How did Ash get directly behind Ripley whilst she was typing questions to Mother- the door was closed?
How did the Alien get ahead of Dallas- it was heading horizontally towards him and he climbed down into it? The others had it on radar?
I always thought that Ripley was so caught up in shock and disbelief of what Mother was revealing that she failed to notice Ash entering. As an audience member feeling the same during the reveal, I didn't notice either.
As for the alien getting ahead of Dallas. Was there mention of it being accurate to within X percent or something? I seem to recall that. It wasn't a radar as such but it worked on changes in air pressure or density, caused by movement, something like that. I think Ash made it out of parts they had available.
MikeCable’s answers work for me on a personal level.
I was 13 when I saw the movie in theaters. That “crew expendable“ message was a real gut punch to me. My teenage cynicism started at that moment.
I had an “ah-hah” reaction to the alien creeping up on Dallas - I “realized“ that the motion tracker work in two dimensions, allowing the alien to sneak up on him from below
Ripley simply didn’t notice Ash had entered through the door behind her.
shareHow did Ash get directly behind Ripley whilst she was typing questions to Mother- the door was closed?
How did the Alien get ahead of Dallas- it was heading horizontally towards him and he climbed down into it? The others had it on radar?
A door so silent that not even the audience heard it.
share1. Ripley did not notice, did not hear, because of the shocking information Mother just revealed her. And in that moment, we are in her heaspace. She needs to process how utterly fucked up this state of affairs really is. So she really doesn't hear the loud hiss - and we don't either, because we are experiencing all this through her.
2. The tracker is working via monitoring micro-changes in air density - and Dallas is in a ventilation shaft. That indicates right from the get-go that the readings of the instrument will not be really precise. This, coupled with the fact that the tracker's display is 2D, and the tunnel / pipe system they are in has upper and lower levels is a recipe for disaster. Also, in the novelization, there is an interference, and after the signals come back, Lambert is confused which blip is Dallas and which one is the Alien. And in the movie, even without the interference I don't really believe she was confident throughout, so there is that. The horizontal movement of the alien meant for me that it was approaching, closer and closer, and would have climbed up to Dallas anyways, had he not climbed down. Point is - he had little to no chance in this situation, because a flamethrower is only useful if you gather information on your foe's whereabouts - which the alien did much better than Dallas and Lambert.
It always amazes me the lengths people will go to rationalize something in movies they like.
What kind of an idiot takes a flame thrower into an enclosed airspace?
Let me go to some more length then.
Remember: the flamethrower is their only means of defense at that point. Yes, the circumstances are not ideal, but having it and thus the possibility of escape the encounter or even seriously harm the alien worth it for Dallas at that point, VS going in unarmed, in which case there would have been absolutely nothing for him to do in the case he runs into the alien.
Is that logical for you?
There is a kind of logic there ... the same kind of logic that the players in a horror movie always use when they split up, or make certain decisions based more on the movie than on what real people would do in similar circumstances.
Yes, not knowing what they were up against, it did not make sense that one would set off along, with a weapon that could kill himself and not really proven to hurt the alien.
Also ... the alien seems to have been growing. How is the alien doing that? It is eating people and growing like we would when we eat stuff, or does it even need to eat?
But that does not even take into account the whole John Hurt chest burster thing and letting it on the ship ... does it make sense that they would go off and leave that guy alone in the med-bay. And how are their medical scans not picking up that thing?
(...) [They] make certain decisions based more on the movie than on what real people would do in similar circumstances.
Yes, not knowing what they were up against, it did not make sense that one would set off along, with a weapon that could kill himself and not really proven to hurt the alien.
Let me shed some light on this: at that point the decision that Dallas goes into the vent was made. Their plan was to try to eject the alien into space, which is a good plan. The alternative was to let the alien move around freely in the ship, so... I think this is more than enough to support their decision.
So the decision was made, and from that point, taking the flamethrower with him was still not ideal, but it fell into the "better than nothing" category. Yes, it's dangerous. Yes, he can cause his own death with it. But still it's better to have something to do in case of direct contact with the alien than just giving up and waiting for the end. This is also supported by the movie's internal logic, but I'll humor you: what would real people do in this situation? I'm curious about what you think would be different.
the alien seems to have been growing. How is the alien doing that?
