|
Xenomrph posted:Like yeah sure I can agree that Ripley isn't anticapitalist, but there are way easier ways to argue that point than claiming the Company wants to destroy the Aliens (a claim that's shown to be objectively false across 3 movies). I did not say that the corporation has always wanted to destroy aliens. I wrote that destroying the aliens did not go against the interests of the corporation in this film. The loss of the facility is a simple write-off, and they still have a functioning 'bioweapons division' . Nonetheless, there is absolutely no evidence - in James Cameron's film - that the company is attempting to weaponize the alien. Bishop even explains that Ash and Mother's actions were merely the result of bad programming, which had been fixed now. And he proves it - a 'nice drone', as opposed to the scary thug drones. Bishop is a very successful bioweapon. You say other films disagree, and that is the point: Ripley is a very different character in all the other films. The franchise cannot be approached as a single homogeneous mass. Aliens is a liberal film. Alien is not. Now, altough I am pointing out Ripley's ideological limitations in the film, we can say - in fairness - that she is vaguely on the socialist end of the liberal spectrum. She is not against corporate capitalism at all, but she does stand for more regulation than your typical liberal. The issue is that Ripley retreats from the full implications of what happened. In the superior First Avenger and Battle: Los Angeles, the protagonists resolve to never, ever stop fighting.
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 16:45 |
|
|
Bishop never mentions Mother at all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
zVxTeflon posted:Bishop never mentions Mother at all. Correct: Mother is retconned away in Aliens, and never mentioned by anyone. Mother's actions are merged together with Ash's, and explained away as Ash being a 'twitchy' old model. This retcon was necessary to explain why Ripley would ever voluntarily work for the corporation again after Alien. And it's necessary for Ripley to work with the corporation because Aliens is a liberal film.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 22:50
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Ripley is a very different character in all the other films. The franchise cannot be approached as a single homogeneous mass. Aliens is a liberal film. Alien is not. If anything it's the other way around. In Alien she's the responsible and trusted crew member. She's the right hand woman to the captain, and a contrast to the conniving working class guys who feel entitled to more pay. She's changed, yes, in Aliens she's thoroughly disillusioned with the company and she's lost all of her stature in capitalism, which Burke tries and fails(!) to exploit by promising her a return to glory if she plays ball. She's got no illusions about going back to be a hero either, she knows full well that everyone down there is dead. What she does have is PTSD or something like it, a fixation on what happened to her, and possibly a secret desire to reenact it. That is her motivation for going back, trying to end the nightmare(s) that has become her life. That's pretty much also Cameron own reading for her motivations, not that I think that necessarily makes it carry any more weight.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
As for there being no evidence in Cameron's film that the company wants to weaponize the alien, at 1:21:44 into the theatrical version is this: BURKE Look, those two specimens are worth millions to the bioweapons division. This line appears in both versions of the film, and I'm pretty sure it's in every single version of the script, from development through shooting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 23:40
|
|
|
MrMojok posted:As for there being no evidence in Cameron's film that the company wants to weaponize the alien, at 1:21:44 into the theatrical version is this: I quoted that exact line in the post you are responding to. You need to read carefully. I did not write that there is "no evidence in Cameron's film that the company wants to weaponize the alien." I wrote that there is "no evidence - in James Cameron's film - that the company is attempting to weaponize the alien." Spot the difference; 'wanting' and 'attempting' are different words. Burke concocts a whole scheme because W-Y is not pursuing the alien tech. That's why he has to break a bunch of customs laws, kill people, cover it up, etc. Burke's wager is that - if he hands the company an alien on a silver platter, saying it was obtained totally by accident - the company will make him an offer. But until that happens, all the higher-ups in the company dismiss the aliens as nonsense. They're certainly not willing to break the law, risk lives, etc. The company in Aliens - decades after Alien - is very different. People are having trouble with the concept of ideological critique. The assertion is that Ripley is a liberal who pushes for responsible, 'green' corporate practices. Yet the response is that Weyland Yutani is very bad and not 'green' and Ripley hates them - which has nothing to do with what's being asserted. It should be extremely easy to prove that Ripley is not a liberal in Aliens, or that Aliens is criticizing/satirizing her.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 00:34
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:Well sure, but egg morphing predates the Queen concept. It only looks inefficient in hindsight. That's lame as poo poo, I prefer the molting method to replace or make a queen in the first place. zVxTeflon posted:Seems pretty inefficient to need 2 hosts per 1 alien. Take a drink for how many times "perfect" or "Perfect lifeform" is said in these movies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 00:50
