Alien or Aliens?

Tools    





When you say "knowing that the boogie bear will jump out and kill 'em at any moment" I'm not sure weather you mean the characters did illogical things (wandering from safety, only to be picked off by the creature), which in my opinion can be insanely irritating and ruin any horror film, but in fact did not happen in this film.
Ahhh, but it did happen in Alien. There's the usual warning about everyone stay together for safety, and then somebody misses her cat and sets off to find it. Then the big black dude sets off to find the person looking for the cat, then they wander down dark corridors, never turning on the lights. He comes face to face with the monster that then spears him with his pointy tail. As I recall, the female stands there screaming until she becomes blood-splatter on the wall. One of the dumbest cliches used in horror film after horror film after horror film.

PS: after posting this, I looked up a synopsis of the film just to determine who's right and found this:

"Picking up a signal, Parker, Brett, and Ripley think they have the creature cornered, only to discover the crew's cat, Jones. Realizing they might pick up the cat on the tracker again later, Parker sends Brett to catch Jones. During his search, Brett encounters the alien, now fully grown and enormous, and it attacks him, dragging him, bloodied and screaming, into an air shaft."

Not quite the same as I "remembered" it from decades ago, but definitely an expendable cast member. The synopsis also said another character, Dallas, goes into the air shafts to hunt down and kill the creature. Now a guy who sets out by himself to hunt down an "enormous" hungry creature in a maze of air shafts might as well have "expendable cast member" tatooed on his forehead. Sure enough, he doesn't survive.


Or ..... that your saying you knew that the characters (some "expendable" in your opinion) were going to wander and get picked off. If the latter, your an idiot for not assuming that some of the cast members were going to be killed off ...
Whoooa, hold up, Homer---only good friends and ex-wives know me well enough to address me as "idiot." You're either gonna have to hang with me awhile or we'll elope.

But don't tell me you've never noticed the expendable cast members in space and other films? Like if Capt. Kirk, Spock, Bones, and two actors you haven't seen before in the series and aren't listed as guest star, transport down to the surface of an unknown planet, you can bet those two expendable no-name crewmen will not be making the trip back to the Enterprise. Like you said, somebody has to die and you know it won't be the main characters--hence, the expendable extras are the ones who become cannon fodder or lizard poop.

In Alien, people were killed off in reverse order of their importance to the rest of the film; ergo the first to go were the most expendable.

Neither, the fact that you haven't seen Aliens makes your participation in the thread, somewhat .......... pointless.
The sharing of information and opinion among humans is never "pointless." My response may not please you, but if it were "pointless," why did you feel compelled to reply?



considering what Cameron put up on screen and the hostile British crew (many of them patriotic veterans of Ridley's original) he had to work with.
I believe they had to put up with james Cameron as much as he had to put up with them. Its actually quit funny that they don't even try and sensor any of that stuff in the 9 disk box set of the Alien Quad. James Cameron quit frankly talks to his crew like their pieces of **** on the bottom of his shoe and they respond like Zombies with no initiative, never mind desire.

Of course its difficult to ascertain who started the argument once a series of tit-for-tat petty procedures have gone on (normally worsening with every transaction). But your rite. james Cameron actually at some stage ended up in a scuffle with a camera operator, such was the tension on set. As for the tea time hupla, I say, if your filming in England with an English crew, you adhere to their way of life.



Ahhh, but it did happen in Alien. There's the usual warning about everyone stay together for safety, and then somebody misses her cat and sets off to find it. Then the big black dude sets off to find the person looking for the cat, then they wander down dark corridors, never turning on the lights. He comes face to face with the monster that then spears him with his pointy tail. As I recall, the female stands there screaming until she becomes blood-splatter on the wall. One of the dumbest cliches used in horror film after horror film after horror film.

PS: after posting this, I looked up a synopsis of the film just to determine who's right and found this:

"Picking up a signal, Parker, Brett, and Ripley think they have the creature cornered, only to discover the crew's cat, Jones. Realizing they might pick up the cat on the tracker again later, Parker sends Brett to catch Jones. During his search, Brett encounters the alien, now fully grown and enormous, and it attacks him, dragging him, bloodied and screaming, into an air shaft."

Not quite the same as I "remembered" it from decades ago, but definitely an expendable cast member. The synopsis also said another character, Dallas, goes into the air shafts to hunt down and kill the creature. Now a guy who sets out by himself to hunt down an "enormous" hungry creature in a maze of air shafts might as well have "expendable cast member" tatooed on his forehead. Sure enough, he doesn't survive.
I was going to say, you really need to re-watch the film, your knowledge of it is hazy to say the least. . Your going to remain rite in your own accord no matter what I say, but Parker had accumulated enough screen time including character density/development to not be considered an expendable cast member, beyond the fact that characters will die in horror films, and yes, normally starting with most "easily expendable" in relation to their importance to the film. Your example about Star Trek was perfect, "you can bet those two expendable no-name crewmen will not be making the trip back to the Enterprise". Like I said, this didnt happen in Alien.