I'm glad you brought this issue up - you're in luck, I addressed it in the "Alien size growth" thread already:
https://moviechat.org/tt0078748/Alien/61a04b5e28131d2bb18cbc1c/Alien-size-growth?reply=61a5f76d9862b05907ea3b78
That thread in its entirety is worth reading as well.
And how are their medical scans not picking up that thing?
A very good point, which is actually addressed in the novelization. Continued in the next comment due to the character limit.
In the novelization, Dallas notices a weird "spot" near Kane's lungs in one of the medical images. Ash tries to enlarge it, but at a certain zoom level, the image becomes distorted. Ash claims it can be a smudge on the lenses of the imaging machine, and it would take days to disassembling it, cleaning the lenses and reassembling it. During those days they would lose the ability to further monitor Kane's health. Dallas ultimately decides against this.
After the chestburster scene, Dallas tries to hold Ash accountable on why he let the alien grow inside Kane, but Ash calmly argues that they had no reason to assume the spot on the image was actually an alien. Dallas tries to further argue, but can't really find a smoking gun, and remains suspicious of Ash.
So this scene is not in the film, and I'll tell you why: we don't need two similar scenes where one of the crewmembers tries to find out what Ash's deal is. Ripley's "why did you open the door?" confrontation is just enough.
But that doesn't mean that in the framework of the movie this is a forgotten point. I'd say Ash was in charge of all the medical / research data about Kane's condition and the alien. If he saw something on any of the images, he kept it from the crew, and let things play out "naturally". No one else was interested in the science, and Ash took advantage of this situation - ultimately we all know why. So the sequence of events works just as well, even without directly addressing this issue.
Your theory on the food is really absurd .... sorry, don't mean to offend you because you are likely to fight to the death I can see you are so dedicated to making things up.
The idea of the super dense nutritional blob .... those nutrients would have to come from somewhere, but Kane's body is not consumed.
It's not really kosher to go into the post-movie novelization for explanations either.
Anyway, good try, I am glad it satisfies you.
I can see you are so dedicated to making things up
I can also see that you did not really understand the point of my post. I am making things up, but only for fun. In fact I urged all viewers to create their own theories. The "nutrition blob" theory is just a fun thought exercise to show how such thing could be possible. I can think of more fantastical explanations as well. But I don't really have to because the point the movie is making is that the alien's physiology is... well, alien :-)
those nutrients would have to come from somewhere, but Kane's body is not consumed.
Umm... that is, if you assume that the amount of nutrients required for growth of human tissue correlates linearly in an 1 to 1 ratio to the amount of nutrients required for the growth of the alien's... tissue? Exoskeleton? We don't even know... Anyways, I obviously calculated that amount to be way less in my scenario, as I think it's logical to assume the alien's system uses the nutrients more efficiently than a human's. Taking this into account, Kane's body needn't be "consumed", it's enough for him to be really, really hungry upon waking up. And - evidenced by the movie - he was!
It's not really kosher to go into the post-movie novelization for explanations either.
Yes, 100% agreed! And I did no such thing. I never claimed the described scene is the explanation. I merely informed you that your question of medical scanning was addressed in the novelization in detail - only as fun background info, as the novelization should be treated.
But I included my own explanation as well, which essentially is that Ash was in charge of medical data, and he deliberately kept such anomalous scan results (and everything else that could have pointed the crew towards what's really going on) to himself - for obvious reasons. That is my explanation, and I now re-stated it, since you apparently missed it the first time reading it.
> I am making things up, but only for fun.
I get that ... it's the same thing as science fiction or fiction in a way, and that's OK, but if you are going to do science fiction, or defend it, it has to be at least semi-plausible.
> Umm... that is, if you assume that the amount of nutrients required for growth of human tissue correlates linearly in an 1 to 1 ratio to the amount of nutrients required for the growth of the alien's... tissue?
Yes, like biology and physics, there is only so much energy in the chemical bonds of a biological organism's tissue, and let's not forget the conservation of mass and energy?
> I merely informed you that your question of medical scanning was addressed in the novelization in detail
To me that doesn't count if the mode of address is ridiculous.
As you can see, I didn't miss anything you said, I pointed out the inadequacies of your explanations in terms of real science or what we know about the universe.
Yes, like biology and physics, there is only so much energy in the chemical bonds of a biological organism's tissue, and let's not forget the conservation of mass and energy?
