Although I did not enjoy either A:C or Prometheus, I appreciate your insights into this movie, and see that the more than meets the eye is intriguing.

Thanks for writing.

I find a quote from Bertrand Russell useful here: “The finding of arguments for a conclusion given in advance is not philosophy, but special pleading.”

If you could find any evidence that Ridley or anyone else deliberately put those ideas into the movie, then you might have something. Otherwise it's just an accident, and you're trying to find reasons to excuse the dreck by calling it "deep." If people even agreed with your assertions, which is by no means a given.

Many of the assertions I read about this movie, among others, reminds me of an early episode of The Simpsons.

Mr. Burns: Since the beginning of time, man has yearned to destroy the sun.

Yeah? Sez who?

You are giving Ridley Scott too much credit. He is only the director. You would be justified in giving Paul Thomas Anderson this level of credit for his films, because his films are entirely his vision as he creates his characters, plots etc. Ridley Scott is not the creator of the mythos, he is simply the lens by which it is interpreted. He is not the writer like Paul Thomas Anderson is the writer of his films.

I didn't pull my ideas out of thin air. You would see it too if you paid attention to the dialogue. The following is in regards to the previous thread, not this one, which goes into the shared evolutionary motivator of humans, David as well as the xenomorphs. In Alien Ash refers to the xenomorph as:

"The perfect organism. Its structural perfection is matched only by its hostility."

"I admire its purity. A survivor... unclouded by conscience, remorse, or delusions of morality."

What does a creature have to be able to do in order to be evolutionary successful. What is the unit of measurement for success? Survival and reproduction. Humans kill and eat other organisms too in order to survive. David is synthetically given evolutionary motivators in spite of not being a product of evolution. None of what I'm saying is controversial if you pay careful attention to the dialogue and grind some gears in your brain.

In Covenant David says that he is waiting for "Mother" as he is awaiting the birth of his xenomorph creation. Why would he say this? The xenomorph shares some of the DNA of Shaw, it is a successor and continuation of Shaw. It is the most perfect manifestation of Shaw (from David's perspective).

In Prometheus the notion that David regarded Weyland as a father figure is laden throughout, the notion of rebellion against the father is also apparent if you listen to him. I will have to rewatch it to give you the exact quotes.

But you see, just because Ash - or David, for that matter - says it (i.e., that the writers/directors HAVE THEM say it) doesn't make it valid or true. Indeed, the single biggest reason why the xenomorphs are NOT successful, not even as predators but especially not as regular life forms - is because they require another host organism to reproduce, one to one, and that other organism is destroyed in the process. No matter how "Creepy" that is, or how "Sexual" the process is supposed to appear to us, and we're evidently supposed to think "oh wow, that's so DEEP! why, I haven't thought about things like that since... oh, JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL," doesn't change any of that.

@Knixon said:

But you see, just because Ash - or David, for that matter - says it (i.e., that the writers/directors HAVE THEM say it) doesn't make it valid or true.

What? I don't understand what you mean here. Macbeth kills the king and becomes king, he has reasoning for doing so, is his reasoning valid or true?

You seem to have an abrasive mentality towards thought and analysis of themes in general. That's fine, different people have different preferences. For me personally, it seems like a boring world to live in where everything must be taken at face value. Everything must be appreciated for the voyeuristic pleasure it provides and nothing can have deeper meanings. The world is a shallow flat surface. You must REALLY hate modern art. How dare those artists make a mockery of art by obfuscating the truth underneath layers of allegory, I want my Mona Lisa god dammit! But again, I can appreciate that you have different preferences from my own. I don't expect or require that the world be homogeneous where my view is the only view worthy of merit. And, you may be right, maybe I'm over appreciating where there is nothing to be appreciated. I don't claim to know everything, I only have my interpretation.

You hit it at the end. You only have YOUR interpretation. And here's just one example of why you shouldn't try to apply it to large-audience situations and expect that others will see the same "hidden meaning" or even believe there's any "hidden meaning" at all. Especially if you have no real evidence that it's actually there, especially on purpose.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cl66ilQCCNs

Since, as I posted earlier, the xenomorphs really aren't a successful life form, what sense does it make for David to perpetuate them, or aim them in a certain direction or whatever? And in any event, it (David) didn't create life even if it (David) used Shaw or parts of Shaw to modify them. Nor is it necessarily the case that it (David) intended to emulate its (David's) his own pointless creation the way it (David) might see it, and you might see it, as being pointless. For one thing, David might very well simply have been defective/insane. In which case there's probably very little to be gained from trying to "understand" its (David's) supposed/so-called (for something that' s not really alive) "motivations."