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:People are having trouble with the concept of ideological critique. The assertion is that Ripley is a liberal who pushes for responsible, 'green' corporate practices. Yet the response is that Weyland Yutani is very bad and not 'green' and Ripley hates them - which has nothing to do with what's being asserted. There are no other corporations shown in the film. Weyland-Yutani isn't just a corporation, it is the corporation; they represent the corporate world as a whole, not just one singular malicious actor within it. W-Y being shown as horrendous and Ripley having no fondness for them can, as such, be taken as "corporations are horrendous and Ripley has no fondness for the corporate world." That's the thing you're missing here, I think (and which, to be fair, I failed to articulate earlier). W-Y isn't treated as its own distinct entity in a world of other corporations, it is the singular corporation. It represents corporations as an idea. As far as Ripley's ideology in the film: could you support your assertion with the text of the film? I'm curious where you're coming from on this, because while I can see it at the very beginning of the film (before she's aware that W-Y is inherently and unilaterally malicious) her eventual conclusion is that they must be destroyed entirely, rather than pushed towards any particular good practice. The nuking of the colony is the first step towards this. Essentially: Aliens is about a liberal's awakening to leftist ideology.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 00:53
|
|
|
Tenzarin posted:That's lame as poo poo, I prefer the molting method to replace or make a queen in the first place. So like....4 or 5 sips?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 01:00
|
|
|
Yeah, I guess Burke as the rogue actor in all this is pretty much established. I don't buy at all the idea that W-Y is somehow a kinder, gentler benevolent mega-corporation in 2179 than they were in 2122, though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 01:14
|
|
|
If it's okay for Aliens to be different from Alien, it's okay for Alien 3 to be different from Aliens. Checkmate, Aliensists. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
MonsieurChoc posted:If it's okay for Aliens to be different from Alien, it's okay for Alien 3 to be different from Aliens. The problem with Alien 3 isn't that its different than Aliens, its that the various bald white guys in the cast were indistinguishable from one another. The truth is I've seen Alien 3 about as many times as Aliens, and there's way more memorable characters in Aliens. Its not even close.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 01:22
|
|
|
MrMojok posted:Yeah, I guess Burke as the rogue actor in all this is pretty much established. They aren't, and Alien3 (also set in 2179) confirms that repeatedly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 01:50
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Correct: Mother is retconned away in Aliens, and never mentioned by anyone. Mother's actions are merged together with Ash's, and explained away as Ash being a 'twitchy' old model.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 02:43
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Burke concocts a whole scheme because W-Y is not pursuing the alien tech. That's why he has to break a bunch of customs laws, kill people, cover it up, etc. Burke's wager is that - if he hands the company an alien on a silver platter, saying it was obtained totally by accident - the company will make him an offer. But until that happens, all the higher-ups in the company dismiss the aliens as nonsense. They're certainly not willing to break the law, risk lives, etc. The company in Aliens - decades after Alien - is very different. No he does not. He concocts it because he's not willing to settle for a small share of the profits. The following quote tells us that the company is just as willing to profit from the aliens, but he's trying to take advantage of the skepticism of the current board in order to be the first out of the door. Burke posted:"Okay, look. What if that ship didn't even exist, huh? Did you ever think about that? I didn't know! So now, if I went in and made a major security issue out of it, everybody steps in. Administration steps in, and there are no exclusive rights for anybody; nobody wins." thotsky fucked around with this message at 02:58 on Jul 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 02:55
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:They aren't, and Alien3 (also set in 2179) confirms that repeatedly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 03:00
|
|
Biomute posted:No he does not. He concocts it because he's not willing to settle for a small share of the profits. The following quote tells us that the company is just as willing to profit from the aliens, but he's trying to take advantage of the skepticism of the current board in order to be the first out of the door. Yeah, the other Company higherups also heard Ripley's story and it's not like they went and "made a major security issue out of it". They were absolutely willing to "risk lives", if only by omission.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 04:00
|
|
|
LORD OF BOOTY posted:There are no other corporations shown in the film. Weyland-Yutani isn't just a corporation, it is the corporation; they represent the corporate world as a whole, not just one singular malicious actor within it. W-Y being shown as horrendous and Ripley having no fondness for them can, as such, be taken as "corporations are horrendous and Ripley has no fondness for the corporate world." Simply look at how Ripley deals with her various enemies. Dealing with aliens: "I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit; it's the only way to be sure." Dealing with Burke: "No! [Don't kill him.] He's got to go back [to stand trial]." Dealing with Weyland-Yutani: "...." Dealing with all other corporations/capitalism in general: "...." What Ripley's actions reveal is that her "I don't know what species is worse" line is fronting. She absolutely does have a set hierarchy: aliens get immediate death, criminals have the right to a fair trial, and everyone else is merely human. Now, you can look to the radical point of Prometheus and District 9: the alien drones stand for the Neighbour in Christ's "love thy Neighbour." Political love - agape. Paraphrasing Zizek: "'Love thy neighbour' means loving the xenomorph, OR IT MEANS NOTHING AT ALL." And this is precisely what doesn't