Eggs on Sulaco
Dollarsup
I know this has been debated over and over but, is there a concensus yet on how
the eggs got on the Sulaco at the end of ALIENS? And was there just one egg or
several? And, maybe it was explained in ALIENS 3 but how did the facehugger get
into Ripley's cryotube? And why weren't Hicks and Newt impregnated? I guess I
could watch ALIEN 3 over again but if anyone knows..
So many questions, so few real answers (and so little memory).
Thanks, Jon
Adam Shaw
Dollarsup <doll...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19980216191...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
> I know this has been debated over and over but, is there a concensus yet
on how
> the eggs got on the Sulaco at the end of ALIENS?
Not an official one
And was there just one egg or
> several? And, maybe it was explained in ALIENS 3 but how did the
facehugger get
> into Ripley's cryotube? And why weren't Hicks and Newt impregnated?
There were only 2 huggers. Newt WAS infected. She drowned and the Alien
crawled out of her throat and into Ripleys. The other hugger probably
hadn't developed or something
Wmvrrvrrmm
In article <01bd3b16$7bf7d240$LocalHost@default>, "Adam Shaw"
<cybe...@btinternet.com> writes:
>There were only 2 huggers. Newt WAS infected. She drowned and the Alien
>crawled out of her throat and into Ripleys. The other hugger probably
>hadn't developed or something
And maybe there was just one hugger all the time.
Newborn 0
>
>I know this has been debated over and over but, is there a concensus yet on
>how
>or
>several? And, maybe it was explained in ALIENS 3 but how did the facehugger
>get
>I
>could watch ALIEN 3 over again but if anyone knows..
>
>So many questions, so few real answers (and so little memory).
>
>Thanks, Jon
This is the best explaination for the whole egg scenario that I know of.
The Queen produces eggs from her body, which then travel down her long
ovipositor, or egg-sac. They start out small, but they receive nutrients and
grow while they are moving through the ovipositor, until they come out fully
mature.
When the Queen separated from the ovipositor, she still had the ability to
produce eggs, they just wouldn't be as developed as a normal egg. On board the
Sulaco, she managed to squeeze out at least two of these immature eggs. If you
notice, in the beginning of Alien 3, the one egg shown is smaller than the
previous eggs, supporting my theory.
Sometime after Aliens, probably less than a few weeks, the eggs hatched. One
of them attacked Newt, impregnating her. You can tell it was Newt, because her
face is in the tube with the facehugger, and after the attack, a shot of
Ripley's face is shown, without a facehugger.
The EEV crashes, and Newt drowns. The young queen crawls out of Newt, and
enters Ripley. This is from the script and the comic book adaptation.
Meanwhile the second facehugger is looking for a host, which happens to be an
unfortunate rottweiler.
[Insert witty slogan]
--NEWBORN
Anonymous
Exactly. It's far easier to assume that the "royal facehugger" is
capable of laying a queen in one host and a "royal guard" in another
which would "hatch" first and protect the newborn queen (or her host).
This makes sense especially in light of the fact that the queen must
be immobilized in order to lay her eggs--which renders her physically
unable to capture hosts on her own and would REQUIRE at least one
warrior to do it at first in order to establish a viable hive.
1) One egg
2) One facehugger
3) Facehugger forced open Newt's cryotube and infected her with a
queen
4) Newt drowned so the queen embryo crawled out of her mouth and into
Ripley's
5) Same facehugger infected dog with a "royal guard," then finally
died
Randy Vice
On Tue 17-Feb-1998 8:17a, unk...@unknown.net wrote:
<snip>
u> Exactly. It's far easier to assume that the "royal facehugger" is
u> capable of laying a queen in one host and a "royal guard" in another
u> which would "hatch" first and protect the newborn queen (or her host).
u> This makes sense especially in light of the fact that the queen must
u> be immobilized in order to lay her eggs--which renders her physically
u> unable to capture hosts on her own and would REQUIRE at least one
u> warrior to do it at first in order to establish a viable hive.
u> 1) One egg
u> 2) One facehugger
u> 3) Facehugger forced open Newt's cryotube and infected her with a
u> queen
u> 4) Newt drowned so the queen embryo crawled out of her mouth and into
u> Ripley's
u> 5) Same facehugger infected dog with a "royal guard," then finally
u> died
Drowned? In Alien, wasn't the first facehugger giving Kane oxygen to live?
Doesn't make sense, but then again, neither did most of A3...
: damo...@nostromo.gate.net : Bruce Morrow,a man before and after his time:
:"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the :
:United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." :
: - Samuel Adams : Morrow Project Science - Post-holocaust Party Animals! :
Richard Tibbetts
damo...@nostromo.gate.net (Randy Vice) wrote:
[...]
>
>Drowned? In Alien, wasn't the first facehugger giving Kane oxygen to live?
>Doesn't make sense, but then again, neither did most of A3...
>
It had to get the oxygen from somewhere, so perhaps when it was
covered by fluid, it detached. Now there's a possible way of getting
the darn things off!
--
Richard Tibbetts
http://www.ppeace.demon.co.uk/
umto...@cc.umanitoba.ca
In article <19980216233...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
newb...@aol.com (Newborn 0) wrote:
> This is the best explaination for the whole egg scenario that I know of.
> When the Queen separated from the ovipositor, she still had the ability to
> produce eggs, they just wouldn't be as developed as a normal egg. On board
the
> Sulaco, she managed to squeeze out at least two of these immature eggs. If
you
> notice, in the beginning of Alien 3, the one egg shown is smaller than the
> previous eggs, supporting my theory.
Unfortunately, I can't recall one instance when the Queen is on the Sulaco
where she would have had time to deposit her eggs. She was far too busy
battling Ripley near the airlock.
And why is the egg suspended? It's as if whoever (Bishop?) planted it there
wanted it hidden.
> Sometime after Aliens, probably less than a few weeks, the eggs hatched.
One
> of them attacked Newt, impregnating her. You can tell it was Newt, because
her
> face is in the tube with the facehugger, and after the attack, a shot of
> Ripley's face is shown, without a facehugger.
No matter how many times I examine the opening sequence, I can't detect a
facehugger in any of the tubes shown. The one unmistakable shot of Newt
sleeping peacefully shows her tube cracked open, but no facehugger.
> The EEV crashes, and Newt drowns. The young queen crawls out of Newt, and
> enters Ripley. This is from the script and the comic book adaptation.
> Meanwhile the second facehugger is looking for a host, which happens to be
an
> unfortunate rottweiler.
But it's what finally makes it on the celluoid that is canonical; comic book
adaptions have always taken liberty (usually because the artists are not
working with the final script) and scripts tend to continuously evolve as the
movie is shot and edited.
While the theory you propose is plausible, it seems too complicated and
unverifiable compared to the competing "Bishop did it" theory. Ockham's
Razor, anyone?
Just my 2 cents in adjusted dollars.
BJ
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Kim Greenblatt
I tend to think that the director took tons of artistic license (maybe
with 'direction' from Ms. Weaver herself. Since the director was going
for the artsy horror approach, liberties were taken.
Personally, I didn't think the film was as bad as some people purported
it to be. It was an attempt to return to horror (albeit one where
killing of Newt and Hicks, in my opinion, went a bit overboard) and
the alleged attempt of Ms. Weaver to finish her roll off once and for
all.
Of course, until somebody offered her a sack of money to do Resurrection
and whatever will be next...
Kim Greenblatt
Newborn 0
Somehow I missed the last response in this string, so I'll be quoting from a
quote here.
>umto...@cc.umanitoba.ca wrote:
>>
>> In article <19980216233...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
>> newb...@aol.com (Newborn 0) wrote:
>> > This is the best explaination for the whole egg scenario that I know of.
>> <snip>
>> > When the Queen separated from the ovipositor, she still had the ability
>to
>> > produce eggs, they just wouldn't be as developed as a normal egg. On
>board
>> the
>> > Sulaco, she managed to squeeze out at least two of these immature eggs.
>If
>> you
>> > notice, in the beginning of Alien 3, the one egg shown is smaller than
>the
>> > previous eggs, supporting my theory.
>>
>> Unfortunately, I can't recall one instance when the Queen is on the Sulaco
>> where she would have had time to deposit her eggs. She was far too busy
>> battling Ripley near the airlock.
>>
>> And why is the egg suspended? It's as if whoever (Bishop?) planted it
>there
>> wanted it hidden.
>>
What this person fails to see, is that the camera is not on the Queen at all
times. Who knows how long the Queen was on the Sulaco before she attacked?
As for the egg being suspended, we can just assume that she was able to stick
it there with resin. Does Bishop secrete resin? Was Bishop torn in two and
highly immobile? Isn't it likely to assume that Ripley was the one that put
Bishop into cryogenic suspension, where he could not wake up under his own
power? So, how in the hell is Bishop (assuming the company planted some
subconscious suggestion into him, and how likely is that?) supposed to plant an
egg?
>> > Sometime after Aliens, probably less than a few weeks, the eggs hatched.
>> One
>> > of them attacked Newt, impregnating her. You can tell it was Newt,
>because
>> her
>> > face is in the tube with the facehugger, and after the attack, a shot of
>> > Ripley's face is shown, without a facehugger.
>>
>> No matter how many times I examine the opening sequence, I can't detect a
>> facehugger in any of the tubes shown. The one unmistakable shot of Newt
>> sleeping peacefully shows her tube cracked open, but no facehugger.
>>
What you'll be able to see is a scan of somebody's skull with a facehugger on
it, and then a few moments later, a clear shot of Ripley, without a facehugger.
And, in the shot of the glass cracking, Newt's face is seen behind the glass.
>> > The EEV crashes, and Newt drowns. The young queen crawls out of Newt,
>and
>> > enters Ripley. This is from the script and the comic book adaptation.
>> > Meanwhile the second facehugger is looking for a host, which happens to
>be
>> an
>> > unfortunate rottweiler.
>>
>> But it's what finally makes it on the celluoid that is canonical; comic
>book
>> adaptions have always taken liberty (usually because the artists are not
>> working with the final script) and scripts tend to continuously evolve as
>the
>> movie is shot and edited.
Actually the "crawling Queen" is in the final script, just not in the movie. I
agree with the fact that the script and even cut scenes are not definite (don't
get me started on the cocoon scene in Alien), but when there is no other
logical answer, I think it is safe to fall back on the script (and comic book,
which is taken directly from the script).
>>
>> While the theory you propose is plausible, it seems too complicated and
>> unverifiable compared to the competing "Bishop did it" theory. Ockham's
>> Razor, anyone?
>>
>> Just my 2 cents in adjusted dollars.
>>
>> BJ
Excuse me! "Bishop did it" isn't complicated and unverifiable? Where did
Bishop's egg come from (and don't tell me his lower half mutated, that's pure
crap)? The whole Bishop subplot was about Ripley getting over her distrust of
androids, I just don't think it's right to even say that Bishop would be a
traitor. And at least my theory is based on observations made during the
movies and in the script, what's "Bishop did it" based on?
Oh by the way, thank you. I've been wondering how to spell Ockham's Razor.
[Insert witty slogan]
--NEWBORN
mike jozic
> several? And, maybe it was explained in ALIENS 3 but how did the
> facehugger get
> > into Ripley's cryotube? And why weren't Hicks and Newt impregnated?
> crawled out of her throat and into Ripleys. The other hugger probably
> hadn't developed or something
That's not cannon either, if I'm not mistaken. That was dark Horse
Comics' version of events based on the script they had on hand and, I'm
guessing, some creative license.
I vaguely remember the novelisation having just the one face-hugger
attempt to get into both Ripley's and Newt's cryo-tubes. It's succesful
with Ripley, but before it can get into Newt's, it cuts itself on the
cracked glass and starts the electrical fire, etc.
TTFN!!!
mike jozic, MEANWHILE... The Web's Snappiest 'Zine on Comics & More!
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/4380
Anonymous
On 18 Feb 1998 06:42:00 GMT, newb...@aol.com (Newborn 0) wrote:
>(and don't tell me his lower half mutated, that's pure
>crap)?
Crap? The final shooting script of Alien was basically a hodgepodge
of elements cobbled together from previous efforts by other
screenwriters that were rejected for various reasons so it's not
unreasonable to assume that the final script's "mystery egg" wound up
on the Sulaco in a similar fashion to that in the William Gibson
version.
>The whole Bishop subplot was about Ripley getting over her distrust of
>androids, I just don't think it's right to even say that Bishop would be a
>traitor. And at least my theory is based on observations made during the
>movies and in the script, what's "Bishop did it" based on?
I think the "Bishop did it" theory is bullshit too.
mike jozic
Someone wrote:
> >>And maybe there was just one hugger all the time.
> >
> >Exactly. It's far easier to assume that the "royal facehugger" is
> >capable of laying a queen in one host and a "royal guard" in another
> >which would "hatch" first and protect the newborn queen (or her host).
> >This makes sense especially in light of the fact that the queen must
> >be immobilized in order to lay her eggs--which renders her physically
> >unable to capture hosts on her own and would REQUIRE at least one
> >warrior to do it at first in order to establish a viable hive.
>
> *** I like this theory, Id never thought of it. It makes since in light
> of the fact that the queen has to gestate longer in the host (adleast
> thats what I gathered) and the royal guard would also serve as
> "protector" of the Queens host.
The role-playing game from Leading Edge Games a few years ago claimed
the face-huggers determined what was being implanted by the hosts body
weight (ie: dog does not equal sufficient host for queen, cat does not
equal sufficient host for anything (lucky Jonesy:)))
Richard Tibbetts
unk...@unknown.net (Anonymous) wrote:
[...]
>I think the "Bishop did it" theory is bullshit too.
Too true. The scriptwriters did it ;-)
Fokker
This is the best explanation in accordance with what is seen in the
beginning of A3 during the opening credits. The others have a major problem. If
the infant alien left the host body before it was developed, it would die. It
couldn't crawl out of Newt's body, open Ripley's cryo-tube, and then slip down
her throat. No way.
Fokker
mike jozic wrote:
> I vaguely remember the novelisation having just the one face-hugger
> attempt to get into both Ripley's and Newt's cryo-tubes. It's succesful
> with Ripley, but before it can get into Newt's, it cuts itself on the
> cracked glass and starts the electrical fire, etc.
>
Adam Shaw
No Cause the dog was hugged
Wmvrrvrrmm <wmvrr...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19980216222...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
> In article <01bd3b16$7bf7d240$LocalHost@default>, "Adam Shaw"
> <cybe...@btinternet.com> writes:
>
> >There were only 2 huggers. Newt WAS infected. She drowned and the
Alien
> >crawled out of her throat and into Ripleys. The other hugger probably
> >hadn't developed or something
>
Adam Shaw
Whatever
Anonymous <unk...@unknown.net> wrote in article
<34e9444a...@news.earthlink.net>...
> On 16 Feb 1998 22:29:41 GMT, wmvrr...@aol.com (Wmvrrvrrmm) wrote:
>
> >In article <01bd3b16$7bf7d240$LocalHost@default>, "Adam Shaw"
> ><cybe...@btinternet.com> writes:
> >
> >>There were only 2 huggers. Newt WAS infected. She drowned and the
Alien
> >>crawled out of her throat and into Ripleys. The other hugger probably
> >>hadn't developed or something
> >
> >And maybe there was just one hugger all the time.
>
> Exactly. It's far easier to assume that the "royal facehugger" is
> capable of laying a queen in one host and a "royal guard" in another
> which would "hatch" first and protect the newborn queen (or her host).
> This makes sense especially in light of the fact that the queen must
> be immobilized in order to lay her eggs--which renders her physically
> unable to capture hosts on her own and would REQUIRE at least one
> warrior to do it at first in order to establish a viable hive.
>
> 1) One egg
> 2) One facehugger
> 3) Facehugger forced open Newt's cryotube and infected her with a
> queen
> 4) Newt drowned so the queen embryo crawled out of her mouth and into
> Ripley's
> 5) Same facehugger infected dog with a "royal guard," then finally
> died
>
Adam Shaw
umto...@cc.umanitoba.ca wrote in article
<6cdoel$kd7$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> In article <19980216233...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
> newb...@aol.com (Newborn 0) wrote:
> > This is the best explaination for the whole egg scenario that I know
of.
> <snip>
> > When the Queen separated from the ovipositor, she still had the ability
to
> > produce eggs, they just wouldn't be as developed as a normal egg. On
board
> the
> > Sulaco, she managed to squeeze out at least two of these immature eggs.
If
> you
> > notice, in the beginning of Alien 3, the one egg shown is smaller than
the
> > previous eggs, supporting my theory.
>
> Unfortunately, I can't recall one instance when the Queen is on the
Sulaco
> where she would have had time to deposit her eggs. She was far too busy
> battling Ripley near the airlock.
I can. When they are flying from the planet
>
> And why is the egg suspended? It's as if whoever (Bishop?) planted it
there
> wanted it hidden.
>
> > Sometime after Aliens, probably less than a few weeks, the eggs
hatched.
> One
> > of them attacked Newt, impregnating her. You can tell it was Newt,
because
> her
> > face is in the tube with the facehugger, and after the attack, a shot
of
> > Ripley's face is shown, without a facehugger.
>
> No matter how many times I examine the opening sequence, I can't detect a
> facehugger in any of the tubes shown. The one unmistakable shot of Newt
> sleeping peacefully shows her tube cracked open, but no facehugger.
>
> > The EEV crashes, and Newt drowns. The young queen crawls out of Newt,
and
> > enters Ripley. This is from the script and the comic book adaptation.
> > Meanwhile the second facehugger is looking for a host, which happens to
be
> an
> > unfortunate rottweiler.
>
> But it's what finally makes it on the celluoid that is canonical; comic
book
> adaptions have always taken liberty (usually because the artists are not
> working with the final script) and scripts tend to continuously evolve as
the
> movie is shot and edited.