Dallas needed Ripley and Lambert to stay behind and operate the motion detectors, which in fact worked and located the creature, except they were reading the receiver upside-down which resulted in his death. (never put your life in a womans hands jk). He in fact left with a flame-thrower, the only weapon on that banged up and broken mining ship, other characters tagging along for anything other than company would have been "illogical.


Originally Posted by Rufnek
Whoooa, hold up, Homer---only good friends and ex-wives know me well enough to address me as "idiot." You're either gonna have to hang with me awhile or we'll elope.
Apoligies buddy, that comment was out of line . What can I say, your attacking my beloved 'Alien'.

Originally Posted by Rufnek
But don't tell me you've never noticed the expendable cast members in space and other films? Like if Capt. Kirk, Spock, Bones, and two actors you haven't seen before in the series and aren't listed as guest star, transport down to the surface of an unknown planet, you can bet those two expendable no-name crewmen will not be making the trip back to the Enterprise. Like you said, somebody has to die and you know it won't be the main characters--hence, the expendable extras are the ones who become cannon fodder or lizard poop.

In Alien, people were killed off in reverse order of their importance to the rest of the film; ergo the first to go were the most expendable.
Obviously, I'm not saying this doesn't happen, I'm saying it didn't happen in Alien, or not in a degree that ruined the movie or could have caused you "offense".


Originally Posted by Rufnek
The sharing of information and opinion among humans is never "pointless." My response may not please you, but if it were "pointless," why did you feel compelled to reply?
I replied to the first section of your post about what you feel is wrong with Alien because you have actually seen the movie and your opinion is worth retaining.

My response about your participation being "pointless" was in response to your own rhetorical question
So does the fact that I sat through Alien make it the better film? Or does the fact that it discouraged me from viewing any of the sequels make it the worse film?
. Stating Neither. In regarsd the original question (and it was a question) your participation IS pointless.



Interesting point. However some speculate that the aliens are synthetic. Biological weapons if you like, created by the creatures from Alien that were transporting them as eggs.

Anyway, back to your point, the aliens are meant to be deadly killing machines, weapons, (based on that particular theory) there fairly successful in that respect.
"Synthetic" machines, huh? Well, that would get around a lot of possible issues. Still the producton or reproduction of these killers seems protracted to me. First they have to incubate from their eggs, then find a host to invaid and then incubate into its final form inside the host. Or are we talking two creatures here? The thing that comes out of the egg is apparently starfish-like with several appendages that helps it hold on once it fastens onto the host's face (give me a break here--it's been decades since I saw this film, and I remember it looking like the topside of a starfish--if not, please set me straight). Could it be this is a separate creature that injects the seed of the lizard-thing into the host? I mean, it lives a short while and then dies after impregnating the host with this other creature. Sounds to be like a repetitious process with twice the risk of usual birthing processes.


To a degree I dont really agree with the point you've made, interesting as it is. I should have asked why the Aliens physical structure is impractical to a potential existence, outside of the films.
Well, for one thing, why acid blood? Remember they try to cut that thing off the guy's face and the blood from the creature is so acidic that it eats through several decks. I've already mentioned the double-layered act of creation. But why does the creature have that elongated head that sort of curves back, what part does that play in its physical make-up, is there a reason for it? As I remember it, the Alien is a biped, has claws on its forefeet or hands, probably has claws on its back feet as well. And as I remember it, it has a tail with a stinger or a sharp point in the end with which it can kill (correct me if I'm wrong). Now in our world, there are a variety of creatures with fangs and claws and a variety with tails to hit (like 'gators) or to sting like scorpions or wasps. But I can't think of any that have fangs, claws, and combative tails. Why does the Alien carry so much "firepower?" Also, if these things are being bred as killing machines to take over planets, it seems like a communal nursery with the queen alien is a poor way to do it, since if an enemy reaches the nursery, it can wipe out queen, eggs, and totally wreck the hive. Also I remember the alien as being tall but thin--skinny legs and chest. The legs look too weak to carry that tall torso, and might easily be broken if they are thin as I recall. Certainly a thin chest would mean less lung power, which would translate into shortness of breath when it runs. I was also trying to remember the placement of its eyes--are they to the front of the skull or on opposite sides of the head. In this world, I think most predators have their eyes in the front of the skull, which gives them depth perception and lets them focus on a particular target.

