From: 01fortec@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: I Liked Alien - again
Date: 6 Nov 92 11:27:31 -0400
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <73730@hydra.gatech.EDU>, ccoprdj@prism.gatech.EDU (Jorge Diaz) writes:
> In article <1992Nov4.135133.8612@ac.dal.ca> 01fortec@ac.dal.ca writes:
> 
>>1- Your comments are not in contention. I simply found parallels and drew
>>conclusions accordingly. I said they were similar, not the same.
> 
> How similar are they?!  ;-)
> 
> Sorry, I just had to say it.  As for your statement, well, can't argue it
> when we're just talking about 'similarities'.  The Alien is also similar
> to a human (in the first two movies), since it's a biped.  It's similar to
> a bat - blind, requiring some other method of determining what's where
> (not necessarily sonar, but something).  It's also similar to many insects,
> with that tough exoskeleton....
> 
> It's similar to a lot of things.

It should be similar to a human, if it derives genetic material and coding from
its host.
As for similarities, put them all together. It's a little bit of everything.
Probably designed that way. (which brings up another possibility altogether)

> 
>>2- Actually, I found the hive nature implied in the actions of the alien, not
>>in the facehugger garden.
> 
> This I don't understand at all, but that's just me.  I found nothing in the
> first movie to indicate a hive nature.

The first thing that struck me when I saw A1 was that its first two victims 
dissapeared. At this point, I thought that maybe the thing was similar to a
wasp in some ways, in that it layed eggs in a living host. The alternateive
also occured in discussion with others that it might be a young queen, with a
whole shipload of potential queens. Later I read the book and got the Book of 
Alien. These were helpful but didn't really expand much on the nature of the
creature.

> 
>>Actually, I think by this point the impression I get is that your objection
>>to the hive nature of the alien is more one of taste than substance. You 
>>don't like the idea that the alien is just a creature, with all the 
>>restrictions that that implies.  You want Super BEM!
> 
> No, that's not it.  What I want is a little consistency between the two movies
> in the way they treat the Alien.  In the first, the Alien, if not intelligent,
> if not cunning, if not scary, at least knew how to hide.  It didn't run around
> looking to get killed.  It didn't know that the crew had no weapons.  We can
> only assume that it behaves like that whether they have weapons or not.
> 
> Then, suddenly, in the second movie, the Aliens can't even hide very well
> (after that initial scene).
> 

Consistency is an oft wished for but seldom achieved ideal in sequels. :)

As for the rest, I just look at it as a difference in technology and firepower.

>>	Look at it from another point of view, if you want. Hive creatures 
>>on Earth are the most successful of species. They are difficult to 
>>exterminate, easily adapt to a wide variety of environments that humans 
>>would find impossible to live in, and reproduce at an amazing pace.
>>	Now apply those same criteria to something larger and from a 
>>much more radical environment, and you have our friends with the large
>>teeth and violent disposisions. 
> 
> All well and good.  But, personally, I saw nothing to indicate a hive nature
> in the first movie.  I saw a bad-ass-mo-fo, who was turned into 'just another
> number' in the second.  I want the bad-ass-mo-fo again.  If you call that
> wanting super BEM, well, I plead guilty.  Because that's what we were given
> in the first movie.
> 

No probs. We just look at it differently, looking for different things. I'm
an avid reader of SF, but I have interests in other fields and can rarely 
look at something without trying to "get the larger picture". The hive concept
worked for me because it gave the creature an environment and ecology. The best
I could do the with 'bad-ass-mo-fo' was a genetic construct in some war that
got out of hand. (this would have made for an interesting sequel also, I think)

> Basically, the idea of a hive nature contradicts what we saw in the first
> film for one reason:  in the hive, individuals aren't important.  They
> do a job and that's it.  The individual doesn't have to be intelligent, or
> sneaky, or cunning.  If it gets killed, it's no loss, it just gets replaced.
> A good example of a 'hive' culture on a larger scale would be the Borg of
> Star Trek: The Next Generation (one of the few things that I've actually
> enjoyed about the show :-).  What we saw in the first film is that the
> individual Alien was important.  It was smart, it was sneaky, it knew what
> it had to do to survive.  It didn't run around waiting to be shot with a
> pulse rifle.
> 

Just a point - the Borg were a collective mentality. Losing a member was not
deadly to the whole, but it was highly uncomfortable.

As for the hive, there is always one individual who is important - the queen.
The others are probably important, too, but the overriding imperative is the
protection of the nest and the queen, to the exclusion of all else.

>>	Me, I like the idea of hive creatures. It leaves open a number of
>>interesting possibilities, like what was their home planet like, and
>>what happened to the civilisation that bred the star-pilot. Imagine
>>a world full of creatures like this one. Or imagine what kind of creature
>>eats an alien for lunch.
> 
> It's wonderous indeed, but it can be just as wonderous without turning the
> monster into an overgrown bee.
> 

True, and I would have like to see the alternative also. However, we have to
work with what we have: someone could probably write a short paper on trying
to reconcile divergent movies in a series. I'll have to rent A3 sometime, and
do some thinking about it. :)

>>The two views are not incompatible. It occurs to me, though, that unless the
>>alien is at the top of the food chain (I've yet to see it eat anything), its
>>population density at home must be pretty low, if only because its prey would
>>eventually become acustomed to what happens when you peek at a cocoon. 
> 
> Yes, except for one thing:  They only need one prey to peek at a cocoon.
> After that, we have one Alien, and he can bring more hosts for the rest of
> the cocoons.  After that, the reproduce pretty much exponentially, and soon
> the entire world (or as much of it as they can get to) is taken.
> 

Also true. Same works for the hive. 
Here's a thought: if the creature is a biological weapon on a large scale,
then it has enormous potential. Especially if it has a limited lifespan
(not clear on this). It is also limited in reproductive ability since it needs
a host as an intermediary stage. (even in A2) As you pointed out, it would 
overrun a planet, particularly if it has no heavy weapons worth speaking of, 
and after taking over would die off, leaving the place open for 
re-colonisation by others.

Joe Chiasson
01fortec@ac.dal.ca

Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies