User Information

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

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Still Out There...  (Read 1382 times)

Xenomrph
May 01, 2019, 09:56:18 AM
Reply #15 on: May 01, 2019, 09:56:18 AM
Q
There's nothing to discuss. Its just a personal choice of whether you accept the titan books, or Scott's intentions.
Well, that too. Also, it's "Scott's current intentions, in the moment, which change frequently" but that's neither here nor there. :P


The Kurgan
May 01, 2019, 10:01:43 AM
Reply #16 on: May 01, 2019, 10:01:43 AM
Q
Man at this point it feels like you're actively trying to miss the point for the sake of an argument.
When the counter to "Not all sources can be traced back to David" is "they will be, eventually", it's not exactly a compelling argument. Call me when they've wrapped up the myriad loose ends I guess. :)

Edit-- made a pretty important change to back things away from being a "canon debate".

But the counter to "Not all sources can be traced back to David" is not "they will be, eventually". It is, that "They infact are".

Shown on screen, as intended.


SiL
May 01, 2019, 10:04:49 AM
Reply #17 on: May 01, 2019, 10:04:49 AM
Q
When the counter to "Not all sources can be traced back to David" is "they will be, eventually", it's not exactly a compelling argument.
That's a purposefully ignorant simplification of what Hicks has been saying at best -- again for the sake of argument.

Fox is going with David made the Aliens at the moment whether you like it or not. All roads lead to Rome. Why you insist on arguing like that's not the case is anyone's guess.

There's nothing to discuss. Its just a personal choice of whether you accept the titan books, or Scott's intentions.
It's whether you care what Fox is operating on as a canon timeline, not books vs Scott.


Xenomrph
May 01, 2019, 10:17:02 AM
Reply #18 on: May 01, 2019, 10:17:02 AM
Q
Man at this point it feels like you're actively trying to miss the point for the sake of an argument.
When the counter to "Not all sources can be traced back to David" is "they will be, eventually", it's not exactly a compelling argument. Call me when they've wrapped up the myriad loose ends I guess. :)

Edit-- made a pretty important change to back things away from being a "canon debate".

But the counter to "Not all sources can be traced back to David" is not "they will be, eventually". It is, that "They infact are".

Shown on screen, as intended.
At risk of continuing the "canon debate", they're not shown "on screen", like, at all. The Derelict isn't in Alien Covenant, and we don't know the source of the eggs for a myriad of other non-movie sources. Regardless of intent, it has not been explained yet how a whole bunch of egg sources can be traced back to David.

When the counter to "Not all sources can be traced back to David" is "they will be, eventually", it's not exactly a compelling argument.
That's a purposefully ignorant simplification of what Hicks has been saying at best -- again for the sake of argument.

Fox is going with David made the Aliens at the moment whether you like it or not. All roads lead to Rome. Why you insist on arguing like that's not the case is anyone's guess
It's not that I'm oversimplifying Hicks' point for the sake of an argument, it's that I think his point is profoundly silly, achieves nothing, and doesn't actually change anything I said - and oversimplifying it is one way to demonstrate that.

Call me when they've wrapped up the myriad loose ends I guess. :)

« Last Edit: May 01, 2019, 10:22:41 AM by Xenomrph »

SiL
May 01, 2019, 10:31:11 AM
Reply #19 on: May 01, 2019, 10:31:11 AM
Q
It's not that I'm oversimplifying Hicks' point for the sake of an argument, it's that I think his point is profoundly silly, achieves nothing, and doesn't actually change anything I said - and oversimplifying it is one way to demonstrate that.
You're intentionally leaving out the context -- the substance of what's being said -- when you simplify it, making your post incredibly vapid and -- again -- doing little more than to give yourself an excuse to argue about stuff for no reason.


Corporal Hicks
May 01, 2019, 10:32:24 AM
Reply #20 on: May 01, 2019, 10:32:24 AM
Q
It's not that I'm oversimplifying Hicks' point for the sake of an argument, it's that I think his point is profoundly silly, achieves nothing, and doesn't actually change anything I said - and oversimplifying it is one way to demonstrate that.

Assuming you're referring to me explaining what SM was likely meaning - feel free to step in and correct me if I was wrong, SM - then no, it's not silly nor does it achieve nothing as I was quite clear in my explanation as it's a simple answer. If David is responsible for the creation of the Alien, then yes, then all sources of the Alien obviously have to lead back to David in some fashion.