Just seems to me that the aliens are particularly vulnerable as infants. It's helpful that once out of the chest, they grow to gigantic size within hours but can you imagine what sort of metabolism a growth spurt like that would take??? Is it possible to get enough food to fuel such rapid growth just by eating through the chest of one man?? Seems to me its elongated head and tail (if indeed my memory is right) would make it awfully hard for the creature to move through thickets of brush and brambles, or forests in general, whereas its thin legs may be easly broken if it falls on rocky ground. But like I said, I haven't seen the film in many years, and I may not even be remembering the creature correctly.



"Synthetic" machines, huh? Well, that would get around a lot of possible issues. Still the producton or reproduction of these killers seems protracted to me. First they have to incubate from their eggs, then find a host to invaid and then incubate into its final form inside the host. Or are we talking two creatures here? The thing that comes out of the egg is apparently starfish-like with several appendages that helps it hold on once it fastens onto the host's face (give me a break here--it's been decades since I saw this film, and I remember it looking like the topside of a starfish--if not, please set me straight). Could it be this is a separate creature that injects the seed of the lizard-thing into the host? I mean, it lives a short while and then dies after impregnating the host with this other creature. Sounds to be like a repetitious process with twice the risk of usual birthing processes.

Well, for one thing, why acid blood? Remember they try to cut that thing off the guy's face and the blood from the creature is so acidic that it eats through several decks. I've already mentioned the double-layered act of creation. But why does the creature have that elongated head that sort of curves back, what part does that play in its physical make-up, is there a reason for it? As I remember it, the Alien is a biped, has claws on its forefeet or hands, probably has claws on its back feet as well. And as I remember it, it has a tail with a stinger or a sharp point in the end with which it can kill (correct me if I'm wrong). Now in our world, there are a variety of creatures with fangs and claws and a variety with tails to hit (like 'gators) or to sting like scorpions or wasps. But I can't think of any that have fangs, claws, and combative tails. Why does the Alien carry so much "firepower?" Also, if these things are being bred as killing machines to take over planets, it seems like a communal nursery with the queen alien is a poor way to do it, since if an enemy reaches the nursery, it can wipe out queen, eggs, and totally wreck the hive. Also I remember the alien as being tall but thin--skinny legs and chest. The legs look too weak to carry that tall torso, and might easily be broken if they are thin as I recall. Certainly a thin chest would mean less lung power, which would translate into shortness of breath when it runs. I was also trying to remember the placement of its eyes--are they to the front of the skull or on opposite sides of the head. In this world, I think most predators have their eyes in the front of the skull, which gives them depth perception and lets them focus on a particular target.

Just seems to me that the aliens are particularly vulnerable as infants. It's helpful that once out of the chest, they grow to gigantic size within hours but can you imagine what sort of metabolism a growth spurt like that would take??? Is it possible to get enough food to fuel such rapid growth just by eating through the chest of one man?? Seems to me its elongated head and tail (if indeed my memory is right) would make it awfully hard for the creature to move through thickets of brush and brambles, or forests in general, whereas its thin legs may be easly broken if it falls on rocky ground. But like I said, I haven't seen the film in many years, and I may not even be remembering the creature correctly.
I suppose, as I mentioned, the alien develops characteristics from its host which better equipped it to take on its enemy, making it the perfect killing machine as a result of this process. (again referring to the space jockey concept). This renders the "double layered act of birth" not entirely pointless. The aliens are as big and powerful as they need to be to kill there enemies.

Below: not the difference between a human spawned alien and predator spawned alien. It's seems the flaws you mentioned, such as a skinny and vulnerable rib cage and low lung capacity are a sort of, critique on the human race.





Facehugger


I cant help but assume its a separate creature and that the face-hugger has one short purpose in life. Clearly the aliens weakest point of existence is the face hugger. Once the alien is impregnated, the host is a goner if nothing else. The concept would make it deadly at wiping out races, especially with the rate that the queen can reproduce the eggs. The more potential hosts, the worse the situation gets.

Your opinion is bizarre though, you quit rightly mention that the double layered act of reproduction has a glaringly obvious danger to the creature, especially when its latched onto a host's face, motionless to prevent anyone from tampering with the process and then question why it has acid blood. This for me is part of its perfect biological structure.

I guess with the practicalities of metabolism etc we enter into the realm of plot hole science fiction.



A system of cells interlinked
Great discussion on this flick, you guys! I really enjoyed reading it. Since I like Alien, and don't mind crew members that may or may not be expendable, I can't add too much, but I really dig some of the perspectives you guys are taking, especially the bio-weapon hypothesis.
__________________
“It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance.” ― Thomas Sowell



Great discussion on this flick, you guys! I really enjoyed reading it. Since I like Alien, and don't mind crew members that may or may not be expendable, I can't add too much, but I really dig some of the perspectives you guys are taking, especially the bio-weapon hypothesis.
Definitely check out the untitled alien prequel when its released to see more on that. (If thats the route they take with the Jockeys involvement with the alien species.) Might not be the case though.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1446714/

Interestingly I was reading some articles on IMDB referring to an alien 5 script called alien harvest, one of the books I mentioned in my second post was called that. Would be interesting if they took that approach. Its still worth reiterating though that anything other than the movies including books, comics etc is considered fan fiction weather its produced by dark horse, fox etc.