You've just proven that still don't understand my point. The point is that the alien's physiology is alien. And as such, it is not constrained by the same biology and the same physics as ours. This is a science fiction movie. I deliberately tried (for the sake of the example) to come up with an explanation that tries to be semi plausible. I could think of something else, like the alien is exctracting energy from the oxygen inside the ship, or some other BS, but the point is that we don't know. The alien is unpredictable because we can only look at it with our human eyes and can only think about it with our human minds, constrained by laws of biology and physics we think are universal - but when it comes to cosmic horror they are not.
As you can see, I didn't miss anything you said, I pointed out the inadequacies of your explanations in terms of real science or what we know about the universe.
My explanation is not accurate and not perfect, but just an example of how it could be possible (inside the movie's universe, not in our own!) Stop trying to pick it apart, because you are missing the point. If your view of science fiction is this constrained, why are you even watching such movies? Are you up in arms every time a spaceship in Star Wars performs a hyperspace jump? You know that wouldn't work, because the speed of light is an universal constant and cannot be exceeded... Maybe you aren't bothered by that, but the alien's growth is where you draw the line? What gives?
> And as such, it is not constrained by the same biology and the same physics as ours.
You just shown you do not understand physics ... because science and physics is about finding universal universals ... that is, the laws of physics are the same throughout the universe.
The comparison of chemistry and the fictional FTL drives that allow science fiction to be are two different things.
The comparison of chemistry and the fictional FTL drives that allow science fiction to be are two different things.
Interesting - I really don't see the difference between FTL and the alien growth. Both are violations of our known physics (I can see you don't accept that alien growth needn't be, so let's go with this), both are products of science fiction movies. The only difference is that FTL is connected to unknown technology, and alien growth is connected to unknown physiology. Why is one OK while the other is not?
It seems you have an argument for backing this up! Can I read it?
> Interesting - I really don't see the difference between FTL and the alien growth.
OK, first, let me say, none of this stuff is an argument. Arguments are constrained by reality, and what you are talking about is bending reality, which is what science fiction does. But Alien is not really science fiction, it is a horror movie in a science fictionish setting.
What you are saying is an argument is like resorting to calling it magic. There is a logic to projecting that in the future there could be faster that light travel - because without it there is very little science fiction. I prefer SF that adheres more closely to reality, like in the series the Expanse where they do not have FTL drive.
So, just because you have words that you think explains your favorite movie doesn't mean it is an argument.
The Alien growth idea, first of all is ridiculous, and if your age is in the double digits you should be ashamed of that, and ashamed to refer to it as an argument, but the reason is that the farther you go away from the laws we all know of the universe the more ridiculous you get. Like the Force in Star Wars, it's stupid and inconsistent.
If the Alien biology is such that it doesn't need to eat DNA based life form to exist and grow ... why the hell would it need to gestate inside a human? Why not just gestate in a rock, or ice, or whatever.
Not to mention the acid for blood thing. And when is acid ever called molecular acid. Another escape from what we know about reality, is that life operates in a very delicate form, a specific range of pH. What is explained about the alien doesn't make sense, and not to mention that it can also exist in a vacuum, but some certain gas in the escape pod ( and why do they have the ability to fill the escape pod with different toxic gases ) makes the Alien screech.
Oh, and one more thing... There is a moment in the film that supports my explanation about Ash keeping medical data top secret. In his confrontation with Ripley about breaking quarantine regulations and opening the airlock for Dallas and co, if you remember, the scene starts with Ripley walking up on Ash, who is looking at some medical scans on his monitors. As Ash notices Ripley's presence, he is in a hurry to turn the monitors off.
Granted, those images were not of Kane's body, but the structure of the facehugger, and still he did not want Ripley to see them. It's clear that any advanced knowledge in the crew's possession of the alien's behavior, structure, Kane's real condition, etc. would have jeopardized his mission. That's why he basically did not share anything in the movie with any of them, and it's safe to assume that all other medical and research data was treated the same by him.
EDIT: And one more thing :-) About Dallas taking the flamethrower with him to the vent, you earlier stated that "that's not what real people would do in this situation" (paraphrased). Could you then tell us what real people would do in this situation?
On the one hand I am being argued here that it would take a human not just an android to run the Nostromo, and on the other that only an android is capable of analyzing the zenomorph, in isolation?
But assuming that you're right and that Ash had more knowledge than the others in the crew, it does not imply or indicate that this knowledge was sufficient to explain violations of basic laws of physics ... that is up too the horror movie genre to do that.
