Google| Subject | Re: The Lone Alien theory |
| From | Keith Hazelwood |
| Date | 07/15/2001 20:18 (07/15/2001 20:18) |
| Message-ID | <39m3ltgme15tuji4o9jro9b3k9q9fcqn29@4ax.com> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | alt.cult-movies.alien |
| Follows | Robbie Grant |
| Followups | Robbie Grant (7h & 14m) > Keith Hazelwood |
On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 23:38:55 +1000, Robbie Grant <randrgrant@ozemail.com.au>wrote:
I disagree. *Useful* plot devices are welcome because they serve to further the story and clarify ambiguities, like the much derided "plot holes" in Alien 3. The original lifecycle does nothing of the sort. All it does it tack on yet another gimmicky aspect of the alien's biology for no other reason than to satisy fanboy purists who can't let it go.Keith HazelwoodRobbie Grant
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.
Of 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...).I'm saying that positing an alternate mode of reproduction for its own sake, rather than to explain something that requires an explanation, opens the door to other such superfluous comic book crap like "king aliens" etc.
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.While I see no necessity for them to be prematurely endowed with special powers and abilities unless and until they're shown or otherwise implied within the narrative structure of the films.
I'm glad you agree.Robbie GrantAs far as the lifecycle of the alien goes, there is no reason why it can't have two separate modes of reproduction.Keith Hazelwood
So why not three? Four? A thousand?
Because that would make a crap movie.
I don't think that having two would make a crap movie.IMO, it would if there were no good reason for it. For example,I wasn't very fond of the dog alien in Alien 3, but I was forced to reluctantly accept it. Also, the gene spliced aliens in AR made for one hell of a crap movie, culminating with the introduction of the newborn.
You take pride in making strawman arguments? What are you, a religious zealot?Robbie GrantIndeed, by your own logic, it's not "necessary" for it to have only one, therefore it is "unnecessary" for it not to have more.Keith Hazelwood
Nice strawman argument.
Thank-you.
Well, not as fun as being kicked in the groin, but yeah.Keith HazelwoodRobbie Grant
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.
Yeah. Fun, isn't it?
Keith "...in matters of faith, inconvenient evidence is always suppressed while contradictions go unnoticed." -Gore Vidal
07/08/2001-
