From: alien@acheron.amigans.gen.nz (Ross Smith)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Alien biology
Date: 11 Nov 92 13:16:56 GMT+12
Distribution: world
Organization: Wanganui Amigans, Wanganui, NZ

In article <74304@hydra.gatech.EDU> ccoprdj@prism.gatech.EDU (Jorge Diaz) writes:
>In article <alien.00xq@acheron.amigans.gen.nz> alien@acheron.amigans.gen.nz (Ross Smith) writes:
>
>>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.

I assume you're referring to a scene in the LD, which I haven't seen. I don't
want to restart the flamewar over people who exclude bits they haven't seen
from "canon", I'm just pointing out that I can't use these scenes as a basis
for speculation if I haven't seen them.

I still prefer to exclude these scenes from "canon" simply because they're
outtakes (someone who *has* seen the LD assures me that the actual movie is
unchanged, the extra scenes are clearly presented as outtakes, not additions
to the story). They're not part of the "official" movie.

>>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?

Not really! These are hive creatures. When they charged the Gatling guns, I
agree that they probably weren't under the Queen's direct, real-time control
(but I wouldn't totally exclude the possibility -- we don't know how they
communicate), but they had been given orders that they would never think of
disobeying. Queenie sez "Jump!", you say "How high?" :-)

>>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. :-)

I agree that you have to draw the line, but your line is much more restrictive
than mine. I'm not going to come up with ridiculous speculations either, but
you seem (IMHO) to be paranoid about not straying more than a few steps from
what we actually see. I'm prepared to speculate fairly widely, restricted by :

(1) Don't contradict what I see in the movies, or (since I like them!) the
Dark Horse comics.

(2) Don't go outside the bounds of scientific plausibility (see below).

(3) Don't go overboard (your example above). I think my definition of
"overboard" is a bit less restrictive than yours.

>>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.

The acid blood and (short term) vacuum survival aren't too outrageous, IMHO.
Even mere humans can survive a minute or two in vacuum (see the sci.space FAQ
for details). The Aliens are just better protected.

I don't know where you get the bit about living without food -- surely
you're not arguing that, because we never see them eat, that proves they
don't eat? Come on!

>>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.

And one of the sources that I personally agree with is accepted scientific
fact. If you're seriously claiming that we should ignore biological facts
merely because a movie director says so, then I'm afraid we part company
completely.

One reason I like the Alien movies, and speculations like this, so much is
that the movies *don't* stray into fantasy (I like fantasy too, but not
when it pretends to be SF). If Ridley Scott really did make claims like
that, then it's obvious that the plausibility of the movie was just blind
luck rather than (as I'd always assumed) care on his part. I wouldn't
have started this thread if I hadn't been able to speculate without
remaining consistent with both the movies *and* reality. Ignoring Scott's
off-screen pontifications strikes me as a small price to pay for keeping
our speculations within the bounds of reason.

Maybe I should have posted to r.a.sf.science after all...

>>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.

Right -- we don't know anything. So I'm free to make whatever assumptions
I like, within the conditions I mentioned above.


--
...... Ross Smith (Wanganui, NZ) ...... alien@acheron.amigans.gen.nz ......
             "If there is ever a war between men and machines,
         it is easy to guess who will start it." (Arthur C Clarke)