happen in Aliens. Ripley is merely a humanist, and these politics of the inhuman are a threat to her. When she overcomes her robo-racism towards Bishop, it's specifically because Bishop is humanized: an artificial person, with emphasis on his personality. And then he replaces Newt's dead brother in this new family. (Think communication with the alien is impossible? In Alien3, Ripley practically has a full-fledged conversation with the xenomorph. It's simply very difficult.) People are saying the company is bad because it makes weapons, but that's a single offhand comment in a very lengthy film. What we spend the entire film actually watching is this impressive terraforming complex. That's what should be rejected: the violence of 'building better worlds' far surpasses anything the aliens could do. No other weapon is as strong. Picture a basic reversal, where Ripley fights tirelessly to nuke W-Y HQ from orbit while remaining indifferent to the aliens. Like, what are the aliens going to do to us without human help? They can't even leave the moon, but Ripley is Ahab-obsessed with them. That's because of her ideology.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 04:32
|
|
|
zVxTeflon posted:Ripley says they'll kill everyone for having seen the alien but they bandage up Morse and take him with them. Well sure, it makes sense to interrogate him for what he saw.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 05:49
|
|
|
They know what he saw. He saw an alien
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 05:59
|
|
|
zVxTeflon posted:He saw an alien Whoop-dee-loving-doo, I'm impressed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 06:18
|
|
|
Sigourney Weaver was skeptical of Cameron's sequel and didn't understand why Ripley would have a personal hatred for the aliens.The maternal angle gave her an arc to work with, but she always maintained her desire for Ripley to have sex with an alien. She didn't even want to wear underwear in Alien; she imagined the creature would be transfixed by her as she took off her clothes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 06:20
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:
Personally I always thought the reason she wanted him to go back was to use him to damage the company's reputation. Then leverage popular discontent with the company into ARMED REVOLUTION.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 06:22
|
|
|
Toady posted:Sigourney Weaver was skeptical of Cameron's sequel and didn't understand why Ripley would have a personal hatred for the aliens.The maternal angle gave her an arc to work with, but she always maintained her desire for Ripley to have sex with an alien. She didn't even want to wear underwear in Alien; she imagined the creature would be transfixed by her as she took off her clothes. Yeah the Alien movies as written and directed by Sigourney Weaver would be pretty wild, to put it mildly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 06:41
|
|
|
Clipperton posted:Personally I always thought the reason she wanted him to go back was to use him to damage the company's reputation. Then leverage popular discontent with the company into ARMED REVOLUTION. Yeah, I always interpreted this more or less the same way. Bringing him back alive plus the testimony of all the soldiers plus what ever evidence might actually hurt the company in a meaningful way. She probably knew the corporation would some how escape justice or buy their way out, but it was her only shot at ever hurting them, a tiny chance at some justice in the world.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 06:48
|
|
|
zVxTeflon posted:They know what he saw. He saw an alien Well I think they could get a bit more relevant info out of him. As an aside, "canonically" they interrogate him and then let him go (as in, he gets transferred to another prison), where he writes a book about his experience at Fury 161 called 'Star Beast'.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 07:23
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Yeah, I always interpreted this more or less the same way. Bringing him back alive plus the testimony of all the soldiers plus what ever evidence might actually hurt the company in a meaningful way. She probably knew the corporation would some how escape justice or buy their way out, but it was her only shot at ever hurting them, a tiny chance at some justice in the world. Unfortunately, that's not at all what happens in the film. Ripley is absolutely clear that her intentions are to punish Burke for his betrayal of humanity. Ripley says absolutely nothing about using evidence to bring down Weyland-Yutani, because there is no evidence against Weyland-Yutani. Because the Weyland-Yutani has done absolutely nothing illegal in this film. We should be very clear: Weyland-Yutani haven't even done anything immoral in this film. They have done nothing but begin construction for a mining operation on some obscure, barren rock. If you're talking justice, you need to talk emancipatory justice. And that would entail helping to free all the workers from exploitation - especially in the colonies where everything is functioning smoothly. Ripley says absolutely nothing about these 'peaceful' colonies, because she doesn't care about the exploitation going on in the 'peaceful' colonies. She only cares about her war with the greedy aliens, and their collaborator Burke.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 08:43
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Unfortunately, that's not at all what happens in the film. Ripley is absolutely clear that her intentions are to punish Burke for his betrayal of humanity. Actually, colonizing the planet when you have existing evidence that it contains dangerous lifeforms and not evacuating it when you get further confirmation, is grounds for all sorts of legal proceedings even by our crude twenty-first century laws. Weyland Yutani is not at any time in any movie established as a company that acts within a morally or legally acceptable framework, and without even touching that you're really trying to get blood from a stone with your willful refusal to read actual movie text. Not implication, not subtext, just straightforward text. There's really nothing further to discuss because none of your theories have basis in text.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 09:08
