From: caruso@socrates.umd.edu (John Caruso)
Subject: Re: Plot holes in Alien^3 (*S
Organization: University of Maryland University College
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 04:29:51 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.230943.24125@tandem.com> Montague_Kevin@Tandem.com (Kevvy Kev) writes:
>caruso@socrates.umd.edu (John Caruso) writes:
>> 
>> No, this fact supports his point, not yours.  It went right through Kane's
>> helmet, but not through his FACE.  It knew where the helmet ended and the
>> host began.  
>
>your logic: fallacious, as you ignore the point I'm trying to make.
>The f'hugger in the first movie went right after Kane, searing its way through
>everything in the way of it sticking that tube down his mouth...does imply
>that the f'hugger Ripley held off would've either (1) singed her hands to
>get to her face (2) gone *through* her hands to get to her face.

No, that's exactly the point I've addressed.  Read what I said more closely.
The essence of your argument is that the f'ugger would go through "everything
in the way of it sticking that tube" down the host's mouth.  In Kane's
case, all that was in the way was a spacesuit, but in Ripley's case there
was flesh and bone in the way.  So the cases are NOT analagous.  When you
say that it would have gone through Ripley's hands because of the way it 
attacked Kane, you're begging the question, because by assuming that it
*does* have a rudimentary understanding of host physiology we can posit
a workable explanation.  That assumption is at the crux of the argument,
and it can't be proven one way or the other by available information.
I choose to believe it because it fits the story; obviously, your mileage
differs.  :-)

>> The point is that if the facehugger actually could melt through the tube
>> (or break it, for that matter), it would NOT have been content to sit
>> there while it was studied--or later when Burke was standing right next
>> to the glass.
>
>This is pretty funny.  You steal my joke. . ."The point" is that they screwed
>up.  "It would NOT have been content. . ." Heh.  They did NOT think these 
>scenes through.

You're missing my point completely.  It would NOT have been content, and
therefore if it COULD have broken out of the glass it would have done so,
and therefore it could NOT break out of the glass, acid or otherwise.
It seems to me that in all cases where a fact isn't explicitly stated,
you assume that the writers simply didn't think about it...like the only
thing that would satisfy you is a scene where Bishop says, "You know,
Hicks, these tubes are impervious to the little beastie's acid due to
their rugged coating of X-205."  I choose to give the writers the benefit
of the doubt here, because I think they *did* think these scenes through.
You don't.  Again, it can't be resolved from the available information.

>> My understanding from watching the film was that Burke had broken the
>> glass to release the facehugger to impregnate Ripley and/or Newt. 
>
>Nah.  Look again, closely, at the scene where Ripley and Newt are trapped in
>medlab with the f'huggers.  There are a couple of clear shots of the tubes
>lying on their sides, on the floor.  No broken glass involved.

Broken glass isn't the point.  The point is that Burke released the
facehugger.  You're arguing that it's illogical for the facehugger to
have broken the glass rather than using acid (yes?), and flogging the
writers accordingly; but this entire point is a non sequitur, because
it simply did not happen (at least not in the Aliens that I watched).
In my Aliens, Burke released the facehugger after Ripley told him she
was going to nail his ass to the wall.

- John
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies