Google| Subject | Re: The Lone Alien theory |
| From | Robbie Grant |
| Date | 07/16/2001 03:33 (07/16/2001 11:33) |
| Message-ID | <3B524461.B55B8C65@ozemail.com.au> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | alt.cult-movies.alien |
| Follows | Keith Hazelwood |
| Followups | Keith Hazelwood (2h & 13m) > Robbie Grant |
Keith Hazelwood wrote:
Keith HazelwoodI'm *sure* you're not trying to label me a "fanboy purist" here... Anyway, while I do agree with this to an extent, I still see no reason why we can't have a gimmick, *if it's done well*. In the end, it's all done to please the masses, and rake in the money. While Alien 3 was still enjoyable for me, it did have its problems. Whether the alien has one or two modes or reproduction, there was still no reason for it to go around simply killing everyone. Given that the movie already goes again one mode of reproduction (saving the people to be used as hosts once the Queen hatches), I have no problem with re-introduction the original lifecycle (or rather, the originally proposed lifecycle), even though it may go against A3. Any new film is going to have a gimmick, and personally I'd rather it be an alien that can create an egg from a host than that whole Newborn thing. Given that, should any new movie be made, there *will* be something new about the alien, wouldn't you prefer the devil you know?
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.
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.I agree. As I said above, we saw just this kind of thing in A:R. Movie studios are gonna do what they're gonna do, but some ideas are better than others. The door is already well and truly open -- personally, I'd prefer the alternate lifecycle to some other random piece of crap that could get dreamed up. But then, I just said that, didn't I? I'll move on, now.
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.So you'd have no problem with a script that dictated the necessity for an alternate lifecycle?
Absolutely. However, it's quite easy to make a crap script that uses the alternate lifecycle. It's also *possible*, I feel, to make a good one. There's really no way of knowing which it'll be until such a script surfaces (if ever, which personally I doubt). However, on it's own merits and outside the realm of script-dictated necessity, which by no means implies quality, I have no problem with the idea of an alternate lifecycle. There are many ideas that people could come up with which I would label "utter crap", but I can see how this particular idea could be integrated well, and is more interesting than certain other plot devices. While other crap plot devices may be dreamt up and proposed, I think that each has to be judged on its own merits, rather than saying "no, we can't that, because then people might feel that they can apply some really crap plot device to the alien species". These other crap plot devices are going to come, whatever is or is not put forward.Robbie GrantKeith Hazelwood
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.
Sorry, should have included a :-) Of course, this part wasn't intended as a serious argument, but rather to show that the wording you used wasn't terribly useful. But I've already covered that.Keith HazelwoodRobbie GrantRobbie 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.
Thank-you.
You take pride in making strawman arguments? What are you, a religious zealot?
:-) You know you love it.Keith HazelwoodAnd 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.Robbie Grant
Yeah. Fun, isn't it?
Well, not as fun as being kicked in the groin, but yeah.
-- *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-
