From: Montague_Kevin@Tandem.com (Kevvy Kev)
Subject: Re: Alien biology
Organization: In Effect Enterprises
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 20:28:45 GMT

In article <74102@hydra.gatech.EDU>, ccoprdj@prism.gatech.EDU (Jorge Diaz) writes:
> 
> In article <alien.00vs@acheron.amigans.gen.nz*> alien@acheron.amigans.gen.nz (Ross Smith) writes:
> 
> *>   I've been doing some serious thinking about the life cycle and caste
> *>system of the Aliens, inspired by some reading on the social insects.
> 
> This is your first mistake. ;-)

No. . .starting this thread after doing serious thinking was his first mistake.
But I'm sure we can beat all the reason out of him. . .

> *>   Now that I've made it clear that this should only be read by people
> *>interested in a rational discussion of Alien biology, we can continue.
> *>Please keep in mind that this is just my suggestion for how the Aliens
> *>live, based partly on the movies, partly on the Dark Horse comics, and
> *>partly on pure speculation.  If anyone has any different ideas, share them
> *>with us!

Second mistake: expecting reasoned response. . . 

> OK, sounds good.  Nothing wrong with speculation, nor with using outside
> references (like the Dark Horse comics).  However, I hope you won't mind
> if I do the same and make references to cut scenes that appear on the
> LD.  After all, if the LD cannot be considered 'canon' then, I don't
> see how the DH comics can be.  Not saying that they are not a valid source
> of info, I just want to make sure it's OK to discuss *everything*.

It's certainly okay to speculate, and to use what others have speculated to
fuel your imagination. And that includes the cut scenes on LD. HOWEVER, it's
also (muddy protestations as to what "canon" means notwithstanding) important 
to understand that when we're all done, some of what we say will make sense
as applied to the movies, and some probably won't.  That's because we're 
just naturally smarter than the folks that made the movies. . .

[snip, good defs. of hive creatures]
 
> 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.

> A little while later, viola!, we've seen it.  I think that it was every
> intention of the director that the Queen be the only fertile member of the
> colony, who lays all the eggs (with or without the help of males, as you
> have pointed out below).

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.
 
> *>   In some cases only the queen reproduces, but in others the workers can
> *>lay eggs too.  Sometimes worker eggs develop in the same way as queen eggs,
> *>but in many cases there are restrictions :  in some ants, for example,
> *>workers can lay only male eggs.  In other ants, most worker eggs are
> *>infertile and are used as food for the larvae.  In some wasps, multiple
> *>queens can share the same hive.
> 
> I see no problem with this.  In the LD we are shown that the workers
> (warriors?) can also 'lay' eggs.  They don't necessarily lay them, but they
> can create them.  The end result is the same:  the hive can continue without
> a Queen.  The Queen is certainly the more efficient method of producing eggs,
> but she isn't necessary.

It's worth pointing out here (again) that this falls under the heading of 
supposition, and that the cut LD scenes are not canon.  Which is overt, as
the scenes were not added to the film, but presented as exactly what they
are: supplementary footage.
Okay, okay.  Pedantic and unneccessary.  But it seems like. . .ah, forget it.

[Snip, bugs spread faster with a Queen around]

> *>   Many people have commented on the contrast in behaviour between the
> *>creature in A1, which cautiously hid itself away and attacked only one or
> *>two humans at a time, and those in A2, which on one occasion simply threw
> *>themselves en masse at the Marines' automated gatling guns.
> 
> Yep, that was me.

Heh heh.  And a host of others.  Lead on. . .

> *>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.  

> I can accept that the Aliens don't eat more easily than I can accept that
> they are all under the control of the Queen (at least we have evidence to
> support the former in all three movies).

How could you possibly provide "evidence" that the Aliens don't eat?  Just
because we never see it happen?  
Good luck trying to prove a negative.
Again, we see the Queen controlling two of her "children," in the egg-chamber
scene.