I was going to say, you really need to re-watch the film, your knowledge of it is hazy to say the least. . Your going to remain rite in your own accord no matter what I say, but Parker had accumulated enough screen time including character density/development to not be considered an expendable cast member, beyond the fact that characters will die in horror films, and yes, normally starting with most "easily expendable" in relation to their importance to the film. Your example about Star Trek was perfect, "you can bet those two expendable no-name crewmen will not be making the trip back to the Enterprise". Like I said, this didnt happen in Alien. . . . . I'm not saying this doesn't happen, I'm saying it didn't happen in Alien, or not in a degree that ruined the movie or could have caused you "offense".
Well, this is a simple disagreement. You feel like you know the characters. I don't recall a whole of development of any of the characters. I knew Sigourney would survive; I was a little surprised that Skeritt didn't (or at least didn't until maybe the final fight). But the rest of the cast seemed expendable to me.

Offended is much too strong a word, but the fact that they used that tired old bit about looking for a cat to set up the next blood-and-guts scene did lower my regard for the film. I'll give them that they did try to dress it up a bit by wanting to remove the cat as an electronic target, but you still end up with someone gets killed because he looking for a cat in this dark passage.

What can I say, your attacking my beloved 'Alien'.
Now, see, this is something I can't understand about this forum. I read what you say about a film, I respond with a different point of view, and you (you in general, not necessarily you specifically other than in this current discussion) get upset because I'm "attacking" a childhood memory!

I'm not "attacking" anything--there are damn few things in life about which I feel strongly enough to attack. Movies in general and Alien in particular are not on that list. I can't see why people can't simply disagree about a film without it coming down to someone slapping your face and inviting you to partake in pistols for two, coffee for one at dawn. I mean, does it really matter to you that some unknown person out there on the internet who you will never know and never see doesn't like a movie you like?

I see your point about the guy with a flame-thrower. I didn't recall that aspect, so I did learn something from our discussion--it's not an event I'm gonna rush home and put in my diary, but at least I did learn something.

By the way, ever notice in space movies how they seem always to have too much or too little armament? I mean, here's the Alien crew with only one lousy flame thrower (wonder what the normal use of that was on the mining space ship?) whereas when Bruce Willis and his crew go out supposedly to drill a well on an asteroid, what saves their collective butt is that someone put atomic cannons on their spaceship that Buck Rodgers would have envied, thus allowing them to save the world after everything else had failed.

My response about your participation being "pointless" was in response to your own rhetorical question . Stating Neither. In regarsd the original question (and it was a question) your participation IS pointless.
But do you say that to those who claim they liked both equally? OK, never mind. If it helps, I can honestly say the first film Alien was the most impressive of the series to me (I have seen snips of the other films while flicking the channel changer but never felt the need to view them in their entirety).

As for watching it again, sitting through a hour of blood and guts for a few moments of Sigourney in her panties just isn't worth it. I'm not a big sci-fi fan to start with, and generally films featuring blood splatters put me off. No offense--that's just me.



I'm actually pretty exhausted right now, which is terrible, because I really want to dive into this discussion with all sorts of theories, but for now I'll just respond to a few things:

But why does the creature have that elongated head that sort of curves back, what part does that play in its physical make-up, is there a reason for it?
My old man has a fun theory on this: he thinks the Alien has evolved on spaceships, and therefore has specifically evolved to blend in with their elements. The head looks like tubing, which becomes rather important in the finale of the first film, when Ripley looks at the wall and thinks she's looking at tubing...up until one of the tubes moves. It works exactly like the kind of camouflage we see in many animals.

Why does the Alien carry so much "firepower?" Also, if these things are being bred as killing machines to take over planets, it seems like a communal nursery with the queen alien is a poor way to do it, since if an enemy reaches the nursery, it can wipe out queen, eggs, and totally wreck the hive.
Oh, I don't know. Even if something is bred as a killing machine, you can't necessarily alter its fundamental reproductive means. It's not as if saying that someone bred the Alien as a weapon is quite the same as saying they were able to construct it piece-by-piece exactly the way they wanted.

But really, I think we can suspend a little disbelief as to how much "firepower" it has. The film makes a specific point of highlighting what an effective killing machine it is, and I don't think the screenwriters need a reason to add something sharp to it. It shouldn't have to adhere to the sorts of things we see in animals on earth, because it's not from earth.

