From: caruso@socrates.umd.edu (John Caruso)
Subject: Re: Plot holes in Alien^3 (*S
Organization: University of Maryland University College
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 05:03:41 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.182208.28014@tandem.com> Montague_Kevin@Tandem.com (Kevvy Kev) writes:
>In article <1992Sep4.100919.7022@fwi.uva.nl>, welter@fwi.uva.nl (Richard Welter) writes:
>> Probably it didn't want to burn off her hands since she might bleed to
>> death and she wouldn't be of much use to the facehugger then.
>
>You posit that the f'hugger would know that this would (a) harm Ripley
>(b) harm Ripley enough to kill/prevent use as a host.  Neither of which you
>can assume; in fact previous evidence points to the contrary.  Again, the 
>fact that the first one went right through Kane's helmet with utter unconcern
>shows that they are nasty beasties that move with singleminded purpose.

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.  The acid they singed out of the facehugger while it was
attached to Kane burned through six of the Nostromo's decks, so obviously
it could have melted through Kane's phyzog just as well; the facehugger
must have neutralized it somehow (or it's just a gaping plot hole).  And
when threatened, it wrapped its tail tighter around Kane's throat--a clear
indication that it knows something of the host's physiology.  So IMO, the
theory that it didn't use acid because it knew it would hurt Ripley is a
strong one that's supported by the available "canon" information.

>the clear implication (and this is supported rather than contradicted by
>non-canonical references) is that the first one got hurt and maybe even killed
>when the glass broke. Which brings us to two more brain-dead mistakes:
>1) The instinct of the f'hugger would've been to sear through the glass, not
>   melt it.  Did these people even watch _Alien_?

Huh?  Sear through, but not melt?  I'm assuming you meant sear through
the glass, not break it.

But I don't think the facehugger could melt the glass OR break through it.
I wondered how the tubes could hold the facehuggers when I saw the movie,
but I decided to chalk it up to coating on the inside of the tube, or the
liquid they were suspended in, or whatever.  Artistic license.  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.  As
you observed, they move with singleminded purpose.

>2) The fact that it broke through seamless, curved, Strong glass like the 
>   cryotube implies fantastic strength.  Again: there's no way Ripley could've
>   held one of those off with her bare hands.  Either through brute force or
>   with acid, it would've gotten to her Very quickly.

My understanding from watching the film was that Burke had broken the glass
to release the facehugger to impregnate Ripley and/or Newt.  How he did
this without getting hugged himself is another question (nitpick), but
that was what Ripley seemed to think.  Again, if the facehugger could break
the glass itself it would have done so long before.

- John
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies