keep in mind that the very same evidence you'd use to prove that the Derelict isn't ancient can be used to prove that David isn't the original creator of the Alien; that might be problematic.
Yeah, that's not how it works. The onus is on you to prove your case is true, not on me to prove your case is false. The second part of that paragraph requires film 3 to exist. Not sure how you think that'll work here.
That's the point, there is no third movie.
Also, you're the one claiming that Covenant shows that all Aliens were made by David because of your predictions on where the third movie will go, so that one's on you to prove - and it seems pretty hard to prove when the third movie doesn't exist. Again, my claim is based strictly on what we see in the movies.
Quote from: No Name on Dec 10, 2018, 05:14:48 AMQuoteIt's hardly "the bottom of the barrel" when it's straight out of the movies. Answer me this: prior to Covenant, did you think the Derelict was only a couple decades old? Be honest!
Your conclusion is based on what one movie has shown you, without being connected to another movie that shows contrary evidence. It's a valid conclusion, but it's far from the only acceptable conclusion.
If Covenant didn't imply David to be the creator of the Xenomorph, you'd have a solid case. My train of thought is following the events of the films as they are unfolding. You, on the other hand, are throwing out speculations because you didn't like what you got.
It's not speculation, it's an interpretation of what we saw in 'Alien' that was valid for the past 30 years. Covenant doesn't reference the Derelict or its contents, so that interpretation stands unchanged.
Also, my reasons for why I'm arguing my point are irrelevant - Ridley Scott himself could literally be sitting next to me in my living room right now with a gun to my head, demanding that I have this conversation with you or he'll execute me, and it wouldn't matter. Attacking
why someone is interpreting something rather than the interpretation itself is generally a sign that you're starting to grasp at straws a little bit.
Quote from: No Name on Dec 10, 2018, 05:14:48 AMYes, the DL could be said to have been ancient prior to Covenant, but as it stands now, Covenant render this a moot point until film 3 explicitly shows otherwise. Covenant says David is the creator of the Xeno we see in Alien. The DL was carrying cargo containing eggs which will spawn the Xeno. Ergo the DL is not ancient as it stands. Anything else at this stage is pure speculation.
The disconnect here is that Covenant does not say David created the Alien as we see in 'Alien', it merely shows that he created an Alien or something similar to it. There's no connection to the Derelict in 'Alien' shown in Covenant. You'd have a stronger case if the Derelict didn't look (and wasn't called out by a character as being) old as shit.
Again, it's up to hypothetical film 3 to prove your case, and since it doesn't exist yet, the matter is wide open until it does.
Quote from: No Name on Dec 10, 2018, 05:14:48 AMQuoteSure it is, they're both based on evidence presented in the movies. When a major component of you declaring that your conclusion is "more valid" is citing evidence from a movie that doesn't exist because you think you can predict the future, then I think you need to step back and re-assess.
.......
I'm stating what the prequel films are directly conveying to the audience i.e. NGs = SJ and David = Xeno s' creator. How much clearer do you want me to make this for you?
And 'Alien' directly conveys to the audience that the Derelict is old, which calls David being the Alien's creator into question.
Quote from: No Name on Dec 10, 2018, 05:14:48 AMInterpretation is fine and all, but you can't just throw in ideas that go off on a different tangent from what the films directly show and then claim your tangents are more valid, or even equally valid, than the most direct and straight-forward explanations seen in these films.
It's hardly a "tangent", it's still following from what we see in 'Alien'.
Something you may not have considered is the thematic ramifications Walter and David's conversation about the Ozymandias quote, where David gets the author of the quote wrong.
Think about what's going on in that scene: David gets the author of his favorite quote wrong.
Not only does that seem awfully unlikely, given that it's his favorite quote, but what does that tell you thematically about David and his relationship to authorship?
David isn't lying when he misattributes the quote's author - he genuinely believes what he's saying, and Walter corrects him. Likewise, it can be interpreted that on a thematic level that David isn't great at attributing authorship, whether he realizes it or not. David says "I invented this Alien" and is being genuine when he says it, but that doesn't mean he's
correct, whether he realizes it or not.
One could say "Oh, David is just malfunctioning", but out of all the possible ways Ridley Scott could have chosen to convey that, he chose this specific one.
I'm pretty sure that wasn't by accident.
I take that to mean that Ridley was thematically foreshadowing where the story is going to go (and David's downfall, and the destruction of his god-complex; major components of the gothic horror themes Ridley has used in the prequels), he's throwing it in your face with a wink and a smile because it'll likely sail over most people's heads even though it's right there in front of them. Obviously we won't know for sure until the third movie comes out.
Just some food for thought.
Like I said, I think we'll have to agree to disagree, and see where the third movie takes us.