>
> While the theory you propose is plausible, it seems too complicated and
> unverifiable compared to the competing "Bishop did it" theory. Ockham's
> Razor, anyone?
>
> Just my 2 cents in adjusted dollars.
>
> BJ
>
Adam Shaw
Richard Tibbetts <ric...@ppeace.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<34ebe84f.5374256@gateway>...
> damo...@nostromo.gate.net (Randy Vice) wrote:
> [...]
>
> >
> >Drowned? In Alien, wasn't the first facehugger giving Kane oxygen to
live?
> >Doesn't make sense, but then again, neither did most of A3...
> >
>
> It had to get the oxygen from somewhere, so perhaps when it was
> covered by fluid, it detached. Now there's a possible way of getting
> the darn things off!
Yeh drowning the host and getting hugged your self...Erm.....you can try
that mate, not me!! :-D
--
Weyland-Yutani
__ __ __ __
\ \ \ \ ___ / / / /
\ \ \ / _ \ / / /
\ \_/ / \ \_/ /
\___/|_|\___/
Building Better Worlds
umto...@cc.umanitoba.ca
In article <19980218064...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
newb...@aol.com (Newborn 0) wrote:
> >umto...@cc.umanitoba.ca wrote:
> >> Unfortunately, I can't recall one instance when the Queen is on the
Sulaco
> >> where she would have had time to deposit her eggs. She was far too busy
> >> battling Ripley near the airlock.
> >>
> >there
> >> wanted it hidden.
> >>
>
> times. Who knows how long the Queen was on the Sulaco before she attacked?
The queen's first attack occurred as she exited the dropship thru a cargo
hold. The question is whether this was the first time the alien actually set
foot on the Sulaco? You'd have us believe that after the dropship docks on
the Sulaco, the alien wanders off, lays some eggs, re-enters the dropship,
then re-exits when she attacks. I propose that it was the first time because
it's the simplest explanation, its supported by what we see in the movie, and
it doesn't have to invent an unsupported conjecture about the alien being able
to lay eggs without an ovipositor.
> As for the egg being suspended, we can just assume that she was able to
stick
> it there with resin. Does Bishop secrete resin? Was Bishop torn in two and
> highly immobile? Isn't it likely to assume that Ripley was the one that put
> Bishop into cryogenic suspension, where he could not wake up under his own
> power? So, how in the hell is Bishop (assuming the company planted some
> subconscious suggestion into him, and how likely is that?) supposed to plant
an
> egg?
Bishop didn't do it at the end of the movie. You forget that he was
frequently left alone for long periods of time on LV-426: he was inexplicably
and suspiciously left in the medlab while the marines sought the colonists, he
left to radio down the second dropship, and he disappeared for a short time
while waiting for Ripley to return with Newt. I've previously argued that
Gorman was in collusion with Burke; if this is true, then Bishop was as well.
It's not unreasonable to assume Gorman provided the means (second dropship)
for Bishop to transport furtively the eggs to the Sulaco.
There is no need for the subconscious suggestion in Bishop; Bishop simply
lied. After witnessing the duplicitous nature of his creator in Alien 3, it
is not a stretch to suspect Bishop's programming was changed specifically for
the mission. You can tell he's not "perfect" from the knife trick he performs
on Hudson -- he cuts himself. So much for the "I'm incapable of harming any
human being" reassurance he gives to Ripley.
> >> No matter how many times I examine the opening sequence, I can't detect a
> >> facehugger in any of the tubes shown. The one unmistakable shot of Newt
> >> sleeping peacefully shows her tube cracked open, but no facehugger.
> What you'll be able to see is a scan of somebody's skull with a facehugger
on
> it, and then a few moments later, a clear shot of Ripley, without a
facehugger.
> And, in the shot of the glass cracking, Newt's face is seen behind the
glass.
The opening is truly controversial and enigmatic. (Why are there x-rays being
taken?) The scenes are punctuated with extended pauses due to the credits.
Actually, there's another mysterious scene between the x-ray of the facehugger
on someone's head and Ripley: it looks like blood(?) seaping on fabric? What
is this? Anyway, I don't see any clear evidence from the x-ray that the
facehugger was on Newt. Both tubes were cracked.
> >> > The EEV crashes, and Newt drowns. The young queen crawls out of Newt,
> >and
> >> > enters Ripley. This is from the script and the comic book adaptation.
> >> > Meanwhile the second facehugger is looking for a host, which happens to
> >be
> >> an
> >> > unfortunate rottweiler.
Once again you're introducing the unsupported conjecture that the chestburster
would transplant itself from Newt to Ripley. But the problem with that theory
is BOTH tubes were cracked before they are evacuated from the Sulaco. How
does your theory explain the facehugger initially rejecting Ripley in favor of
Newt?
> >> But it's what finally makes it on the celluoid that is canonical; comic
> >book
> >> adaptions have always taken liberty (usually because the artists are not
> >> working with the final script) and scripts tend to continuously evolve as
> >the
> >> movie is shot and edited.
>
> Actually the "crawling Queen" is in the final script, just not in the movie.
I
> agree with the fact that the script and even cut scenes are not definite
(don't
> get me started on the cocoon scene in Alien), but when there is no other
> logical answer, I think it is safe to fall back on the script (and comic
book,
> which is taken directly from the script).
Interesting. But can the "crawling Queen" theory fit in with the fact that
both tubes are cracked as mentioned above?
> >> While the theory you propose is plausible, it seems too complicated and
> >> unverifiable compared to the competing "Bishop did it" theory. Ockham's
> >> Razor, anyone?
>
> Excuse me! "Bishop did it" isn't complicated and unverifiable?
Not as much as your theory, IMHO. My evidence is not based on conjecture or
derived from an old script but from inferences based on actual events in the
movie -- that is, canonical sources.
>Where did
> Bishop's egg come from (and don't tell me his lower half mutated, that's
pure
> crap)?
From where the other eggs were, of course. ("lower half mutated"? What the
heck is that?)
> The whole Bishop subplot was about Ripley getting over her distrust
of
> androids, I just don't think it's right to even say that Bishop would be a
> traitor.
I can't imagine why so many people think Bishop is beyond reproach. I've
pointed out more evidence for my position on Bishop in the recent thread
titled: "Gorman in cahoots with Burke?"
>And at least my theory is based on observations made during the
> movies and in the script, what's "Bishop did it" based on?
As I've pointed out, your observations are not convincing. The script is
non-canoncial if it doesn't jive with the images and story on the final
celluloid.
> Oh by the way, thank you. I've been wondering how to spell Ockham's Razor.
You're welcome!
umto...@cc.umanitoba.ca
In article <01bd3ca8$f2401460$LocalHost@default>,
"Adam Shaw" <cybe...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>
> umto...@cc.umanitoba.ca wrote in article
> <6cdoel$kd7$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> Sulaco
> > where she would have had time to deposit her eggs. She was far too busy
> > battling Ripley near the airlock.
> I can. When they are flying from the planet
The scene with the egg in Alien 3 shows the name "SULCACO" stamped on the
infrastructure. That, and the general look and lighting of the area, make it
reasonable to conclude the egg was planted on the Sulaco -- not the dropship.
BJ
My 2 cents in adjusted dollars.
Anonymous
On Thu, 19 Feb 1998 22:35:04 -0600, umto...@cc.umanitoba.ca wrote:
>The opening is truly controversial and enigmatic. (Why are there x-rays being
>taken?) The scenes are punctuated with extended pauses due to the credits.
>Actually, there's another mysterious scene between the x-ray of the facehugger
>on someone's head and Ripley: it looks like blood(?) seaping on fabric? What
>is this?
The script simply describes it as blood seeping through fabric, but
gives no other explanation. Maybe Newt was cut on a glass shard.
>Anyway, I don't see any clear evidence from the x-ray that the
>facehugger was on Newt. Both tubes were cracked.
You can clearly see the neckline of Newt's T-shirt below the
facehugger's coiled tail in the x-ray. None of the others were
wearing shirts. Not to mention the undeniable fact that the script
makes it painfully obvious that Newt was impregnated first.
>Once again you're introducing the unsupported conjecture that the chestburster
>would transplant itself from Newt to Ripley.
It's not "unsupported conjecture." Read the shooting script for
yourself at this site:
http://www.godamongdirectors.com/scripts/alien3hill.txt
>But the problem with that theory
>is BOTH tubes were cracked before they are evacuated from the Sulaco. How
>does your theory explain the facehugger initially rejecting Ripley in favor of
>Newt?
Why does that need an explanation at all? Newt was viable to host an
embryo so the facehugger simply made an arbitrary decision to
impregnate her first.
>Interesting. But can the "crawling Queen" theory fit in with the fact that
>both tubes are cracked as mentioned above?
I don't see your point. The glass on Ripley's tube was broken when
the "bolt" exploded--which takes place AFTER we see the x-ray of the
facehugger on Newt's face.
>Not as much as your theory, IMHO. My evidence is not based on conjecture or
>derived from an old script but from inferences based on actual events in the
>movie -- that is, canonical sources.
It wasn't an "old script," it was the FINAL SHOOTING SCRIPT.
>I can't imagine why so many people think Bishop is beyond reproach. I've
>pointed out more evidence for my position on Bishop in the recent thread
>titled: "Gorman in cahoots with Burke?"
I don't think Bishop is beyond reproach, just that the "Bishop did it
theory" requires a hell of a lot more tapdancing than the other does.
>As I've pointed out, your observations are not convincing. The script is
>non-canoncial if it doesn't jive with the images and story on the final
>celluloid.
I generally agree with this philosophy. However, in this case the
script doesn't conflict with the images and story on the final
celluloid.
Anonymous
On Thu, 19 Feb 1998 01:45:59 -0800, Fokker <fok...@nidlink.com> wrote:
>the infant alien left the host body before it was developed, it would die. It
>couldn't crawl out of Newt's body, open Ripley's cryo-tube, and then slip down
>her throat. No way.
Like it or not, that's the way it happened in the shooting script.
Newborn 0
The anonymous posting that replies to the post I'm responding to now made some
compelling arguments on my behalf, but since I can only quote from one post I'm
going to just stick to this one. Get ready, this is going to be one long post!
>In article <19980218064...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
> newb...@aol.com (Newborn 0) wrote:
>> >umto...@cc.umanitoba.ca wrote:
>> >> Unfortunately, I can't recall one instance when the Queen is on the
>Sulaco
>> >> where she would have had time to deposit her eggs. She was far too busy
>> >> battling Ripley near the airlock.
>> >>
>> >> And why is the egg suspended? It's as if whoever (Bishop?) planted it
>> >there
>> >> wanted it hidden.
>> >>
>>
>> What this person fails to see, is that the camera is not on the Queen at
>all
>> times. Who knows how long the Queen was on the Sulaco before she attacked?
>
>The queen's first attack occurred as she exited the dropship thru a cargo
>hold. The question is whether this was the first time the alien actually set
>foot on the Sulaco? You'd have us believe that after the dropship docks on
>the Sulaco, the alien wanders off, lays some eggs, re-enters the dropship,
>then re-exits when she attacks. I propose that it was the first time because
>it's the simplest explanation, its supported by what we see in the movie, and
>it doesn't have to invent an unsupported conjecture about the alien being
>able
>to lay eggs without an ovipositor.
Actually, I think that the "conveyer belt" appearance to the ovipositor lends
itself quite easily to my theory. But as for the Queen's location on the
Sulaco, there is no way to pass judgement on that until it is clear where the
eggs were located in Alien 3.
Some good points there. Bishop was afterall quite fascinated by the specimens
in med-lab. But I honestly don't see when he would have the chance to steal
eggs from the hive. If he tried to do it, he would have been attacked. Bishop
was in the med-lab because he was trying to study the Aliens. He was probably
told to study the Aliens, probably for the benefit of Weyland-Yutani, but that
does not make him a traitor. His statement of his primary directive: not to
harm or allow harm to a human, was not contested by anyone else, so that could
very easily be true, and if it were, android manufacturers would probably make
that program extremely difficult to over-ride.
By the way, there is no definite proof that it was really Bishop's creator at
the end of Alien 3. Here's some evidence to the contrary: He was a liar; He
recieves a massive blow to the head and hardly reacts to it; And in one shot
it appears that his ear is actually partially torn away from his head. But I
am hesitant to form an opinion on this subject.
>
>> >> No matter how many times I examine the opening sequence, I can't detect
>a
>> >> facehugger in any of the tubes shown. The one unmistakable shot of Newt
>> >> sleeping peacefully shows her tube cracked open, but no facehugger.
>> What you'll be able to see is a scan of somebody's skull with a facehugger
>on
>> it, and then a few moments later, a clear shot of Ripley, without a
>facehugger.
>> And, in the shot of the glass cracking, Newt's face is seen behind the
>glass.
>
>The opening is truly controversial and enigmatic. (Why are there x-rays
>being
>taken?) The scenes are punctuated with extended pauses due to the credits.
>Actually, there's another mysterious scene between the x-ray of the
>facehugger
>on someone's head and Ripley: it looks like blood(?) seaping on fabric?
>What
>is this? Anyway, I don't see any clear evidence from the x-ray that the
>facehugger was on Newt. Both tubes were cracked.
Towards the beginning of the sequence, a facehugger is seen crawling on a tube,
which had a child's face behind it. Right after that, a close-up of her face
is shown, just as the glass cracks. As for the blood, hell if I know. The
X-ray is probably the same scanner that Ripley uses to detect her embryo later
on, apparently automatic systems detected the Alien on Newt and initiated a
scan. And you can tell that it is Newt's skull because shortly after, when the
bolt explodes, there are several close-ups of Ripley's face, with no
facehugger, and the facehugger wouldn't have come off in such a short time.
>> >> > The EEV crashes, and Newt drowns. The young queen crawls out of Newt,
>> >and
>> >> > enters Ripley. This is from the script and the comic book adaptation.
>> >> > Meanwhile the second facehugger is looking for a host, which happens
>to
>> >be
>> >> an
>> >> > unfortunate rottweiler.
>
>Once again you're introducing the unsupported conjecture that the
>chestburster
>would transplant itself from Newt to Ripley. But the problem with that
>theory
>is BOTH tubes were cracked before they are evacuated from the Sulaco. How
>does your theory explain the facehugger initially rejecting Ripley in favor
>of
>Newt?
The facehugger simply attacked Newt instead of Ripley, there is no reason; you
can see in the beginning that Newt's tube is the first to crack, the damage to
Ripley's tube is only seen briefly toward the end of the sequence, and there is
no explaination for it. The conjecture that the embryo traded hosts is not
unsupported, it appears in the FINAL script and the comic, and since it seems
to agree with the above mentioned observations and it doesn't conflict with
anything, it is a very sound possibility.
>
>> >> But it's what finally makes it on the celluoid that is canonical; comic
>> >book
>> >> adaptions have always taken liberty (usually because the artists are not
>> >> working with the final script) and scripts tend to continuously evolve
>as
>> >the
>> >> movie is shot and edited.
>>
>> Actually the "crawling Queen" is in the final script, just not in the
>movie.
> I
>> agree with the fact that the script and even cut scenes are not definite
>(don't
>> get me started on the cocoon scene in Alien), but when there is no other
>> logical answer, I think it is safe to fall back on the script (and comic
>book,
>> which is taken directly from the script).
>
>Interesting. But can the "crawling Queen" theory fit in with the fact that
>both tubes are cracked as mentioned above?
Both tubes were cracked, but again, Ripley's is only cracked towards the end of
the sequence. There are a number of possible explainations as to how Ripley's
tube became cracked (possibly the exploding bolt, whatever it's for), but only
one obvious cause for Newt's tube to be damaged. The condition of the tubes
has nothing to do with the "Crawling Queen", except that if Ripley's tube was
sealed tight, the Queen couldn't have crawled into her.
>
>> >> While the theory you propose is plausible, it seems too complicated and
>> >> unverifiable compared to the competing "Bishop did it" theory. Ockham's
>> >> Razor, anyone?
>>
>> Excuse me! "Bishop did it" isn't complicated and unverifiable?
>
>Not as much as your theory, IMHO. My evidence is not based on conjecture or
>derived from an old script but from inferences based on actual events in the
>movie -- that is, canonical sources.
My theories are taken from both the FINAL script, and inferences, the
difference is that it is easier to explain. Actually, there is another
perfectly plausible theory, that may be simpler than the "Crawling Queen";
what if there were really three eggs?
>>Where did
>> Bishop's egg come from (and don't tell me his lower half mutated, that's
>pure
>> crap)?
>
>From where the other eggs were, of course. ("lower half mutated"? What the
>heck is that?)
Okay, that is from another version of "Bishop Did It", that's even more
outlandish than the first. The "Mutant Egg" theory is based on the infamous
cut scene from 'Alien' in which Brett is supposedly mutating into an egg. It
states that as a back-up reproduction system, an Alien can infect an animal
with it's tail stinger, and it will mutate into an egg (which I believe is male
bovine defecation). Some people think that because Bishop was stung by the
Queen (impaled is more like it), his disembodied lower half mutated into an egg
(which makes no sense since he isn't organic). Then Bishop managed to plant
his egg someplace on the Sulaco. Weird theory, huh?
>> The whole Bishop subplot was about Ripley getting over her distrust
>of
>> androids, I just don't think it's right to even say that Bishop would be a
>> traitor.
>
>I can't imagine why so many people think Bishop is beyond reproach. I've
>pointed out more evidence for my position on Bishop in the recent thread
>titled: "Gorman in cahoots with Burke?"
I can't explain it. While it's conceivably possible that Bishop betrayed
Ripley, there just isn't enough evidence to outweigh Bishop's apparent
trust-worthiness.
