Google| Subject | Re: The Lone Alien theory |
| From | Keith Hazelwood |
| Date | 07/18/2001 07:51 (07/18/2001 07:51) |
| Message-ID | <6h6alts8t44nhsm1qj6hmhof96g9jr6fv1@4ax.com> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | alt.cult-movies.alien |
| Follows | Robbie Grant |
| Followups | Robbie Grant (1d, 7h & 51m) |
On Wed, 18 Jul 2001 10:24:16 +1000, Robbie Grant <randrgrant@ozemail.com.au>wrote:
Robbie GrantI know what I said.
"To my mind, that's a deliberately *engineered* weak link designed to intentionally prevent out-of-control breeding. The beauty of the *aliens as bioweapons*..." "It therefore seems plainly obvious to me that *their creators* didn't want them to survive and procreate indefinitely."
While maybe you're not saying that the aliens *are* bioweapons (although it does sound an awful lot like that), you're at least saying that you view them as such. With no proof (or necessity) whatsoever.No definitive proof, but there is definitely supporting evidence. They were being transported as cargo in the belly of starship piloted by another intelligent species. Sure, we can theorize all we want about the reason they were in the derelict, but the most popular theory by far since the original film debuted is that they were being used by the Space Jockey as bioweapons, just as Weyland-Yutani and the USM intended to use them--a point which was driven home time and again throughout the entire series.
No-one here is saying that the aliens *do* have an alternate lifecycle -- merely that they could, and that fans who were so disposed could view the alien that way (or not) if it suited their fancy.That's fine. Plenty of fans think the shite put forth in the comics is great too. Quite frankly, I think we're lucky that Alien 3 turned out like it did. The unused scripts had many more pointless gimmicks than the final product (e.g. the glass alien, virus alien, etc.)
, although it's *generally agreedAs abstract a concept as "perfect organism." It's meaningless to me unless you're talking specifics.Keith HazelwoodRobbie Grant
upon* that they are.
Not by me. Not that I have any problem with you seeing them that way: I just prefer the idea of them being the ultimate Darwinian nightmare, as I've posted before.
I disagree. There are PLENTY of things that support the bioweapon theory.Keith HazelwoodRobbie Grant
"Perfect organism" is too abstract. At least rationalizing their strengths and weaknesses based on their conjectural role as genetically engineered bioweapons gives us something relatively concrete to work with.
It doesn't matter. Both are pulled out of thin air, and have very little with which to back themselves up.
A flight of fancy is a flight of fancy.Again, I disagree. The "perfect organism" concept is too broad to discuss rationally. Too subjective. For instance, IMO, a perfect organism would be far more intelligent than the aliens are. They'd also be harder to kill, assuming they could be killed at all, and wouldn't require hosts in which to breed. They'd also look like bikini models, but's that's just MY definition of perfect...
By comparison, the idea of the alien as a bioweapon is much less subjective because the parameters are far more narrowly defined.
Logically, a short larval stage indicates a correspondingly short lifespan.Keith HazelwoodRobbie Grant
We know for a *fact* they age quickly. The ones in Alien and Alien 3 went from "infancy" to adulthood within a day. This indicates a short lifespan.
No, it indicates a short larval stage. It says nothing about how long the alien will live.
A few months would still qualify as an extremely brief lifespan, IMO.Keith HazelwoodRobbie Grant
How did the second film contradict it? The infestation of the colony happened only within the space of weeks, perhaps a couple of months, given the abrupt loss of contact with Earth and the Sulaco's three week transit time from Gateway station to Acheron.
Sorry, I thought you were talking about the fact that the alien slowed down in the last bit of Alien, indicating that it would have an *extremely* short lifespan.
You're equating the aliens to species within an entirely different kingdom?Robbie GrantActually, as I've stated, I'm fairly sure that some have.Keith Hazelwood
Well that's convincing.
Look, I told you about the trees, and Swarve mentioned grass. I'm sure there are others -- do I *really* have to go and look them up?
A strawman argument is when you intentionally restate an opposing viewpoint inaccurately in order to knock it down more easily. That's not what I did.Keith HazelwoodRobbie Grant
There's no reason to assume I can't sprout wings and fly, but that doesn't make the possibility any less silly.
In reality, no. But we're talking about movies. Tsk, tsk... and *you* told *me* that strawmen were bad...
Keith "In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." -Galileo
07/08/2001-
