an old argument (probably)
Tendril
(specifically the first alien which became my nemesis due to the fact that i
wasn't allowed to watch it when it first came out), but something has been
bugging me for many years:
In the screen play of the first movie dallas is impregnated by the alien
(ripley finds him when she is running from the alien). This would suggest
that each individual alien has the ability to propogate it's species. I feel
that this makes for a much stronger species.
Yet by the second movie the species has transformed into a hive socialogical
group with a queen who restocks the 'troops'. Kill the queen and it's eggs
and you effectively stop the propogation of the species.
Doesn't this make the subsequent aliens much weaker?
The 'beauty' of the first alien lay in it's efficiency: no queen needed,
much harder to kill, regrows missing body parts etc.
Why the shift in direction?
As regards a 5th movie:
What about a trip to the alien homeworld (maybe this has been discovered by
'the company' by analysis of the first egg carrying ship's logs?). There
could be a trip by the company to try to get a 'pure' example of the
alien... but also the alien would maybe have lived in equilibrium with other
creatures just as dangerous (think of the gory opportunities). Ripley could
be involved in the plot (didn't she make it to earth in the last movie) by
being recruited by a counteragent group who are fearful of the consequences
of what the company is about to do and leading another team to intercept the
company team? Opportunities for great firefight sequences when the first
team arrive and are overwhelmed, and heroism and valour in their subsequent
rescue by Ripley's team. I'm sure that some double crossing could be
involved as well.
Any thoughts?
--
Tendril
remove nospam from my address to reply
..............................................................
Covenant
"Tendril" <mary.joa...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:%8Hj8.43868$y76.4...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
Heh heh heh...
Welocome to the group..
You have just touched upon one of the many firecly dividing factors in
here...
Ridley/Giger/O'Bannon's vision of a Perfect organism, being turned into
Jimmy's Ants....
Just cos he wanted a *Queeeeennn!!!!*
--
Covenant
A Man With Far Too Much Time On His Hands
ShadowHunter
"Covenant" <cove...@joelamb.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a6o4bm$am9$4...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
Sorry to rain on your parade, but read my topic about A5... if it is true,
you've got a helluva more ants.
-
ShadowHunter
Covenant
"ShadowHunter" <
> > Ridley/Giger/O'Bannon's vision of a Perfect organism, being turned into
> > Jimmy's Ants....
> >
> > Just cos he wanted a *Queeeeennn!!!!*
>
> Sorry to rain on your parade, but read my topic about A5... if it is true,
> you've got a helluva more ants.
Oh I have no doubt about that...
I just think it's crap!
;' )
Exile In Paradise
> I'm new to this group but have had a 'relationship' with the alien
> (specifically the first alien which became my nemesis due to the fact that i
> wasn't allowed to watch it when it first came out), but something has been
> bugging me for many years:
> In the screen play of the first movie dallas is impregnated by the alien
> (ripley finds him when she is running from the alien). This would suggest
> that each individual alien has the ability to propogate it's species. I feel
> that this makes for a much stronger species.
Not only present in the original screenplay, the scene was even filmed, twice.
That specific scene was Sigourney Weaver's screen test, as well as filmed for
the movie itself and is one of the extra scenes on the 20th anniv. edition DVD.
That scene was later cut in editing to improve the flow of movie pacing as
it builds towards the destruction of the Nostromo.
The "Cocoon Scene" shows Ripley finding the "lair" of the Alien on board the
Nostromo.
Glued to the wall are the remains of Brett, almost completely transformed into
an egg, and Dallas beginning to transform.
This was intended to close the lifecycle of the Alien, showing that the Big
Alien (as the crew called it) would implant the nucleus of the facehuggers
into its victims.
Presumably, the facehugger nucleus would use the victim to create the egg
around itself and wait dormant until triggered.
> Yet by the second movie the species has transformed into a hive socialogical
> group with a queen who restocks the 'troops'. Kill the queen and it's eggs
> and you effectively stop the propogation of the species.
Yes... James Cameron "altered" the lifecycle of the Alien from what had been
established to introduce the queen alien.
Whereas the original Alien lifecycle is based closely on an African wasp,
Cameron shifted the lifecycle to more closely resemble ants or termites.
> Doesn't this make the subsequent aliens much weaker?
In the words of Zap Branigan: "Kif, we have a conundrum!"
Many folks, myself included, would agree that adding the queen was unnecessary.
The original Alien was intended to be a societal organism, with a primitive
religion, temples, etc.
In the temple, its speculated that groups of Big Aliens would bring hosts to
the temple altar to be grabbed by facehuggers.
The Alien we saw was savage and operated alone, and we did not get to see this
societal behavior because the Alien was the only one of its kind on the
Nostromo. It had never been educated by its kind, according to Dan O'Bannon.
The original lifecycle allows the alien to function singly, and imposes no
rules on how Aliens may function in groups... what you perceive as "stronger"
could also be called simple and elegant.
Your assertion that a queen would make the species weaker may or may not be
true.
Yes, having a queen gives the Alien species an Achilles heel, introducing a
"single point of failure" problem: Kill the queen and the "hive" dies.
However, introducing a queen also adds coordinated social behaviors that can
also be counted as a species advantage. Look how well coordinated hive
functions, like defense, work for ants and termites.
> The 'beauty' of the first alien lay in it's efficiency: no queen needed,
> much harder to kill, regrows missing body parts etc.
True.
alt.cult-movies.alien tends to polarize around this topic more than most.
This may be egotistical, but I think Covenant and I are the most vocal from
the anti-queen camp, while a majority of the movie series fans tend to fall
into the pro-queen camp.
> Why the shift in direction?
The Cameron interview on the DVD has some comments that may bear on it:
"...One of the positives [in making a sequel] is if you can take that initial
programming that the audience has from the other film and then do a little
twist and turns on it and like you said, play against their expectation of
whats gonna happen... they... if its done in a not hostile way to the audience,
then they realize that theres a little bit of fun involved and which the film
is having a little bit of fun with them but it makes them participants.
It shows the film makers assume a certain knowledge on their part."
With Cameron, I could say "once you've seen Xenogenesis, you've seen them all".
> As regards a 5th movie:
Rumors are flying on avp.net about Ridley Scott and James Cameron working
together on the next movie, as well as Sigourney Weaver being very interested
to appear in it.
Scott and Cameron working together could give us one hell of a rollercoaster
movie (what Cameron is best at) that also has intelligence, atmosphere, and
quality (what Scott is best at).
A Scott/Cameron collaboration could give us ALIENS meets BLADE RUNNER...
with Digital Domains modern effects and I am all for that.
--
Exile In Paradise
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes, and not rather
a new wearer of clothes. -- Henry David Thoreau
Brian
problems.
But that scene was very good (with the Brett egg and Dallas cocooned.)
I also like the transmission of the alien. That should have been left in.
"Tendril" <mary.joa...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:%8Hj8.43868$y76.4...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
Sandman
exi...@earthlink.net (Exile In Paradise) wrote:
> > The 'beauty' of the first alien lay in it's efficiency: no queen needed,
> > much harder to kill, regrows missing body parts etc.
>
> True.
> alt.cult-movies.alien tends to polarize around this topic more than most.
> This may be egotistical, but I think Covenant and I are the most vocal from
> the anti-queen camp, while a majority of the movie series fans tend to fall
> into the pro-queen camp.
I've always seen it as we can accept Camerons canon vision of the alien,
whereas you can't. :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Covenant
"Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote in message
news:mr-FEBD04.23...@news.fu-berlin.de...
Nope....
Acceptance is arbitrary.. it's *there*..
Doesn't mean we have to *like* it though.
Thurein
: In the screen play of the first movie dallas is impregnated by the alien
: (ripley finds him when she is running from the alien). This would suggest
: that each individual alien has the ability to propogate it's species. I feel
: that this makes for a much stronger species.
: Doesn't this make the subsequent aliens much weaker?
: The 'beauty' of the first alien lay in it's efficiency: no queen needed,
: much harder to kill, regrows missing body parts etc.
The shift to the hive type aliens was mainly a theatrical device to make the
ending of the movie more exciting. People want to see a big climax
regardless of whether or not it's better for the alien.
Anyway, I think I proposed (a long time ago) that there could be two life
cycles at work here. (This would allow BOTH life cycles to be canon.)
First, during initial contact, Xenomorphs can resort to the parthenogenic
approach to breeding: that is, make clones of themselves by turning a
host organism into a new egg from which a facehugger can emerge to
impregnate another host. Of course, this means that 2 hosts are required
for each new birthing of 1 full, 2nd stage Xeno.
However, resources permitting (i.e. a high abundance of hosts), why not
convert to a secondary life cycle? If one Xeno can be birthed as a Queen,
many multiple eggs can be created without the need for a complete host.
Now, from each egg laid, you need only 1 new host to create 1 new full
Xeno.
Thus, start a new colony (or group) by simple egg-transformation. Next,
get a queen established to increase the growth rate of the colony.
Of course, the queen model assumes that there is sufficient energy
available to produce eggs that is less than the energy required to
transform a complete host into an egg. (egg laying energy cost<egg
transforming energy cost)
-Thurein
squidflakes
Paradise)'s tentacles typed:
>True.
>alt.cult-movies.alien tends to polarize around this topic more than most.
>This may be egotistical, but I think Covenant and I are the most vocal from
>the anti-queen camp, while a majority of the movie series fans tend to fall
>into the pro-queen camp.
I'll have to pop up in the anit-queen camp here. For some reason, when
I first watched the movie, and Ripley goes down into the lair, and
there is the Queen, I just couldn't help thinking "COP OUT", but as I
go back and watch now, I wonder how much of the Queen stuff was added
to make this a bigger movie, and more geared to the audiance of the
time.
From what little I know from the movies I watch of that period, it
seems people were more willing to watch, and studios were more willing
to fund a suspense/thriller type movie in the 70's. Where as, in the
80's, action movies were all the rage.
>
>> Why the shift in direction?
See above
>A Scott/Cameron collaboration could give us ALIENS meets BLADE RUNNER...
>with Digital Domains modern effects and I am all for that.
Oh yea.. hell yea... I wonder if they could work Priss into this
somehow.. <g>
--
-squidflakes
"The craftie Cuttle lieth sure
In the blacke cloude of his thicke vomiture."