>>And at least my theory is based on observations made during the
>> movies and in the script, what's "Bishop did it" based on?
>
>As I've pointed out, your observations are not convincing. The script is
>non-canoncial if it doesn't jive with the images and story on the final
>celluloid.
Sure, it's not the end-all, be-all explaination, but when there is no clear
explaination given by the movie, then I feel it is safe to start borrowing
theories from reasonable sources such as final scripts, as long as they don't
interfere with what is portrayed in the movie. It's alot better than making up
your own possible scenarios.
>> Oh by the way, thank you. I've been wondering how to spell Ockham's Razor.
>
>You're welcome!
>
>BJ
[Insert witty slogan]
--NEWBORN
Newborn 0
>
>damo...@nostromo.gate.net (Randy Vice) wrote:
>[...]
>
>>
>>Drowned? In Alien, wasn't the first facehugger giving Kane oxygen to live?
>>Doesn't make sense, but then again, neither did most of A3...
>>
>
>It had to get the oxygen from somewhere, so perhaps when it was
>covered by fluid, it detached. Now there's a possible way of getting
>the darn things off!
Slight problem with that. Remember the underwater facehugger attack on Ripley
in Alien Resurrection?
[Insert witty slogan]
--NEWBORN
Steve Powell
My own impression of this was that the eggs were laid in the landing gear well of
the drop ship where the Queen hid to get off planet. One or more of the eggs could
have released the face huggers to scout out potential hosts in order to start a new
hive. This does allow for there to have been a number of face huggers wandering
around (Ref : Aliens - two Face huggers were loose in the Medlab with Ripley and
Newt - both seemed to be 'hunting' for hosts), and a number of eggs left by the
Queen.
> By the way, there is no definite proof that it was really Bishop's creator at
> the end of Alien 3. Here's some evidence to the contrary: He was a liar; He
> recieves a massive blow to the head and hardly reacts to it; And in one shot
> it appears that his ear is actually partially torn away from his head. But I
> am hesitant to form an opinion on this subject.
I'm glad someone else spotted that. It actually makes more sense for this Bishop to
be another android as they would be more readily available than the originator. Tie
in the match in appearance (How long had the Bishop model been around?) and there
is cause to doubt the word of the 'person' claiming to be Bishop's creator.
> >Once again you're introducing the unsupported conjecture that the
> >chestburster
> >would transplant itself from Newt to Ripley. But the problem with that
> >theory
> >is BOTH tubes were cracked before they are evacuated from the Sulaco. How
> >does your theory explain the facehugger initially rejecting Ripley in favor
> >of
> >Newt?
>
> The facehugger simply attacked Newt instead of Ripley, there is no reason; you
> can see in the beginning that Newt's tube is the first to crack, the damage to
> Ripley's tube is only seen briefly toward the end of the sequence, and there is
> no explaination for it. The conjecture that the embryo traded hosts is not
> unsupported, it appears in the FINAL script and the comic, and since it seems
> to agree with the above mentioned observations and it doesn't conflict with
> anything, it is a very sound possibility.
(yes, I have 'snipped' this - sorry :-))
Right, let me see if I get this straight. Newt is impregnated. Face hugger 'dies'
and falls off Newt (Ref. Alien). Newt is in cryotube, partially frozen, but
cryotube is now compromised so Newt starts to 'Thaw' and ultimately drowns. Embryo
exits Newt and looks for new host. Meanwhile, cryotubes have been ejected and pod
has landed on planet. Ripley is only viable host left and her tube has been
cracked. Embryo enters Ripley, she is beginning to 'thaw'. Rescue party arrives and
saves Ripley.
Another possibility : As above, but there are two more face huggers around the
cryotubes when they eject - one for Ripley and one for Hicks. During the Drop,
Ripley is impregnated, but Hicks is not. Embryo exits Newt and she dies. Embryo
dies. Remaining face hugger impregnated dog.
I honestly can not see Bishop having anything to do with the placement of the eggs.
He was never around the Hive, never had access to eggs (the two face huggers
released to impregnate Ripley and Newt were in specimen tubes) that I saw. He
simply did not have time. Also, if he had gone into the Hive to collect eggs, he
would have been destroyed by the Aliens guarding them (or the Queen!). The only
time the eggs were undefended was AFTER Ripley left the Hive with Newt, so the eggs
had to have been laid on the Drop ship by the Queen.
There was no sign, or other indication that any eggs had been recovered from the
Alien ship. On both occasions (in Alien and at the start of Aliens) that a
potential host encountered the eggs in that ship, they were impregnated. There was
no indication that the eggs were recovered from the Atmosphere Generator - and this
is where the Queen resided - with guards! No record or log was kept of an encounter
with the Queen prior to Ripley's, so I have doubts that anyone had survived such an
encounter.
I admit that I have not read the script. I have seen the unedited film for Aliens
(don't ask how! and I do NOT have a copy of it!), read the books and read this news
group, and this is what I base the above on.
Steve Powell.
--
"A coward dies a thousand deaths, A soldier dies but once." -Tupac
Shakur
"Do or do not. There is no try." -Yoda
Randy Vice
On Fri 20-Feb-1998 10:44a, newb...@aol.com wrote:
n> >
n> >damo...@nostromo.gate.net (Randy Vice) wrote:
n> >[...]
n> >
n> >>
n> >>Drowned? In Alien, wasn't the first facehugger giving Kane oxygen to
n> live?
n> >>Doesn't make sense, but then again, neither did most of A3...
n> >>
n> >
n> >It had to get the oxygen from somewhere, so perhaps when it was
n> >covered by fluid, it detached. Now there's a possible way of getting
n> >the darn things off!
The above paragraph isn't mine, the first paragraph is...
n> Slight problem with that. Remember the underwater facehugger attack on
n> Ripley in Alien Resurrection?
I agree with you. Question still is, why would she drown with a facehugger on
her?
Wmvrrvrrmm
In article <19980220104...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, newb...@aol.com
(Newborn 0) writes:
>Okay, that is from another version of "Bishop Did It", that's even more
>outlandish than the first. The "Mutant Egg" theory is based on the infamous
>cut scene from 'Alien' in which Brett is supposedly mutating into an egg. It
>states that as a back-up reproduction system, an Alien can infect an animal
>with it's tail stinger, and it will mutate into an egg (which I believe is
>male
>bovine defecation).
The fact great about Brett in the cut out scene was that he wasn't mutating,
but being slowly devoured by the nest material from which the 'spore' formed
around the victim's body. And this seems to be how it went in the filmed piece,
and this is a different of course from what was said in the novelisation to be
happening to Brett and Dallas.
Newborn 0
>
>
>The fact great about Brett in the cut out scene was that he wasn't mutating,
>but being slowly devoured by the nest material from which the 'spore' formed
>around the victim's body. And this seems to be how it went in the filmed
>piece,
>and this is a different of course from what was said in the novelisation to
>be
>happening to Brett and Dallas.
There do seem to be split opinions as to the interpretation of this scene. I
find it hard to believe most of them. From what I can remember from the book
'Giger's Alien' (I don't actually own it, so I can't be 100% sure) the
intention was for it to be a mutant egg.
It doesn't matter much, because I just don't buy any of it.
[Insert witty slogan]
--NEWBORN
Anonymous
On Thu, 19 Feb 1998 22:42:46 -0600, umto...@cc.umanitoba.ca wrote:
>The scene with the egg in Alien 3 shows the name "SULCACO" stamped on the
>infrastructure. That, and the general look and lighting of the area, make it
>reasonable to conclude the egg was planted on the Sulaco -- not the dropship.
Agreed. I believe it was in the landing bay's subflooring.
Anonymous
On 20 Feb 1998 10:42:10 GMT, newb...@aol.com (Newborn 0) wrote:
>perfectly plausible theory, that may be simpler than the "Crawling Queen";
>what if there were really three eggs?
I don't like this. It's hard enough to explain the presence of the
single egg we saw without compounding the problem with two other
"mystery eggs."
>Okay, that is from another version of "Bishop Did It", that's even more
>outlandish than the first. The "Mutant Egg" theory is based on the infamous
>cut scene from 'Alien' in which Brett is supposedly mutating into an egg. It
>states that as a back-up reproduction system, an Alien can infect an animal
>with it's tail stinger, and it will mutate into an egg (which I believe is male
>bovine defecation). Some people think that because Bishop was stung by the
>Queen (impaled is more like it), his disembodied lower half mutated into an egg
>(which makes no sense since he isn't organic). Then Bishop managed to plant
>his egg someplace on the Sulaco. Weird theory, huh?
I take a similar, yet modified slant on that theory: The stinger
simply implanted genetic material inside Bishop's lower half which
gradually incubated and grew downward, under the landing bay's grated
deck plates into the mature egg that was shown on screen. Gibson's
version has the egg growing out of Bishop's *upper half* so this idea
was conceived during the evolution of Alien 3's script, which gives it
a quite a bit more credibility than a mere "fanboy" theory would have,
IMO.
Or you eliminite the middleman (Bishop) and have the queen scoop out a
tiny, underdeveloped egg from her abdominal cavity and plant it under
the deckplates while Ripley and Bishop were discussing Hicks'
condition and need for a stretcher.
harry lime
i have held this "royal face hugger theory" for a while.
(were there 2 eggs visable on the wall or not? i forget. as i remember the egg
was orange.) anyway this theory does make sense.
i think it would be very practical for the queen to be able to lay a special
"new nest 'spore'" on the wall(remember that the queen uses an ovipositor to
nurture the eggs to maturity, but they must start smaller so she can squeeze
them out with ease.)
has any one else thought that the alien in 'alien' (without the cocoon scene)
was somewhat of a "last of his kind"? think about it, what was his purpose? to
steer the ship to the homeworld?
i have also heard that there will be a "super facehugger" in 'alien 5'.
p.s. the ribbed craniums in 'aliens' are as a result of age okay.
- harry lime
mike jozic wrote:
> Someone wrote:
>
> > >>And maybe there was just one hugger all the time.
> > >
> > >Exactly. It's far easier to assume that the "royal facehugger" is
> > >capable of laying a queen in one host and a "royal guard" in another
> > >which would "hatch" first and protect the newborn queen (or her host).
> > >This makes sense especially in light of the fact that the queen must
> > >be immobilized in order to lay her eggs--which renders her physically
> > >unable to capture hosts on her own and would REQUIRE at least one
> > >warrior to do it at first in order to establish a viable hive.
> >
> > *** I like this theory, Id never thought of it. It makes since in light
> > of the fact that the queen has to gestate longer in the host (adleast
> > thats what I gathered) and the royal guard would also serve as
> > "protector" of the Queens host.
>
> The role-playing game from Leading Edge Games a few years ago claimed
> the face-huggers determined what was being implanted by the hosts body
> weight (ie: dog does not equal sufficient host for queen, cat does not
> equal sufficient host for anything (lucky Jonesy:)))
>
Richard Tibbetts
newb...@aol.com (Newborn 0) wrote:
[...]
>
>Slight problem with that. Remember the underwater facehugger attack on Ripley
>in Alien Resurrection?
I'm sure it will work if fmmb fnnb gurgle fmMMMB!!!!
Richard Tibbetts
Steve Powell <in5...@wlv.ac.uk> wrote:
[...]
>I honestly can not see Bishop having anything to do with the placement of the eggs.
>He was never around the Hive, never had access to eggs (the two face huggers
>released to impregnate Ripley and Newt were in specimen tubes) that I saw. He
>simply did not have time. Also, if he had gone into the Hive to collect eggs, he
>would have been destroyed by the Aliens guarding them (or the Queen!). The only
>time the eggs were undefended was AFTER Ripley left the Hive with Newt, so the eggs
>had to have been laid on the Drop ship by the Queen.
When Ripley got back to the platform at in the atmosphere plant, the
drop ship was missing. Bishop later said he'd had to leave the
platform because it was getting unstable, and he'd also had to give
Hicks a sedative, so there were no witnesses to confirm where he went.
Could he have entered the hive from a lower level, and stolen some
eggs whilst the queen was engaged chasing Ripley? It wasn't my
impression that all the eggs were necessarily destroyed by Ripley, and
who knows how fire resistant Bishop was?
Adam Shaw
and
> who knows how fire resistant Bishop was?
Probably not as fire resistant as you think. Remember that Ash was flamed
pretty easily in "Alien"
Adam
cybe...@btinternet.com
Wmvrrvrrmm
In article <19980221005...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, newb...@aol.com
(Newborn 0) writes:
>There do seem to be split opinions as to the interpretation of this scene. I
>find it hard to believe most of them. From what I can remember from the book
>'Giger's Alien' (I don't actually own it, so I can't be 100% sure) the
>intention was for it to be a mutant egg.
>
>It doesn't matter much, because I just don't buy any of it.
It does matter a great deal
I have a basic memory of the information from an interview with Ridley Scott in
a magazine called Fantastic Films from that time. In Giger's Alien we have an
image of a cocooned Brett, covered with a thick layer of slime, but this
shrivelled up body appeared in the final film shot of the cut scene placed with
the shell of an open spore.
I was under the same impression that you're under until I saw the cut footage
and read the interview with Scott.
umto...@cc.umanitoba.ca
In article <34ee1900...@news.earthlink.net>,
unk...@unknown.net (Anonymous) wrote:
>
> The script simply describes it as blood seeping through fabric, but
> gives no other explanation. Maybe Newt was cut on a glass shard.
It looks strikingly similar to bandages (Hicks?) or perhaps the interior of
the tube?
> You can clearly see the neckline of Newt's T-shirt below the
> facehugger's coiled tail in the x-ray. None of the others were
> wearing shirts. Not to mention the undeniable fact that the script
> makes it painfully obvious that Newt was impregnated first.
No matter how long I look at that picture, I honestly cannot see any trace of
a neckline! Actually, the shadows on the person's chest area would be
consistent with the build of Ripley (look at the opening scene of her in the
cryotube).
Actually, there's a blooper during the scene when Ripley's cryotube is
positioned into the EEV: you can see Ripley wearing a t-shirt! This does not
affect my argument because I deny there is any indication of a t-shirt on the
x-ray; however it seriously damages your argument!
It's suspicious that no unmistakable scene was shown with the facehugger on
Newt, unless this was done on purpose, the director wanting the audience to
believe it was Newt, only to surprise us later with the revelation that it was
actually Ripley. This is consistent with the movie.
> It's not "unsupported conjecture." Read the shooting script for
> yourself at this site:
>
> http://www.godamongdirectors.com/scripts/alien3hill.txt
I have but the script is irrelevant! The "final script" is how the movie was
finally edited - ie., Ripley not Newt was infected without the aid of any
crawling queen. Some people have trouble accepting that the director may
change the plot of the film in the editing process.
> >But the problem with that theory
> >is BOTH tubes were cracked before they are evacuated from the Sulaco. How
> >does your theory explain the facehugger initially rejecting Ripley in favor
of
> >Newt?
>
> Why does that need an explanation at all? Newt was viable to host an
> embryo so the facehugger simply made an arbitrary decision to
> impregnate her first.
My point is that both tubes were cracked by the facehugger; why would it do
that unless it rejected its first victim?
> >Interesting. But can the "crawling Queen" theory fit in with the fact that
> >both tubes are cracked as mentioned above?
>
> I don't see your point. The glass on Ripley's tube was broken when
> the "bolt" exploded--which takes place AFTER we see the x-ray of the
> facehugger on Newt's face.
First, it was not necessarily Newt for the reasons given above. Second,
there's no evidence it was the bolt that cracked the tube; if the x-ray is of
Ripley as the evidence shows, then the tube would have to have been cracked by
the facehugger prior to the explosion.
> >Not as much as your theory, IMHO. My evidence is not based on conjecture
or
> >derived from an old script but from inferences based on actual events in
the
> >movie -- that is, canonical sources.
>
> It wasn't an "old script," it was the FINAL SHOOTING SCRIPT.
Again, irrelevant due to the reasons above.
> >I can't imagine why so many people think Bishop is beyond reproach. I've
> >pointed out more evidence for my position on Bishop in the recent thread
> >titled: "Gorman in cahoots with Burke?"
>
> I don't think Bishop is beyond reproach, just that the "Bishop did it
> theory" requires a hell of a lot more tapdancing than the other does.
The validity of the theory is not obvious otherwise I wouldn't be the only one
defending it so vehemently. But the more I discuss it with its detractors,
the more evidence is revealed that supports it. It's like solving a murder
mystery where all the clues are there -- you just have to use reason to put
them together. The fact that a theory requires a lot of reflection and
explanation in no way detracts from the validity of its conclusions. What
does detract from the validity of a theory is the introduction of
(non-canonical) elements for an easy explanation when an explanation that fits
existing facts is available.
> >As I've pointed out, your observations are not convincing. The script is
> >non-canoncial if it doesn't jive with the images and story on the final
> >celluloid.
>
> I generally agree with this philosophy. However, in this case the
> script doesn't conflict with the images and story on the final
> celluloid.
You bet your bippy it does. How about the ox rather than the dog?
BJ
My 2 cents in adjusted dollars.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
umto...@cc.umanitoba.ca
In article <19980220104...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
newb...@aol.com (Newborn 0) wrote:
> >The queen's first attack occurred as she exited the dropship thru a cargo
> >hold. The question is whether this was the first time the alien actually
set
> >foot on the Sulaco? You'd have us believe that after the dropship docks on
> >the Sulaco, the alien wanders off, lays some eggs, re-enters the dropship,
> >then re-exits when she attacks. I propose that it was the first time
because
> >it's the simplest explanation, its supported by what we see in the movie,
and
> >it doesn't have to invent an unsupported conjecture about the alien being
> >able
> >to lay eggs without an ovipositor.