|
|
|
Ripley spares Burke to reinforce that she's morally superior to human-killers. SuperMechaGodzilla is right that this is a different Ripley from the stoic warrant officer who was willing to let Kane die. Cameron's Ripley would be the one to open the door while people yelled at her about quarantine protocol because "Goddammit, there's got to be a way to save him" or something.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 09:36
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:Actually, colonizing the planet when you have existing evidence that it contains dangerous lifeforms and not evacuating it when you get further confirmation, is grounds for all sorts of legal proceedings even by our crude twenty-first century laws. Weyland Yutani is not at any time in any movie established as a company that acts within a morally or legally acceptable framework, and without even touching that you're really trying to get blood from a stone with your willful refusal to read actual movie text. Not implication, not subtext, just straightforward text. There's really nothing further to discuss because none of your theories have basis in text. Wait, WY doesn't know anything about the wreck/aliens before they start colonizing the planet, do they?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 09:36
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:Actually, colonizing the planet when you have existing evidence that it contains dangerous lifeforms and not evacuating it when you get further confirmation, is grounds for all sorts of legal proceedings even by our crude twenty-first century laws. Weyland Yutani is not at any time in any movie established as a company that acts within a morally or legally acceptable framework, and without even touching that you're really trying to get blood from a stone with your willful refusal to read actual movie text. Not implication, not subtext, just straightforward text. There's really nothing further to discuss because none of your theories have basis in text. I'm pretty sure if you were building being a new house and you uncover alien eggs, you wont be liable. You cant do illegal stuff for stuff that doesn't exist or found yet. Can we get in trouble for broadcasting where the white house is to aliens?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 09:38
|
|
|
Shanty posted:Wait, WY doesn't know anything about the wreck/aliens before they start colonizing the planet, do they? Are there any species like this hostile organism on LV-426? No its a rock, no indigenous life.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 09:41
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:Yeah the Alien movies as written and directed by Sigourney Weaver would be pretty wild, to put it mildly. She didn't understand why Ripley would feel animosity toward the aliens because she believed that, as a scientist, Ripley would feel sympathy for them as animals. The genesis of her desire for Ripley to have a sexual encounter with one of them was the nudity that was originally conceived for the final scene of Alien. She imagined the creature would be fascinated by the shedding of her green shell and reveal of pink skin, and it would be moved in some way by her softness. We would be seeing her through the alien's eyes. This would have tied back to the original concept for the hypersleep birthing scene in which everyone emerged nude in visual contrast with the harsh industrial design of the ship.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 09:41
|
|
|
Shanty posted:Wait, WY doesn't know anything about the wreck/aliens before they start colonizing the planet, do they? They would in fact have to know on at least a bureaucratic basis, because someone ordered the lifeform extracted (ALL CREW EXPENDABLE) in the first film.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 09:55
|
|
|
I guess Mars really did need women, or whatever the gently caress the alien homeworld is. Knowing the EU i bet the homeworld is just a giant rear end.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 11:32
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:They would in fact have to know on at least a bureaucratic basis, because someone ordered the lifeform extracted (ALL CREW EXPENDABLE) in the first film. That's true. It seems like that kind of got lost between films, though, or the company would surely have been sending colonists out to survey every inch of the planet?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 12:00
|
|
|
Shanty posted:That's true. It seems like that kind of got lost between films, though, or the company would surely have been sending colonists out to survey every inch of the planet? It's possible (correct me if I'm wrong) that Special Order 937 was a standing order such as the one requiring commercial crews to investigate signs of extra-terrestrial life, and thus the destruction of MOTHER and Ash ensured that Weyland-Yutani never learned of the xenomorphs. The most popular sequence of events suggest that WY knew of the xenomorphs before the events of Alien and placed Ash aboard the Nostromo knowing it would pass close by, but I think an alternative read would be the Nostromo passing LV-426 by coincidence and the whole WY plot being a pre-programmed sequence of events. thotsky fucked around with this message at 12:27 on Jul 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 12:22
|
|
|
Sigourney Weaver is kind of weird
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 12:59
|
|
|
Sigourney weirder
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 12:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 16:45 |
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:We should be very clear: Weyland-Yutani haven't even done anything immoral in this film. They have done nothing but begin construction for a mining operation on some obscure, barren rock. Burke sends Newt's family off to investigate the ship without warning them about the aliens.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 13:22
|
|
