From: ccoprdj@prism.gatech.EDU (Jorge Diaz)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re:  Alien biology
Date: 10 Nov 92 14:38:00 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In article <alien.00xq@acheron.amigans.gen.nz> alien@acheron.amigans.gen.nz (Ross Smith) writes:

>Yeah, but again, we're getting into the question of whether or not the
>director's *intentions* should be counted as genuine background info. I say
>no, you say yes (I say potato, you say tomato :-) It's a matter of opinion.
>Maybe Cameron intended the Aliens to be "simple" hive creatures, but just
>because that's what he intended doesn't mean I have to agree.

OK, fair enough.  We'll stick to just what we saw, and what we can derive
from that.

>Just one point here : what distinction are you making between "laying" eggs
>and "creating" them? I don't follow that.

Well, the warriors don't actually lay eggs the way the Queen does.  They
can turn a victim into an egg.  We aren't told how the process works, nor
are we shown how it is done.  Ripley comes into a room to find Dallas and
Brett changing into eggs.

>>Without a Queen, it takes two (2) victims to produce one Alien.  One to
>>become the egg (and the facehugger), and one to host the new Alien.  With
>>a Queen, it only takes one (1) victim to produce the Alien.  The host.  The
>>Queen can lay the eggs without a victim (we assume).  This makes it the
>>most efficient, because you can get one Alien per host, instead of one
>>Alien per 2 hosts.  The result is a hive twice the size.

>Why does it take a victim to produce an egg? The Queen simply lays them.
>I assume that the Warriors can do the same thing, when they need to.

Like I said, the Warriors can't just lay the eggs.  That's why a Queen is
a more efficient method.

>We do have evidence that the Queen controls them directly (when she wants
>to). In A2, when Ripley and Newt blunder into the Queen's lair, at first the
>surrounding Warriors begin to move on them. Then Ripley makes threatening
>gestures at the eggs, giving the Queen a meaningful look, and the Warriors
>back off, presumably at the Queen's command. Of course it's possible that
                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>they figured it out for themselves, but that's the way it looked to me.
>Your mileage may vary, of course :-)

Well, I kinda agree with you.  Yes, presumably at the Queen's command.
However, there's a difference between "at her command" and "under her
control."

No?

>Anyway, please remember that I made it clear at the start that a lot of what
>I was going to say was pure speculation on my part. I never claimed that
>everything here was suggested by evidence in the movies, or the comics, or
>anywhere else. As long as my speculations aren't actually *contradicted* by
>the sources, that's good enough for me.

Fair enough.  But we have to draw the line somewhere.  We might be able to
hypothesize that the Aliens have an uncontrollable love of chocolate, and
if you get them anywhere near it, they'll spend all their time eating it.
This would make it very easy to exterminate them, because then you could
just walk up and blow them away.  After all, there was nothing ever shown
to contradict this. :-)

Yes, I realize that this is a very extreme and stupid example, but it
gets the point across.

>I don't accept this. These are *aliens* we're talking about! It would be an
>unbelievable coincidence if their genetic material bore the remotest
>resemblance to ours. Their body chemistry is very different to ours; I flatly
>refuse to believe that they could possibly "read" the host's DNA. Their
>genetic system would have no way to even tell what DNA is.

"It's a movie."

If we're going to get rid of physical and biological impossibilities, let's
get rid of the acid blood.  The ability to survive in no atmosphere.
The (seeming) ability to live without food.

>I think this is a clear case where there is a very good reason *not* to
>accept the director's statements as gospel. Ridley Scott obviously doesn't
>know the first thing about genetics. He was lucky enough not to show
>anything in the movie that couldn't be believed, but just because he put
>his foot in his mouth off screen, we don't have to ignore scientific facts
>just to suit him.

Oh, come on!  I'll accept your Dark Horse comics as a source of info, but
you won't do the same about the LD?  Now who's the one who's being closed-
minded?

You started this discussion by saying that we would use info from all sorts
of different sources.  You neglected to mention that it would only be
sources that you personally agreed with.

>No, I didn't mean technological research; in fact that was exactly my point.
>Their technology is advanced, but that doesn't necessarily imply advanced
>biological knowledge too.

OK, you mean biological research.  Understood.

>IMHO, the Predators tend to concentrate only on
>research that directly benefits their one goal in life (hunting); that
>strikes me as consistent with what we know of their psychology.

One goal in life:  hunting.

That's a strange statement to make.  We don't know anything about their
life, or their goals.  The only thing we know is that they come here to
hunt.  Just because that's all we see does not mean that it's all they do.

A deer might think that humans have one goal in life: to hunt them.  That's
hardly the case.


-- 
Jorge Diaz                       | "I want you to remember, Clark... in all
Georgia Institute of Technology  |  the years to come, in your most private
Office of Information Technology |  moments...my hand at your throat.  I want
ccoprdj@prism.gatech.edu         |  you to remember the one man who beat you."