-1623 WHITBOURNE
All spam, trolls, idiots, and salesmen to /dev/null
All stupid comments, questions, remarks to /dev/duh!
Tracy
"Tendril" <mary.joa...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:%8Hj8.43868$y76.4...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
Hi Tendril,
Welcome here and its good to see you diving right in :)
Enjoy the diversity of this newsgroup!!!!
Cheers!
Tracy :)
Robbie Grant
appallingly incorrect assumption:
>Yes... James Cameron "altered" the lifecycle of the Alien from what had been
>established to introduce the queen alien.
Regardless of how well liked the "cocoon" scene in Alien was,
it most certainly did not establish any life-cycle, because it was
never released as part of the film. If Scott felt that it was such a
hugely important part of the Alien mythos, then he would have found a
way to include it. He didn't. Cameron could have included the "eggs
from people" concept, but went with the Queen instead. At no point
does he implicitly state that eggs cannot be created by drones: that
is, that the Alien cannot have a duel life-cycle. Just thought I'd
point that out.
--
*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...
Covenant
"Robbie Grant" <randr...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:7e119ugtbuv5d1ceo...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 19:00:59 GMT, Exile In Paradise made this
> appallingly incorrect assumption:
>
> >Yes... James Cameron "altered" the lifecycle of the Alien from what had
been
> >established to introduce the queen alien.
>
> Regardless of how well liked the "cocoon" scene in Alien was,
> it most certainly did not establish any life-cycle, because it was
> never released as part of the film.
Yes, correct.
But it *was* filmed, known about, on the LD release, in the script, in the
novel.
It was *known* and accepted as the Alien LC.
And Jimmy screwed it.
Exile In Paradise
> No, because it wasn't included in the final cut, thus, no continuity
> problems.
Its not a problem of continuity...
Its a problem with flagrant abuse of artistic license.
WARNING: Rant in Progress. Press NEXT now.
Sure Cameron could have made his own movie. He didn't.
Instead, he ripped off truckloads of *discarded* ideas from the ALIEN
production and cheesed it together into a simple-minded comedy with all
the suspense one would expect from "The Keystone Cops Meet Casper the Ghost".
I went to the theater to ALIENS expecting a movie that at least TRIED to
approach the taut suspense of the original.
I am realistic, I didn't expect a sequel to be more suspenseful than the
original... but I did expect an ATTEMPT to at least get into the ballpark.
Boy was I miserably surprised... ALIENS is funny, not suspenseful.
In ALIEN there is one laugh... when Brett says "But, its the cat!"
ALIENS is a laugh-a-minute romp that doesn't even BOTHER trying to scare you.
The closest you get to suspense in ALIENS is "wistful memories".
We all know the reason the queen is there is so that Cameron could piss all
over the series until he liked the flavor. His ego could not STAND to have
something cooler that HE could have invented.
Forget being true to the original.
Steal every idea that you like, but toss out anything that gets in the way
of your colossal ego.
Cameron's (un)original ideas:
The Alien Temple becomes the Atmosphere Processor.
The 7 West Point Cadets from the original ALIEN script become Colonial Marines.
The "Ripley love story" was Dallas (dropped) then becomes Hicks.
A lost Earth base dropped from ALIEN pre-production becomes Hadley's Hope.
Ridley Scott first mentioned the idea of a queen that was specifically DROPPED
in favor of O'Bannon/Giger's lifecycle.
Three words: Air Ducts Again?
Everything else was just a bigger budget version of ideas Cameron originally
used in Xenogenesis, including the power loader.
Sure, when you do the sequel, you can draw on the original... but then why did
he have to get so picky and choosy? Ego. Then he tries to take the ideas above
and pawn them off as if HE conceived them.
With the alien lifecycle, it was just too "complicated" for his normal
audience to deal with, so he dumbed it down to make it "understandable."
Original lifecycle too messy?
Let's make the alien into ants... everyone "gets" ants right?
I refer to this as "The Dune Effect".
When the movie DUNE was reviewed, one reviewer on CBS actually said:
"I don't like movies that make me think." I bet he loved ALIENS.
Cameron directs like that.
Cameron couldn't even get the company name right.
Its spelled W-E-Y-L-A-N. No D. End of authenticity.
He made a movie based in a universe remarkably similar to ALIEN, but the
mis-spelled company name is the giveaway that its not canon.
ALIENS occurred in a parallel universe where the species had a simple
reproductive lifecycle that moron audiences could understand.
Fortunately, I had already seen ALIEN, and the laserdisc, so I knew
the company was REALLY Weylan-Yutani and that there were cocoons.
End of story.
This is just some of the reasoning behind my aversion to the hack rip-off
comedy that is ALIENS. Sure, I bought it... and I watch it... for laughs.
What else could you expect from a Corman disciple anyway? Class? HAHAHAHAH
> But that scene was very good (with the Brett egg and Dallas cocooned.)
It is a good scene. It's also the truth about the lifecycle of the alien.
Everyone else can make as many excuses as they like or believe whatever
pack of dodgy nonsense they like. They're still wrong.
Remember, its not spelled with a D.
And Virginia, there is no alien queen.
IMHO, the queen was a giant step backwards for the series.
Cameron's movie was a vast wasteland of mistakes that are only compounded
by being the springboard for the dismal queen-based sequels that followed.
> I also like the transmission of the alien. That should have been left in.
In the director's cut, I would have also liked to see Ash discover the alien
fossil in the rock and then hide it from Ripley :)
I am sure some stalwart ALIENS fanatic will just have to defend their
beloved comedy. Do yer worst.
Its spelled WEYLAN on the screen in ALIEN.
ALIEN is the the original, still the best, and the only one thats correct.
--
Exile In Paradise
TOO BAD YOU CAN'T BUY a voodoo globe so that you could make the earth spin
real fast and freak everybody out. -- Jack Handley, The New Mexican, 1988.
Exile In Paradise
> The shift to the hive type aliens was mainly a theatrical device to make the
> ending of the movie more exciting. People want to see a big climax
> regardless of whether or not it's better for the alien.
Not people.
Cameron. He thought up the queen before he even went off to direct Terminator.
> Anyway, I think I proposed (a long time ago) that there could be two life
> cycles at work here. (This would allow BOTH life cycles to be canon.)
Wishy washy excuse-making.
I could grant that two life-cycles could exist...
except for the fact there is no evidence supporting this in the original ALIEN.
Sure its an idea to appease those who must have a queen.
I have said it before, and I will say it again...
They can believe that there are two lifecycles if they like.
I just don't see the need for two.
> First, during initial contact, Xenomorphs can resort to the parthenogenic
> approach to breeding: that is, make clones of themselves by turning a
> host organism into a new egg from which a facehugger can emerge to
> impregnate another host. Of course, this means that 2 hosts are required
> for each new birthing of 1 full, 2nd stage Xeno.
Yep... just like the original wasp the ALIEN is based on.
Two different, yet similar organisms each giving rise to the other, with
an intermediate host between each... round and round full circle.
> However, resources permitting (i.e. a high abundance of hosts), why not
> convert to a secondary life cycle? If one Xeno can be birthed as a Queen,
The one Big Alien on the Nostromo had taken two hosts and had two eggs coming
along quite nicely without a queen, thank you.
Why convert to having a queen if each Big Alien can create multiple
eggs themselves?
> many multiple eggs can be created without the need for a complete host.
> Now, from each egg laid, you need only 1 new host to create 1 new full
> Xeno.
>
> Thus, start a new colony (or group) by simple egg-transformation. Next,
> get a queen established to increase the growth rate of the colony.
>
> Of course, the queen model assumes that there is sufficient energy
> available to produce eggs that is less than the energy required to
> transform a complete host into an egg. (egg laying energy cost<egg
> transforming energy cost)
It also assumes evolutionary pressure to evolve a queen caste, which I can't
see happening with the original cycle.
And speaking of energy, the queen seems to need/use up a LOT more than a
Big Alien would to achieve the same result... a larger organism, the ponderous
egg sack, etc... at a net loss given same-sized host populations.
Perhaps the queen is anti-evolutionary in that sense.
--
Exile In Paradise
"I'm growing older, but not up." -- Jimmy Buffett
Thurein
: Perhaps the queen is anti-evolutionary in that sense.
: --
LOL. Actually, you are right. I'm just trying to make an excuse to
allow both cycles to take place. I don't like the idea of the Queen
either, but we have to live with it now, since Cameron chose to make
it canon by adding the Queen in Aliens.
If only Ridley kept the coccoon scenes in... we wouldn't have to
argue about the damn Queen. :p
Speaking of evolution... I think many people still consider the
Xenos to be a product of engineering as opposed to a *natural* result
of natural selection. Still, two life cycles are not unprecedented
in nature. There are species that can convert as needed according
to population pressures, such as the conversion of frogs from male to
female and such. Even the slime mold has two life cycles, one as
a solitary amoeba, and one as a colony "spore" forming organism when
food gets short. (Sorry I can't give more examples, but my courses
in Ecology were a LONG time ago!)
Anyway, it is sci-fi after all. :)
-Thurein
Animalhour
>Anyway, I think I proposed (a long time ago) that there could be two life
>cycles at work here. (This would allow BOTH life cycles to be canon.)
>
>First, during initial contact, Xenomorphs can resort to the parthenogenic
>approach to breeding: that is, make clones of themselves
The Queen reproduced by parthenogenesis too. She apparently had no mate in
"Aliens" or "Alien: Resurrection".
Animalhour
<cove...@joelamb.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
>> Regardless of how well liked the "cocoon" scene in Alien was,
>> it most certainly did not establish any life-cycle, because it was
>> never released as part of the film.
>
>Yes, correct.
>
>But it *was* filmed, known about, on the LD release, in the script, in the
>novel.
>It was *known* and accepted as the Alien LC.
It was known by a limited number of people. Only the hardcore fans know about
the cut-scene.
Hardly anyone reads film novelizations. They're primarily an ad for the movie.
The script was unavailable to the public.
And Laserdisc is almost as big a flop as Betamax :-)
Having said all that, I can certainly understand that the 'change' irks the
hardcore fans. You had that lifecycle in your minds for 7 years before seeing
the sequel. Although the lifecycle was not established in the finished film,
it was fixed in your minds.