> Could you then tell us what real people would do in this situation?
No, but it wouldn't be anything that was done by the characters of the crew of the Nostromo. First, ignoring the seriousness of Kane's injury. Second, going off planet without understanding what was going on.
Even Ash, the android, seems to me would have loved to get a sample to study. Why not send him back to the alien ship to grab an egg to study and see what kills it. Leaving without knowing what you have aboard and possibly taking that thing back to Earth, or going into hyper sleep with that thing running around the ship - bad idea.
The first thing would be to discuss realistically their situation.
Oh, and one other thing ... why would they have an escape pod that only has room for 2 people? And one other thing, if the escape pod was used, assuming the ship may be gone or destroyed ... all the logs and videos would need to be dumped to prove what happened. Even today whole cities have videocamera data that is searchable ... this is 300 or so years in the future. Like, why could they not have called up he video archive so they would know exactly where it is.
Remember in the pod for some reason Ripley was able to vent different gasses into the pods living space? No real reason for that, but maybe that would be a better weapon than a flame thrower ... and what the heck is a flame thrower doing on a space ship anyway. And don't get me started on that alien tracker that works of air currents or something ... how would that ever work?
There are tons of arguments that can be made about how absurd this was.
On the one hand I am being argued here that it would take a human not just an android to run the Nostromo, and on the other that only an android is capable of analyzing the zenomorph, in isolation?
Did we... did we even watch the same movie? Ash is not in charge of science on the ship because he is an android (remember: the crew is not aware that he is an android up until 70% into the runtime!), but because he is the science officer. Replaced at the last minute, no less to help getting the alien back to Earth. This is spelled out in the movie. The rest of the crew is not scientifically qualified to do any science work (hence the need for a science officer in the first place), and this is why they trust Ash. At least most of them, Ripley has her suspicions in the movie, and maybe Dallas as well.
it does not imply or indicate that this knowledge was sufficient to explain violations of basic laws of physics
I don't think Ash had time to study the growth of the alien, but given sufficient time and equipment he might have found a way to explain it even without violating the laws of physics. As an example see my nutrition blob explanation. Again, as an example. It could be any number of other things, and it's not necessarily impossible, and even if it is, this is a science fiction cosmic horror movie.
What you say is inconsistent, but makes no damn sense ... but I think you know that.
share> Ash is not in charge of science on the ship because he is an android
What does it mean in charge of science. you silly bunt?
If you are going to claim you are arguing, then at least argue over something I said. I never, and I don't think anyone else ever claimed Ash the android was in charge of science, but what I said and meant was that if Ash's intellectual powers were such that he could be the science officer, why could be and a crew or other androids not man the ship?
In other words, shift the whole motivation for discussion from your ridiculous attempts to explain and justify every little thing as being reasonable to thinking about the reasonableness of mining other star systems so far from Earth to begin with.
Any scientific and economic reason for mining off Earth sources that I have read, and there are actual discussions of this in science and in science fiction say that it doesn't make sense ... with the possible exception of thousands of years in the future when we have exhausted the basically unlimited resources of our own solar system.
The "you against the world" battle to justify everything in Alien as if it is science fact is kind of sad really, and it is basically the same kind of thinking that a Trump supporter engages in when they try to find avery possible way to interpret his actions and statements as being not only reasonable but the best an only solution to the problems of the world.
If you are going to claim you are arguing, then at least argue over something I said. I never, and I don't think anyone else ever claimed Ash the android was in charge of science, but what I said and meant was that if Ash's intellectual powers were such that he could be the science officer, why could be and a crew or other androids not man the ship?
I indeed misunderstood your point there. You were talking about Ash running the ship by himself (or with multiple androids on board), I was talking about him being a science officer. Fair, my bad, but may I point you towards a thread you yourself opened on the unmanned VS manned question? I think you got some real quality answers there!
I answered all your points in-universe, and you are now trying to steer the conversation towards the topic of a different thread? I'm not having it. Let's see how you reply to Ace_Spade and me over there, if you really want to pursue that issue.
Even Ash, the android, seems to me would have loved to get a sample to study. Why not send him back to the alien ship to grab an egg to study and see what kills it. Leaving without knowing what you have aboard and possibly taking that thing back to Earth, or going into hyper sleep with that thing running around the ship - bad idea.