« Last Edit: May 01, 2019, 10:34:10 AM by Corporal Hicks »

Xenomrph
May 01, 2019, 10:35:34 AM
Reply #21 on: May 01, 2019, 10:35:34 AM
Q
It's not that I'm oversimplifying Hicks' point for the sake of an argument, it's that I think his point is profoundly silly, achieves nothing, and doesn't actually change anything I said - and oversimplifying it is one way to demonstrate that.

Assuming you're referring to me explaining what SM was likely meaning - feel free to step in and correct me if I was wrong, SM - then no, it's not silly nor does it achieve nothing as I was quite clear in my explanation as it's a simple answer. If David is responsible for the creation of the Alien, then yes, they all obviously have to lead back to David in some fashion.
Okay, and?
"Not all sources can be traced back to David" is still a true statement at the moment. Even if they eventually will be or have to be or whatever, regardless of "intent", they have not actually in fact been traced back to David yet.

Also I think some people might be conflating Scott's intent and FOX's, but that's neither here nor there.

It's not that I'm oversimplifying Hicks' point for the sake of an argument, it's that I think his point is profoundly silly, achieves nothing, and doesn't actually change anything I said - and oversimplifying it is one way to demonstrate that.
You're intentionally leaving out the context -- the substance of what's being said -- when you simplify it, making your post incredibly vapid and -- again -- doing little more than to give yourself an excuse to argue about stuff for no reason.
Call me when they've wrapped up the myriad loose ends I guess. :)


Corporal Hicks
May 01, 2019, 10:37:42 AM
Reply #22 on: May 01, 2019, 10:37:42 AM
Q
And what?

What's your point? Is this just another "David didn't make the Alien" argument?



SiL
May 01, 2019, 10:40:40 AM
Reply #24 on: May 01, 2019, 10:40:40 AM
Q
Are you really not seeing how profoundly silly your own argument is?

"He made them. Literally the entire species was made by this guy."
"That doesn't mean the entire species can be traced back to him."

Are you actually just taking the piss or what, because I cannot fathom how you think you're making a sensible argument at this point ???


Xenomrph
May 01, 2019, 10:41:36 AM
Reply #25 on: May 01, 2019, 10:41:36 AM
Q
Are you really not seeing how profoundly silly your own argument is?

"He made them. Literally the entire species was made by this guy."
"That doesn't mean the entire species can be traced back to him."

Are you actually just taking the piss or what, because I cannot fathom how you think you're making a sensible argument at this point ???

More like "if David made the Alien, then someone got a whole lotta 'splaining to do."
I'm not sure this can be any clearer. ???


SiL
May 01, 2019, 10:44:37 AM
Reply #26 on: May 01, 2019, 10:44:37 AM
Q
Hicks also said there's 'splaining to do -- one might even say eventually, since it's not instantaneous -- and you said that was "profoundly silly". You're not being clear at all.


Corporal Hicks
May 01, 2019, 10:46:39 AM
Reply #27 on: May 01, 2019, 10:46:39 AM
Q
Yeah, I have to say you're not being clear. It seems like you're just picking arguments and being frustrating to deal with at this point.

Obviously if they go all out with the David = creator angle, things will need explaining. Or more likely, wiping and starting from scratch again.


Xenomrph
May 01, 2019, 10:55:55 AM
Reply #28 on: May 01, 2019, 10:55:55 AM
Q
Hicks also said there's 'splaining to do -- one might even say eventually, since it's not instantaneous -- and you said that was "profoundly silly". You're not being clear at all.
I've been responding to this post.
If he agrees that there's a whole lot of 'splaining to do then hey awesome, I think we're on the same page. :)
The part I see as silly is relying on an unreliable "intent" from a person known for changing his intent, especially when we've got a license-holder who is continually cranking out new material that makes said intent increasingly difficult to explain or justify without contorting ourselves into pretzels. It's almost as if FOX's "intent" (inferred from the material they keep authorizing and publishing) doesn't quite line up with Scott's.

Obviously if they go all out with the David = creator angle, things will need explaining. Or more likely, wiping and starting from scratch again.
I'm interested to see how Disney handles things, or if they step in at all.


SiL
May 01, 2019, 11:08:59 AM
Reply #29 on: May 01, 2019, 11:08:59 AM
Q
Quote
If he agrees that there's a whole lot of 'splaining to do then hey awesome, I think we're on the same page.
One might have very, very easily inferred that's what he was saying from the outset with "if they stick on that trajectory they'll have to trace back to him eventually" but hey.


 

Facebook Twitter Instagram Steam RSS Feed