Google| Subject | Re: The Lone Alien theory |
| From | Robbie Grant |
| Date | 07/14/2001 12:09 (07/14/2001 20:09) |
| Message-ID | <3B501A77.11AA25AD@ozemail.com.au> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | alt.cult-movies.alien |
| Follows | Keith Hazelwood |
| Followups | Keith Hazelwood (19h & 16m) > Robbie Grant |
Keith Hazelwood wrote:
Keith HazelwoodAfter the first film, turning the aliens into hive-dwelling creatures was unnecessary. So was making Ripley and the marines face more than one of them. So was putting the marines in the movie. So was even having Ripley at all. Personally, I think it all made for a damn fine movie, though. What the hell has necessity got to do with anything? Hell, in the grand scheme of things, the entire series is "unnecessary". As far as the lifecycle of the alien goes, there is no reason why it can't have two separate modes of reproduction. Indeed, by your own logic, it's not "necessary" for it to have only one, therefore it is "unnecessary" for it not to have more. Personally, although Alien3 kind of implied that one lone warrior cannot make an egg, I still like the idea, and if a subsequent movie somehow managed to bring this idea in and do it well, I'd be happy.
I don't see where belief enters into the equation. An alternate lifecycle is definitely not necessary, hence "unnecessary." And it's self-evident that any such addition, by its very definition, would add complexity.
-- *The Fuzz* You are about to begin reading The Fuzz's new sig. Relax. Concentrate. Dispel every other thought. -"And after that, my guess is you'll never hear from him again"- | http://www.ozemail.com.au/~randrgrant \ / "For such is the nature of men, that howsoever they -- O O -- may acknowledge many others to be more witty, or more / \ eloquent, or more learned; yet they will hardly believe _| |_ there be many so wise as themselves...
07/08/2001-
