From: ccoprdj@prism.gatech.EDU (Jorge Diaz)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Alien biology
Date: 11 Nov 92 15:51:44 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

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

>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.

Hmmmm...  Can't just take my word for it?  I mean, I haven't read the DH
Comics, yet I accept things that you hypothesize based on info you've read
in 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.

And the DH comics are?  Talk about selective acceptance!  Basically, you
only want to use what *you* consider to be canon.  Well sorry, but we're
never going to get anything discussed if you continue to be so narrow-
minded.

NOTE:  This is not a flame, but it seems (at least to me) that you're more
than willing to discuss a reasonable biology of the Aliens iff we base
everything on things that YOU have read, or YOU have seen, or YOU personally
agree with.

This discussion was started with a statement BY YOU saying that since we
cannot determine what exactly is 'canon', we will have to consider all
sources of information acceptable.  Now you're going back on that.

>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?" :-)

I disagree.  Just because they went after the humans does not mean that
they were under the Queen's control, or that they were even told to do so
by her.

They charged the smartguns.  True.  But do you think they even know what
a smartgun is?  Probably not.  It could very well be instinct that led them
to chase after the humans, then they ran into the guns, and they didn't know
what hit them.  The Queen could very well have had nothing to do with it.

In fact, it might even be possible that the Queen is not a Queen at all.
She's an Egglayer.  That's it.  She doesn't even rule the hive.  She lays
the eggs, and she is in control when it comes to things that have to do
with the eggs.  She has control in the Eggchamber, where she is supreme.
But outside the Eggchamber, she isn't any more special than any other
Alien.

How's that for being less restrictive without going overboard? :-)

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

OK, but what if I read the DH Comics and I don't like them?  We're going
to argue about whether or not they're acceptable over personal preferences?
We need to decide, right now, what is and is not acceptable.  If we can't
even get that straight, this discussion will not go anywhere.

If I go out and write a story about Aliens and get it published, does that
mean that my story is 'canon' also? :-)

>(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.

>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 am well aware of the survivability of humans in vacuum.  I don't think that
the behavior displayed by the Alien in A1, however, indicated that it was
at all uncomfortable with being in space.  All MHO, of course.

>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!

No, how about the fact that we see them grow without eating anything?
Again, unless it was eating a part of the ship.  We do see them grow.
That mass has to come from somewhere, right?

What about Ripley's ability to hang on during an explosive decompression
in A2?  You don't think that's too outrageous?

>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.

Look, the movie (all three) have scientific inconsistencies.  Face it.

What about FTL travel?  We accept things like this for the sake of the
movie.  Let's just assume that this takes place in a universe somewhat
different from ours, where things like this can happen.  If not, them
you're right, we part company.

>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).

I'm sorry, but they do.  See above.

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

Maybe, if you aren't up to having to argue.  I'm not talking about a
flamewar, or a heated debate.  But you just seem to expect me to roll
over and accept everything YOU say, because "I like the stories" or because
"It makes sense physically and biologically."

Well, I'm sorry, but there are a few things about the series that *I*
happen to like, and I'd like them included in the discussion just as much
as you'd like to have your favorite stories included.

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

Hmmm...  Does that mean that I'm free to assume that you do nothing
but read news and post all day, simply because it's the only thing I've
ever seen you do?  That's a valid assumption, within the conditions you
mentioned above.

My point is that just because we don't see them doing something other than
hunting doesn't mean that they live to hunt.

"We've never been shown a Predator doing anything but hunt.  Therefore,
 I'm free to assume that they don't do anything but hunt."

"We've never been shown an Alien eating.  Therefore, I'm free to assume that
 they don't eat."

You said earlier that the latter statement is ridiculous, yet you try and
convince me of the former.  The two are nearly identical.  How can you
accept one, and not the other?


-- 
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."