>
> Actually, I think that the "conveyer belt" appearance to the ovipositor
lends
> itself quite easily to my theory.
Could you please explain this???
>But as for the Queen's location on the
> Sulaco, there is no way to pass judgement on that until it is clear where
the
> eggs were located in Alien 3.
The scene shows the name "SULACO" imprinted on the infrastructure where the
egg is suspended. Case closed?
Pehaps while the marines were looking for the colonists?
>If he tried to do it, he would have been attacked.
Are you saying Bishop was not capable of surviving an attack if properly
prepared? I do recall a certain Ripley character surviving an attack at the
scene of the eggs.
>Bishop
> was in the med-lab because he was trying to study the Aliens. He was
probably
> told to study the Aliens, probably for the benefit of Weyland-Yutani, but
that
> does not make him a traitor.
Ripley: "Just tell me one thing, Burke: you're going out there to destroy
them, right? Not to study, not to bring back, but to wipe them out?"
Burke: "That's the plan. You have my word on it."
Both Burke and Bishop disobeyed the plan. If Burke is scum, shouldn't we also
suspect Bishop for the reasons I've previously given?
>His statement of his primary directive: not to
> harm or allow harm to a human, was not contested by anyone else, so that
could
> very easily be true, and if it were, android manufacturers would probably
make
> that program extremely difficult to over-ride.
I think you're grasping at straws here; there's this "Bishop must remain
true-blue" attitude taken to extreme among contributors of this newsgroup. Is
it unreasonable to suspect that if the Company and military are in collusion,
a modified "evil" Bishop could not be produced for the purpose of the mission?
When Bishop's creator makes his evil appearance, this becomes more likely.
> By the way, there is no definite proof that it was really Bishop's creator
at
> the end of Alien 3. Here's some evidence to the contrary: He was a liar;
He
> recieves a massive blow to the head and hardly reacts to it; And in one
shot
> it appears that his ear is actually partially torn away from his head. But
I
> am hesitant to form an opinion on this subject.
It sounds like you're proving my point. If Bishop II is a synth of the same
ilk as Bishop, then why won't you recognize the possibility that Bishop is
imperfect?
> Towards the beginning of the sequence, a facehugger is seen crawling on a
tube,
> which had a child's face behind it. Right after that, a close-up of her
face
> is shown, just as the glass cracks. As for the blood, hell if I know. The
> X-ray is probably the same scanner that Ripley uses to detect her embryo
later
> on, apparently automatic systems detected the Alien on Newt and initiated a
> scan. And you can tell that it is Newt's skull because shortly after, when
the
> bolt explodes, there are several close-ups of Ripley's face, with no
> facehugger, and the facehugger wouldn't have come off in such a short time.
Yup, the glass cracks, but it's never shown to be BROKEN like Ripley's; the
facehugger decided to attack Ripley instead. Looking at the x-ray, the
shadows on the person's chest area would be consistent with the build of
Ripley (look at the opening scene of her in the cryotube). We know that this
particular facehugger is capable of multiple impregnations. While Kane's
facehugger spent a lot of time attached to its victim, we're dealing with a
different type now that may be capable of a faster impregnation in order to
fulfill its nature before it expires.
(The "fabric" in the "seeping blood" scene eerily reminds me of bandages;
could the facehugger have been attacking [thus the shriek] Hicks after its
first victim?)
> >Once again you're introducing the unsupported conjecture that the
> >chestburster
> >would transplant itself from Newt to Ripley. But the problem with that
> >theory
> >is BOTH tubes were cracked before they are evacuated from the Sulaco. How
> >does your theory explain the facehugger initially rejecting Ripley in favor
> >of
> >Newt?
>
> The facehugger simply attacked Newt instead of Ripley, there is no reason;
you
> can see in the beginning that Newt's tube is the first to crack, the damage
to
> Ripley's tube is only seen briefly toward the end of the sequence, and there
is
> no explaination for it.
Certainly a reasonable explanation can be offered that the facehugger broke
thru Ripley's tube. And it's never shown that the facehugger entered Newt's
tube.
>The conjecture that the embryo traded hosts is not
> unsupported, it appears in the FINAL script and the comic, and since it
seems
> to agree with the above mentioned observations and it doesn't conflict with
> anything, it is a very sound possibility.
It's unsupported in the movie -- THAT is the "final script." If my
explanation can account for observations without having to introduce rejected
concepts, then it should be the preferred explanation - it doesn't need the
excess baggage you suggest. Besides, you have no evidence that the director
intended to use the crawling queen as an explanation in the final edit -
that's why it was left out! And, of course, it conflicts with the observation
that Ripley was infected on the Sulaco.
> >> Actually the "crawling Queen" is in the final script, just not in the
> >movie.
> > I
> >> agree with the fact that the script and even cut scenes are not definite
> >(don't
> >> get me started on the cocoon scene in Alien), but when there is no other
> >> logical answer, I think it is safe to fall back on the script (and comic
> >book,
> >> which is taken directly from the script).
> >
> >Interesting. But can the "crawling Queen" theory fit in with the fact that
> >both tubes are cracked as mentioned above?
>
> Both tubes were cracked, but again, Ripley's is only cracked towards the end
of
> the sequence. There are a number of possible explainations as to how
Ripley's
> tube became cracked (possibly the exploding bolt, whatever it's for), but
only
> one obvious cause for Newt's tube to be damaged.
It's shown to be BROKEN at the end during an EXTERNAL shot. Previous shots of
her are from WITHIN the tube (there are no external reflections) and Newt's
tube is never shown broken -- only cracked.
>The condition of the tubes
> has nothing to do with the "Crawling Queen", except that if Ripley's tube
was
> sealed tight, the Queen couldn't have crawled into her.
Since you believe the facehugger attacked Newt, why did it first reject
Ripley? But since it is likely it attacked Ripley, not Newt, it's a moot
point.
> My theories are taken from both the FINAL script, and inferences, the
> difference is that it is easier to explain.
It's only "easier" because it's a simple explanation, similar to invoking an
act of god. This in no way makes it a better theory if it doesn't satisfy all
the facts.
>Actually, there is another
> perfectly plausible theory, that may be simpler than the "Crawling Queen";
> what if there were really three eggs?
That would be introducing another "out of the blue" explanation like the
crawling queen so that theory should be rejected.
> >I can't imagine why so many people think Bishop is beyond reproach. I've
> >pointed out more evidence for my position on Bishop in the recent thread
> >titled: "Gorman in cahoots with Burke?"
>
> I can't explain it. While it's conceivably possible that Bishop betrayed
> Ripley, there just isn't enough evidence to outweigh Bishop's apparent
> trust-worthiness.
As mentioned above, both Burke and Bishop disobeyed the plan. Since the egg
didn't get on board the Sulaco by itself and the queen didn't have time or the
means to lay the egg, who's the only person who had the means to do it? One
guess.
> Sure, it's not the end-all, be-all explaination, but when there is no clear
> explaination given by the movie, then I feel it is safe to start borrowing
> theories from reasonable sources such as final scripts, as long as they
don't
> interfere with what is portrayed in the movie. It's alot better than making
up
> your own possible scenarios.
I vehemently disagree. All the "reasonable sources" contradict the final cut.
If you come up with a theory that is consistent with all the facts in the
movie, it's superior to what's contained in old, rejected scripts. Unlike
you, I'm not one to tolerate contradictions. I enjoy the thrill of the
challenge.
It seems the opening is purposefully puzzling because the director wants the
audience to believe Newt was attacked, only to surprise us later with the
revelation that it was actually Ripley. Once we realize it was Ripley, not
Newt, then we can go back and make sense of the opening within the context of
the entire trilogy. My theory attempts this without resorting to rejected
concepts like a crawling or egg-lugging queen. Such an internally consistent
theory is more satsifying than its non-canonical competitors.
BJ
My 2 cents in adjusted dollars.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
umto...@cc.umanitoba.ca
In article <34EDA2D2...@wlv.ac.uk>,
The egg doesn't appear to be attached to the dropship. "Sulaco" is embossed
on the support structure where the egg is attached.
> > By the way, there is no definite proof that it was really Bishop's creator
at
> > the end of Alien 3. Here's some evidence to the contrary: He was a liar;
He
> > recieves a massive blow to the head and hardly reacts to it; And in one
shot
> > it appears that his ear is actually partially torn away from his head.
But I
> > am hesitant to form an opinion on this subject.
>
> I'm glad someone else spotted that. It actually makes more sense for this
Bishop to
> be another android as they would be more readily available than the
originator. Tie
> in the match in appearance (How long had the Bishop model been around?) and
there
> is cause to doubt the word of the 'person' claiming to be Bishop's creator.
>
If the originator is working for the Company/military, then that solves the
"availability" issue. Actually, that is another reason to suspect Bishop's
alleged prime directive was deactivated. But there is no evidence how old the
Bishop series is. Actually, if Bishop II is of the same series as Bishop,
then that supports my contention that Bishop was in collusion with Burke.
Heck, Bishop even admits he's taking orders from Burke to return with the
specimans in the Medlab!
The best explanation that is consistent with all the facts: one facehugger on
Sulaco cracks Newt's tube, but breaks through Ripley's instead and impregnates
her. (Medlab scene in Aliens demonstrates facehuggers won't necessarily
single-mindedly attack when they are near a victim.) Facehugger then attacks
Hicks(?). Tubes with facehugger evacuated to EEV which crashes in the ocean
where Newt drowns from water seepage. Facehugger still alive and hanging
around because it needs to infect another host with the queen's drone before
it expires.
> I honestly can not see Bishop having anything to do with the placement of
the eggs.
> He was never around the Hive, never had access to eggs (the two face huggers
> released to impregnate Ripley and Newt were in specimen tubes) that I saw.
He
> simply did not have time.
Exactly how and when he did it is currently pure speculation. However, he
certainly had the time to do so; and if you want theories on how, I can give
them but they probably won't compel you. What IS compelling is the amount of
evidence that indicates Bishop isn't all he would have you believe, his being
the only one who could have done it, and his having the time to do it when he
was left alone.
>Also, if he had gone into the Hive to collect
eggs, he
> would have been destroyed by the Aliens guarding them (or the Queen!). The
only
> time the eggs were undefended was AFTER Ripley left the Hive with Newt, so
the eggs
> had to have been laid on the Drop ship by the Queen.
>
The answer to that question resides in the hidden contradiction of what you've
just said. If Ripley can enter the hive, wipe out most/all the eggs, destroy
the queen, and survive all without a plan, you don't think it possible Bishop
could have stolen an egg with a plan? And, as mentioned above, the dropship
theory doesn't work.
> There was no sign, or other indication that any eggs had been recovered from
the
> Alien ship. On both occasions (in Alien and at the start of Aliens) that a
> potential host encountered the eggs in that ship, they were impregnated.
There was
> no indication that the eggs were recovered from the Atmosphere Generator -
and this
> is where the Queen resided - with guards! No record or log was kept of an
encounter
> with the Queen prior to Ripley's, so I have doubts that anyone had survived
such an
> encounter.
That may be where we enter the realm of speculation; but these speculations
are healthy enough not to contradict the facts of the story.
BJ
My 2 cents in adjusted dollars.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
umto...@cc.umanitoba.ca
In article <34ed18a1...@news.earthlink.net>,
It's a good thing the director didn't underestimate the intelligence of the
audience and include such a dumbass scene in the movie. ;)
umto...@cc.umanitoba.ca
In article <34e9444a...@news.earthlink.net>,
unk...@unknown.net (Anonymous) wrote:
>
> On 16 Feb 1998 22:29:41 GMT, wmvrr...@aol.com (Wmvrrvrrmm) wrote:
>
> >In article <01bd3b16$7bf7d240$LocalHost@default>, "Adam Shaw"
> ><cybe...@btinternet.com> writes:
> >
> >>There were only 2 huggers. Newt WAS infected. She drowned and the Alien
> >>crawled out of her throat and into Ripleys. The other hugger probably
> >>hadn't developed or something
> >
>
> Exactly. It's far easier to assume that the "royal facehugger" is
> capable of laying a queen in one host and a "royal guard" in another
> which would "hatch" first and protect the newborn queen (or her host).
> This makes sense especially in light of the fact that the queen must
> be immobilized in order to lay her eggs--which renders her physically
> unable to capture hosts on her own and would REQUIRE at least one
> warrior to do it at first in order to establish a viable hive.
>
> 2) One facehugger
> 3) Facehugger forced open Newt's cryotube and infected her with a
> queen
> 4) Newt drowned so the queen embryo crawled out of her mouth and into
> Ripley's
> 5) Same facehugger infected dog with a "royal guard," then finally
> died
Assume nothing -- the "royal facehugger" theory describes exactly what
happened in the movie. However, you've got some of the details wrong:
3) Facehugger cracks Newt's cryotube but passes her up to infect Ripley
instead
4) Newt drowns :(
BJ
My 2 cents in adjusted dollars
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
umto...@cc.umanitoba.ca
In article <damocl...@nostromo.gate.net>,
damo...@nostromo.gate.net (Randy Vice) wrote:
>
> On Tue 17-Feb-1998 8:17a, unk...@unknown.net wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> u> Exactly. It's far easier to assume that the "royal facehugger" is
> u> capable of laying a queen in one host and a "royal guard" in another
> u> which would "hatch" first and protect the newborn queen (or her host).
> u> This makes sense especially in light of the fact that the queen must
> u> be immobilized in order to lay her eggs--which renders her physically
> u> unable to capture hosts on her own and would REQUIRE at least one
> u> warrior to do it at first in order to establish a viable hive.
>
> u> 1) One egg
> u> 2) One facehugger
> u> 3) Facehugger forced open Newt's cryotube and infected her with a
> u> queen
> u> 4) Newt drowned so the queen embryo crawled out of her mouth and into
> u> Ripley's
> u> 5) Same facehugger infected dog with a "royal guard," then finally
> u> died
>
> Drowned? In Alien, wasn't the first facehugger giving Kane oxygen to live?
> Doesn't make sense, but then again, neither did most of A3...
I don't subscribe to the crawling queen theory, yet, oddly, I think I can
answer your question. The facehugger had detached before Newt drowned, thus
the queen needed another live host.
A3 makes perfect sense.
BJ
My 2 cents in adjusted dollars.
Bernardine Knorr
i would like to settle this bishop ii thing once and for all.
i know that the novelisation cannot be taken as canon because it is a novelisation and
is flawed, (ie ox vs rottweiler), however both the novelisation and lance henriksen
have both stated that this character, listed as bishop ii in the credits, was infact
MICHAEL BISHOP the creator of the bishop model android and was an evil HUMAN company
MAN.
lance has also stated that he is very protective of this android character and credits
james cameron with his career turn around. he would not have let this character become
evil by making him the responsible party for planting the egg on the sulaco.
which brings me back to the point of my last post which is that although it is not
explained in the script or in the novelisation, i suggest that the egg on board was
squirted at the wall as a small 'spore' by the queen when ripley was getting into the
powerloader, and grew to maturity in the following months unnoticed by the dreaming
survivors. think about it the queen uses an ovipositor to give these eggs the acidic
goodness they need to grow, but they could possibly grow on their own once spored.
i also remeber the egg being orange which supports the "royal face hugger" and "single
egg" theories.
i too have seen the unedited version of aliens, however i saw it at the movies at hoyts
in syndey in 1986, then i saw the edited version and it really misses the
"burke-in-cocoon-scene" my favourite creepy scene.
hoping this helps - harry lime - sydney
harry lime
i would like to settle this bishop ii thing once and for all.
i know that the novelisation cannot be taken as canon because it is a novelisation and
is flawed, (ie ox vs rottweiler), however both the novelisation and lance henriksen
have both stated that this character, listed as bishop ii in the credits, was infact
MICHAEL BISHOP the creator of the bishop model android and was an evil HUMAN company
MAN.
lance has also stated that he is very protective of this android character and credits
james cameron with his career turn around. he would not have let this character become
evil by making him the responsible party for planting the egg on the sulaco.
which brings me back to the point of my last post which is that although it is not
explained in the script or in the novelisation, i suggest that the egg on board was
squirted at the wall as a small 'spore' by the queen when ripley was getting into the
powerloader, and grew to maturity in the following months unnoticed by the dreaming
survivors. think about it the queen uses an ovipositor to give these eggs the acidic
goodness they need to grow, but they could possibly grow on their own once spored.
i also remeber the egg being orange which supports the "royal face hugger" and "single
egg" theories.
i too have seen the unedited version of aliens, however i saw it at the movies at hoyts
in syndey in 1986, then i saw the edited version and it really misses the
"burke-in-cocoon-scene" my favourite creepy scene.
hoping this helps - harry lime - sydney
Anonymous
On Sat, 21 Feb 1998 20:01:12 -0600, umto...@cc.umanitoba.ca wrote:
>It looks strikingly similar to bandages (Hicks?) or perhaps the interior of
>the tube?
It doesn't really matter since it could be anything. Newt's tube was
shown cracking, so assume she was cut as some point and bled on the
tube's interior.
>No matter how long I look at that picture, I honestly cannot see any trace of
>a neckline!
Then you're deliberately missing it because it's plain as day. I have
a screen shot of it and it's so obvious you can't possibly miss it.
>Actually, the shadows on the person's chest area would be
>consistent with the build of Ripley (look at the opening scene of her in the
>cryotube).
Get real. You can't possibly infer anything about the build of the
person in the x-ray.
>Actually, there's a blooper during the scene when Ripley's cryotube is
>positioned into the EEV: you can see Ripley wearing a t-shirt!
That was Newt, not Ripley. Find a laserdisc and freeze the frame if
you don't believe me. You can even see her long blond hair on the
right.
>This does not
>affect my argument because I deny there is any indication of a t-shirt on the
>x-ray; however it seriously damages your argument!