It's similar to the situation when a novel is adapted for film. The novel is
fixed in the reader's mind and it's annoying when the film deviates.
For people who saw the movie "The Shining" without reading the book, the film
may have been very satisfying. However, the people who read the book first
were probably very disappointed.
People who saw "Aliens" first (or even people who watched the two movies
together on video) probably accepted the hive lifecycle wholeheartedly.
People who saw "Alien" in 1979 and spent the next 7 years reading
behind-the-scenes articles about the film, probably were disappointed by the
sequel.
I wouldn't have felt obligated to please the relatively few fans committed to
the other lifecycle.
Sandman
"Covenant" <cove...@joelamb.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > >Yes... James Cameron "altered" the lifecycle of the Alien from what
> > >had been established to introduce the queen alien.
> >
> > Regardless of how well liked the "cocoon" scene in Alien was, it most
> > certainly did not establish any life-cycle, because it was never
> > released as part of the film.
>
> Yes, correct.
>
> But it *was* filmed,
Correct.
> known about,
To nosy fans, that is.
> on the LD release,
Indeed.
> in the script,
Yep.
> in the novel.
Yep.
> It was *known* and accepted as the Alien LC.
Now, that's and odd conclusion. -Who- accepted it? The Board Of Alien
Canonity? I think you would find that the majoriity of Alien audince or
even Alien fans were oblivious to that scener or even disregarding it since
it wasn't included. I would bet my (nonexisting) horse that there are very
-few- fans that hold that scene to be canon in any form, especially when
Aliens contradicts it.
> And Jimmy screwed it.
So much anger in you. :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Tendril
itself. why not entertain the idea that genetic diversity could be
introduced by combining the alien gene with the host gene. this would alow
for a natural evolution where the best of both organisms are used. as the
queen doesn't appear to 'mate' then there would be no genetic evolution.
what a thread hehe
--
Tendril
remove nospam from my address to reply
..............................................................
Tracy <sistermooncon...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:DFZj8.55197$yc2.5...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
Brian
"Exile In Paradise" <exi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Grbk8.15926$P4.13...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
aaron.percival
Covenant
"Animalhour" <anima...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020315005758...@mb-ck.aol.com...
> In article <a6rbk0$uk2$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Covenant"
> <cove...@joelamb.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
>
> >> Regardless of how well liked the "cocoon" scene in Alien was,
> >> it most certainly did not establish any life-cycle, because it was
> >> never released as part of the film.
> >
> >Yes, correct.
> >
> >But it *was* filmed, known about, on the LD release, in the script, in
the
> >novel.
> >It was *known* and accepted as the Alien LC.
>
> It was known by a limited number of people. Only the hardcore fans know
about
> the cut-scene.
Nonsense.
(Sorry to be so blunt, but there y'go.)
Covenant
Covenant
"Exile In Paradise" <
> Cameron couldn't even get the company name right.
> Its spelled W-E-Y-L-A-N. No D. End of authenticity.
>
> He made a movie based in a universe remarkably similar to ALIEN, but the
> mis-spelled company name is the giveaway that its not canon.
;' )
I think I love you !!!
;' ))
Adam Cameron
>about
>> the cut-scene.
>Nonsense.
>(Sorry to be so blunt, but there y'go.)
I suppose it's up to your definition of harccore fans, but I'd be
inclinded to agree with the previous poster.
99% of people who have seen Alien would leave the experience there:
what is presented on the screen to them. Actually the %age is
probably higehr that that.
And, yes, it's on the DVD. But I'm a film enthusiast, and even *I*
don't bother with the extras on DVDs most of the time. They're just
not that interesting. So I figure many people who may have decided
"oh yeah, Alien, I've heard of that... let's rent it tonight" would
similarly watch the film, go "hey, that was quite good /quite bad",
and leave it like that.
Adam
Adam Cameron
Emphasis on "was".
>And Jimmy screwed it.
Be that as it may, it's his perogative, and he "changed" it.
Now I have no problem with both facets of the lifestyle co-existing,
but if I was asked what was *canon*, I'd say the version as portrayed
in Aliens.
Adam
Covenant
"Adam Cameron" <da_ca...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:81q49ugsqf6j5phdi...@4ax.com...
I think your tending to forget how OLD the film is, and how long there was
between it and Alien.
The *fabled* cucoon scene was THE topic of discussion between ANYONE *I*
knew who had seen the movie.
There were pictures of it in many places (just OTTOMH The Book of Alien)
The *problem* is that Cameron disregarded it all..
And that's it really. He didn't give a flying f**k about what people who
were even remotely interesetd in the initial movie thought, nor what they
*knew* regarding how the Alien reproduces... (A LAFE part of it's mystique,
to my mind.).
Adam Cameron
>between it and Alien.
[slaps head] Oh yes, that must be it.
>The *fabled* cucoon scene was THE topic of discussion between ANYONE *I*
>knew who had seen the movie.
Really? Oh right. We - obviously - know different people.
The only conversations *I* can recall having about it is instigated by
me, and generally met with a "riiiiiiiggght" and a "Jesus, Adam, have
you got nothing better to do" kind of look.
>There were pictures of it in many places (just OTTOMH The Book of Alien)
Oh gee. A fan-oriented book has pictures of stuff only fans would
know about. That's it, I'm sold: you're right.
>The *problem* is that Cameron disregarded it all..
Yeah. I'm not disagreeing with you there.
>And that's it really. He didn't give a flying f**k about what people who
>were even remotely interesetd in the initial movie thought, nor what they
>*knew* regarding how the Alien reproduces... (A LAFE part of it's mystique,
>to my mind.).
Yeah, but Cameron's in the movie biz to make money, I think you'll
find, not because he really thinks he's adding anything to the art
form.
My only disagreement with you is that you place too much significance
in the minutiae of Alien, and then apply that opinion to most other
people. It's just not the case. If it was, there'd be more than
about 20 people here discussing it.
My mates - even the SF / Internet involved ones - think I'm a complete
geek for even subscribing to something like a.c-m.a. And you know
what? I agree with them. But the case in point is that it's just not
what winds the clock of the bulk of people out there.
Adam
Sandman
"Covenant" <cove...@joelamb.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > > It was *known* and accepted as the Alien LC.
> >
> > Now, that's and odd conclusion. -Who- accepted it? The Board Of Alien
> > Canonity? I think you would find that the majoriity of Alien audince
> > or even Alien fans were oblivious to that scener or even disregarding
> > it since it wasn't included. I would bet my (nonexisting) horse that
> > there are very -few- fans that hold that scene to be canon in any
> > form, especially when Aliens contradicts it.
>
> Yeah.
>
> Sure.
No reply? I take it you agree then?
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
"Covenant" <cove...@joelamb.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > >> Regardless of how well liked the "cocoon" scene in Alien was, it
> > >> most certainly did not establish any life-cycle, because it was
> > >> never released as part of the film.
> > >
> > >Yes, correct.
> > >
> > >But it *was* filmed, known about, on the LD release, in the script,
> > >in the novel. It was *known* and accepted as the Alien LC.
> >
> > It was known by a limited number of people. Only the hardcore fans
> > know about the cut-scene.
>
> Nonsense.
>
> (Sorry to be so blunt, but there y'go.)
Do you want some cake with that cup of denial of yours?
(Sorry to be so blunt, but there you go.)
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
"Covenant" <cove...@joelamb.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > I suppose it's up to your definition of harccore fans, but I'd be
> > inclinded to agree with the previous poster.
> >
> > 99% of people who have seen Alien would leave the experience there:
> > what is presented on the screen to them. Actually the %age is
> > probably higehr that that.
> >
> > And, yes, it's on the DVD. But I'm a film enthusiast, and even *I*
> > don't bother with the extras on DVDs most of the time. They're just
> > not that interesting. So I figure many people who may have decided
> > "oh yeah, Alien, I've heard of that... let's rent it tonight" would
> > similarly watch the film, go "hey, that was quite good /quite bad",
> > and leave it like that.
>
> I think your tending to forget how OLD the film is, and how long there was
> between it and Alien.
People care more about stuff when it gets older?
> The *fabled* cucoon scene was THE topic of discussion between ANYONE *I*
> knew who had seen the movie.
And you think this represents the majority why?
> There were pictures of it in many places (just OTTOMH The Book of Alien)
In other words, nowhere where the majority of the alien audience would be
looking. Or probably not even the majority of alien fans.
> The *problem* is that Cameron disregarded it all..
I don't have a problem with that.
> And that's it really. He didn't give a flying f**k about what people who
> were even remotely interesetd in the initial movie thought, nor what they
> *knew* regarding how the Alien reproduces... (A LAFE part of it's mystique,
> to my mind.).
You're right, he didn't let such a minor issue of the few that "knew" about
a disregarded scene from the first film inflict in hos vision of the Alien
lifecycle.
Your problem, it seems, is that you want this disregarded scene to be canon
so desperatly just so you could go up to cameron and yell "neener neener"
in his ears. Why not just say "Yeah, Camerons Aliens is a good movie, but
that cut-out scene in alien, it's a rather cool idea"? Why get so agitated?
It's not like you are going to change anyones mind or change the course of
history.
--
Sandman[.net]
Covenant
Covenant
> In article <a6tqpr$bft$2...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> "Covenant" <cove...@joelamb.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > I suppose it's up to your definition of harccore fans, but I'd be
> > > inclinded to agree with the previous poster.
> > >
> > > 99% of people who have seen Alien would leave the experience there:
> > > what is presented on the screen to them. Actually the %age is
> > > probably higehr that that.
> > >
> > > And, yes, it's on the DVD. But I'm a film enthusiast, and even *I*
> > > don't bother with the extras on DVDs most of the time. They're just
> > > not that interesting. So I figure many people who may have decided
> > > "oh yeah, Alien, I've heard of that... let's rent it tonight" would
> > > similarly watch the film, go "hey, that was quite good /quite bad",
> > > and leave it like that.
> >
> > I think your tending to forget how OLD the film is, and how long there
was
> > between it and Alien.
>
> People care more about stuff when it gets older?
Nooo....
That's all there *was* when it came out.
No *expanded* fan base who came into the Saga *with* Aliens and thus didn't
know.
The simple point *I* am making is that when Alien was released more people
knew about the cocoon scene as might have *subsequently* known after Aliens
was released (as this brought other people into the frame...)