Certainly a thin chest would mean less lung power, which would translate into shortness of breath when it runs. I was also trying to remember the placement of its eyes--are they to the front of the skull or on opposite sides of the head. In this world, I think most predators have their eyes in the front of the skull, which gives them depth perception and lets them focus on a particular target.
But of course, eyes on the side of your head is probably more valuable if you're meant to exist on spaceships, with their long doorless corridors, so that you can see in both directions. You can make an argument either way.

Re: lung capacity. It does a lot of slinking around and, as you may have noticed, it doesn't usually need to run for extended periods of time if it's indoors, and given how quickly it kills. There's bound to be a tradeoff, and this one makes perfect sense.


Just seems to me that the aliens are particularly vulnerable as infants. It's helpful that once out of the chest, they grow to gigantic size within hours but can you imagine what sort of metabolism a growth spurt like that would take??? Is it possible to get enough food to fuel such rapid growth just by eating through the chest of one man?? Seems to me its elongated head and tail (if indeed my memory is right) would make it awfully hard for the creature to move through thickets of brush and brambles, or forests in general, whereas its thin legs may be easly broken if it falls on rocky ground. But like I said, I haven't seen the film in many years, and I may not even be remembering the creature correctly.
Well, again, we have no reason to believe it was ever meant to live in brush or brambles. And I can't imagine how someone could think the infants are "vulnerable" -- they latch onto your face and lay their eggs in your chest, for crying out loud.

I'm not sure how to respond to the question about metabolism. It's a friggin' alien life form! We don't know everything about it, and wondering why it has a spike on its tail or how it grows so fast seems like a really strange thing to be asking. The films have to make sense, sure, but they also don't need to spell everything out to us.

It's science fiction: at most, we'd get some rough explanation that kinda sounds plausible. We were never going to get mathematical proofs about how warp drive works, a breakdown of hypersleep, a tutorial about how to construct lightsabers, or the dietary needs and metabolic intake of a killer alien. If you want those things, I think you'll have to write off pretty much the entire genre.



Well, this is a simple disagreement. You feel like you know the characters. I don't recall a whole of development of any of the characters. I knew Sigourney would survive; I was a little surprised that Skeritt didn't (or at least didn't until maybe the final fight). But the rest of the cast seemed expendable to me.

Offended is much too strong a word, but the fact that they used that tired old bit about looking for a cat to set up the next blood-and-guts scene did lower my regard for the film. I'll give them that they did try to dress it up a bit by wanting to remove the cat as an electronic target, but you still end up with someone gets killed because he looking for a cat in this dark passage.
Offended was your word not mine, "and was offended by the stupid old cliche of expendable cast members leaving the communal protective area to wander alone down dark corridors".

To be fair the scene with the cat was the first killing by the actual Alien, you'll recall that when they were trying to track the alien, they thought it was the size of the creature that popped out of the dudes chest, maybe at 1/3 the size of the cat. Certainly its birth into the world was lethal, but maybe the crew didn't entirely feel under threat by the creature. As I mentioned, theres no problem until the cast of a horror flick start doing 'illogical' things.

Until they discover it murdered and dragged a 230lb man into a vent shaft 24 feet into the air. (for me personally the most iconic scene from the alien saga. ) theres nothing unreasonable about the crew's actions, and as you've acknowledged the flamethrower scene.

Now, see, this is something I can't understand about this forum. I read what you say about a film, I respond with a different point of view, and you (you in general, not necessarily you specifically other than in this current discussion) get upset because I'm "attacking" a childhood memory!

I'm not "attacking" anything--there are damn few things in life about which I feel strongly enough to attack. Movies in general and Alien in particular are not on that list. I can't see why people can't simply disagree about a film without it coming down to someone slapping your face and inviting you to partake in pistols for two, coffee for one at dawn. I mean, does it really matter to you that some unknown person out there on the internet who you will never know and never see doesn't like a movie you like?
Sorry, I intended for that statement to be funny and highlight my love of Alien. I appreciated and respect your opinion mate, make no mistake about that, your a wise man. The misunderstanding about that statement was my fault.

Originally Posted by Rufnek
I see your point about the guy with a flame-thrower. I didn't recall that aspect, so I did learn something from our discussion--it's not an event I'm gonna rush home and put in my diary, but at least I did learn something.

By the way, ever notice in space movies how they seem always to have too much or too little armament? I mean, here's the Alien crew with only one lousy flame thrower (wonder what the normal use of that was on the mining space ship?) whereas when Bruce Willis and his crew go out supposedly to drill a well on an asteroid, what saves their collective butt is that someone put atomic cannons on their spaceship that Buck Rodgers would have envied, thus allowing them to save the world after everything else had failed.
Haha


Originally Posted by Rufnek
But do you say that to those who claim they liked both equally? OK, never mind. If it helps, I can honestly say the first film Alien was the most impressive of the series to me (I have seen snips of the other films while flicking the channel changer but never felt the need to view them in their entirety).