Yeah, right...
>It's suspicious that no unmistakable scene was shown with the facehugger on
>Newt, unless this was done on purpose, the director wanting the audience to
>believe it was Newt, only to surprise us later with the revelation that it was
>actually Ripley. This is consistent with the movie.
Yet, my theory is consistent with both the movie AND the script.
>I have but the script is irrelevant! The "final script" is how the movie was
>finally edited - ie., Ripley not Newt was infected without the aid of any
>crawling queen.
Nothing in the final cut of the film invalidates the part of the
script in question.
> Some people have trouble accepting that the director may
>change the plot of the film in the editing process.
David Fincher couldn't do dick in Alien 3 without the approval of the
producers (i.e. Walter Hill--who wrote the screenplay).
>My point is that both tubes were cracked by the facehugger; why would it do
>that unless it rejected its first victim?
Because the facehugger DIDN'T crack Ripley's tube. The exploding bolt
did.
>First, it was not necessarily Newt for the reasons given above. Second,
>there's no evidence it was the bolt that cracked the tube;
Um, before the explosion it shows Ripley's face and the glass above
her unbroken. Next scene shows the bolt exploding (accompanied by
sounds of glass beaking), followed by another shot of Ripley's face
with the glass above her face shattered. All of which takes place
AFTER the x-ray scene.
> if the x-ray is of
>Ripley as the evidence shows, then the tube would have to have been cracked by
>the facehugger prior to the explosion.
But it wasn't, as I just pointed out.
>Again, irrelevant due to the reasons above.
Pardon me if I consider your reasons to be thin at best.
>The validity of the theory is not obvious otherwise I wouldn't be the only one
>defending it so vehemently. But the more I discuss it with its detractors,
>the more evidence is revealed that supports it. It's like solving a murder
>mystery where all the clues are there -- you just have to use reason to put
>them together. The fact that a theory requires a lot of reflection and
>explanation in no way detracts from the validity of its conclusions. What
>does detract from the validity of a theory is the introduction of
>(non-canonical) elements for an easy explanation when an explanation that fits
>existing facts is available.
Oh, so the "non-canonical" elements don't count so you conjure up this
elaborate, yet ultimately unsupported alternate theory...
>You bet your bippy it does. How about the ox rather than the dog?
What about it? That has nothing to do with this.
Anonymous
On Sat, 21 Feb 1998 22:06:04 -0600, umto...@cc.umanitoba.ca wrote:
>It's a good thing the director didn't underestimate the intelligence of the
>audience and include such a dumbass scene in the movie. ;)
Dumbass, yes. It's still what happened.
Anonymous
On Sat, 21 Feb 1998 22:19:37 -0600, umto...@cc.umanitoba.ca wrote:
>Assume nothing -- the "royal facehugger" theory describes exactly what
>happened in the movie. However, you've got some of the details wrong:
>
>3) Facehugger cracks Newt's cryotube but passes her up to infect Ripley
>instead
>4) Newt drowns :(
You're telling ME not to assume anything? You're the one trying to
pass off your speculation as fact, whereas my scenario is supported by
the script (while not conflicting with the film).
Anonymous
On Sat, 21 Feb 1998 21:53:39 -0600, umto...@cc.umanitoba.ca wrote:
>If the originator is working for the Company/military, then that solves the
>"availability" issue. Actually, that is another reason to suspect Bishop's
>alleged prime directive was deactivated. But there is no evidence how old the
>Bishop series is. Actually, if Bishop II is of the same series as Bishop,
>then that supports my contention that Bishop was in collusion with Burke.
>Heck, Bishop even admits he's taking orders from Burke to return with the
>specimans in the Medlab!
Yet Bishop didn't even try to conceal his orders from Ripley. He told
her all about them when she ordered the specimens destroyed after he
completing his analysis. Not exactly first-rate espionage tactics...
>The best explanation that is consistent with all the facts: one facehugger on
>Sulaco cracks Newt's tube, but breaks through Ripley's instead and impregnates
>her.
I'd like to know how the facehugger got on Ripley's face and was shown
on the x-ray BEFORE her tube was even broken...
>Medlab scene in Aliens demonstrates facehuggers won't necessarily
>single-mindedly attack when they are near a victim.) Facehugger then attacks
>Hicks(?). Tubes with facehugger evacuated to EEV which crashes in the ocean
>where Newt drowns from water seepage. Facehugger still alive and hanging
>around because it needs to infect another host with the queen's drone before
>it expires.
I can agree with the rest of the theory, that it's a "royal
facehugger" which can impregnate two hosts.
>Exactly how and when he did it is currently pure speculation. However, he
>certainly had the time to do so; and if you want theories on how, I can give
>them but they probably won't compel you. What IS compelling is the amount of
>evidence that indicates Bishop isn't all he would have you believe, his being
>the only one who could have done it, and his having the time to do it when he
>was left alone.
He had the time to walk into the alien nest unnoticed, take an egg
without being attacked by a soldier, and conceal it from everyone?
This makes no sense. We saw he had nothing but a portable computer
terminal with him when he crawled through the pipeline to the uplink
tower, and when he got there he was busy prepping and piloting the
dropship down the planet (against the clock, BTW). Where did he get
an alien egg out in the middle of nowhere and so far away from the
hive? Do you propose that he actually landed the dropship after
Ripley went to rescue Newt, raced down to the nest, unnoticed by
Ripley who had a head start, stole an egg with impunity, ran back up
to the ship, and got in the air just in time to pick up Ripley?
Where's the logic in this swiss cheese theory?
>The answer to that question resides in the hidden contradiction of what you've
>just said. If Ripley can enter the hive, wipe out most/all the eggs, destroy
>the queen, and survive all without a plan, you don't think it possible Bishop
>could have stolen an egg with a plan? And, as mentioned above, the dropship
>theory doesn't work.
Ripley was armed and made one hell of a big mess. BTW, I want to know
about this "plan" that Bishop may have used to steal an egg. You
can't just contrive a theory and leave the most important part
unexplained.
>That may be where we enter the realm of speculation; but these speculations
>are healthy enough not to contradict the facts of the story.
See above.
Newborn 0
*Warms up the ol' 'Quote' button*
[SNIP]
>> >able
>> >to lay eggs without an ovipositor.
>>
>> Actually, I think that the "conveyer belt" appearance to the ovipositor
>lends
>> itself quite easily to my theory.
>
>Could you please explain this???
No problem. I believe that the eggs are actually generated in organs contained
in the Queen's lower abdomen (or anywhere else in the Queen works too). They
start out small, round, and pale in color (just like the one at the start of
Alien 3). These immature eggs are pushed out into the egg sac, or as I refer
to it, the ovipositor. As the eggs push through the ovipositor, they recieve
nutrients and develop to the proper size (about one meter), shape (ovoid) and
color (greenish), then get squeezed out the end. It makes sense, that a Queen
wouldn't need to grow an ovipositor every time she wanted to lay an egg, it
just makes the egg more viable to go through the ovipositor.
>>But as for the Queen's location on the
>> Sulaco, there is no way to pass judgement on that until it is clear where
>the
>> eggs were located in Alien 3.
>
>The scene shows the name "SULACO" imprinted on the infrastructure where the
>egg is suspended. Case closed?
Case is NOT closed! This only proves that it was on the Sulaco. The Sulaco is
one big ship, and while the eggs couldn't be far from the docking bay, there's
no way to know exactly where.
[RETURN OF THE SNIP]
>> But I honestly don't see when he would have the chance to
>steal
>> eggs from the hive.
>
>Pehaps while the marines were looking for the colonists?
Why couldn't have been the Queen while Ripley was suiting up? At least we know
for fact that she was on the Sulaco.
>>If he tried to do it, he would have been attacked.
>
>Are you saying Bishop was not capable of surviving an attack if properly
>prepared? I do recall a certain Ripley character surviving an attack at the
>scene of the eggs.
With a pulse-rifle, a flamethrower, some grenades, and a whole lot of attitude,
sure. I suppose Bishop could have made it, but remember that Ripley was
probably pretty damn lucky to make it out of there.
>>Bishop
>> was in the med-lab because he was trying to study the Aliens. He was
>probably
>> told to study the Aliens, probably for the benefit of Weyland-Yutani, but
>that
>> does not make him a traitor.
>
>Ripley: "Just tell me one thing, Burke: you're going out there to destroy
>them, right? Not to study, not to bring back, but to wipe them out?"
>Burke: "That's the plan. You have my word on it."
>
>Both Burke and Bishop disobeyed the plan. If Burke is scum, shouldn't we
>also
>suspect Bishop for the reasons I've previously given?
But Burke was lying! That wasn't the plan, he just said that to get Ripley to
come.
>>His statement of his primary directive: not to
>> harm or allow harm to a human, was not contested by anyone else, so that
>could
>> very easily be true, and if it were, android manufacturers would probably
>make
>> that program extremely difficult to over-ride.
>
>I think you're grasping at straws here; there's this "Bishop must remain
>true-blue" attitude taken to extreme among contributors of this newsgroup.
>Is
>it unreasonable to suspect that if the Company and military are in collusion,
>a modified "evil" Bishop could not be produced for the purpose of the
>mission?
> When Bishop's creator makes his evil appearance, this becomes more likely.
But we already know that the Queen wanted to impregnate the others, why do we
have to drag Bishop into this when the Queen explaination is just as (if not
more) plausible, and doesn't have to guess as to the location of an android who
hasn't shown any definete evidence that he's a traitor.
>> By the way, there is no definite proof that it was really Bishop's creator
>at
>> the end of Alien 3. Here's some evidence to the contrary: He was a liar;
>He
>> recieves a massive blow to the head and hardly reacts to it; And in one
>shot
>> it appears that his ear is actually partially torn away from his head. But
>I
>> am hesitant to form an opinion on this subject.
>
>It sounds like you're proving my point. If Bishop II is a synth of the same
>ilk as Bishop, then why won't you recognize the possibility that Bishop is
>imperfect?
What is this, damned if I do, damned if I don't? You're saying that if Bishop
II was Michael Bishop, then Bishop I is evil, and that if Bishop II is a synth,
then Bishop I is still evil.
[SNIP, ETC.]
>Yup, the glass cracks, but it's never shown to be BROKEN like Ripley's;
Cracked, broken, that's simantics. BUT I NOW HAVE ABSOLUTE PROOF THAT RIPLEY'S
TUBE WAS NOT BROKEN BY THE HUGGER. Watch the close-up of Ripley just before
"Edited by Terry Rawlings", there is no break. Then right after the bolt
explodes, there is a jagged white line across the side of her face, the same
crack as seen in all the following scenes.
the
>facehugger decided to attack Ripley instead. Looking at the x-ray, the
>shadows on the person's chest area would be consistent with the build of
>Ripley (look at the opening scene of her in the cryotube).
The build of her chest? This, in a split second of footage? Sorry. But the
proof that it was Newt comes in the fact that Ripley's face is shown after the
X-ray scene-- hugger free.
We know that
>this
>particular facehugger is capable of multiple impregnations. While Kane's
>facehugger spent a lot of time attached to its victim, we're dealing with a
>different type now that may be capable of a faster impregnation in order to
>fulfill its nature before it expires.
What the...? We do NOT know that this facehugger was capable of multiple
impregnations, this is unsupported and is completly speculatory. If there was
one egg, why couldn't there just as easily be two (or more)? No other
facehugger has shown this property so you're just making stuff up. In fact, I
have some proof that there were two huggers. This is somewhat uncanonical, but
proves that the creators original intentions were for two huggers; observe
Star Pics' Alien 3 trading cards numbers 40 and 41, it shows pictures from a
cut scene of a facehugger with webbed fingers, but the one in the opening
sequence has no webbing.
>(The "fabric" in the "seeping blood" scene eerily reminds me of bandages;
>could the facehugger have been attacking [thus the shriek] Hicks after its
>first victim?)
Shriek? That doesn't sound like anything that would come out of a human mouth.
[SNIP SNAP]
>Certainly a reasonable explanation can be offered that the facehugger broke
>thru Ripley's tube. And it's never shown that the facehugger entered Newt's
>tube.
No, as I mentioned before, the crack is not there before the bolt explodes, and
is visible directly after.
>>The conjecture that the embryo traded hosts is not
>> unsupported, it appears in the FINAL script and the comic, and since it
>seems
>> to agree with the above mentioned observations and it doesn't conflict with
>> anything, it is a very sound possibility.
>
>It's unsupported in the movie -- THAT is the "final script." If my
>explanation can account for observations without having to introduce rejected
>concepts, then it should be the preferred explanation - it doesn't need the
>excess baggage you suggest. Besides, you have no evidence that the director
>intended to use the crawling queen as an explanation in the final edit -
>that's why it was left out! And, of course, it conflicts with the
>observation
>that Ripley was infected on the Sulaco.
Once again, there are NO definite signs that Ripley was attacked! And I think
that my broken glass evidence clears that all up.
[SSSSSNNNNNNIIIIIIPPPPPP]
>>
>> Both tubes were cracked, but again, Ripley's is only cracked towards the
>end
>of
>> the sequence. There are a number of possible explainations as to how
>Ripley's
>> tube became cracked (possibly the exploding bolt, whatever it's for), but
>only
>> one obvious cause for Newt's tube to be damaged.
>
>It's shown to be BROKEN at the end during an EXTERNAL shot. Previous shots
>of
>her are from WITHIN the tube (there are no external reflections) and Newt's
>tube is never shown broken -- only cracked.
Once again, see above. You seem to base alot of your argument on this, and yet
it is obvious that the tube was not damaged by a facehugger.
>
[SNIPPOLA]
>Since you believe the facehugger attacked Newt, why did it first reject
>Ripley? But since it is likely it attacked Ripley, not Newt, it's a moot
>point.
It didn't pass up Ripley, it just attacked Newt. It could not have attacked
Ripley, because the tube wasn't broken.
>> My theories are taken from both the FINAL script, and inferences, the
>> difference is that it is easier to explain.
>
>It's only "easier" because it's a simple explanation, similar to invoking an
>act of god. This in no way makes it a better theory if it doesn't satisfy
>all
>the facts.
What facts doesn't it satisfy? And now that I think of it, your theory doesn't
support all the facts, like how the facehugger reach Ripley when her tube
wasn't damaged until the bolt exploded.
>>Actually, there is another
>> perfectly plausible theory, that may be simpler than the "Crawling Queen";
>> what if there were really three eggs?
>
>That would be introducing another "out of the blue" explanation like the
>crawling queen so that theory should be rejected.
Out of the blue? If there were two eggs, why not three?
[SNIPPY]
>> I can't explain it. While it's conceivably possible that Bishop betrayed
>> Ripley, there just isn't enough evidence to outweigh Bishop's apparent
>> trust-worthiness.
>
>As mentioned above, both Burke and Bishop disobeyed the plan. Since the egg
>didn't get on board the Sulaco by itself and the queen didn't have time or
>the
>means to lay the egg, who's the only person who had the means to do it? One
>guess.
Gee, I'm guessing the one who created the eggs, you guessed it, the Queen! She
wouldn't be able to separate from her ovipositor if she couldn't still lay
eggs, otherwise everytime she had to move for some reason, she'd have to wait
for who knows how long for a giant maggot to grow out her rear.
>> Sure, it's not the end-all, be-all explaination, but when there is no clear
>> explaination given by the movie, then I feel it is safe to start borrowing
>> theories from reasonable sources such as final scripts, as long as they
>don't
>> interfere with what is portrayed in the movie. It's alot better than
>making
>up
>> your own possible scenarios.
>
>I vehemently disagree. All the "reasonable sources" contradict the final
>cut.
> If you come up with a theory that is consistent with all the facts in the
>movie, it's superior to what's contained in old, rejected scripts.
It doesn't contradict with anything!!! And it's not an old script, it was the
FINAL shooting script.
Unlike
>you, I'm not one to tolerate contradictions. I enjoy the thrill of the
>challenge.
>
>It seems the opening is purposefully puzzling because the director wants the
>audience to believe Newt was attacked, only to surprise us later with the
>revelation that it was actually Ripley. Once we realize it was Ripley, not
>Newt, then we can go back and make sense of the opening within the context of
>the entire trilogy. My theory attempts this without resorting to rejected
>concepts like a crawling or egg-lugging queen. Such an internally consistent
>theory is more satsifying than its non-canonical competitors.
I agree that they were trying to create the mystery, and that they actually
tried to change it so that Ripley was attacked. But they could only work with
the scenes that they shot, and thus there were several holes that made this
scenario impossible.
"Bishop Did It" simply doesn't cut it, he didn't have the opportunity to do it.
If he did it before the dropship crash, he would have had to get past Ferro
and that other guy (I don't feel like fast forwarding through the movie to
check), and wouldn't have had the time to get all the way up to the Sulaco
(I've heard estimates of over an hour). If he did it while Ripley was rescuing
Newt, he wouldn't have had the time to reach the Sulaco, and wouldn't have the
chance to move the eggs off of the dropship.
>
>
>BJ
>
>My 2 cents in adjusted dollars.
Whew! That was long.
So, what evidence do you have that doesn't require Ripley's tube to be broken
by a facehugger (which it obviously wasn't)?
[Insert witty slogan]
--NEWBORN
Wmvrrvrrmm
In article <19980222114...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, newb...@aol.com
(Newborn 0) writes:
>What the...? We do NOT know that this facehugger was capable of multiple
>impregnations, this is unsupported and is completly speculatory. If there
>was
>one egg, why couldn't there just as easily be two (or more)? No other
>facehugger has shown this property so you're just making stuff up. In fact,
>I
>have some proof that there were two huggers. This is somewhat uncanonical,
>but
>proves that the creators original intentions were for two huggers; observe
>Star Pics' Alien 3 trading cards numbers 40 and 41, it shows pictures from a
>cut scene of a facehugger with webbed fingers, but the one in the opening
>sequence has no webbing.