(I'll type slower next time.)
> > The *fabled* cocoon scene was THE topic of discussion between ANYONE *I*
> > knew who had seen the movie.
>
> And you think this represents the majority why?
Because that is how it is within my frame of experience.
Sandman
"Covenant" <cove...@joelamb.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > > It was *known* and accepted as the Alien LC.
> > > >
> > > > Now, that's and odd conclusion. -Who- accepted it? The Board Of Alien
> > > > Canonity? I think you would find that the majoriity of Alien audince
> > > > or even Alien fans were oblivious to that scener or even disregarding
> > > > it since it wasn't included. I would bet my (nonexisting) horse that
> > > > there are very -few- fans that hold that scene to be canon in any
> > > > form, especially when Aliens contradicts it.
> > >
> > > Yeah.
> > >
> > > Sure.
> >
> > No reply? I take it you agree then?
>
> Yeah.
>
> Sure.
I'd really like to know why you are so intimidated by me? It's a fun
display allright, but I'm curious. :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
"Covenant" <cove...@joelamb.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > > I think your tending to forget how OLD the film is, and how long
> > > there was between it and Alien.
> >
> > People care more about stuff when it gets older?
>
> Nooo.... That's all there *was* when it came out. No *expanded* fan base
> who came into the Saga *with* Aliens and thus didn't know.
Are you trying to connect this to weather fans knew about the cut scene?
> The simple point *I* am making is that when Alien was released more
> people knew about the cocoon scene as might have *subsequently* known
> after Aliens was released (as this brought other people into the
> frame...)
And I disagree. I can guarantee that there were LOTS of more people
knwowing about that scene after Aliens then there was after Alien.
> (I'll type slower next time.)
Yes, I noticed you had problems keeping up.
> > > The *fabled* cocoon scene was THE topic of discussion between ANYONE
> > > *I* knew who had seen the movie.
> >
> > And you think this represents the majority why?
>
> Because that is how it is within my frame of experience.
Thanks for making it clear that it in no way represents the majority and it
was a foolish thing to bring up when "the majority" was discussed.
I forgive you. :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Covenant
> I forgive you. :)
Then my life is complete.
Covenant
*I*'d like to know why you think I'm *indimidated* by you....
Glen A. RITCHIE
Covenant <cove...@joelamb.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a6tlhm$unc$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "Exile In Paradise" <
>
> > Cameron couldn't even get the company name right.
> > Its spelled W-E-Y-L-A-N. No D. End of authenticity.
> >
> > He made a movie based in a universe remarkably similar to
> > ALIEN, but the mis-spelled company name is the giveaway
> > that its not canon.
>
Didn't David CASSIDY once sing that, in one of those pre-fab 70s pop bands?
Glen A. RITCHIE
Exile In Paradise <exi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Grbk8.15926$P4.13...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> a simple-minded comedy with all the suspense one would
> expect from "The Keystone Cops Meet Casper the Ghost".
Hey -
I saw *that*, just last night!
Highly recommended -
*two* thumbs up!
Exile In Paradise
> It was known by a limited number of people. Only the hardcore fans know about
> the cut-scene.
And if yer not a hardcore fan, git out! *grin*
> Hardly anyone reads film novelizations.
> They're primarily an ad for the movie.
*I* read them.
> The script was unavailable to the public.
But not a LOT of interviews and such that talk about the scene.
> And Laserdisc is almost as big a flop as Betamax :-)
Couldn't afford either of them, huh?
I *like* my laserdisc player...
It was the only way to watch ALIEN for years and years, until Fox finally
relented to pressure and released the DVD.
ALIEN on VHS is like drinking orange juice after brushing your teeth.
Yuck.
> Having said all that, I can certainly understand that the 'change' irks the
> hardcore fans. You had that lifecycle in your minds for 7 years before seeing
> the sequel. Although the lifecycle was not established in the finished film,
> it was fixed in your minds.
Hit the nail on the head there.
I had actually seen a Japanese laserdisc where the cocoon scene was edited
back in, long before ALIENS was even in production.
So, when I saw ALIENS in the theater, all I could think was "what the $%@#"
when Ripley (RIPLEY of all people, who was IN the cocoon scene) starts talking
about a $#%^@&* queen.
> It's similar to the situation when a novel is adapted for film. The novel is
> fixed in the reader's mind and it's annoying when the film deviates.
Sing along with me now: Dune.
> For people who saw the movie "The Shining" without reading the book, the film
> may have been very satisfying. However, the people who read the book first
> were probably very disappointed.
Yawn. Stephen King. Yawn.
> People who saw "Aliens" first (or even people who watched the two movies
> together on video) probably accepted the hive lifecycle wholeheartedly.
Unfortunately.
It wouldn't be so bad if they didn't then inflict their misguided adoration
for the alien queen on the hardcore fanboys.
> People who saw "Alien" in 1979 and spent the next 7 years reading
> behind-the-scenes articles about the film, probably were disappointed by the
> sequel.
I dunno about anyone else, but I love the sequel... for different reasons than
ALIEN sure.
The jokes still kill me.
Even if its wrong, that doesn't make it un-enjoyable.
> I wouldn't have felt obligated to please the relatively few fans committed to
> the other lifecycle.
Why not?
By definition, a sequel is made to capitalize on the fans (market) of the
original who paid out all that money before and made the original successful
enough to make a sequel of in the first place.
--
Exile In Paradise
Some men are discovered; others are found out.
Exile In Paradise
> Yeah, but Cameron's in the movie biz to make money, I think you'll
> find, not because he really thinks he's adding anything to the art
> form.
Can't argue with that.
It's the same reason I get up at 5am every day to go to work too.
> My only disagreement with you is that you place too much significance
> in the minutiae of Alien, and then apply that opinion to most other
> people. It's just not the case. If it was, there'd be more than
> about 20 people here discussing it.
I think the difference between the cocoon scene and alien queen is
slightly out of the scope of a word like "minutiae".
For the record, do you reproduce sexually, or asexually?
I think the difference is pretty apparent from that perspective, yes?
> My mates - even the SF / Internet involved ones - think I'm a complete
> geek for even subscribing to something like a.c-m.a. And you know
The richest guy in the world is a geek... so what's wrong with being a geek?
> what? I agree with them. But the case in point is that it's just not
> what winds the clock of the bulk of people out there.
Of course that knife cuts both ways.
Personally, I could care less what winds other folks clocks.
I don't go see movies for everyone else... that's a critic's job.
I go see movies for me, myself, and I, and all three of us couldn't believe
how we had been treated regarding "truth to the original material" when it
came to Cameron's handling of ALIENS.
--
Exile In Paradise
I have a hobby. I have the world's largest collection of sea shells. I keep
it scattered on beaches all over the world. Maybe you've seen some of it.
-- Steven Wright
Exile In Paradise
> Be that as it may, it's his perogative, and he "changed" it.
And that makes the same cup o'crap taste better how?
> Now I have no problem with both facets of the lifestyle co-existing,
> but if I was asked what was *canon*, I'd say the version as portrayed
> in Aliens.
And apparently that's where I (and I expect Covenant) differ from most
fans...
I feel that anything related to the original movie is 10,000 times more
"canonical" than anything at all related to a sequel, including the
sequel itself.
Prepoduction notes, scripts, interviews, baseball cards, whathaveyou that are
part of the original effort beats any "Johnny Come Lately" additions.
In my world, a cutscene from the original is worth more "Canon Points" that
all of the theatrical release scenes added up together.
Why?
It's the original. It was first, it blazed the trail.
We ALL know that you have to add, or expand original ideas to make a
sequel, but making a sequel should not "go back on" the original.
It should enhance it, explore it in more depth, uncover more of what was
hidden... but it should not attempt to make the original into a lie.
That's the heart of what I will hereby dub the "Cameron Crime" as relates
to ALIEN: he put his ego ahead of any integrity to the original.
The original intent of the author of ALIEN, as stated in his script, (without
which there would have been no movie to sequel, duh) was NO QUEEN.
The "creator" of the ALIEN universe was Dan O'Bannon.
He created a species that reproduces without a queen.
Thats canon. The rest is nitpicking.
And Cameron couldn't even get that much right.
As far as cutscenes go, the absence of a thing does not automagically allow
the presence of another.
There is still no queen, nor is there an excuse for one just because the
original left out a filmed scene that WAS in the script.
What more can I say?
That should be "nuff said" even for the densest fan.
I also would like to point out, again, that Cameron couldn't get ANYTHING
right, even down to the name of the company itself.
Why does anyone think anything about ALIENS could be called "canon" when
a basic discrepancy such as that exists?
It seems ludicrous to even use the word "canon" in a sentence related to
ALIENS, yet people still try again and again to pawn off a sequel as more
"canon" than the original work it is based on?
I just don't get how people can delude themselves about that fundamental
nature of things so badly.
--
Exile In Paradise
A little word of doubtful number,
A foe to rest and peaceful slumber.
If you add an "s" to this,
Great is the metamorphosis.
Plural is plural now no more,
And sweet what bitter was before.
What am I?
Covenant
> Animalhour wrote:
> > I wouldn't have felt obligated to please the relatively few fans
committed to
> > the other lifecycle.
>
> Why not?
> By definition, a sequel is made to capitalize on the fans (market) of the
> original who paid out all that money before and made the original
successful
> enough to make a sequel of in the first place.
Precisley.
Covenant
"Glen A. RITCHIE" <glenar...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:p9Qk8.8813$PS5.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Wasn't it a solo effort?
Adam Cameron
Jesus. Fortunately I don't have to get up until 8am for a 8:30am
start (one of the benefits of living in walking distance from work!).
>> in the minutiae of Alien, and then apply that opinion to most other
>I think the difference between the cocoon scene and alien queen is
>slightly out of the scope of a word like "minutiae".
Not my usage of the word "Alien" in what I said there. I was not
talking comparatively to the rest of the series, I was commenting on
Cov's POV that anyone other than the likes of the people here would
actually give a shit or *know* about that dropped scene from Alien.
Basically, most people are going to say "it's a movie, who gives a
shit".
>For the record, do you reproduce sexually, or asexually?
I don't reproduce ;-)
>I think the difference is pretty apparent from that perspective, yes?
