From: ccoprdj@prism.gatech.EDU (Jorge Diaz)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Alien biology
Date: 10 Nov 92 13:58:00 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In article <1992Nov9.202845.25392@tandem.com> Montague_Kevin@Tandem.com (Kevvy Kev) writes:
>In article <74102@hydra.gatech.EDU>, ccoprdj@prism.gatech.EDU (Jorge Diaz) writes:

>> I'd say that the reason most of us think that way is because that's exactly
>> what we were supposed to think after watching Aliens.  "So who's laying
>> all those eggs?  That would have to be something else, something we haven't
>> seen yet."

>Jorge, I think this is your conclusion, and not necessarily the fact for 
>everyone.  My interpretation, for example, was that (a) the logic was
>faulty (b) "well, we'll see."  I try to be more openminded (read:cynical) 
>about things.

OK, fair enough.  That was indeed my conclusion.  I guess not everyone
would agree with me here, but surely I'm not alone.

>Possibly, just possibly, but you're already straying from the premise of this
>discussion.  We don't care so much about the intentions of the director(s)
>(remember who's smarter here. . .). Plus we have the benefit of hindsight, and
>(obviously) disposable time.

:-)

OK, OK....

>> *>I think this
>> *>can be explained if we remember that the first Alien knew it was alone, out
>> *>of touch -- possibly forever -- with its Queen, while those in A2 were in a
>> *>hive and under the Queen's control.

>> This is where I disagree with you.  We have no reason to believe that the
>> Queen actually controls the Aliens.  I don't know if this is speculation on
>> your part, or if you got this from the comics, but I'm sticking to my guns
>> here.  There's just no 'canonical' reason to assume that this is true.

>Wrong wrong wrong wrong.  And you know better, J: we've had this discussion.
>In that famous scene where we first see the Queen, she clearly communicates
                                                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
>with the Aliens that go after Ripley and Newt.  She hisses at them, and "tells"
>them to back off. Implicit in the whole society Cameron sets up is a central,
>controlling "Queen" character.  This is overt in the movie.  

Ah, but I believe there is a big difference between "communicates with" and
"controls".  Maybe it's just me.  I have no problem with thinking of the
Queen as the ruler of the hive, and all the Aliens obey her.  But *control*?
That's going a little too far, IMHO.

>How could you possibly provide "evidence" that the Aliens don't eat?  Just
>because we never see it happen?  

No, because the Alien in A1 grew without eating anyone (unless you count
the little bit of Kane it consumed during birth).  Same for the one in
A3.  We don't know about those in A2.  But it's not that we never see it
happen, it's that we see them grow without any food (although I guess it's
possible that the Alien actually ate parts of the ship :-).

>Again, we see the Queen controlling two of her "children," in the egg-chamber
>scene.

Again, we see her communicating.  Unless the "children" you refer to are the
f'hugger?  I don't think she "controlled" that hugger to come out of the pod.
I think it sensed a possible host nearby and it came out.  There's no doubt
in my mind that she was indeed communicating with the two Aliens that were
coming at Ripley and Newt, but again, there's a difference between
"communicating with" or even "ordering" and actual "control".  Even with an
order, you can always disobey.

>> We are told in the LD that the Alien does indeed 'borrow' genetic material
>> from its host.  So the Alien in A3 could very well be a typical Alien, just
>> like those in the other movies.  It acts the way it does because it comes
>> from a dog.

>Is intelligence genetic?  In the sense that's manifested here, that is?

I don't know.  That's a good question.  Did the Alien in the third movie
act less intelligent than those in the first two?  I don't think it did.
But just how much is intelligence, and how much is instinct?

>> It's logical to assume that the possibility exists
>> that one facehugger can plant two embryos, or even that one egg can hold
>> two distinct facehuggers.  Not enough evidence.

>No it's not, sorry.  It would be an after-the fact patch, and if we're 
>speculating, we can do better.

It's not, sorry, what?  It's not logical to assume that the *possibility*
exists?  I think it is.  I can't think of any reason to specifically
exclude the possibility, and we are just speculating, right? ;-)

I'm not saying that it's the right answer, or that it's even a good answer.
I'm just saying that it is *possible*.

>Yeah. . .like a dog-alien that sees in ROYGBIV.  Bleaghhh. . .
                                        ^^^^^^^
You got me.  What's that?

>Hahaha.  If only brilliant folks like us could get a crack at it, eh?
>
>Things we haven't considered:
>The "queen f'hugger"
>The derelict ship, and it's pilot
>The thousands of eggs in the derelict, and their size
>I've seen the picture of Dallas turning into an egg.  The result was huge,
>much bigger than any other pod we see.  The Queen f'hugger was huge, as well.
>Get it?
>Bottom line: we could take all of the info, including all the cut info, and
>come up with a consistent lifecycle/bio for the bugs.  This guy's on the 
>right track, I think.  Jorge, you up for this?  

Sure, why not?


-- 
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."