The webbed fingered facehugger was supposed to be the one that infected the ox,
and the ox burster scene was filmed and scrapped. If we should go by what your
saying, then we should have both an ox burster and a dog burster running around
the whole prison complex as well as a Queen alien on the way.
umto...@cc.umanitoba.ca
In article <34ef920e...@news.earthlink.net>,
unk...@unknown.net (Anonymous) wrote:
>
> On Sat, 21 Feb 1998 20:01:12 -0600, umto...@cc.umanitoba.ca wrote:
>
of
> >a neckline!
>
> a screen shot of it and it's so obvious you can't possibly miss it.
Go to http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~umtoddbj/xray.htm, point your mouse at a
few spots where you say the neckline is "as plain as day", and send me or post
the coordinates shown in the status bar of your browser.
> >Actually, the shadows on the person's chest area would be
> >consistent with the build of Ripley (look at the opening scene of her in
the
> >cryotube).
>
> Get real. You can't possibly infer anything about the build of the
> person in the x-ray.
For whatever reason the x-rays are above the neck only; they do not show any
bones in the person's neck or chest. You can clearly see the shadows of the
musculature of her upper body which is too well developed to be that of Newt.
> >Actually, there's a blooper during the scene when Ripley's cryotube is
> >positioned into the EEV: you can see Ripley wearing a t-shirt!
>
> That was Newt, not Ripley. Find a laserdisc and freeze the frame if
> you don't believe me. You can even see her long blond hair on the
> right.
Like I'm making up all this, right? I'm beginning to wonder if your laserdisc
contains different scenes than my tape? In this scene you can clearly see
Hicks in the foreground, the middle tube sliding into place is Ripley's, and
the vacant slot in the background nearest the hatch is Newt's which hasn't
been loaded yet. This orientation is the reverse of the tubes in the
cryogenic compartment in the Sulaco, and the same orientation as the scene
after the crash in the ocean. In the scene where the tube comes to a jarring
halt, you can clearly see Ripley's dark hair and her t-shirt. Do you want me
to put up those pictures too on my website for your benefit?
Btw: Is the facehugger on Newt in whatever picture you're look at?
> >It's suspicious that no unmistakable scene was shown with the facehugger on
> >Newt, unless this was done on purpose, the director wanting the audience to
> >believe it was Newt, only to surprise us later with the revelation that it
was
> >actually Ripley. This is consistent with the movie.
>
> Yet, my theory is consistent with both the movie AND the script.
Just as any countless superfluous and inconsequential scenes are consistent;
it means squat.
> >I have but the script is irrelevant! The "final script" is how the movie
was
> >finally edited - ie., Ripley not Newt was infected without the aid of any
> >crawling queen.
>
> Nothing in the final cut of the film invalidates the part of the
> script in question.
Big deal. You can always find isolated bits of old scripts that fit the final
cut. The "final script" deliberately leaves the opening a mystery as to who
is infected. What it doesn't explain is how the crawling queen got into
Ripley's undamaged cryotube. It doesn't even indicate a "stasis interrupted"
emergency; Ripley's sleeping peacefully. Yeah, this makes a lot of sense and
doesn't contradict the movie.
> > Some people have trouble accepting that the director may
> >change the plot of the film in the editing process.
>
> David Fincher couldn't do dick in Alien 3 without the approval of the
> producers (i.e. Walter Hill--who wrote the screenplay).
Then Hill must have told him to do "dick" because the so-called final script
is hardly congruent with the film editing.
> >My point is that both tubes were cracked by the facehugger; why would it do
> >that unless it rejected its first victim?
>
> Because the facehugger DIDN'T crack Ripley's tube. The exploding bolt
> did.
This speculation isn't even supported in the final script.
> >First, it was not necessarily Newt for the reasons given above. Second,
> >there's no evidence it was the bolt that cracked the tube;
>
> Um, before the explosion it shows Ripley's face and the glass above
> her unbroken.
No, it shows Ripley from a vantage point INSIDE her cryotube - we don't see
the glass, there are no reflections. Whenever we see Ripley from a vantage
point outside her cryotube, we either see the outside of the tube or
reflections on the glass. At this point we don't know what the state of the
glass is. My theory maintains the glass was already broken because the x-ray
was of Ripley, and the facehugger had left to attack Hicks. This is also
consistent with how the opening intentionally misleads the viewer into
believing Newt was infected. Your final script also makes the victim unknown
initially.
>Next scene shows the bolt exploding (accompanied by
> sounds of glass beaking), followed by another shot of Ripley's face
> with the glass above her face shattered. All of which takes place
> AFTER the x-ray scene.
Correct - "shattered". Assuming what you said is true, why do we not see
impact, dust, or broken shards on Ripley; the shot of Ripley IMMEDIATELY after
the exploding bolt not only has no evidence that the bolt caused the broken
glass, we can hear the sound of the debris - not glass -- falling in the
chamber - ie., the hole in the glass exists prior to the explosion even
settling.
> >The validity of the theory is not obvious otherwise I wouldn't be the only
one
> >defending it so vehemently. But the more I discuss it with its detractors,
> >the more evidence is revealed that supports it. It's like solving a murder
> >mystery where all the clues are there -- you just have to use reason to put
> >them together. The fact that a theory requires a lot of reflection and
> >explanation in no way detracts from the validity of its conclusions. What
> >does detract from the validity of a theory is the introduction of
> >(non-canonical) elements for an easy explanation when an explanation that
fits
> >existing facts is available.
>
> Oh, so the "non-canonical" elements don't count so you conjure up this
> elaborate, yet ultimately unsupported alternate theory...
If a theory that fits the existing facts, has not yet been shown to be
contradictory, and is the simplest by Ockham's Razor (no new theory - crawling
queen - is introduced) is your idea of "unsupported", then there's not much
point of discussing this any further. If your belief in the validity of
rejected concepts from a contradictory old script is the only way Alien 3
makes sense to you, good for you.
> >You bet your bippy it does. How about the ox rather than the dog?
>
> What about it? That has nothing to do with this.
I apologize that my point wasn't more clear; it was that you're selectively
choosing concepts from the old script to explain events you don't understand
in the final cut while conveniently ignoring the contradictions between the
two mediums.
BJ
My 2 cents in adjusted dollars
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
Richard Tibbetts
"Adam Shaw" <cybe...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>
>and
>> who knows how fire resistant Bishop was?
>Probably not as fire resistant as you think. Remember that Ash was flamed
>pretty easily in "Alien"
"Those older models always were pretty flakey"
;-)
umto...@cc.umanitoba.ca
In article <19980222114...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
newb...@aol.com (Newborn 0) wrote:
> No problem. I believe that the eggs are actually generated in organs
contained
> in the Queen's lower abdomen (or anywhere else in the Queen works too).
They
> start out small, round, and pale in color (just like the one at the start of
> Alien 3). These immature eggs are pushed out into the egg sac, or as I
refer
> to it, the ovipositor. As the eggs push through the ovipositor, they
recieve
> nutrients and develop to the proper size (about one meter), shape (ovoid)
and
> color (greenish), then get squeezed out the end. It makes sense, that a
Queen
> wouldn't need to grow an ovipositor every time she wanted to lay an egg, it
> just makes the egg more viable to go through the ovipositor.
It could be the egg appears different (debatable; may be due to perspective,
lighting, etc.) in size and color because it is a different variety -- the
"royal facehugger". Also, there is no indication that queens lay their eggs
in anything but batches (Alien, Aliens) so the egg sac is necessary to
position the eggs. Your idea is interesting but pure speculation -- besides,
the facehugger doesn't look any smaller.
> >>But as for the Queen's location on the
> >> Sulaco, there is no way to pass judgement on that until it is clear where
> >the
> >> eggs were located in Alien 3.
> >
> >The scene shows the name "SULACO" imprinted on the infrastructure where the
> >egg is suspended. Case closed?
>
> Case is NOT closed! This only proves that it was on the Sulaco. The Sulaco
is
> one big ship, and while the eggs couldn't be far from the docking bay,
there's
> no way to know exactly where.
I just wanted to reaffirm we have a consensus that it was the Sulaco - not the
APC-2.
> Why couldn't have been the Queen while Ripley was suiting up? At least we
know
> for fact that she was on the Sulaco.
She was too busy trying to catch Newt. Of course, if Bishop witnessed it
happen, he wouldn't tell in my theory - but he should have told Ripley in
yours!
> >Are you saying Bishop was not capable of surviving an attack if properly
> >prepared? I do recall a certain Ripley character surviving an attack at
the
> >scene of the eggs.
>
> With a pulse-rifle, a flamethrower, some grenades, and a whole lot of
attitude,
> sure. I suppose Bishop could have made it, but remember that Ripley was
> probably pretty damn lucky to make it out of there.
I can't comment on the means at his disposal; I'm just claiming it is possible
in the environment he was in.
> >Ripley: "Just tell me one thing, Burke: you're going out there to destroy
> >them, right? Not to study, not to bring back, but to wipe them out?"
> >Burke: "That's the plan. You have my word on it."
> >
> >Both Burke and Bishop disobeyed the plan. If Burke is scum, shouldn't we
> >also
> >suspect Bishop for the reasons I've previously given?
>
> But Burke was lying! That wasn't the plan, he just said that to get Ripley
to
> come.
Yes. My point is Bishop was taking orders from Burke; Burke's "plan" was what
the marines were operating under. Since Bishop knew the plan, he was
disobeying orders by working for Burke.
> But we already know that the Queen wanted to impregnate the others, why do
we
> have to drag Bishop into this when the Queen explaination is just as (if not
> more) plausible, and doesn't have to guess as to the location of an android
who
> hasn't shown any definete evidence that he's a traitor.
I think I've presented more evidence within the context of the storyline that
shows Bishop is a more likely suspect than inventing a new, non-canonical
egg-laying method for the queen who had no time anyway.
> >It sounds like you're proving my point. If Bishop II is a synth of the
same
> >ilk as Bishop, then why won't you recognize the possibility that Bishop is
> >imperfect?
>
> What is this, damned if I do, damned if I don't? You're saying that if
Bishop
> II was Michael Bishop, then Bishop I is evil, and that if Bishop II is a
synth,
> then Bishop I is still evil.
Yes! If Michael Bishop is involved with the Company and is working with the
military to capture a xenomorph, then it's not too large a leap to suspect
Bishop the synth was chosen because the creator could customize its
programming for the mission. If Bishop II is a synth, then that contradicts
the alleged "prime directive" of Bishop. Either way Bishop's loyalty is
suspect.
> [SNIP, ETC.]
>
> >Yup, the glass cracks, but it's never shown to be BROKEN like Ripley's;
>
> Cracked, broken, that's simantics.
No, it is relevant. A facehugger can only enter a broken - not cracked -
tube. Broken implies the glass tube can't fulfil its function because it has
a hole in it.
>BUT I NOW HAVE ABSOLUTE PROOF THAT
RIPLEY'S
> TUBE WAS NOT BROKEN BY THE HUGGER. Watch the close-up of Ripley just before
> "Edited by Terry Rawlings", there is no break. Then right after the bolt
> explodes, there is a jagged white line across the side of her face, the same
> crack as seen in all the following scenes.
Sorry to burst your bubble of absoluteness, but I've previously indicated that
this is an INTERNAL shot (within the tube) of Ripley; we know this because
there are no reflections on her face. All the other shots of Ripley are
EXTERNAL (outside the tube); we know this because we either see the perimeter
of the tube, or reflections of light on the glass covering her face. This
means that there is no indication that Ripley's tube is NOT broken before the
exploding bolt scene. This is how the director manipulates your perception of
events in the opening to force you to believe that Newt was impregnated so the
plot can surprise you later. After the revelation that Ripley was actually
infected, you can carefully retrace the opening scenes and see how it is
logically consistent with Ripley - not Newt - being infected.
> the
> >facehugger decided to attack Ripley instead. Looking at the x-ray, the
> >shadows on the person's chest area would be consistent with the build of
> >Ripley (look at the opening scene of her in the cryotube).
>
> The build of her chest? This, in a split second of footage?
It doesn't matter if it's a split second, it's still noticeable and canonical.
> Sorry. But
the
> proof that it was Newt comes in the fact that Ripley's face is shown after
the
> X-ray scene-- hugger free.
I've previously indicated that this is of the "royal facehugger" variety which
may be capable of faster impregnations. The scene with the blood seeping and
the alien shrieking occurs before we see Ripley again; my theory suggests the
facehugger has finished with implanting the queen in Ripley and is now
attacking Hicks as the drone host.
> We know that
> >this
> >particular facehugger is capable of multiple impregnations. While Kane's
> >facehugger spent a lot of time attached to its victim, we're dealing with a
> >different type now that may be capable of a faster impregnation in order to
> >fulfill its nature before it expires.
>
> What the...? We do NOT know that this facehugger was capable of multiple
> impregnations, this is unsupported and is completly speculatory.
No, this is completely consistent with the movie: one egg, one facehugger.
These are the canonical facts.
>If there
was
> one egg, why couldn't there just as easily be two (or more)?
Obviously because there is nothing in the movie that supports such a claim!
Remember, the explanation should use all the facts available before it resorts
to introducing speculation.
>No other
> facehugger has shown this property so you're just making stuff up.
This is the first time we've seen a facehugger that can implant a queen;
obviously this makes it different to the ones seen previously so you have no
basis to categorically claim that it's impossible. Besides, the "royal
facehugger" theory is perfectly consistent with Alien 3.
>In fact,
I
> have some proof that there were two huggers. This is somewhat uncanonical,
but
> proves that the creators original intentions were for two huggers; observe
> Star Pics' Alien 3 trading cards numbers 40 and 41, it shows pictures from a
> cut scene of a facehugger with webbed fingers, but the one in the opening
> sequence has no webbing.
If it's uncanonical, it's useless if a better theory ("royal facehugger")
exists.
> >(The "fabric" in the "seeping blood" scene eerily reminds me of bandages;
> >could the facehugger have been attacking [thus the shriek] Hicks after its
> >first victim?)
>
> Shriek? That doesn't sound like anything that would come out of a human
mouth.
That's because it's the facehugger shrieking as it attacks. (Ref: Alien)
>
> [SNIP SNAP]
>
> >Certainly a reasonable explanation can be offered that the facehugger broke
> >thru Ripley's tube. And it's never shown that the facehugger entered
Newt's
> >tube.
>
> No, as I mentioned before, the crack is not there before the bolt explodes,
and
> is visible directly after.
I've explained above why this is an incorrect interpretation of events.
> >It's unsupported in the movie -- THAT is the "final script." If my
> >explanation can account for observations without having to introduce
rejected
> >concepts, then it should be the preferred explanation - it doesn't need the
> >excess baggage you suggest. Besides, you have no evidence that the
director
> >intended to use the crawling queen as an explanation in the final edit -
> >that's why it was left out! And, of course, it conflicts with the
> >observation
> >that Ripley was infected on the Sulaco.
>
> Once again, there are NO definite signs that Ripley was attacked! And I
think
> that my broken glass evidence clears that all up.
The x-ray indicates Ripley; that's pretty definite. I've refuted your broken
glass evidence.
> >> Both tubes were cracked, but again, Ripley's is only cracked towards the
> >end
> >of
> >> the sequence. There are a number of possible explainations as to how
> >Ripley's
> >> tube became cracked (possibly the exploding bolt, whatever it's for), but
> >only
> >> one obvious cause for Newt's tube to be damaged.
> >
> >It's shown to be BROKEN at the end during an EXTERNAL shot. Previous shots
> >of
> >her are from WITHIN the tube (there are no external reflections) and Newt's
> >tube is never shown broken -- only cracked.
>
> Once again, see above.
Once again, see above. :)
> >> My theories are taken from both the FINAL script, and inferences, the
> >> difference is that it is easier to explain.
> >
> >It's only "easier" because it's a simple explanation, similar to invoking
an
> >act of god. This in no way makes it a better theory if it doesn't satisfy
> >all
> >the facts.
>
> What facts doesn't it satisfy?
The chain of events that indicate Ripley - not Newt - was infected.
>And now that I think of it, your theory
doesn't
> support all the facts, like how the facehugger reach Ripley when her tube
> wasn't damaged until the bolt exploded.
The scene where the facehugger breaches Ripley's tube occurs between the
cracking of Newt's tube and the acid eating the floor scenes. It is not shown
because the director is forcing you to incorrectly believe Newt was infected.
But as stated above, the correct interpretation of the scene of Ripley shown
with no broken glass (glass not shown, period) is the key to understanding the
puzzle. (Of course, the x-ray is also proof it's Ripley.)
> >>Actually, there is another
> >> perfectly plausible theory, that may be simpler than the "Crawling
Queen";
> >> what if there were really three eggs?
> >
> >That would be introducing another "out of the blue" explanation like the
> >crawling queen so that theory should be rejected.
>
> Out of the blue? If there were two eggs, why not three?
No evidence for two eggs; not necessary to explain the events; no need to
create a more complicated explanation.
> >As mentioned above, both Burke and Bishop disobeyed the plan. Since the
egg
> >didn't get on board the Sulaco by itself and the queen didn't have time or
> >the
> >means to lay the egg, who's the only person who had the means to do it?
One
> >guess.
>
> Gee, I'm guessing the one who created the eggs, you guessed it, the Queen!
She
> wouldn't be able to separate from her ovipositor if she couldn't still lay
> eggs, otherwise everytime she had to move for some reason, she'd have to
wait
> for who knows how long for a giant maggot to grow out her rear.
Well, isn't it the idea that she lays her eggs all at once?