Um... one's a movie and one's a biological function. One's not real
and one is. See most people can work that one out.
>The richest guy in the world is a geek... so what's wrong with being a geek?
Did I *say* there's anything wrong with being a geek? I'm a computer
programmer, after all: I'm hardly going to have an issue with
geekiness. But *most* people think it's a negative quality.
>Of course that knife cuts both ways.
>Personally, I could care less what winds other folks clocks.
>I don't go see movies for everyone else... that's a critic's job.
Agreed. But it was Cov who was doing the expose on what winds
people's clocks, not me.
>how we had been treated regarding "truth to the original material" when it
>came to Cameron's handling of ALIENS.
Hey, I don't like Aliens compared to Alien (indeed, I just don't like
Aliens), but that's going to be a hard ask anyhow: there aren't *any*
movies I like as much as Alien. But Aliens is still a good film, I can
see that. A sequel to Alien which dealt with the "original" lifecycle
would not be Aliens, it would be another film. And it may have been
rubbish. I'll settle for what we've got.
Having said that, like I said, I don't see why the two life-cycles
can't be complimentary, so whilst I don't like the queen angle, I
don't think it's the end of the world (even as far as the Alien films
go).
Adam
Adam Cameron
>> but if I was asked what was *canon*, I'd say the version as portrayed
>> in Aliens.
>
>And apparently that's where I (and I expect Covenant) differ from most
>fans...
>
>I feel that anything related to the original movie is 10,000 times more
>"canonical" than anything at all related to a sequel, including the
>sequel itself.
As fare as Alien goes as a capsule, yes. But once there's the notion
of an Alien-movie-series, no. As far as the Alien-movie-series go,
the films, as presented on screen, are "canon".
Well that's my opininon. And, my, how I hate arguments about what is
an isn't canon, so let's leave it at a difference of opinion, eh?
Adam
Robbie Grant
appallingly incorrect assumption:
>> Now I have no problem with both facets of the lifestyle co-existing,
>> but if I was asked what was *canon*, I'd say the version as portrayed
>> in Aliens.
>
>And apparently that's where I (and I expect Covenant) differ from most
>fans...
>
>I feel that anything related to the original movie is 10,000 times more
>"canonical" than anything at all related to a sequel, including the
>sequel itself.
>
>Prepoduction notes, scripts, interviews, baseball cards, whathaveyou that are
>part of the original effort beats any "Johnny Come Lately" additions.
Now, you'll have to excuse my language here, but that is quite
simply the most stupid fucking comment I have ever read on this
newsgroup. Seriously.
Okay, I'll now apologuise for my previous outburst before
Tracy starts picking on me again, but *seriously*! Where the hell did
you come up with that idea? Most movies' preproduction notes
contradict their own damn finalised product. Are these taken as
canon? Maybe I mis-understood exactly what you're saying here, but if
not, something is incredibly wrong. Have you *listened* to interviews
of Mr. Ridley "Revisionist" Scott over the years? And not just Alien,
either -- try asking him whether Deckard was intended to be a
replicant from the beginning. In fact, that movie serves my purpose
quite well: anecdotal evidence seems to suggest that he *didn't* want
him to be one originally, but then changed his mind for the
re-release. Which becomes canon? And what if the DC had never been
released? What would have been canon(or, indeed, what *was* canon)?
What with all the script re-writes these days, how the hell are you
supposed to take *everything* into consideration (and I know, at this
stage, that wmmmvrmvrmm has an answer, but I don't think anyone here
it trying to go down that path, interesting though it may be)? Bah!
--
*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...
Adam Cameron
>simply the most stupid fucking comment I have ever read on this
>newsgroup. Seriously.
Come on man, quit sitting on the fence. Tell us what you *really*
*think*.
fwiw: "me too".
Adam
Glen A. RITCHIE
Robbie Grant <randr...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:m3da9ugrvepsfear3...@4ax.com...
> > Prepoduction notes, scripts, interviews, baseball cards,
> > whathaveyou that are part of the original effort beats any
> > "Johnny Come Lately" additions.
>
> Now, you'll have to excuse my language here
Yeah, you wouldn't want your daughter to get corrupted by such vulgarity
(being the off-spring of a Teacher, I'm sure she can read this by now)!
> , but that is quite simply the most stupid fucking comment I
> have ever read on this newsgroup. Seriously.
You obviously haven't been paying attention to what I've posted over the
past six months or so, or you would've noticed that I've made more than my
share of stupid fucking comments here, too.
Seriously.
Glen A. RITCHIE
> > > I think I love you !!!
> >
> > Didn't David CASSIDY once sing that, in one of those
> > pre-fab 70s pop bands?
>
> Wasn't it a solo effort?
If memory serves me correctly, when David CASSIDY was part of The PARTRIDGE
Family, they recorded the first version; later on, when he came to terms
with his teeny-bopper past, he
re-recorded a new version (sometime in the mid-90s, I believe).
Personally, I prefer the original.
Carlos D. Garza
from the actaul released film, I don't see how you can attack Camerons since
he was clearly in the open for what ever life model he chose. The species
its self is weaker of courese because of the dependance on the queen but
what were given was a giant bigger alien to watch.
On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 23:50:14 -0000, Covenant
<cove...@joelamb.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote in message
>news:mr-FEBD04.23...@news.fu-berlin.de...
>> In article <LlNj8.12729$P4.10...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
>> exi...@earthlink.net (Exile In Paradise) wrote:
>>
>> > > The 'beauty' of the first alien lay in it's efficiency: no queen
>needed,
>> > > much harder to kill, regrows missing body parts etc.
>> >
>> > True.
>> > alt.cult-movies.alien tends to polarize around this topic more than
>most.
>> > This may be egotistical, but I think Covenant and I are the most vocal
>from
>> > the anti-queen camp, while a majority of the movie series fans tend to
>fall
>> > into the pro-queen camp.
>>
>> I've always seen it as we can accept Camerons canon vision of the alien,
>> whereas you can't. :)
>
>
>
>Nope....
>
>Acceptance is arbitrary.. it's *there*..
>
>Doesn't mean we have to *like* it though.
>
>;' )
>
>
>--
>Covenant
>A Man With Far Too Much Time On His Hands
>
>
Carlos D. Garza
Covenant <cove...@joelamb.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>And that's it really. He didn't give a flying f**k about what people who
>were even remotely interesetd in the initial movie thought, nor what they
>*knew* regarding how the Alien reproduces... (A LAFE part of it's mystique,
>to my mind.).
>
I think Alien3 commited the more devious sin of altering the alien cycle
by useing this mumbo jumbo that the alien takes on attributes of its host.
And some other stuff like KILLING NEWT and HICKS whom riply spent a good
portion of Aliens trying to save. And the magical appearing egg in the
sulaco.
James Cameraman (pun) was given a clean slate, ( he probably should have
stuck with the original vision though. ). Come to think of it I don't see
why the cacoon scene was cut in the first place.
Animalhour
<da_ca...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>> It was known by a limited number of people. Only the hardcore fans know
>>about
>>> the cut-scene.
>
>>Nonsense.
>>(Sorry to be so blunt, but there y'go.)
>
>I suppose it's up to your definition of harccore fans, but I'd be
>inclinded to agree with the previous poster.
>
>99% of people who have seen Alien would leave the experience there:
>what is presented on the screen to them. Actually the %age is
>probably higehr that that.
>
>And, yes, it's on the DVD. But I'm a film enthusiast, and even *I*
>don't bother with the extras on DVDs most of the time.
This reminds me... In defense of James Cameron, DVD (and probably Laserdisc)
did not exist in 1986. I wasn't worried about what people know about ALIEN in
2002.
I wouldn't expect him make consistency with the ALIEN novelization a top
priority.
Animalhour
>The *fabled* cocoon scene was THE topic of discussion between ANYONE *I*
>knew who had seen the movie.
You know other hardcore fans. Geeks fraternize with other geeks. (Except for
reclusive geeks such as myself. Those do not fraternize at all.)
Also, you're British, correct? ( I'm not implying any link between the United
Kingdom and Geekdom here :-) ALIEN, with a British director and location,
probably got much more behind-the-scenes coverage there than in the rest of the
world.
>There were pictures of it in many places (just OTTOMH The Book of Alien)
How many copies of The Book of Alien do you think were published? Could ticket
sales for ALIENS to the readers of that book cover the film's $18 million
budget?
>The *problem* is that Cameron disregarded it all..
>
>And that's it really. He didn't give a flying f**k about what people who
>were even remotely interested in the initial movie thought,
People wedded to the "original" lifecycle are not "remotely interested".
They're ALIEN fans -- as in "fanatics".
> nor what they
>*knew* regarding how the Alien reproduces... (A LAFE part of it's mystique,
>to my mind.).
What they knew regarding how Cameron's predecessors **planned** for the Alien
to reproduce. Nothing's official except what appears in the film.
>Covenant
Animalhour
exi...@earthlink.net (Exile In Paradise) writes:
>Tendril wrote:
>> In the screen play of the first movie dallas is impregnated by the alien
>> (ripley finds him when she is running from the alien). This would suggest
>> that each individual alien has the ability to propogate it's species.
>That scene was later cut in editing to improve the flow of movie pacing as
>it builds towards the destruction of the Nostromo.
It's a shame too, because I would have enjoyed the movie a lot more if the
movie made clear what the alien was doing with the victims.
I suspect that the scene was also cut because the filmmakers thought it was
just too much for the audience to take.
Also, I think ALIEN with more footage would have been close to getting an
X-rating because of the intensity and gore. (The X-rating is a kiss of death
for movies in the USA.) Besides the cocoon scene, I think that they cut frames
out of Brett's death scene. It goes by too fast to really see what's going on.
In slow-motion I could see Brett get his head smashed by the alien's "tongue"
and blood run out from under his hat onto his face.
>The "Cocoon Scene" shows Ripley finding the "lair" of the Alien on board the
>Nostromo.
They could have shown the cocoons without having the character find the nest.
Just pan around, show the cocoons, and then show the alien climbing out of the
nest into an air shaft. (There are probably several places this scene could
have been inserted without ruining the film's pace.)
Or at least show the Brett-egg in a scene where the alien is shown carrying
Dallas into the nest.
>Glued to the wall are the remains of Brett, almost completely transformed
>into an egg, and Dallas beginning to transform.