So you are arguing that one alien on the ship is very dangerous and your "realistic" solution would be... to bring another one to the ship? Excuse me??? Do I even need to argue against this...?
Besides, they never considered going to hypersleep with the alien running around the ship. Parker briefly asks why don't they put facehugged Kane into hybernation, but is promptly ignored by Ash and Dallas, who set a clear goal of removing the fachehugger. They failed, and after that, no one brings up hibernation again. So here... here you seem to agree with the crew as depicted in the film!
Remember in the pod for some reason Ripley was able to vent different gasses into the pods living space? No real reason for that
Do you know that on real commercial aircraft there is a button to turn off the automatic pressurization of the cabin and the cockpit? No real reason for th... oh, except there is - diagnostics, maintenance and testing. That button caused a real life crash, as the engineer maintaining the plane was performing a pressurization leak check, and forgot to set the button back to automatic. Read more here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios_Airways_Flight_522
So those switches in the pod were there maybe for testing purposes, looking for leaks, or creating ideal conditions for certain operations, like welding, etc. For normal operation, yes those switches make no sense, but for diagnostics, I think it's ok to have them.
and what the heck is a flame thrower doing on a space ship anyway.
Wait... did you even watch this movie? This is not The Thing, where it might be a legit question why they had flamethrowers on an arctic base. But here the flamethrowers were not standard equipment, remember, Parker built them after Brett's death. He hastily combed them together from various parts laying around the ship, and they were built only for this purpose, when they discussed that most animals are afraid of fire. You don't really need me to explain all this, the explanation is right there in the movie!
Yes, it's dangerous to use them in confined space. It's dangerous to use them on a spaceship. But we've been through this, the situation was far from ideal, they had to risk it.
And don't get me started on that alien tracker that works of air currents or something ... how would that ever work?
Great question, but I think it's well established in the movie that they don't really work accurately, because A) This technology is inherently unreliable. Movement causes changes in micro density, but so is breathing. So is air currents from the venting system. So yes, it does not work properly, but B) Ash built them and he had a hidden agenda and did not want the crew to succeed in killing the alien. So if you put this together, the situation makes perfect sense. Ash sabotaged the motion detector, plain and simple - and these things are also all but spelled out in the movie. This is not speculation or something from the novelization. These are hard facts from the movie itself.
There is more sense in your answers here than the universal laws of physics being suspended. But the fact is that the alien tracker worked, and they had the same equipment in Aliens too. I am glad your, what you are calling arguments work for you, and if they didn't you would invent some other magical logic that did.
shareBut the fact is that the alien tracker worked, and they had the same equipment in Aliens too
Were the motion trackers in Aliens also hastily assembled by Ash? Fact is that they weren't. So you can't say that the trackers in Aliens were also measuring micro-changes in air density. They could work any number of other ways, we don't have any information on them inside the movie.
" . . . taking the flamethrower with him was still not ideal, but it fell into the "better than nothing" category."
Not to mention, it was advised by the science officer who pointed out that "most animals retreat from fire, yes?"
With nothing else to work with they did the best they could.
So, if I am in the jungle where there is a man-eating tiger, I should go looking for it with my wet-noodle because that is the best I can do? And of course whatever logical line of thinking the silly humans do think of, there is Ash the android to convince them otherwise.
share"So, if I am in the jungle where there is a man-eating tiger, I should go looking for it with my wet-noodle . . . "
Do man-eating tigers typically retreat from wet-noodles?
There's your answer.
Wet noodles are actually feared by man-eater tigers, but anybody with any tiger experience will tell you that the best way to fight them is by swatting at them with buttered asparagus.
shareHow do you know the alien didn't eat a bunch of stuff while the crew loses track of it?
There could be food stored elsewhere on the ship, for instance, that it's eating. It's possible that the alien can also build tissue by consuming things that we wouldn't even think of as food. It has extremely powerful acid inside it, right? Maybe it can grow with other materials. Heck, it might not need meat at all, it might just prefer it or enjoy killing.
We know so little about the xenomorph; that's one of the big reasons it's scary: fear of the unknown.
Now at least that is logical. But how would it know where to find food? It would need to be semi-intelligent to find food such as we eat to find food in a spaceship .... not like you can smell or detect food inside a can, or MRE, or whatever kind of storage container food would be in, and if it doesn't need organic food like we do, well them why does it have this incredibly sophisticated set of choppers.
