Oh thank you for lecturing me over a benign analogy. My point was that the movie humanized the alien and then we lean that the alien was eating humans. Hence, the "extra terrestrial" Jeffrey Dahmer. It was a mere quip in any case.
my point is that your point wasn't at all apt. Your point is invalid. The movie didn't "humanize" the alien. The movie presented it in a sympathetic light, because it was cut off from its own people and being held captive by the government. Imagine you're on a completely alien world, entirely alone. Are you going to do whatever you have to in order to survive, or are you just going to give up and die?
The alien eating humans is no different than us eating cattle or chicken. In its view, we're just lower lifeforms. You may as well have called it "The extra terrestrial Daniel Boone." It would have been infinitely more accurate.
I have to wonder why you even bothered to reply to this 2 years after the fact.
While you technically are correct, IMO it didn't work in the context of the movie. The audience is supposed to sympathize with the alien. It's hard to do that when it's eating the townspeople who had nothing to do with it. What if the alien had eaten the girl at the end too? "Oh well, it was just trying to survive!"
Hard for you, perhaps. But there are plenty of people who had no problem sympathizing with it. Sympathy requires you to see things from anothers point of view. You're unable to do that, for whatever reason.
Like I said, it's doing what it has to in order to survive. I do not begrudge the alien it's survival. Like I said, to the alien, those "innocent" people are no different from an animal we would hunt in order to survive. We are lower life forms to it, just like the animals we eat for food are lower life forms to us.
I mean, do you hate lions for eating antelope? What's the difference in your view? Is it because you're a member of the species being used for sustenance?
The new home of Welcome to Planet Bob:
http://kingofbob.blogspot.ca/
reply
share