I'm still not sure that Dallas was turning into an egg. He might have been an
intended host for the "facehugger" that was going to hatch from the Brett-egg.
Is it shown clearly in the footage or explained in the DVD commentary?
>This was intended to close the lifecycle of the Alien, showing that the Big
>Alien (as the crew called it) would implant the nucleus of the facehuggers
>into its victims.
>
>Presumably, the facehugger nucleus would use the victim to create the egg
>around itself and wait dormant until triggered.
Two weaknesses with this approach IMO. One, I think that the egg should be
created from a *live* host. I think that when using this lifecycle Brett
should be carried away alive. Two, I think that there's a mismatch between the
size of a man and the size of an egg.
>Many folks, myself included, would agree that adding the queen was
>unnecessary.
The queen may be *unnecessary*, but I can certainly see why it might be
*preferable*.
I *was* going to say that the queen *is* necessary to explain the absence of
host remains (other than the pilot in the chair). If the Alien turns Brett
into an egg and immobilizes Dallas for the resulting facehugger, then that's an
elegant cycle. However, if that's the case then wouldn't the aliens on the
derelict have done the same thing there, leaving potential hosts immobilized
near the eggs? Then the Nostromo expedition should have found (fossilized)
remains.
If both Brett and Dallas were becoming eggs then the state of the derelict does
make sense.
On the downside, there's a pause in the lifecycle because the two eggs have to
just sit around until a host stumbles upon them.
>The original Alien was intended to be a societal organism, with a primitive
>religion, temples, etc.
>
>In the temple, its speculated that groups of Big Aliens would bring hosts to
>the temple altar to be grabbed by facehuggers.
>Yes, having a queen gives the Alien species an Achilles heel, introducing a
>"single point of failure" problem: Kill the queen and the "hive" dies.
This isn't the fault of ALIENS. There was no problem until Alien^3. Based
solely on ALIENS, I would have figured that one of the other aliens would
become a queen if necessary. The new queen would take control of the hive.
However, Alien^3 ruined this by establishing that the queen differentiates
during the larval stage -- before the chestburster is even born.
>> The 'beauty' of the first alien lay in it's efficiency: no queen needed,
>> much harder to kill, regrows missing body parts etc.
>
>True.
"regrows missing body parts" didn't get into the film
That's one of the things that annoys me about Alien Resurrection. There's no
basis in the earlier films for Ripley 8's power to regenerate.
Also, the alien in part one wasn't necessarily hard to kill. The problem was
that killing it would also kill the crew by a hull breach.
>The Cameron interview on the DVD has some comments that may bear on it:
>"...One of the positives [in making a sequel] is if you can take that initial
>programming that the audience has from the other film and then do a little
>twist and turns on it and like you said, play against their expectation of
>whats gonna happen...
This is what Joss Whedon tried to do in Alien:Resurrection with Call and
Christie.
>> As regards a 5th movie:
[snip]
>A Scott/Cameron collaboration could give us ALIENS meets BLADE RUNNER...
>with Digital Domains modern effects and I am all for that.
BTW: James Cameron and Stan Winston left Digital Domain. Any FX company could
get the gig. (ILM probably gets all the high-profile projects.)
>--
>Exile In Paradise
Animalhour
<mary.joa...@virgin.net> writes:
>everyone seems to suppose that the original alien life cycle was to clone
>itself. why not entertain the idea that genetic diversity could be
>introduced by combining the alien gene with the host gene.
We have. It's one of the explanations for the new alien type in Alien^3.
Facehugger's genes + dog's genes = alien running on all fours
Ripley might have been mistaken when she called the alien implant an "embryo".
If the host supplies some of the genes then the implant is actually a "gamete"
(an ovum or spermatozoan).
>this would allow
>for a natural evolution where the best of both organisms are used.
The offspring would have the best of both organisms -- sometimes. Other times
the mix might be a step backward. The genes from the host might not complement
the genes from the parasite. The interbreeding would sometimes be detrimental.
>as the queen doesn't appear to 'mate' then there would be no genetic
evolution.
There would also be no "de-volution" :-)
I had it in my mind that the alien was so highly evolved that it didn't need
sexual reproduction anymore. The alien is highly adaptable already. The
species may not need new genes to adapt to different environments. Although I
never considered the alien to be a *perfect* organism as Ash did, I though it
was about as "fit" in the Darwinian sense as it was likely to get. So the last
attribute the alien had evolved was asexual reproduction -- so that the species
wouldn't backslide.
I had this mindset for years before Alien^3 and its dog-alien brought the
gene-sharing hypothesis to my attention and I was a little annoyed. I felt
about it the way Covenant and Exile feel about the "new" lifecycle.
Sandman
"Covenant" <cove...@joelamb.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > > > > It was *known* and accepted as the Alien LC.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Now, that's and odd conclusion. -Who- accepted it? The Board
> > > > > > Of Alien Canonity? I think you would find that the majoriity
> > > > > > of Alien audince or even Alien fans were oblivious to that
> > > > > > scener or even disregarding it since it wasn't included. I
> > > > > > would bet my (nonexisting) horse that there are very -few-
> > > > > > fans that hold that scene to be canon in any form, especially
> > > > > > when Aliens contradicts it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yeah.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sure.
> > > >
> > > > No reply? I take it you agree then?
> > >
> > > Yeah.
> > >
> > > Sure.
> >
> > I'd really like to know why you are so intimidated by me? It's a fun
> > display allright, but I'm curious. :)
>
> *I*'d like to know why you think I'm *indimidated* by you....
Come on now, it's not like it isn't obvious. :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
"Covenant" <cove...@joelamb.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote in message
> news:mr-FB6CF1.21...@news.fu-berlin.de...
>
> > I forgive you. :)
>
> Then my life is complete.
thanks for agreeing with my post, man! I knew you would come around at
last. :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
exi...@earthlink.net (Exile In Paradise) wrote:
> Prepoduction notes, scripts, interviews, baseball cards, whathaveyou that are
> part of the original effort beats any "Johnny Come Lately" additions.
Have you read any of these prepoduction notes, scripts, and interviews?
They all contradict themselves quite heavily. Should we all get
canon-frenzia then there really was gremlin types of aliens on a bomb plane
from the beginning. Is that canon that Cameorn violated in some way?
It's a rather absurd standpoint to want to take, even though you are more
eloquent and reasonable than Covenant in taking it. It still won't work
though, since the finnished product contradicts the majority of those
preproduction stuff.
Alien is canon, and since they choose not to make the cut scenes (any cut
scenes), what they may have revealed is up for plays for the sequel.
Apparently the life cycle wasn't important to either scott, o'bannoln or
giger, or they wouldn't have cut it out (if they wanted it there, they
could surely have cut other scenes in favour of it). But since they choose
not to make it canon, they left the ball for the next player.
The only reason you and Covenant want it to be canon is because this single
scene is -better-. It's not a matter of canon-principle, it's a matter of
this single scene. But with the argument above you will open a sea of
contradictions that no fan will ever live with.
> In my world, a cutscene from the original is worth more "Canon Points" that
> all of the theatrical release scenes added up together.
Ok, imagine a world where that cut scene never ever existed. You doing it?
good. Then, if you would speculate on the life cycle of the alien, based
soley on the first film, wouldn't you be saying "Hey, there are eggs... Who
is laying them?" I bet you would. The logical thing for eggs is that they
are being laid by something. With that, the cut scene actually contradicts
the logic of the movie. If the cutscene dictates the lifecycle, why was
there egges at all? Why not cocoons or something like that? I suppose the
eggs could arguable be called cocoons, but "egg" was something Alien
advertising established that it was (just look at the original poster).
Cameron took the logical step, where did those eggs come from? And for
those so deeply in love with a scrapped scene, there's always the
possibility that the two cycles can co-exist.
It might even be so (even though I don't think he would admit it) that Mr
Scott, o'bannon and giger got together and Scott said that this entire
cocoon scene is too way out there, it is inconsistent with the entire "egg"
idea and just seems like a sick giger idea anyway. o'bannon nodding and
giger got all upset and ran out to do some clay work.
Maybe that's wy the scene got scrapped? Maybe they or he didn't even
believe in it themselves?
--
Sandman[.net]
Animalhour
<da_ca...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>For the record, do you reproduce sexually, or asexually?
>
>I don't reproduce ;-)
I've been trying to reproduce asexually, but all I get are tired forearm
muscles and some crusty stains.
Animalhour
<cove...@joelamb.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
>The simple point *I* am making is that when Alien was released more people
>knew about the cocoon scene as might have *subsequently* known after Aliens
>was released (as this brought other people into the frame...)
Please explain what you meant here.
Animalhour
exi...@earthlink.net (Exile In Paradise) writes:
>For the record, do you reproduce sexually, or asexually?
Nothing to do with your point but the eggs are produced asexually in both
lifecycles. If there is a sexual stage, it's the implantation into a host by
the facehugger.
Animalhour
exi...@earthlink.net (Exile In Paradise) writes:
>I go see movies for me, myself, and I, and all three of us couldn't believe
>how we had been treated regarding "truth to the original material" when it
>came to Cameron's handling of ALIENS.
Your definition of the original material is unusual. Most people consider the
final cut the original material. Filmmakers' plans and cut scenes wouldn't
qualify.
Animalhour
c...@localhost.localdomain (Carlos D. Garza) writes:
> I think Alien3 commited the more devious sin of altering the alien cycle
> by useing this mumbo jumbo that the alien takes on attributes of its host.
This is an aspect that Ridley Scott wanted to use for the first film but did
not get a chance to use. There weren't any other animals exposed to a
facehugger.
I didn't like the Alien3 approach either.
>And some other stuff like KILLING NEWT and HICKS whom riply spent a good
>portion of Aliens trying to save.
I agree: killing them was pretty stupid. They could have written the
characters out of the story without killing them. Why did they even have to be
loaded into the same EEV? There was no point in the facehugger's attack on Newt
either -- it ended up impregnating the dog.
Animalhour
exi...@earthlink.net (Exile In Paradise) writes:
>Animalhour wrote:
>> It was known by a limited number of people. Only the hardcore fans know
>>about the cut-scene.
>
>And if yer not a hardcore fan, git out! *grin*
Yes, I am. I know about the scene *now*, but I didn't know before ALIENS. I
was 3 years old when ALIEN came out.