I think it is ass-backwards to try to imagine why what is essentially a magical fantasy type movie makes sense, because it is anti-intellectual. The exercise for a rational person would be to look at a movie and find the points where its universe differs from ours, like "there's no such things as ghosts".
When you fear the unknown and allow your mind to accept anything you are essentially going hysterical, which is great for a horror movie, but does nothing for one's powers of perception or intellect.
If the alien can make food of stuff that we don't think of as food, then why does it need a human host to gestate in? Answer is - just to make the movie scary. If that is logic, it is only the logic of the box office.
Animals evolve senses far beyond-human to find prey. Consider echolocation for one, but even just the levels of sight and smell that cats and dogs have - just as a for-instance. If the xenomorph can eat things other than meat, it can probably find them.
This is just for an example, so don't take this as me saying, "this is what the alien eats," but let's assume that it chugs gasoline like a combustion engine. It can probably smell it. I don't think the gasoline being in pipes or tanks would completely mask the odour to an advanced olfactory system that the alien (in this example) would have, and it could find food.
Within the film, this means that the alien could find food in some way. I don't need to know exactly what or how, but I can conceive of it, so I don't think this is a point where the movie is failing logic or failing at presenting a plausible world (within its sci-fi/horror setting).
As to the last point, I would posit, as a possibility, that the alien can obtain food from multiple sources, but prefers stalking, killing, and obtaining its nutrition from meat. It can get nutrients, however, from other sources. It chooses to do so before growing to its "stalker height", either by instinct or because it doesn't like the idea of fighting the group of (at the time) larger hominids that it (again, instinctively or by reason) knows could kill it, and probably want it dead.
Hysteria doesn't sharpen intellect, true. I'm not sure what you mean by saying a rational person would look at a film and go, "There's no such thing as ghosts". Do you mean that it's anti-intellectual to analyze the worlds of films just because they're make-believe or include fantastic elements? If I'm wrong, can you clarify your point here?
>> Animals evolve senses far beyond-human to find prey. Consider echolocation for one, but even just the levels of sight and smell that cats and dogs have - just as a for-instance. If the xenomorph can eat things other than meat, it can probably find them.
To do that in the case of an alien in a technological environment of a spaceship would mean that it would have to have some form of intelligence and concept of modeling its expected environment. It is amazing how you can take some general idea of life on Earth and project it into what are basically super-powers.
You don't need to know because you are enjoying a horror movie - but a discussion of the lack of logic in the movie, don't engage in it then, because it is silly to try to justify it.
You are describing your own mental and emotional motivation for wanting to suspend your disbelief ... like you want to justify thinking magic is real when you watch David Copperfield make the Statue of Liberty disappear, when the natural inclination of a normal sane individual is to think ... how the hell did he do that ... what's the trick.
What's his dumbass wants to deliberately make himself stupid so he can live in and enjoy the TV world. Great, let him. Doesn't mean I have to agree with him or follow him into moronity.
Why would it need to understand tech to find food? How come ants know to come into a house to find food? They don't understand architecture.
Let's assume there are boxes of food in some galley or storage bay in the Nostromo. Could the alien smell it? Find it? Probably. Let's say it eats something else that's found inside a pipe or a tank in the Nostromo. Could it smell it? Yeah, maybe. Why not?
First, to me, imagining strange worlds and creatures is fun. Discussing them is fun. I'm not always trying to justify the world, but I am trying to explore it more. This is especially true of properties I love.
Second, hypothetical worlds have internal logic. Most of them have breaking points where the logic doesn't work anymore, or little places where it doesn't make sense. But if the internal storytelling clockwork falls apart too much, it prevents us from suspending our disbelief.
Third, exploring these worlds helps to make the themes richer. For instance, discussing an alien that can reason while seeming to act as a beast highlights that Alien is about a monstrous creature, and shows that intellect and barbarity aren't antithetical to one another. Thus, one of the reasons the film terrorizes us is because we (subconsciously) understand how awful it is to have something both smart and vicious. Alien's best quality is, to me, how much it unpacks humanity's common fears. This underlines that for me, and that's why I love talking about the details of film.
Finally, I don't think spending time trying to find holes in fictional worlds is any more logical or intellectual than trying to patch those same holes. It's all part of a conversation about fiction, and that can be fun, but saying that it's just rubbish while participating in the conversation is, to my thinking, counterproductive.