As for watching it again, sitting through a hour of blood and guts for a few moments of Sigourney in her panties just isn't worth it. I'm not a big sci-fi fan to start with, and generally films featuring blood splatters put me off. No offense--that's just me.
Fair enough dude, I appreciate what you've added to this debate.



On the other hand, the film perked up quite a bit in the scene where Sigorney is clad only in her undies as she fights the giant lizard!
I'm so glad that I was ten when I saw Alien, otherwise seeing that woman in her undies may've put me off women for life.

In my opinion the third gets unnecessary flack.
I know. It's my favourite of the entire series.

As for how what would and wouldn't affect the evolution of the alien, etc. You guys know this is just a B movie, right?




It's science fiction: at most, we'd get some rough explanation that kinda sounds plausible. We were never going to get mathematical proofs about how warp drive works, a breakdown of hypersleep, a tutorial about how to construct lightsabers, or the dietary needs and metabolic intake of a killer alien. If you want those things, I think you'll have to write off pretty much the entire genre.
Word

Still fun to debate about.

great post, and everything noted.



I'm so glad that I was ten when I saw Alien, otherwise seeing that woman in her undies may've put me off women for life.


I know. It's my favourite of the entire series.

As for how what would and wouldn't affect the evolution of the alien, etc. You guys know this is just a B movie, right?
True, but what does B-Movie mean?

Very little that Dan Obannon is going to consider. R.I.P



As for how what would and wouldn't affect the evolution of the alien, etc. You guys know this is just a B movie, right?
Nah, it's an A-movie, and one with an extremely thought-out design philosophy. The relatively straightforward story is kind of separate from the design of the creature, which is pretty elaborate. Plus, speculating's fine, particularly when there's evidence there that can support it.



Nah, it's an A-movie, and one with an extremely thought-out design philosophy. The relatively straightforward story is kind of separate from the design of the creature, which is pretty elaborate. Plus, speculating's fine, particularly when there's evidence there that can support it.
Your completely rite, disregard my last post, Its H.R. Giger we credit for the spectacular Alien creature not Dan Obannon and since were speculating about the creature, the status of the movie is irelevant.



Well, obviously the movie studio has to make a costume that fits the human figure so they are bound to be humanoid, although with the computerized special effects now they can use their imagination to expand the kind of monsters out there.

But like I said, that elongated head would keep hitting tree branches and such in the forest while the tail can get snagged and tangled in brush. That head makes it look top heavy and prone to tipping over, unless it's a hollow horn-like (as in musical instrument) device for communicating with its own kind. And the legs and chest do look thin to me, as do the arms. I dunno, but if you were engineering a synthetic killing machine, wouldn't you make it at least the size of Andre the Giant if not King Kong? Or like a young Hulk Hogan or the Rock, anyway with broad chest and muscular, powerful legs and arms, and eyes at the front of the skull for better depth perception and to focus on targets? This picture is the kind of creature I would produce to scare kids in a movie--it's not what I'd build if I wanted it to kill all the kids in the movie.

Your opinion is bizarre though, you quit rightly mention that the double layered act of reproduction has a glaringly obvious danger to the creature, especially when its latched onto a host's face, motionless to prevent anyone from tampering with the process and then question why it has acid blood. This for me is part of its perfect biological structure.
That thing looked more like a horseshoe crab to me than the starfish image I had. I just remembered appendages holding on.

The acid blood seems bizarre to me, however. Our blood carries oxygen through out our body. What would acid blood carry? I don't see blood as a protective mechanism. I mean, what sort of natural defense would depend on the creature first being injured badly enough to bleed? There are all sorts of animals in this world that have skins or other means of discouraging attack, like poisonous toads or skunks. Also what would have happened had they cut the body of the facehugger rather than one of its legs so that the acid blood dripped on the host rather than the floor? what good is a defense mechanism that would kill or injure the host? See what I mean? If you assume that is blood, then it has to be there for some benefit to the facehugger, so in what kind of environment would acidic blood be of use? I frankly don't know--probably one with strange chemical mixes in the environment, but then how would the facehugger survive in the spaceship's environment? So obviously the acid blood is just a movie prop they used because they couldn't think of anything better. Personally I would have prefered that it sprayed acid like a skunk sprays its odor, although that would still injure the host and so wouldn't be practical. The only other possibilities that come to mind would be that the surface of its body that is showing emits a powerful electric charge when touched or else a lot of sharp spines shoot out like a porcupine.

