Google| Subject | Re: The Lone Alien theory |
| From | Robbie Grant |
| Date | 07/15/2001 15:38 (07/15/2001 23:38) |
| Message-ID | <3B519CEF.6C66A174@ozemail.com.au> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | alt.cult-movies.alien |
| Follows | Keith Hazelwood |
| Followups | Covenant (2h & 42m) Keith Hazelwood (4h & 39m) > Robbie Grant |
Keith Hazelwood wrote:
Keith HazelwoodOf course it's vacuous. That *is* my point. Saying that a plot device cannot be used in a sci-fi movie because it's "unnecessary" is simply ludicrous. Of course, I do realise that what you're saying is that an alternate lifecycle is superfluous, and raises the alien above a merely very nasty creature to near god-like stature in its adaptability, but I don't agree (hmmm... there's shock...). There are creatures in this world that have more than one mode of reproduction (although, no, I can't actually think of any, not being a biologist), and the original mode suits the alien perfectly (as does the other, IMO, but I'm sure many will disagree). I would like to see the alien capable of throwing a few new surprises at the audience in any future films, and I think that this is one that would work, and *could* work well. I simply see no necessity for the alien to be limited in this fashion.
On Sat, 14 Jul 2001 20:09:59 +1000, Robbie Grant <randrgrant@ozemail.com.au>wrote:Robbie GrantKeith Hazelwood
After 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".
Yeah, so what in the hell is your point? You do this kind of "apples to oranges" comparison a lot and it may strike a cord with the less critical thinkers around here, but not me. You know damn well your analogy is totally vacuous.
Because that would make a crap movie. I don't think that having two would make a crap movie.Robbie GrantKeith Hazelwood
As far as the lifecycle of the alien goes, there is no reason why it can't have two separate modes of reproduction.
So why not three? Four? A thousand?
Thank-you.Robbie GrantKeith Hazelwood
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.
Nice strawman argument.
Yeah. Fun, isn't it?Robbie GrantKeith Hazelwood
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.
And I'd have no choice but to accept it. However, since no movie thus far has done so, it remains solely within the realm of baseless conjecture.
-- *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-