> How come ants know to come into a house to find food?
How is it you turn what you don't understand about ants into some kind of backing for a wrong argument.
Apparently I used examples when I should have just said it clearly:
Animals have heightened senses to find food.
The Xenomorph being has advanced senses and could probably find food in the Nostromo.
Animals have heightened senses to find food.
The Xenomorph being has advanced senses and could probably find food in the Nostromo.
I've rethought this a bit. I think that I'm actually quite in fundamental disagreement with your assertion that discussions of movie logic or theoretical monsters is absurd and/or indicates a paucity of intellect.
Einstein said, "If you want your children to be intelligent, read them fairy tales. If you want them to be more intelligent, read them more fairy tales." John Cleese has spoken about how he's never known anybody to be intelligent and literal-minded.
I suggest that stretching the mind to think up strange realms of the unreal and to ponder how they work and to dive in to what they mean and the intricacies of those fantasies is intelligent, and moves and exercises the mind in ways it cannot get simply by dismissing all of it as "silly" and something for mindless entertainment.
I don't think obsessing over minutiae is positive, and I'm not saying this is true in all cases or that some imaginary worlds aren't half-baked and not worth thinking over (or not as much as the others), but simply that dismissing the whole exercise as futile is not only incorrect, but likely counter-productive.
> your assertion that discussions of movie logic or theoretical monsters is absurd and/or indicates a paucity of intellect.
I said trying to find ways to justify ridiculous conjectures to make a movie seem like it could be realistic is absurd. For example that all the laws of the universe work the same but the alien is in some way "magical".
How smart and famous are Einstein's children?
There's also no evidence that Einstein every said that. That is a peculiar fake argument from fake authority.
Finally, if you are suggesting that watching Alien makes someone more intelligent, there's probably more evidence to the contrary.
I don't think you're describing what I'm doing. I'm not trying to make the movie realistic. I have fun thinking about the possibilities of the world of the film.
Okay, so Einstein didn't say it. So what? I think the statement is true. So I'm saying it: fuelling a child's imagination (with fairy tales, for instance) will in turn spark intelligence because imagination and curiosity lead to discovery and knowledge as well as wisdom. Fairy tales cannot be employed exclusively, of course.
I never suggested watching Alien makes someone intelligent. I've been talking about the firing of imagination and playing with ideas, even so-called silly ones, as a mental whetstone.
My big point, which seems to be getting missed in an avalanche of side-notes, is that exploring film worlds can be fun. That's what I'm trying to say. I think your assertion that engaging in these types of conversation is counter-productive is not true.
> I have fun thinking about the possibilities of the world of the film.
If you think fun is simply disagreeing with me without thinking, you must be having a blast.
> I never suggested watching Alien makes someone intelligent.
By invoking Einstein that is exactly what you did. And WTF is this supposed to mean...
> So I'm saying it: fuelling a child's imagination (with fairy tales, for instance) will in turn spark intelligence because imagination and curiosity lead to discovery and knowledge as well as wisdom.
> I think your assertion that engaging in these types of conversation is counter-productive is not true.
I would not say unqualified never, but about 99.9%, which includes this case. ;-)
I'm disagreeing with you. What makes you so sure I'm not thinking?
I didn't say "watching Alien" makes someone intelligent. I said that using the imagination and thinking about fantasy worlds is a way to exercise the mind. So, no, that's not what I did. I wasn't saying just watching Alien made somebody intelligent.
What I meant was that if you foster a child's imagination and curiosity, they will show gains in intellect and wisdom because being able to be imaginative and curious stimulate the mind.
I strongly disagree that it's 99.9%. I think exploring film worlds can be intellectually beneficial. As to this conversation, maybe not.
Once I've restocked my supply of whogivesaphuk I might just summon up the will to consider these questions.
share1. you can hear a soft "shhhttsh" sound of the door, Ripley was just too shocked to notice
2. the alien was a tricky bastard bruh
you can hear a soft "shhhttsh" sound of the door
Why do they need an air-tight door to the Mother room anyway? And what's with all the blinking lights .... and the teletype machine. Another thing that always makes me laugh are the Atari-type 1980's computer graphics and the many CRT type computer displays, which in that universe would have stopped being built hundreds of years ago. It's a fun movie because it carries you so quickly past any point of thinking and questioning that you just go with it, not because the science of considered and dealt rationally with.
shareIt was filmed in 1979. Of course its vision of the future will be limited by that.
shareYeah ... true ... so in other words one should not take it seriously and expect it to be reasonable. Therefore any valid discussion should be to poke fun at it about how absurd it is, even though while one is watching the movie one can enjoy it. Exploring the parameters of that is a lot more sensible than trying to justify how it could exist in reality.