>> Hardly anyone reads film novelizations.
>> They're primarily an ad for the movie.
>
>*I* read them.
You're one of the few. I didn't say **no one** reads them. (I just got the
ALIEN novelization a few days ago.)
>> The script was unavailable to the public.
>
>But not a LOT of interviews and such that talk about the scene.
But, again, not every fan of ALIEN read those. Also, I think few of the people
who *did* read them would hold the director of the sequel to the statements
made in the interviews.
I could probably understand the anger if Ridley Scott had directed the sequel
himself and contradicted his own statements about ALIEN in his sequel.
I don't understand the anger toward James Cameron. I understand the
*disappointment* that the original lifecycle was abandoned, but I don't
understand the expectations.
>> And Laserdisc is almost as big a flop as Betamax :-)
>
>Couldn't afford either of them, huh?
Of course not. I was 10. My paper route didn't pay that well. :-)
>I *like* my laserdisc player...
>It was the only way to watch ALIEN for years and years, until Fox finally
>relented to pressure and released the DVD.
The point wasn't the quality of laserdisc, it was the QUANTITY.
And it's a moot point anyway because laserdisc didn't exist AFAIK before ALIENS
was made.
>> It's similar to the situation when a novel is adapted for film. The novel
>>is fixed in the reader's mind and it's annoying when the film deviates.
>
>Sing along with me now: Dune.
By the way, I think the novel "Dune" is overrated. I liked the beginning, but
overall it's a mediocre book IMO.
>> People who saw "Aliens" first (or even people who watched the two movies
>> together on video) probably accepted the hive lifecycle wholeheartedly.
>
>Unfortunately.
>It wouldn't be so bad if they didn't then inflict their misguided adoration
>for the alien queen on the hardcore fanboys.
It would be nice if those who adore the cut lifecycle did not inflict their
adoration for that lifecycle on the ALIENS fans.
>> I wouldn't have felt obligated to please the relatively few fans committed
>>to the other lifecycle.
>
>Why not?
>By definition, a sequel is made to capitalize on the fans (market) of the
>original who paid out all that money before and made the original successful
>enough to make a sequel of in the first place.
Yes, but "fans committed to the lifecycle" is a small subset of the group "fans
of the actual movie"
You are not the typical fan. How many people have seen ALIEN on Japanese
laserdisc?
>--
>Exile In Paradise
Animalhour
exi...@earthlink.net (Exile In Paradise) writes:
>We all know the reason the queen is there is so that Cameron could piss all
>over the series until he liked the flavor. His ego could not STAND to have
>something cooler that HE could have invented.
Did James Cameron screw your girlfriend or something?
>Cameron couldn't even get the company name right.
>Its spelled W-E-Y-L-A-N. No D. End of authenticity.
>
>He made a movie based in a universe remarkably similar to ALIEN, but the
>mis-spelled company name is the giveaway that its not canon.
You want to discount the whole movie because it contains a misspelling?
Neale Roberts
"Animalhour" <anima...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020318133519...@mb-bh.aol.com...
Covenant
"Carlos D. Garza" <c...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
news:slrna9b7n...@localhost.localdomain...
> he was clearly in the open for what ever life model he chose. The species
> its self is weaker of courese because of the dependance on the queen but
> what were given was a giant bigger alien to watch.
That, my dear sir, is *entirely* my point...
Covenant
Which facehugger attack on Newt is that?
Or do you subscribe to the two egg theory?
Covenant
> In article <a6tqpr$bft$2...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Covenant"
> <cove...@joelamb.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
>
> >The *fabled* cocoon scene was THE topic of discussion between ANYONE *I*
> >knew who had seen the movie.
>
> You know other hardcore fans. Geeks fraternize with other geeks. (Except
for
> reclusive geeks such as myself. Those do not fraternize at all.)
Nooooo people who watch movies and might just manage to read something at
the same time...
> Also, you're British, correct? ( I'm not implying any link between the
United
> Kingdom and Geekdom here :-) ALIEN, with a British director and
location,
> probably got much more behind-the-scenes coverage there than in the rest
of the
> world.
Yeah?!
So does that make my point *less* valid?
> >There were pictures of it in many places (just OTTOMH The Book of Alien)
>
> How many copies of The Book of Alien do you think were published? Could
ticket
> sales for ALIENS to the readers of that book cover the film's $18 million
> budget?
>
> >The *problem* is that Cameron disregarded it all..
> >
> >And that's it really. He didn't give a flying f**k about what people who
> >were even remotely interested in the initial movie thought,
>
> People wedded to the "original" lifecycle are not "remotely interested".
> They're ALIEN fans -- as in "fanatics".
I'm not talking about wedded to original LC...
Because before Aliens there only WAS one LC....
UC ?
> > nor what they
> >*knew* regarding how the Alien reproduces... (A LAFE part of it's
mystique,
> >to my mind.).
>
> What they knew regarding how Cameron's predecessors **planned** for the
Alien
> to reproduce. Nothing's official except what appears in the film.
You're just not getting my point
CAMERON knew about the original LC
(and, just to bow to certain people pedantism...)
LOTS of people knew about the original LC.
Cameron ignored it, brought in a queen, lessened the mystique of the
species, made them into big ants, took away whatever intelligence it seemed
to have in the first, showed them not so much as a perfect organism as a
drop down target for a bulletfest, altered their appearance just because he
wanted to, and made eggs open without any contact...
And that's just for starters....
He took a piece of art and pi**ed all over it.
Covenant
As long as it is to you, I guess....
Covenant
???
Where do I agree with you?
Covenant
Simply put....
We weren't all 3 years old when Alien came out.
Covenant
>It's a rather absurd standpoint to want to take, even though you are more
eloquent and reasonable than Covenant in taking it.
Why do I intimidate you so much?
> The only reason you and Covenant want it to be canon is because this
single
> scene is -better-.
WrrrrrrrONG !!!!
I've posted many times why the original LC is better.
And reiterated some of those points this very evening.
Sandman
"Covenant" <cove...@joelamb.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > I forgive you. :)
> > >
> > > Then my life is complete.
> >
> > thanks for agreeing with my post, man! I knew you would come around at
> > last. :)
>
> Where do I agree with you?
Where do you disagree? Concluding that you agree with me just as arbitary
as doing the opposite. Especially when you are unable to support your
position. :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
"Covenant" <cove...@joelamb.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> >It's a rather absurd standpoint to want to take, even though you are
> >more eloquent and reasonable than Covenant in taking it.
>
> Why do I intimidate you so much?
*laughter* Couldn't you come up with a repertoar of your own? A little
-imagination- please! You're maiing it too easy for me. I want more of a
challange! :)
> > The only reason you and Covenant want it to be canon is because this
> > single scene is -better-.
>
> WrrrrrrrONG !!!!
Most teenagers write like that. How old are you? I am seriously curious.
Not inteded as an insult.
> I've posted many times why the original LC is better.
Perhaps you should have someone read my post to you, it is the original
life cycle I am talking about in the above sentence. How you concluded that
"single scene" ever could mean the cameron life cycle is beyond me.
> And reiterated some of those points this very evening.
Good for you! :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Adam Cameron
>> > > display allright, but I'm curious. :)
>> >
>> > *I*'d like to know why you think I'm *indimidated* by you....
>>
>> Come on now, it's not like it isn't obvious. :)
>
>As long as it is to you, I guess....
Well you *do* act very obviously defensive when threads don't go your
way.
Adam
(who was wondering the same thing ebfore Sandman put it into words)
Covenant
Covenant
And which position is that?
No *stance* is taken in either of the above posts.
Elementary English.
Covenant
> In article <a75f1e$upc$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> "Covenant" <cove...@joelamb.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > >It's a rather absurd standpoint to want to take, even though you are
> > >more eloquent and reasonable than Covenant in taking it.
> >
> > Why do I intimidate you so much?
>
> *laughter* Couldn't you come up with a repertoar of your own? A little
> -imagination- please! You're maiing it too easy for me. I want more of a
> challange! :)
It's called sarcasm...
Come on in...
Covenant
"Adam Cameron" <da_ca...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:03mc9u4j1lg49pc26...@4ax.com...
> >> > > I'd really like to know why you are so intimidated by me? It's a
fun
> >> > > display allright, but I'm curious. :)
> >> >
> >> > *I*'d like to know why you think I'm *indimidated* by you....
> >>
> >> Come on now, it's not like it isn't obvious. :)
> >
> >As long as it is to you, I guess....
>
> Well you *do* act very obviously defensive when threads don't go your
> way.
Adam, you seem to believe that I expect threads to *go* a particularly *way*
???
How on earth could that be the case?
I am *well* aware that some people disregard certain things pertaining to
Alien.
So?
What I *do* have a problem with are barely disguised immature jibes and
insults.
If people wanna discuss, fine discuss, but don't try to;
a) tell me what I *think* I am trying to say.
or
b) insult my intelligence for my standpoint.
I am *well* aware that certain people attempt to , for want of a better
phrase, take a rise out of me.
The current batch I have seen merely as dull. I either replied verbosely or
I ignored them.
Such is my prerogative, no?
Glen A. RITCHIE
Neale Roberts <pim...@notquiteblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:vJql8.2240$NE6.17...@news-text.cableinet.net...
> Can we leave Newt dead? Please? Pleeeeease?
How about "mostly" dead?
Neale Roberts
"Glen A. RITCHIE" <glenar...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:Nwul8.5249$mZ3.5...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Glen A. RITCHIE
> > > For the record, do you reproduce sexually, or asexually?
> >
> > I don't reproduce ;-)
>
> I've been trying to reproduce asexually, but all I get are tired
> forearm muscles
That's what's called recreation, not procreation.
It's *exercise*, which helps we males maintain such fit arms and hands into
our later years.
Got a jar you need opened, ladies?
I've just finished doing *my* workout!
> and some crusty stains.
Now that Monica BLOW-WEENIE-SKI is free, maybe she could save you from
having to regularly launder those
ever-troublesome residues, by catching your wad in her mouth whilst it's
still fresh and hot (providing, of course, you don't end up squirting your
load all over her blue dress; aside from defeating the purpose, those stains
may 'come' back to haunt you later).
