From: Montague_Kevin@Tandem.com (Kevvy Kev)
Subject: Re: Alien biology
Organization: In Effect Enterprises
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 22:02:08 GMT

In article <74426@hydra.gatech.EDU>, ccoprdj@prism.gatech.EDU (Jorge Diaz) writes:

[snip, what to use as info]

I think we should use all available sources for info that do not contradict 
what we see.  For instance, the books in places contradict what happens on-
screen; clearly we can't use those parts of the books to explain things.  
However, there are many good ideas in both the books and the various comics
series that are saleable.
 
> >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.

True, but I think these outtakes are a good example of material that, with a
little imagination, can be made a logical part of an "Aliens" universe. See
below.

[snip. . .more DH stuff.  Jorge, by the way, you should read these if 
 you can find them. . .Great stuff]
 
> >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.

How about this: they do what she tells them, they live to kill and breed, 
she keeps some of them around to protect her/the eggs, and the rest, both
by genetic predisposition and her fiat, go out to kill/cocoon the rest of
the folks.  The argument seems kind of irrelevant; her purpose in life seems
to be to kill/keep the hive going, as is theirs. They work together in this.
Why would a drone want to disobey?

> 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.

See above.  For my money, they knew the humans were there, and whether the
Queen sent them or not they would've gone anyway to bring them back to her. 
Maybe she's more sensitive, and she "told" them. . .this is about the most
useful line of speculation we can get from this.  Ideas?

> 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.

Heh.  Did you see her outside the chamber?  I'd say she's quite a bit more 
special. . .
I think, given what we see on screen, plus the books, plus the comics, the
idea of the Queen as a "real" Queen makes the most sense. Agreed?  Note: I
said, the *most* sense.  In other words, I don't see the point in postulating
some more esoteric social structure.  I think this is what we're meant to 
understand, from the movies.

[snip, what's acceptable]
 
> If I go out and write a story about Aliens and get it published, does that
> mean that my story is 'canon' also? :-)

Is it canon? No.  Is it 'canon?'  Possibly, if you don't contradict too much.
 
> >(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 think we want to start with an interpretation of Alien body language.
That way lies madness.  We don't know, but I'm happy assuming they can last
a significant time in the near-vacuum of space.  (Obdig: what does this say
about the way the A3 bug died?)
As for the "acid" blood. . .my willing suspension wasn't outraged. Maybe because
I thought it was such a great idea. . .

> >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?

I already mentioned this, but they Did eat. And in any case, he's right:
they grow, but just because we don't see them eating anything doesn't mean
they don't eat.  What it means is that neither Scott nor Cameron nor Fincher
felt it was worth the time/film to show it.  I'd tend to agree.

[snip, bogus science. . .ummm (rubs hands together)]

> 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.

Shall we?  Shall we shall we, start a discussion on FTL, and the plausibility
thereof?  
Nah.
I will, however, refer you to Foster, who quite conciously offered a line
about the spaceship "thumbing it's nose at Einstein". . .or was that Newton?
Have to check the books.
Bottom line: are there scientific implausibilities?  Probably.  I don't know
either of your backgrounds, but mine causes me to question just what exactly
"implausible" is these days.  Yeesh, when the first _Alien_ came out, the 
idea of a computer you could hold in the palm of your hand, and carry around
with you, with X meg RAM and a honkin' hard disk was science fiction.  Let's
be a little more open, or at the least, reserve our cynicism for the logical
inconsistencies. . .and try to reconcile them.  I thought that was the whole
point. . .

Kevvy Kev
"We fail to imagine, and reality is what were punished with."
  -Phil Seleski