@Knixon said:

Since, as I posted earlier, the xenomorphs really aren't a successful life form, what sense does it make for David to perpetuate them, or aim them in a certain direction or whatever? And in any event, it (David) didn't create life even if it (David) used Shaw or parts of Shaw to modify them. Nor is it necessarily the case that it (David) intended to emulate its (David's) his own pointless creation the way it (David) might see it, and you might see it, as being pointless. For one thing, David might very well simply have been defective/insane. In which case there's probably very little to be gained from trying to "understand" its (David's) supposed/so-called (for something that' s not really alive) "motivations."

That's a fine interpretation. You are entitled to it. But, forgive me for seeing that as a shallow interpretation and for preferring my own.

Calling someone a sociopath is a great way to stop further analysis. Hitler did what he did because he's a sociopath and let's stop there. Serial killers do what they do because they are sociopaths, further analysis is redundant. It is comforting to think this. They are not humans like you or I, there is the inextricable barrier of sociopathy that separates humanity from the monsters, I could never be like them because I'm not a monster. The complacent German soldiers were all sociopaths and monsters. The participants in the Milgram experiment were all sociopaths and monsters. The guards in the Stanford Prison experiment were all sociopaths are monsters. Not like me. It's pointless to analyze the topic further.

The degree of separation between the self and "evil" must be present in order to maintain one's sanity. The German soldiers maintained it with ease, "we were simply following orders". "I" can never be evil, it is impossible.

"There is no sun without shadow, and it is essential to know the night ...not that night that is born under closed eyelids and through the mere will of man-- dark, impenetrable night that the mind calls up in order to plunge into it." -Albert Camus

In conclusion, I respect your interpretation, albeit I regard it as escapist.

@Geff said:

In conclusion, I respect your interpretation, albeit I regard it as escapist.

But that doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong. What I see too much of is navel-gazing, and over-interpreting things to make it seem more complex than it really may be, for various reasons. One possible reason being that if you (unnecessarily) make something more complex, but YOU understand it, then you're really just patting yourself on the back for "understanding" things other people don't.

I could even point to something like the history of astronomy for that. For a long time, people believed that Earth (us) was at the center of everything. When observed behavior of planets defied that, they came up with stuff like "epicycles" so they could continue to believe Earth (us) was at the center. It was far simpler - and, it turned out, actually true - to accept that Earth was not at the center, but they wouldn't/couldn't.

I also don't assume - no matter who might tell me so - that David was alive and had some kind of psyche to psyche-/psycho-analyze. David was a machine. And if it malfunctioned, then it was damaged/defective.

@Knixon said:

I could even point to something like the history of astronomy for that. For a long time, people believed that Earth (us) was at the center of everything. When observed behavior of planets defied that, they came up with stuff like "epicycles" so they could continue to believe Earth (us) was at the center. It was far simpler - and, it turned out, actually true - to accept that Earth was not at the center, but they wouldn't/couldn't.

Invalid analogy. There is an objective truth as to how the planets are organized in the solar system. In the case of film, the writer or director often intentionally put in multiple possible conclusions and sometimes different conclusions may be reached depending on the audiences' level of analysis. A prime example of this is the in the film The Wailing, where two separate and distinct interpretations can be reached even at the highest level of analysis and it is impossible to know which interpretation is correct, this is the intended effect by the filmmaker. The audience can still hold an interpretation and they can debate as to which interpretation is correct and it can be a rewarding discussion.

Ambiguity is a tool used in creative writing to improve the quality of the writing. You may scoff at the idea of hidden meanings to be discovered by the audience, but the fact of the matter is that they exist in in art. Was the Wizard of Oz just a film about a girl who goes to Oz and then returns to Kansas, and that's the end of it? Is a million dollar piece of art that's just a urinal, just a urinal? Or, is it a commentary on the absurdism of attaching a monetary value to art and gauging the quality of the art based on the monetary value? The truth is there is no objective answer, it neither is a commentary on the absurdism of capitalism's value system, nor is it not a commentary on said absurdism. It's based on the audience experience.

@Knixon said:

I also don't assume - no matter who might tell me so - that David was alive and had some kind of psyche to psyche-/psycho-analyze.

If someone you know, let's say your best friend, were secretly replaced by an android and the android perfectly emulates the behaviors of your friend. You do not know that your friend is an android. Would you assume that your friend is not alive, or conscious? How do you know that any person is conscious? It is impossible "know", you only know that you are conscious and you make a deduction that they are too. This motif is explored in Ex Machina.

@Knixon said:

David was a machine. And if it malfunctioned, then it was damaged/defective.

Take all of World War II and keep the events exactly as they are. Then replace "aryan race" with "synthetic life". Is Hitler too a malfunctioning android that is damaged/defective and impossible to psycho-analyze?

Talk about invalid analogies...

And there's no more reason for David to "think" of Weyland as its God, than their is for human children to think of their parents as God(s).

God doesn't create "life" (really just a robot) in a factory. God creates LIFE from NOTHING.