Ever seen any of the TV programs where they come up with what creatures might look like if they lived on Venus, Mars, Jupiter with the atmosphere, temperatures, gravity, etc of those planets? I wish Hollywood would use that sort of information to design a really different alien that wouldn't look familar to us.



My old man has a fun theory on this: he thinks the Alien has evolved on spaceships, and therefore has specifically evolved to blend in with their elements. The head looks like tubing, which becomes rather important in the finale of the first film, when Ripley looks at the wall and thinks she's looking at tubing...up until one of the tubes moves. It works exactly like the kind of camouflage we see in many animals.
I like your old man's--dad's?--theory!!! Now that makes sense to me--it does look like vents and cables as such, which would camouflage within a spaceship environment. And since it would take many light years to travel from one galaxy to another, they would have time to evolve like that. Also a possible need for camouflage: I mean you send a bunch of killing machines out to travel through space for years and years, what do you feed them and how much of that food can you load on a space ship that would last hundreds of years? The simple solution, they kill and eat each other? It's one big continuous hunt on the traveling space ship, with only the queen and the eggs exempted. It's survival of the fittest, so the fittest learn to blend into their environment. It would also explain why the little lizards had to grow up within a matter of hours so they could compete, else the whole generation would be gobbled up. The only gap is, where are the victims for the facegrabber to grab? Do they kill one alien to give birth to another? That would seem to be the only way--unless down in that gigantic ship they keep and breed some sort of host animal. That's possible.

Tell your dad I really like his explanation!!! You should listen to him more often!




But really, I think we can suspend a little disbelief as to how much "firepower" it has. The film makes a specific point of highlighting what an effective killing machine it is, and I don't think the screenwriters need a reason to add something sharp to it. It shouldn't have to adhere to the sorts of things we see in animals on earth, because it's not from earth.
Yeah, anytime you sit down to a sci-fi film you've got to suspend disbelief. Yet I'd bet evoultion on another planet would go one way or another (the equivalent of fangs and claws or the equivalent of stingers) as it has on our planet since it is usually the special features that take over, while the ones not often used fade away. It's a small thing, but something to think about. That wasn't what I disliked about the film--the fact it had fangs, claws and tail didn't bother me. It was all the blood it produced!


But of course, eyes on the side of your head is probably more valuable if you're meant to exist on spaceships, with their long doorless corridors, so that you can see in both directions. You can make an argument either way.
Nice save, Yoda! Yeah, it can go either way.


Well, again, we have no reason to believe it was ever meant to live in brush or brambles.
Well, that depends on whether you accept the idea that these are synthetic killers dispatched to clear other life forms from inhabitable planets. If there is animal life on a planet, then there has to be some kind of plant life which in some cases take the equivalent form of brush and trees. Or it could be that the plant life is more like algae, in which case much of the surface would likely be bare and hard so that the alien might break spindly limbs if it falls.




And I can't imagine how someone could think the infants are "vulnerable" -- they latch onto your face and lay their eggs in your chest, for crying out loud.
vulnerable in that the queen and eggs are all together in one nursery and therefore vulnerable to armed intruders. Isn't that how they wipe out the aliens in one film? Same thing as in Them! with the queen ant and eggs.

I'm not sure how to respond to the question about metabolism. The films have to make sense, sure, but they also don't need to spell everything out to us.
But you're trying to apply my remarks to sci-fi films in general when what I was discussing from the start is why don't sci-fi monsters reflect the atmosphere, gravity, light, heat, etc. of their own planets rather than all apparently having come from an earth-like planet. For instance, look at the creatures in Men in Black or Star Wars--much more a variety of creatures than in your usual sci-fi--some run faster and leap higher than any animal on earth, some dress in human skin, some breathe through their eyes, reflecting differences in their home environment. I got the idea from TV programs speculating on what life forms would be like on other planets, considering their different atmospheres, temperatures, surface, etc. It's just a fun thing to kick around. For me anyway.



I like your old man's--dad's?--theory!!! Now that makes sense to me--it does look like vents and cables as such, which would camouflage within a spaceship environment. And since it would take many light years to travel from one galaxy to another, they would have time to evolve like that. Also a possible need for camouflage: I mean you send a bunch of killing machines out to travel through space for years and years, what do you feed them and how much of that food can you load on a space ship that would last hundreds of years? The simple solution, they kill and eat each other? It's one big continuous hunt on the traveling space ship, with only the queen and the eggs exempted. It's survival of the fittest, so the fittest learn to blend into their environment. It would also explain why the little lizards had to grow up within a matter of hours so they could compete, else the whole generation would be gobbled up. The only gap is, where are the victims for the facegrabber to grab? Do they kill one alien to give birth to another? That would seem to be the only way--unless down in that gigantic ship they keep and breed some sort of host animal. That's possible

Tell your dad I really like his explanation!!! You should listen to him more often!
Yup, by old man I meant dad. And I'll pass that along. It tickles me, too. I don't know exactly what the creators intended, though I do think we can assume they had some sort of evolutionary wrinkle in mind, given that the Alien takes on the properties of the host it lays its eggs in. In Alien, the one that comes out of John Hurt walks upright. In Alien 3, one of them comes out of a dog, and runs on all fours.