> >> Sure, it's not the end-all, be-all explaination, but when there is no
clear
> >> explaination given by the movie, then I feel it is safe to start
borrowing
> >> theories from reasonable sources such as final scripts, as long as they
> >don't
> >> interfere with what is portrayed in the movie. It's alot better than
> >making
> >up
> >> your own possible scenarios.
> >
> >I vehemently disagree. All the "reasonable sources" contradict the final
> >cut.
> > If you come up with a theory that is consistent with all the facts in the
> >movie, it's superior to what's contained in old, rejected scripts.
> It doesn't contradict with anything!!! And it's not an old script, it was
the
> FINAL shooting script.
People keep referring to "final shooting script" like it's supposed to be
sacred/biblical or something. There's a good reason why the "final script"
doesn't agree with the movie script: the story CHANGED in the final edit!
Get over it, people!
> Unlike
> >you, I'm not one to tolerate contradictions. I enjoy the thrill of the
> >challenge.
> >
> >It seems the opening is purposefully puzzling because the director wants
the
> >audience to believe Newt was attacked, only to surprise us later with the
> >revelation that it was actually Ripley. Once we realize it was Ripley, not
> >Newt, then we can go back and make sense of the opening within the context
of
> >the entire trilogy. My theory attempts this without resorting to rejected
> >concepts like a crawling or egg-lugging queen. Such an internally
consistent
> >theory is more satsifying than its non-canonical competitors.
>
> I agree that they were trying to create the mystery, and that they actually
> tried to change it so that Ripley was attacked. But they could only work
with
> the scenes that they shot, and thus there were several holes that made this
> scenario impossible.
Not impossible but totally explainable according to my theory. The director
did a superb job of cleverly deceiving the audience; in fact most people on
this newsgroup today are still fooled. :)
> "Bishop Did It" simply doesn't cut it, he didn't have the opportunity to do
it.
> If he did it before the dropship crash, he would have had to get past Ferro
> and that other guy (I don't feel like fast forwarding through the movie to
> check), and wouldn't have had the time to get all the way up to the Sulaco
> (I've heard estimates of over an hour).
Since we're only speculating here, Bishop could have radioed down the APC-2
and did it all himself, or Ferro and Spunkmeyer could have been in on the plan
and assisted Bishop. Two-way trip would have been less than an hour.
>If he did it while Ripley was
rescuing
> Newt, he wouldn't have had the time to reach the Sulaco, and wouldn't have
the
> chance to move the eggs off of the dropship.
I suspect the egg was already retrieved by this time.
Here's another scenario: Bishop stowed away the egg on the APC-2, queen
hitches ride to Sulaco, queen discovers the egg, wanders off and plants it
somewhere on board. I guess this is the "both Bishop and Queen did it"
theory. :)
> So, what evidence do you have that doesn't require Ripley's tube to be
broken
> by a facehugger (which it obviously wasn't)?
None, because the evidence indicates it was indeed broken by a facehugger!
BJ
My 2 cents in adjusted dollars.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
Anonymous
On Sun, 22 Feb 1998 13:14:37 -0600, umto...@cc.umanitoba.ca wrote:
>Go to http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~umtoddbj/xray.htm, point your mouse at a
>few spots where you say the neckline is "as plain as day", and send me or post
>the coordinates shown in the status bar of your browser.
321,346. And before you try to say it's the tail, I believe the end
of the tail is shown at 252,309. Furthermore, the tail of the
facehugger on Kane in the first film didn't coil around his neck more
than once either.
>For whatever reason the x-rays are above the neck only; they do not show any
>bones in the person's neck or chest. You can clearly see the shadows of the
>musculature of her upper body which is too well developed to be that of Newt.
Or the shirt itself could be obscuring the shadows (assuming ANYTHING
can inferred about the person's musculature in that scene, which I
doubt).
>Like I'm making up all this, right? I'm beginning to wonder if your laserdisc
>contains different scenes than my tape? In this scene you can clearly see
>Hicks in the foreground, the middle tube sliding into place is Ripley's, and
>the vacant slot in the background nearest the hatch is Newt's which hasn't
>been loaded yet.
That wasn't Hicks in the foreground, it was Ripley. You can clearly
see the curvature of her breast in the light, her bare midriff and her
panties. The tube sliding down contained Newt and the next slot over
was vacant because the tube to the other side of Newt's was obviously
unoccupied and therefore didn't need to be jettisoned to safety with
the others.
>This orientation is the reverse of the tubes in the
>cryogenic compartment in the Sulaco, and the same orientation as the scene
>after the crash in the ocean.
No argument here.
> In the scene where the tube comes to a jarring
>halt, you can clearly see Ripley's dark hair and her t-shirt. Do you want me
>to put up those pictures too on my website for your benefit?
Please do.
>Btw: Is the facehugger on Newt in whatever picture you're look at?
No.
>Big deal. You can always find isolated bits of old scripts that fit the final
>cut. The "final script" deliberately leaves the opening a mystery as to who
>is infected.
For the OBVIOUS reason that they didn't want to give a major plot
point away so early in the film. Rather than have us know beforehand
that the queen crawled out of Newt and into Ripley, they wanted the
audience to watch the autopsy scene with suspense and think, "Oh no,
they're going to open the little girl's chest and the alien will pop
out!" And when that DIDN'T happen, they wanted the audience to say,
"So where did it go?" They didn't change anything, they just omitted
certain details to give us more surprises (in a film which had so few
others).
>What it doesn't explain is how the crawling queen got into
>Ripley's undamaged cryotube.
Ripley's tube WAS damaged by then. The script explains that it
crawled into Ripley's mouth AFTER the EEV crashed when Newt drowned.
Anyone with eyes can see there was a big gaping hole in Ripley's tube
for it to crawl inside.
>It doesn't even indicate a "stasis interrupted"
>emergency; Ripley's sleeping peacefully. Yeah, this makes a lot of sense and
>doesn't contradict the movie.
Your point? The script didn't have Ripley waking up after the queen
crawled down her throat either. I see no conflict.
>Then Hill must have told him to do "dick" because the so-called final script
>is hardly congruent with the film editing.
True, but the film's opening sequence features no CHANGES, just an
omission (for the reasons I stated above).
>> Because the facehugger DIDN'T crack Ripley's tube. The exploding bolt
>> did.
>
>This speculation isn't even supported in the final script.
Actually, the sights and sounds in the film make this even clearer
than the script does.
>No, it shows Ripley from a vantage point INSIDE her cryotube - we don't see
>the glass, there are no reflections.
Both shots are taken from an identical vantage point because the
distance from her face remains constant. If the first shot were taken
iinside the tube, her face would have been closer to the camera.
> Whenever we see Ripley from a vantage
>point outside her cryotube, we either see the outside of the tube or
>reflections on the glass.
There was no reflection shown on the glass in either scene.
>At this point we don't know what the state of the
>glass is. My theory maintains the glass was already broken because the x-ray
>was of Ripley, and the facehugger had left to attack Hicks.
Then you're theory is wrong because her tube was demonstrably broken
after the x-ray scene.
>This is also
>consistent with how the opening intentionally misleads the viewer into
>believing Newt was infected. Your final script also makes the victim unknown
>initially.
To preserve suspense, not to mislead anyone.
>Correct - "shattered". Assuming what you said is true, why do we not see
>impact, dust, or broken shards on Ripley; the shot of Ripley IMMEDIATELY after
>the exploding bolt not only has no evidence that the bolt caused the broken
>glass, we can hear the sound of the debris - not glass -- falling in the
>chamber - ie., the hole in the glass exists prior to the explosion even
>settling.
Hmm...
1) Tube glass intact...
2) Bolt explodes, sounds of shattering glass are heard...
3) Tube glass broken.
It doesn't take a veteran detective to figure this one out.
>If a theory that fits the existing facts, has not yet been shown to be
>contradictory, and is the simplest by Ockham's Razor (no new theory - crawling
>queen - is introduced) is your idea of "unsupported", then there's not much
>point of discussing this any further.
The crawling queen is neither a theory nor is it mine, it's both in
the script and non-contradictory.
>If your belief in the validity of
>rejected concepts from a contradictory old script is the only way Alien 3
>makes sense to you, good for you.
Nothing about the script's description of the scene in question is
contradictory with the end product.
>I apologize that my point wasn't more clear; it was that you're selectively
>choosing concepts from the old script to explain events you don't understand
>in the final cut while conveniently ignoring the contradictions between the
>two mediums.
Where the two contradict, I go with the movie. Where they don't
contradict each other, the script remains valid.
StyxLethe
I think that the point is that this quasi, mythos-defying scene with
the royal queen leaving Newt and entering Ripley didn't make it.
Regardless of the scripted extensions, this scene was not used
because of its implausible reasoning. So, look, it is a damn good
thing the director didn't assume we were all dumbasses, but its
a shame he didn't anticipate us arguing about it in a newsgroup
years later.
Newborn 0
>
>The webbed fingered facehugger was supposed to be the one that infected the
>ox,
>and the ox burster scene was filmed and scrapped. If we should go by what
>your
>saying, then we should have both an ox burster and a dog burster running
>around
>the whole prison complex as well as a Queen alien on the way.
Hmm, now that would have made a good movie:
Moo,
Woof,
Hisssssssssss.
Okay, I rechecked the sequence when the dog sees the facehugger, and there are
no webs (damn!). However, this isn't proof that there were not two
facehuggers, just that the two were similar in appearance. All that the
"Aquatic Facehugger" proves is that the original intention of the creators was
multiple facehuggers.
What I'm saying, is that whoever put one egg on the Sulaco, could have just as
easily put two, or more. We can prove that somebody was capable of putting an
egg on the Sulaco, but we can't prove that one facehugger can make two
impregnations.
[Insert witty slogan]
--NEWBORN
William Miller
In article <19980218064...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
newb...@aol.com (Newborn 0) wrote:
>
>
> Oh by the way, thank you. I've been wondering how to spell Ockham's Razor.
>
Its OCCAM's razor!!
--
The truth, of course, is that the universe is playing God with dice.
Steve Powell
Richard Tibbetts wrote:
> "Adam Shaw" <cybe...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >and
> >> who knows how fire resistant Bishop was?
> >Probably not as fire resistant as you think. Remember that Ash was flamed
> >pretty easily in "Alien"
>
> "Those older models always were pretty flakey"
>
Nice how he had managed to have a shower, changed his clothes and got back to
pick up Ripley in such a short time....
(enough sarcasm, I think - and no offence meant ;-))
Bishop showed no signs of being near a fire (and the nest was lit up quite
nicely after Ripley had been through!), so I still can not see how he could
have 'nipped down to a lower entrance' to acquire some eggs after Ripley had
been through! I also do not see him having done this before hand, though it is
not impossible - but when did he do this, where did he store the eggs while
awaiting the second dropship, and why was he not seen moving them? The eggs are
quite large!
I'm sorry, I still believe that the Queen - who is the source of the eggs after
all - laid them while she was either in transit from the planet or while Ripley
was getting into the Power loader. Even then, I'd still say it was during
transit - Bishop was still active and the Queen was hunting Newt while Ripley
was out of the way. Neither Newt or Bishop mentioned anything about the Queen
laying eggs.
And sorry - Bishop was somewhat limited in his movement after he had been torn
in two by the Queen - I some how doubt he could have planted or moved the eggs
after returning to the ship.
This is just my view, of cause, and I do welcome evidence ot the contrary - I
just have not encountered any that convinces me as yet.
> ;-)
> --
> Richard Tibbetts
> http://www.ppeace.demon.co.uk/
Steve Powell ;-)
Richard Tibbetts
Steve Powell <in5...@wlv.ac.uk> wrote:
>Richard Tibbetts wrote:
>
>> "Adam Shaw" <cybe...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >and
>> >> who knows how fire resistant Bishop was?
>> >Probably not as fire resistant as you think. Remember that Ash was flamed
>> >pretty easily in "Alien"
>>
>> "Those older models always were pretty flakey"
>>
>
>Nice how he had managed to have a shower, changed his clothes and got back to
>pick up Ripley in such a short time....
>
>(enough sarcasm, I think - and no offence meant ;-))
>
>Bishop showed no signs of being near a fire (and the nest was lit up quite
>nicely after Ripley had been through!), so I still can not see how he could
>have 'nipped down to a lower entrance' to acquire some eggs after Ripley had
>been through!
It *could* have happened - remember how fast he was with the knife?
He could have put on a spacesuit pretty fast, I'd guess, which would
have protected him pretty well.
Why (apart from the obvious reason of drama!) were the lifts "up" when
Ripley got back with Newt? Could they have carried Bishop plus eggs
up to another platform?
>I also do not see him having done this before hand, though it is
>not impossible - but when did he do this, where did he store the eggs while
>awaiting the second dropship, and why was he not seen moving them? The eggs are
>quite large!
>
>I'm sorry, I still believe that the Queen - who is the source of the eggs after
>all - laid them while she was either in transit from the planet or while Ripley
>was getting into the Power loader. Even then, I'd still say it was during
>transit - Bishop was still active and the Queen was hunting Newt while Ripley
>was out of the way. Neither Newt or Bishop mentioned anything about the Queen
>laying eggs.
They could have been laid in the undercarriage bay, whilst on the trip
up.
>
>And sorry - Bishop was somewhat limited in his movement after he had been torn
>in two by the Queen - I some how doubt he could have planted or moved the eggs
>after returning to the ship.
>
>This is just my view, of cause, and I do welcome evidence ot the contrary - I
>just have not encountered any that convinces me as yet.
Actually, I don't believe it, either. What really happened was a
committee designed script for A3.
umto...@cc.umanitoba.ca
In article <34f0bed1...@news.earthlink.net>,
No, I've always stated my THEORY is consistent with the FACTS of the
movie without resorting to CRAPPY concepts in scripts the director REJECTED.
BJ
My 2 cents in adjusted dollars
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
Wmvrrvrrmm
In article <19980223040...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, newb...@aol.com
(Newborn 0) writes:
> All that the
>"Aquatic Facehugger" proves is that the original intention of the creators
>was
>multiple facehuggers.
There was to be one facehugger and they decided to get rid of the interesting
new one and have one that isn't too far removed from the original.
umto...@cc.umanitoba.ca
In article <34F16E0F...@wlv.ac.uk>,
Steve Powell <in5...@wlv.ac.uk> wrote:
<SNIP>
> Nice how he had managed to have a shower, changed his clothes and got back
to
> pick up Ripley in such a short time....
>
> (enough sarcasm, I think - and no offence meant ;-))
>
> Bishop showed no signs of being near a fire (and the nest was lit up quite
> nicely after Ripley had been through!), so I still can not see how he could
> have 'nipped down to a lower entrance' to acquire some eggs after Ripley had
is
> not impossible - but when did he do this, where did he store the eggs while
> awaiting the second dropship, and why was he not seen moving them? The eggs
are
> quite large!
He might have acquired an egg while the marines went searching for the
colonists; he could have used the APC-2 to transport the egg up by himself or
perhaps Ferro and Spunkmeyer were in on it and assisted him with the APC-1.
He might also have found an egg somewhere else, such as hidden around the
medlab. This is only speculation so don't come down hard on me; I'm just
suggesting it was possible -- I don't have the "smoking gun".
Another possibility is after acquiring the egg, he hid it, then picked it up
with the APC-2 while waiting for Ripley to return with Newt.
> I'm sorry, I still believe that the Queen - who is the source of the eggs
after
> all - laid them while she was either in transit from the planet or while
Ripley
> was getting into the Power loader. Even then, I'd still say it was during
> transit - Bishop was still active and the Queen was hunting Newt while
Ripley
> was out of the way. Neither Newt or Bishop mentioned anything about the
Queen
> laying eggs.
She didn't lay them during transit because the egg is shown to be on the
Sulaco -- not the APC-2 -- in the opening of A3. And its hard to imagine when
or how she did it on the Sulaco.
> And sorry - Bishop was somewhat limited in his movement after he had been
torn
> in two by the Queen - I some how doubt he could have planted or moved the
eggs
> after returning to the ship.
Agreed. It had to have been done before that. Or maybe it was a team effort:
Bishop brought it aboard the APC-2, but the queen carried aboard the Sulaco!
But I don't quite buy that.
> This is just my view, of cause, and I do welcome evidence ot the contrary -
I
> just have not encountered any that convinces me as yet.
Good for you. Just as I haven't found any convincing evidence that the queen
was able to place the egg on the Sulaco all by herself.
umto...@cc.umanitoba.ca
In article <34EF86ED...@hotmail.com>,
harry lime <orson...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> i would like to settle this bishop ii thing once and for all.
> i know that the novelisation cannot be taken as canon because it is a
novelisation and
> is flawed, (ie ox vs rottweiler), however both the novelisation and lance
henriksen
> have both stated that this character, listed as bishop ii in the credits,
was infact
> MICHAEL BISHOP the creator of the bishop model android and was an evil HUMAN
company
> MAN.
If you're observant, you'll notice that after Bishop II gets belted in the
head near the end of the movie, his left ear is dislocated from his head.
This is enough evidence to suspect Bishop II was actually a synth of the same
series of Bishop. Note that Bishop II repeats the same line Bishop and Ash
have both said: "Marvelous speciman."
<SNIPPETY-DOO-DAH>
> which brings me back to the point of my last post which is that although it
is not
> explained in the script or in the novelisation, i suggest that the egg on
board was
> squirted at the wall as a small 'spore' by the queen when ripley was getting
into the
> powerloader, and grew to maturity in the following months unnoticed by the
dreaming
> survivors. think about it the queen uses an ovipositor to give these eggs
the acidic
> goodness they need to grow, but they could possibly grow on their own once
spored.
> i also remeber the egg being orange which supports the "royal face hugger"
and "single
> egg" theories.