That kind of thinking exercises an anti-muscle, muscle, one that makes one stupider and more accepting of illogic. As I wrote in another comment, the kind of thinking that Trump supporters engage in to justify every moronic thing the man says or does.
Good lord, what does Trump have to do with this? I guess Trump Derangement Syndrome is real.
I just look at a film like this with archaic technology in a futuristic setting as something analogous to steampunk. Works for me, anyway.
I like old visions of the future, too. They're really cool and give neat atmospheres to films like this or Brazil. They've even given us stuff like BioShock, Fallout, and Futurama, which are drawing on those influences.
shareOld fashioned mainframe computers really did have blinking lights, each one labeled to indicate which process it represented. If a computer was malfunctioning, the first step would be a lab tech looking at the panel to see if certain lights had gone dark. In old movies, most computers were just goofy props, but in Alien they were pretty meticulously designed to look real. In HD and esp 4K you can actually read the label on every light visible in that room.
share> If a computer was malfunctioning, the first step would be a lab tech looking at the panel to see if certain lights had gone dark.
Since I happened to have worked on old computers, CDC/Crays, etc, that's nothing that I ever saw. The "lab techs" were called field engineers.
Very hard to tell a computer is malfunctioning a lot of the time. Why it took so long to find the error in Intel's division functional block.
Come on now. Yes, the MUTHUR room did not look like a real life computer room from the 70s. The blinking lights and the sounds were stylistically overdone in the movie, to help build a unique visual aesthetic.
Now you can say that "I don't like that aesthetic, it looks ugly / ridiculously unpractical / whatever", but comparing it to real life computer rooms is not a valid argument. From that point you could say "no real life spaceship has a bridge like what is depicted in the movie" and other such statements, which are technically true, they don't account for the filmmaker's goals in creating a fictional visual setting.
In care you were not reading carefully, I never claimed a connection between the computer room in Alien or defended those choices, and a real computer room from today or a generic computer room or any time - it was as ridiculous as the fluorescent lights and the bulky CRT monitors.
Personally, I could buy most of it all - except for the "Mother" room, and that stupid teletype interface.
If you are going argue about something at least reply to the person who made the argument, and understand the argument first.
> comparing it to real life computer rooms is not a valid argument.
It's not really an argument, it's a perception, and validity doesn't really enter into it.
The way I read the original comment and your reply is that Druff mentioned that the MUTHUR room is realistic, and you rebutted it with "no it's not, because I've been in environments like that, and it is not at all what it looks like".
And I took this that you mean you don't like the room depicted in the movie for this reason. That would be unfair towards the movie, and that is why I replied. It might not have been the correct reading.
it's a perception
OK, so you don't like that setting, because of subjective reasons. That's fair, and since it's not an argument, I won't argue with that :-)
> The way I read the original comment and your reply is that Druff
> mentioned that the MUTHUR room is realistic, and you rebutted it
> with "no it's not, because I've been in environments like that, and
> it is not at all what it looks like".
1. Druff is wrong to assume compute rooms in a space ship in the
distant future will look anything like today's computer rooms, and
he was not even talking about today's computer rooms because
they don't look like past computer rooms either.
2. But, when computer rooms did supposedly look like he imagined
old computer rooms to look, then still did not even look like he
described. Never were the computers that had blinking lights
representing the process running, but even if there were it was
obviously not that in the Mother computer room.
There are so many things wrong with what he said - or more to the
point to argue along those lines is silly and invalid. The only thing that
matters is - did it reach the audience. To me, it did not, for tons of
reasons. While it did not need to be realistic looking for the movie to
be good, or acceptable, it would be nice if they had done a better job
and thought a little harder to come up with something better.
To me, that computer room, and everything in it and related to it looked
stupid. The problem is that as soon as you look at it with a critical eye
it falls apart unless you just like and are hypnotized by blinking lights.
But TV audiences have been trained to see that as a computer.
The magic of cinema ;-)
share