You raise some good questions about how they would procreate. There is some precedent, for lack of a better word, with the idea of them killing one another if necessary; in the fourth film, Alien: Resurrection, multiple Aliens are being held captive together, and one of them breaks free by hurting the other so that its blood will drip through the floor, allowing it to escape. Granted, this took place long after the first two films, but it's still interesting.

I suppose one other possibility is that they can live a very, very long time. Fun to speculate, either way. Oh, and I hadn't thought of hypersleep as giving them time to evolve; nice point!


Yeah, anytime you sit down to a sci-fi film you've got to suspend disbelief. Yet I'd bet evoultion on another planet would go one way or another (the equivalent of fangs and claws or the equivalent of stingers) as it has on our planet since it is usually the special features that take over, while the ones not often used fade away. It's a small thing, but something to think about. That wasn't what I disliked about the film--the fact it had fangs, claws and tail didn't bother me. It was all the blood it produced!
It's certainly possible that they went with acid as blood just because it's friggin' awesome, yeah. Makes you wonder what the heck the rest of their body's made of.


Nice save, Yoda! Yeah, it can go either way.
I'm just having fun with it, of course. I agree that, compared to some of our own animal life, the eye placement seems somewhat counterinuitive. For us, it seems like predators tend to have eyes closer together, while prey have eyes that cover a wider amount of ground by being spaced out, both for obvious reasons. This seems to applies primarily to mammals, though, and the Aliens are pretty far from mammalian. I like to think of them more like Hammerhead sharks; soulless predators both, and both share similar eye placement.


Well, that depends on whether you accept the idea that these are synthetic killers dispatched to clear other life forms from inhabitable planets. If there is animal life on a planet, then there has to be some kind of plant life which in some cases take the equivalent form of brush and trees. Or it could be that the plant life is more like algae, in which case much of the surface would likely be bare and hard so that the alien might break spindly limbs if it falls.
Ah yes. Sorry, I forgot that some of your response was in response to TNBT and the suggestion that they could have been bred to wipe out planets. They do seem somewhat ill-equipped for that task, barring a world very unlike our own. Or -- random speculation again! -- they might blend in well if they were basically just there to infiltrate urban centers, particularly from an advanced society (as I'd assume a futuristic one would be) with a lot of confined spaces and, well, tubing. The Star Wars planet of Coruscant, which is a planet made up of one giant city, comes to mind.

vulnerable in that the queen and eggs are all together in one nursery and therefore vulnerable to armed intruders. Isn't that how they wipe out the aliens in one film? Same thing as in Them! with the queen ant and eggs.
Ah, I see. Yeah, that does seem conveniently centralized. Certainly a bit of a flaw in terms of vulnerability, though one that does mirror some of our own creatures, like ants. And in their case, the Queen can defend herself, at least. And how.


But you're trying to apply my remarks to sci-fi films in general when what I was discussing from the start is why don't sci-fi monsters reflect the atmosphere, gravity, light, heat, etc. of their own planets rather than all apparently having come from an earth-like planet. For instance, look at the creatures in Men in Black or Star Wars--much more a variety of creatures than in your usual sci-fi--some run faster and leap higher than any animal on earth, some dress in human skin, some breathe through their eyes, reflecting differences in their home environment. I got the idea from TV programs speculating on what life forms would be like on other planets, considering their different atmospheres, temperatures, surface, etc. It's just a fun thing to kick around. For me anyway.
This is my mistake, I failed to realize you were talking about sci-fi films in general. Yes, I agree, they're all a bit too suited to our own climate. I guess there are some reasons for this, such as a lot of sci-fi films being about other planets like ours (explaining our interest in them in the first place), but plenty of others fail to capitalize on the potential differences we might have with life forms on wildly different planets. Unless, of course, you believe that life can only evolve on planets rather like our own.

An example of the kind of thing you're talking about can be found in a book called Out of the Silent Planet, the first in a science fiction trilogy by C.S. Lewis (yeah, the Narnia guy). In it, there's a planet with several different races of alien, one of which is made up of extremely tall, thin beings, because the planet's gravity (or part of it's gravity -- I don't recall offhand) is weaker than our own. I always thought that was a nice touch, provided I'm not imprinting some explanatory theory of mine onto the characters retroactively.