From: Montague_Kevin@Tandem.com (Kevvy Kev)
Subject: Re: Plot holes in Alien^3 (*S
Organization: In Effect Enterprises
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 23:09:43 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.050341.13835@socrates.umd.edu>, caruso@socrates.umd.edu (John Caruso) writes:
> 
> 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.  

Those of us with less of a life than you have hashed this out already, a 
couple of times.  I actually was the one who brought this up: it seemed to
be a plot hole to me.  All of which is merely a pleasant backdrop to me
attacking 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. While this 
doesn't make a terribly large amount of sense, and implies a nice degree of
control over the acid secreted, it 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.

> 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). 

Hahahaha ha.  A plot hole? Nah. Couldn't be.  Remember, this all Really 
Happened.  Wha'd you think, it was just a movie?

> 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.

Not sure why you put 'canon' in quotes, but this theory ignores what we
saw in the first movie, as indicated above.  Incidentally, the f'hugger
wrapping its tail around Kane's throat implies nothing other than the 
fact that it was securing a tighter grip to keep from being removed.

> >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.

I don't know what that means, but this half of the argument is becoming 
irrelevant to my way of thinking; the only reason I brought this up is 
to point out that the f'hugger Would've used acid to go through the tube:
this is what it did in the first movie, with Kane's helmet.  I think it's 
pretty clear the writers just didn't think this through.

> 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.

Again, we thrashed this out before ^3 came out; my vote was that the liquid
neutralized the acid.  Which is weak, but better than saying, "they screwed
up. . .it's just a movie."  Great minds. . .

> 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.

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.

> >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. 

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.

> How he did
> this without getting hugged himself is another question (nitpick), 

Not much of a nit to pick.  Pretty easy to imagine a bunch of ways.

> Again, if the facehugger could break
> the glass itself it would have done so long before.

Again, if the writers had stopped in the middle of this scene and said:

". . .Hey. . .didn't one of these things go right through someone's helmet
 in the first one?"
"S--t. Yeah; that's right. . ."
"Dammit.  Well, we can't have them just floating in glass tubes, then. . ."

Then the movie would've been a bit different.  
Yes, it's just a movie.  For all their fearsome willfulness, no, "the f'hugger
couldn't break the glass itself."  It needs help from the writers.

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