[snip, Alien producing Queen egg]

> *>Actually, several of them probably
> *>would, but only one would have survived to adulthood; we know from the DH
> *>comics (especially "Genocide") that there is strictly one Queen to a
> *>planet.
> 
> Whoa!  We *know* from the DH comics?  We were told in the DH comics.  Big
> difference.  Just a minor nit, I know.

Nonexistent nit; we're 'speculating,' remember?
 
[snip, bugs can create eggs w/no Queen around]

> *>   How many Alien castes are there?  We know of three from the movies --
> *>Warrior, Queen, and the one in A3.
> 
> Well, this is something that's subject to interpretation, I guess....
> I think the one we saw in A3 was the same as the ones from A1 and A2, except
> that it acted differently because it came from a different host (ie, a dog).

I'd tend to agree.  But we can certainly interpret it differently, if it
jibes with our creative suppositions. . .

> 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?
 
> *>This was produced by the same
> *>facehugger that implanted the Queen embryo in Ripley (I think -- it's been
> *>a while since I saw A3, but that's how I remember it),
> 
> Um, that's the problem.  We don't know.  Because they did a bad job of
> explaining things like how the eggs got there, how many there were, etc,
> we just don't know.  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.
 
> *>My explanation for this is that
> *>the creature in A3 was of a highly specialised caste that exists solely to
> *>protect the young Queen until she's produced enough Warriors to establish a
> *>hive.  A Queen-bearing facehugger, unlike a Warrior-bearing one, carries
> *>two embryos -- the Queen herself and the protector creature (let's call it
> *>a Nurse caste).
> 
> Umm.  Well, I *guess* you can look at it that way.  I don't really see the
> need for such a creature, and I like to keep things as simple as possible,
> so I still believe that there are just the two castes.  But hey, we're into
> pure speculation now, so I guess anything is possible.

Yeah. . .like a dog-alien that sees in ROYGBIV.  Bleaghhh. . .

> *>   We can guess that there may be other castes that we haven't seen yet.
> 
> Yes, aren't sequels wonderful? :-/
> 
> *>   One objection to my claim that Warriors can reproduce when they need to
> *>is the DH story "Aliens vs Predator", in which the Predators scatter
> *>Warrior eggs over worlds so that they can have the fun of hunting the adult
> *>Warriors (killing an Alien is an "initiation ritual" for young Predators).
> *>They carefully remove any Queen eggs from the mix so that the infestations
> *>won't get out of hand (except on one occasion, when their source of eggs --
> *>a captive Queen -- outsmarted the egg-sorting machinery and managed to
> *>sneak a Queen egg in among the Warriors).  This suggests that the Predators
> *>know that Warriors can't reproduce.
> *>   But the Predators don't strike me as being the sort who'd be big on
> *>scientific research.
> 
> Scientific research.  Pretty nebulous phrase.  I hope you don't mean
> technological research.  They seem pretty damn big on that. :-)  Not sure
> exactly what you mean by that, so I can't comment on it.

I'd have to agree with Jorge, here.  The Predator race is pretty advanced.

> Now, I know that I am one of the ones who was saying that he didn't like the
> idea of a 'hive' and a Queen, and that it was inconsistent with Alien.  

No, it wasn't.  Even without patches and retcons, it just wasn't.  You may
say that it was inconsistent with the "spirit" of Alien, or your interpretation
of Alien, or how you choose to see the spirit of Alien, or even Ridley Scott's
vision of the bugs.  But you cannot (correctly) say that the idea of a hive and
a Queen is inconsistent with the movie, _Alien_.  Because it's not.

> the fact remains that the movie was filmed, and it is canon, so I have to
> accept what happened in that movie, as stupid as I think it might be.  

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?  
Of course, it's probably more fun to argue about it. . .

Kevvy Kev
"The entire world revolves around this wretched Alien."
 -H.R. Giger