[P.S.: Is Monica still doing those Weight Watcher's commercials? To me,
that's proof positive that stuff is fattening.]
Animalhour
<cove...@joelamb.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
>> >And some other stuff like KILLING NEWT and HICKS whom riply spent a good
>> >portion of Aliens trying to save.
>>
>> I agree: killing them was pretty stupid. They could have written the
>> characters out of the story without killing them. Why did they even have
>to be
>> loaded into the same EEV? There was no point in the facehugger's attack on
>Newt
>> either -- it ended up impregnating the dog.
>
>
>Which facehugger attack on Newt is that?
The one that burned Newt's cryotube and started the fire. The facehugger never
actually got on her (except in the comic book). It later impregnated either
Ripley or the dog (or both).
>Or do you subscribe to the two egg theory?
I do.
Sandman
"Covenant" <cove...@joelamb.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > > >It's a rather absurd standpoint to want to take, even though you are
> > > >more eloquent and reasonable than Covenant in taking it.
> > >
> > > Why do I intimidate you so much?
> >
> > *laughter* Couldn't you come up with a repertoar of your own? A little
> > -imagination- please! You're maiing it too easy for me. I want more of a
> > challange! :)
>
> It's called sarcasm...
I'd call it "attempt at sarcasm". :)
> Come on in...
I've been saying this to you for weeks now! :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
"Covenant" <cove...@joelamb.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > > > I forgive you. :)
> > > > >
> > > > > Then my life is complete.
> > > >
> > > > thanks for agreeing with my post, man! I knew you would come around at
> > > > last. :)
> > >
> > > Where do I agree with you?
> >
> > Where do you disagree? Concluding that you agree with me just as arbitary
> > as doing the opposite. Especially when you are unable to support your
> > position. :)
>
> And which position is that?
Don't you remember?
> No *stance* is taken in either of the above posts.
Then you haven't read the posts, I suppose. Why do you even participate in
the discussion?
> Elementary English.
Something you lack comprehension of? :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
"Covenant" <cove...@joelamb.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > >> > > display allright, but I'm curious. :)
> > >> >
> > >> > *I*'d like to know why you think I'm *indimidated* by you....
> > >>
> > >> Come on now, it's not like it isn't obvious. :)
> > >
> > >As long as it is to you, I guess....
> >
> > Well you *do* act very obviously defensive when threads don't go your
> > way.
>
> Adam, you seem to believe that I expect threads to *go* a particularly *way*
> ???
>
> How on earth could that be the case?
>
> I am *well* aware that some people disregard certain things pertaining to
> Alien.
>
> So?
>
> What I *do* have a problem with are barely disguised immature jibes and
> insults.
Then why do you hand them out?
> If people wanna discuss, fine discuss, but don't try to;
>
> a) tell me what I *think* I am trying to say.
Yeah, that's a bitch. Who did that to you?
> b) insult my intelligence for my standpoint.
Ah, the bastards. I'll help you beat them up!
> I am *well* aware that certain people attempt to , for want of a better
> phrase, take a rise out of me.
(And what an easy task that is)
> The current batch I have seen merely as dull. I either replied verbosely or
> I ignored them.
I suppose I don't belong in "the current batch". Damn, I wish I did. :)
I am only playing with you since you behaved so obnoxiously immature the
first time you replied to a post of mine, since then I like to taunt you
and play with you. You haven't really showed any reasonable sides to
yourself that have prompted me to stop.
If you would only deflate your ego some, then perhaps you could join in on
the joke, and the discussions, no?
--
Sandman[.net]
Adam Cameron
>> phrase, take a rise out of me.
>(And what an easy task that is)
>> The current batch I have seen merely as dull. I either replied verbosely or
>> I ignored them.
>I suppose I don't belong in "the current batch". Damn, I wish I did. :)
Nono, I think you *do*.
>I am only playing with you since you behaved so obnoxiously immature the
>first time you replied to a post of mine, since then I like to taunt you
>and play with you. You haven't really showed any reasonable sides to
>yourself that have prompted me to stop.
>
>If you would only deflate your ego some, then perhaps you could join in on
>the joke, and the discussions, no?
[to someone else: no names, mind]
He's right, you know.
Adam
Sandman
Adam Cameron <da_ca...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> I am *well* aware that certain people attempt to , for want of a better
> >> phrase, take a rise out of me.
> >(And what an easy task that is)
> >> The current batch I have seen merely as dull. I either replied verbosely or
> >> I ignored them.
> >I suppose I don't belong in "the current batch". Damn, I wish I did. :)
>
> Nono, I think you *do*.
But he hasn't replied verbosedly nor ignored me! :)
> >I am only playing with you since you behaved so obnoxiously immature the
> >first time you replied to a post of mine, since then I like to taunt you
> >and play with you. You haven't really showed any reasonable sides to
> >yourself that have prompted me to stop.
> >
> >If you would only deflate your ego some, then perhaps you could join in on
> >the joke, and the discussions, no?
>
> [to someone else: no names, mind]
> He's right, you know.
:)
--
Sandman[.net]
Covenant
> In article <a75n26$jkg$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> "Covenant" <cove...@joelamb.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > I forgive you. :)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Then my life is complete.
> > > > >
> > > > > thanks for agreeing with my post, man! I knew you would come
around at
> > > > > last. :)
> > > >
> > > > Where do I agree with you?
> > >
> > > Where do you disagree? Concluding that you agree with me just as
arbitary
> > > as doing the opposite. Especially when you are unable to support your
> > > position. :)
> >
> > And which position is that?
>
> Don't you remember?
>
> > No *stance* is taken in either of the above posts.
>
> Then you haven't read the posts, I suppose.
Everything being discussed is above.
(Unless of course you are harking back to other posts....In which case they
are irrelevant as everything I was commenting on *is* above...)
> Why do you even participate in
> the discussion?
Merely to give you a reason to post...
After all, if you weren't trying to make your bones having a go at long term
regs.. what on *earth* would you say???
(Unless you love me of course... Hmmmm...... I forgot about *that*
possibility....)
> > Elementary English.
>
> Something you lack comprehension of? :)
Since when did I become American?
Covenant
"Sandman" <
> then perhaps you could join in on
> the joke,
FINALLY !!!!!!!!
Jeez man... I never thought you'd EVER get it.....
<<phew>>>
;' )
Just because one isn't throwing out smilies every second line (as I am
usually wont to do...) doesn't mean one isn't playing with the playee...
(If you get my drift??)
>and the discussions, no?
Oh I think I do my fair share in the discussions....
But you gotta remember, there is little in here that hasn't been covered
before. I hang around more for the communitty.
Covenant
And there, you lose me...
Sandman
"Covenant" <cove...@joelamb.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > > No *stance* is taken in either of the above posts.
> >
> > Then you haven't read the posts, I suppose.
>
> Everything being discussed is above.
...lacking the content of the entire thread.
> (Unless of course you are harking back to other posts....In which case
> they are irrelevant as everything I was commenting on *is* above...)
Hence I thank you for agreeing with my former posts.
> > Why do you even participate in the discussion?
>
> Merely to give you a reason to post... After all, if you weren't trying
> to make your bones having a go at long term regs.. what on *earth* would
> you say???
You should read my other posts in a.c-m.a, you are the only one I am making
fun of, since you are so easy to make fun of. :)
> > > Elementary English.
> >
> > Something you lack comprehension of? :)
>
> Since when did I become American?
Since when did "Elementary English" have anything to do with America?
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
"Covenant" <cove...@joelamb.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > then perhaps you could join in on the joke,
>
> FINALLY !!!!!!!!
>
> Jeez man... I never thought you'd EVER get it.....
>
> <<phew>>>
>
> ;' )
>
> Just because one isn't throwing out smilies every second line (as I am
> usually wont to do...) doesn't mean one isn't playing with the playee...
>
> (If you get my drift??)
Nice attempt at saving face! I like it! Perhaps not very creative, but I
like it. At least you are trying for a change. :)
> >and the discussions, no?
>
> Oh I think I do my fair share in the discussions....
> But you gotta remember, there is little in here that hasn't been covered
> before. I hang around more for the communitty.
All I am saying it that you shouldn't participate in threads if you are
unwilling to discuss what's in them.
--
Sandman[.net]
Adam Cameron
That's the level at which most of them seem to communciate?
*kidding*
Adam
Covenant
> In article <a78kqf$ftb$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> "Covenant" <cove...@joelamb.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > No *stance* is taken in either of the above posts.
> > >
> > > Then you haven't read the posts, I suppose.
> >
> > Everything being discussed is above.
>
> ...lacking the content of the entire thread.
>
> > (Unless of course you are harking back to other posts....In which case
> > they are irrelevant as everything I was commenting on *is* above...)
>
> Hence I thank you for agreeing with my former posts.
The point being that I wasn't TALIKING about the former threads.
I merely stated that your *forgiving* me meant my existance was obviously
justified...
(Remember that sarcasm discussion we had???)
;' )
>
> > > Why do you even participate in the discussion?
> >
> > Merely to give you a reason to post... After all, if you weren't trying
> > to make your bones having a go at long term regs.. what on *earth* would
> > you say???
>
> You should read my other posts in a.c-m.a, you are the only one I am
making
> fun of, since you are so easy to make fun of. :)
>
> > > > Elementary English.
> > >
> > > Something you lack comprehension of? :)
> >
> > Since when did I become American?
>
> Since when did "Elementary English" have anything to do with America?
Like it or not, it's the language you try and speak.
Covenant
> In article <a78kqk$ftb$2...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> "Covenant" <cove...@joelamb.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > then perhaps you could join in on the joke,
> >
> > FINALLY !!!!!!!!
> >
> > Jeez man... I never thought you'd EVER get it.....
> >
> > <<phew>>>
> >
> > ;' )
> >
> > Just because one isn't throwing out smilies every second line (as I am
> > usually wont to do...) doesn't mean one isn't playing with the playee...
> >
> > (If you get my drift??)
>
> Nice attempt at saving face! I like it! Perhaps not very creative, but I
> like it. At least you are trying for a change. :)
Ahhh... I see...
You've no *nterest* in playing nice.
Oh well....
Covenant
> >Since when did "Elementary English" have anything to do with America?
>
> That's the level at which most of them seem to communciate?
>
> *kidding*
Yeah, he didn't get the joke when *I* made it either....