Another "off the wall" theory! ;) (I couldn't resist)
umto...@cc.umanitoba.ca
In article <wsmiii-2302...@clv-oh39-51.ix.netcom.com>,
wsm...@ix.netcom.com (William Miller) wrote:
>
> > Oh by the way, thank you. I've been wondering how to spell Ockham's
Razor.
> >
>
> Its OCCAM's razor!!
You are so wrong! It was suggested by William of Ockham (15th century).
>
> --
> The truth, of course, is that the universe is playing God with dice.
>
How about dice is playing god with the uninverse?
Brad Stratton
Why don't we simply wait until Alien 5? They said that the mystery of the
Sulaco's eggs will be answered.
In article <34ecf168.138795705@gateway> ric...@ppeace.demon.co.uk (Richard
Tibbetts) writes:>Path:
news3.cac.psu.edu!newsserver.jvnc.net!newsserver2.jvnc.net!news-xfer.netaxs.com
!news-peer.gip.net!news-lond.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!dispose.news.demon.ne
t!demon!news.demon.co.uk!demon!ppeace.demon.co.uk!not-for-mail>From:
ric...@ppeace.demon.co.uk (Richard Tibbetts)>Newsgroups:
alt.cult-movies.alien>Subject: Re: Eggs on Sulaco>Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998
08:48:18 GMT>Organization: primepeace ltd - independent cyborg
consultancy>Message-ID: <34ecf168.138795705@gateway>>References:
<34EA74...@ix.netcom.com> <19980218064...@ladder03.news.aol.com>
<34ebbeff...@news.earthlink.net>>NNTP-Posting-Host:
ppeace.demon.co.uk>X-NNTP-Posting-Host: ppeace.demon.co.uk
[158.152.75.77]>X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Lines: 9
>unk...@unknown.net (Anonymous) wrote:
>[...]
>>I think the "Bishop did it" theory is bullshit too.
>Too true. The scriptwriters did it ;-)
William Miller
> > Its OCCAM's razor!!
>
> You are so wrong! It was suggested by William of Ockham (15th century).
Slow down - I looked into it, and found that *both* spellings are in use.
Example: The Encyclopedia Brittanica has an entry entitled, "Ockham,
William (William of Occam)." And, BTW, he was 13th-14th century (1280 -
1349).
Looking for references to the eponymous razor, I see both spellings, with
"Occam's Razor" somewhat more frequent.
> > The truth, of course, is that the universe is playing God with dice.
>
> How about dice is playing god with the uninverse?
>
Either construction may be operating at any given time. Which one is
irreducibly random, however.
Anonymous
On Mon, 23 Feb 1998 13:45:54 -0600, umto...@cc.umanitoba.ca wrote:
>No, I've always stated my THEORY is consistent with the FACTS of the
>movie without resorting to CRAPPY concepts in scripts the director REJECTED.
No, your theory isn't consistent with the movie because the footage
itself supports the FACT that Newt was impregnated, but you're to
stubborn to admit it.
Anonymous
On Mon, 23 Feb 1998 18:55:02, bms...@NITTANY.psu.edu (Brad Stratton)
wrote:
>Why don't we simply wait until Alien 5? They said that the mystery of the
>Sulaco's eggs will be answered.
"Still sounds like bullshit to me." - Dillon, Alien 3
Great, I can't wait to hear what outlandish explanation Joss "The
Hack" Whedon will come up with...
Anonymous
On Mon, 23 Feb 1998 17:00:34 -0600, umto...@cc.umanitoba.ca wrote:
>He might have acquired an egg while the marines went searching for the
>colonists; he could have used the APC-2 to transport the egg up by himself or
>perhaps Ferro and Spunkmeyer were in on it and assisted him with the APC-1.
So now Ferro and Spunkmeyer are part of the conspiracy? Pretty soon
you'll be saying Ripley and Newt were behind it all...
BTW, to my knowledge a second APC was never shown, just a second
dropship...
>He might also have found an egg somewhere else, such as hidden around the
>medlab. This is only speculation so don't come down hard on me; I'm just
>suggesting it was possible -- I don't have the "smoking gun".
Oh brother...
>Another possibility is after acquiring the egg, he hid it, then picked it up
>with the APC-2 while waiting for Ripley to return with Newt.
Sigh
>She didn't lay them during transit because the egg is shown to be on the
>Sulaco -- not the APC-2 -- in the opening of A3. And its hard to imagine when
>or how she did it on the Sulaco.
How about immediately AFTER the dropship landed on the Sulaco and
BEFORE Ripley and Bishop disembarked? She could have gotten down from
the landing gear, planted an egg, and returned to her hiding place on
the landing gear in case that pesky human bitch was still armed with
her flamethrower.
>Good for you. Just as I haven't found any convincing evidence that the queen
>was able to place the egg on the Sulaco all by herself.
See above. She definitely had the time, but whether she was still
physically able to produce a viable egg is the question. However, I'd
sooner believe that the queen was responsible for the "mystery egg" in
Alien 3 than the Bishop/Gorman/USCMC/Company conspiracy theory.
Anonymous
On Mon, 23 Feb 1998 17:12:30 -0600, umto...@cc.umanitoba.ca wrote:
>If you're observant, you'll notice that after Bishop II gets belted in the
>head near the end of the movie, his left ear is dislocated from his head.
>This is enough evidence to suspect Bishop II was actually a synth of the same
>series of Bishop. Note that Bishop II repeats the same line Bishop and Ash
>have both said: "Marvelous speciman."
Also note the redness of the wound, implying human blood.
Steve Powell
Anonymous wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Feb 1998 17:00:34 -0600, umto...@cc.umanitoba.ca wrote:
>
> >He might have acquired an egg while the marines went searching for the
> >colonists; he could have used the APC-2 to transport the egg up by himself or
> >perhaps Ferro and Spunkmeyer were in on it and assisted him with the APC-1.
>
> So now Ferro and Spunkmeyer are part of the conspiracy? Pretty soon
> you'll be saying Ripley and Newt were behind it all...
>
> BTW, to my knowledge a second APC was never shown, just a second
> dropship...
(APC = Armoured Personnel Carrier).
The 'conspiracy' theory is not too far fetched - except for the reactions of the
Marines when Burk failed to implant Ripley & Newt - if I remember correctly,
Vasquez was just a little upset and Ripley made the point that ALL the marines
would have been expendable. No one came out with an admission about the mission
objectives being to recover specimens at any time (which would have been likely -
especially from Hicks if he had known).
The best answer to this that I can see would be that Burk had his own agenda,
Bishop was fact finding and saw no harm in helping Burk - to a point, Gorman was
considered too inexperienced to see what was going on and the Marines was
expendable (as usual).
> >He might also have found an egg somewhere else, such as hidden around the
> >medlab. This is only speculation so don't come down hard on me; I'm just
> >suggesting it was possible -- I don't have the "smoking gun".
>
> Oh brother...
Thinking back, there were eggs lying around separate from the Queen (possibly the
drones move them to where hosts are secured?). The problem with Bishop stumbling
across them is that the Marines were even more likely to have done so first. The
argument that Bishop went off on his own to find eggs does also have another flaw -
how did he know where to look? No one knew where the colonists were, or where the
nest was until the Marines went into the atmospheric processor. Another possibility
is after acquiring the egg, he hid it, then picked it up
> >with the APC-2 while waiting for Ripley to return with Newt.
>
> Sigh
Some one mentioned an Hour plus turn around time for the surface to Sulaco trip.
Ripley had substantially less time than that to get Newt. As far as I can see -
there simply was not sufficient time for Bishop to get the second drop ship down,
get the egg onto the drop ship, fly up to the Sulaco, secure the egg, return to the
surface and pick up the survivors.
> >She didn't lay them during transit because the egg is shown to be on the
> >Sulaco -- not the APC-2 -- in the opening of A3. And its hard to imagine when
> >or how she did it on the Sulaco.
>
> How about immediately AFTER the dropship landed on the Sulaco and
> BEFORE Ripley and Bishop disembarked? She could have gotten down from
> the landing gear, planted an egg, and returned to her hiding place on
> the landing gear in case that pesky human bitch was still armed with
> her flamethrower.
The Queen was depicted to being intelligent and fast. The only point I have here is
- could the name 'Sulaco' have been stencilled inside the Drop ship? The reason why
it may have been done is in case of a crash. If both Drop ships had the name of the
mother ship stencilled on their hull somewhere, it would make identification that
much easier. This is just a thought, and may contribute to understanding where the
egg(s) came from and who placed them there. (It will require some reviewing of A3
and Aliens to spot other clues - and yes - my VCR is still dead so I'll have to
wait until I get it up and running to check myself (sulk))
> >Good for you. Just as I haven't found any convincing evidence that the queen
> >was able to place the egg on the Sulaco all by herself.
>
> See above. She definitely had the time, but whether she was still
> physically able to produce a viable egg is the question. However, I'd
> sooner believe that the queen was responsible for the "mystery egg" in
> Alien 3 than the Bishop/Gorman/USCMC/Company conspiracy theory.
I have to agree with the Queen theory. It does make the most sense (to me). Here
are a couple of other notes : the colour of the egg may just be camouflage, not
just some special depiction of a Royal Face hugger.
Also - if the Queen laid a 'Royal' egg, it would suggest that she expected to die -
especially if it was the only egg she laid. Most hive communities only permit one
Queen, and only generate a new Queen for populating a new hive / replacing a dead
Queen.
Just a moment.....
Alien. One infected host - no Queen. Drone is taken off planet, does not convert to
a Queen, gets killed after 'killing' most of the crew. (Original story had the
Drone laying eggs and infecting the captured crew if memory serves - this seemed to
get dropped from the film - ref: Alien the book).
Aliens. Queen introduced as egg layer.
Alien3. 'Royal' Face hugger theory introduced.
Questions have been asked about where the Alien Queen came from in Aliens.
Hypothesis 1:
Queen already existed on crashed spaceship - may be in hibernation or similar. Gets
woken up by active drone from Newts father (pheromones could cause this) or by the
disturbance from the colonists. Crew from Alien were not around long enough to wake
the hive, or were gone by the time the hive became active, so it went back to
'sleep'. In Aliens, Queen moves nest to the processor after it is woken up.
Hypothesis 2 :
Even if Newts Father 'birthed' a Drone, the Drone could have snatched one or more
colonists and taken them to the crashed spaceship (the original hive) for
impregnation, selected a 'Royal' egg for one of the colonists and the new hive
moved closer to the source of hosts.
Both Hypothesis require some assumptions, but....
Just a sec, Burk knew about the eggs in the crashed spaceship - from Rilpey! He
could have persuaded Ferro or Bishop (or both) to collect some eggs from there
before their significance was known. Hmm.. it would have to have been Bishop -
Ferro and Spunkmere would have run the risk of infection. No, don't work - the eggs
would have hatched and you would have had face huggers running around all over the
place! Either that, or they would have been destroyed when the Drop ship crashed,
and if the Drop ship had been absent (due to returning the eggs to the Sulaco), it
would have been noted and commented upon.
Ah well! back to the Queen theory! ;-)
By the way - is it just me or are we trying to sort out continuity for the film
producers?
Steve Powell
harry lime
THANKYOU! thankyou very much, finally someone else notices the BLOOD, which seeing
as call still has the white gunky fluid flowing in her 'veins' suggests that
bishop ii is in fact the human he says he is.
you'd be suprised at the gorey violence a human body can sustain and still
function.
harry lime - sydney
Steve Powell
On Sun, 22 Feb 1998 13:14:37 -0600, umto...@cc.umanitoba.ca wrote:>Go to http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~umtoddbj/xray.htm, point your mouse at a
>few spots where you say the neckline is "as plain as day", and send me or post
>the coordinates shown in the status bar of your browser.321,346. And before you try to say it's the tail, I believe the end
of the tail is shown at 252,309. Furthermore, the tail of the
facehugger on Kane in the first film didn't coil around his neck more
than once either.
>For whatever reason the x-rays are above the neck only; they do not show any
>bones in the person's neck or chest. You can clearly see the shadows of the
>musculature of her upper body which is too well developed to be that of Newt.Or the shirt itself could be obscuring the shadows (assuming ANYTHING
can inferred about the person's musculature in that scene, which I
doubt).
<Snippity snip!>
>Big deal. You can always find isolated bits of old scripts that fit the final
>cut. The "final script" deliberately leaves the opening a mystery as to who
>is infected.For the OBVIOUS reason that they didn't want to give a major plot
point away so early in the film. Rather than have us know beforehand
that the queen crawled out of Newt and into Ripley, they wanted the
audience to watch the autopsy scene with suspense and think, "Oh no,
they're going to open the little girl's chest and the alien will pop
out!" And when that DIDN'T happen, they wanted the audience to say,
"So where did it go?" They didn't change anything, they just omitted
certain details to give us more surprises (in a film which had so few
others).
In honesty, I think the argument over what was considered for the film and what they put into the film is a little confusing. I have not read the script, only seen the film, and so I base my deductions on what they put into the film. If a 'Directors Cut' or other release shows I'm wrong, then so be it, but to quote a script is a little unfair - who knows which version of the script is being quoted after all - or what changes were made at editing.
I know I make reference to the book for Alien, but I believe that I had questioned the validity of what the book said against what is shown in the film and sequels.
Steve Powell.
John Bingham
In article <34F2BEFA...@hotmail.com>, harry lime
<orson...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> you'd be suprised at the gorey violence a human body can sustain and still
> function.
> harry lime - sydney
Uhh what are you trying to tell us? ;)
John.....
--
_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|
_| john.b...@ucl.ac.uk _| _|
_| http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~regojpb/ _| For adult humour with a surreal edge _|
_|Tel. 0171-636 8333 x3418 _| come to the Virtual Viz Vault _|
_|Fax. 0171-436 2956 _| _|
_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|
Randy Vice
On Tue 24-Feb-1998 11:58a, in5...@wlv.ac.uk wrote:
<snip>
i> The Queen was depicted to being intelligent and fast. The only point I
i> have here is
i> - could the name 'Sulaco' have been stencilled inside the Drop ship? The
i> reason why
i> it may have been done is in case of a crash. If both Drop ships had the
i> name of the
i> mother ship stencilled on their hull somewhere, it would make
i> identification that much easier.
It probably wasn't for any type of post crash IDing. Figure that at times,
Marines would be enterring via air locks so the Marines couldn't see any name
outside of the dropship. Having the ship's name stencilled on the inside
would be ideal way for the individual Marines to IDing their assigned
dropships from other dropships.
<snip>
i> By the way - is it just me or are we trying to sort out continuity for the
i> film producers?
Oh yeah. They get paid millions, and we get crappy movies. <sigh>
: damo...@nostromo.gate.net : Bruce Morrow,a man before and after his time:
:"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the :
:United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." :
: - Samuel Adams : Morrow Project Science - Post-holocaust Party Animals! :
Anonymous
On Tue, 24 Feb 1998 14:07:07 +0000, Steve Powell <in5...@wlv.ac.uk>
wrote:
>I've had a look and it does look like the Face hugger's tail wrapped around the
>neck twice, though only loosely wrapped. First time starts 258, 277 ends 409, 273
>(approx), second time starts 240, 306 ends somewhere around 414, 316. I also think
>you'll find that the Face hugger in Alien wrapped it's tail around Kane's neck
>several times - take a look at when the tail tightens - it acts like a constrictor
>and seems to be several loops tightening and moving against itself. Also, if the
>tail was that short (and it is not - take a look at other shots of the Face huggers
>in Aliens, their tails are long enough to wrap around a neck several times over),
>removing the tail would have been easy. Having the end of the tail wrap around
>under itself makes removing the tail so much harder.
Take a look at the images at my site:
http://home.earthlink.net/~edp1/alien.html
>I don't think that the picture IS an x-ray - there are no bones visible at all,
>even in the exposed section of the neck. No collar bones, nothing. Might it be that
>the unit is a multifunction system and was in 'Idle' mode pending use for
>diagnostics - just a suggestion.
The closeup scene immediately following the "neckline" scene shows the
skull of the victim so it IS an x-ray.
>Besides, I would have thought a T-shirt would
>stand out a little more from the body - especially when at rest. The outline of the
>figure seems to be consistent with bare flesh.
Alternate theory: perhaps you're right about it being bare flesh and
the tail coiling around the victim's neck more than once, meaning the
neck in question would still have to be significantly thinner than
Kane's (i.e. that of a little girl's--Newt). It definitely wasn't
Ripley since her tube wasn't even broken by then...
>Perhaps they didn't expect people to go over stills from the film with a
>microscope? Could it be that they were giving hints, but keeping things open to
>interpretation? Who knows (yes, I know, the director would know, but do we?)?<Lets
>snip again, like we did last summer........> ;-)
Dissection of genre films like this has been going on for years. This
should have come as no surprise to the filmmakers.
>In honesty, I think the argument over what was considered for the film and what
>they put into the film is a little confusing. I have not read the script, only seen
>the film, and so I base my deductions on what they put into the film. If a
>'Directors Cut' or other release shows I'm wrong, then so be it, but to quote a
>script is a little unfair - who knows which version of the script is being quoted
>after all - or what changes were made at editing.
See for yourself:
http://www.godamongdirectors.com/scripts/alien3hill.txt
>I know I make reference to the book for Alien, but I believe that I had questioned
>the validity of what the book said against what is shown in the film and sequels.
I, on the other, considering the book (especially the Alien 3
novelization) apocryphal at best. I'd take the script much sooner...
JuanCompos
I loved Dice in Ford Fairlane...Snapper-head!
Aufwiederlesen ŚŹ)
Ser JuanCompos
JuanCompos
Well...
I was at Blockbuster today inquiring about when they would start renting
DVDs (Within 3 Months) And what did I see but Alien3 Wide Screen
Version... for Sale... $19.95... So I bought it.
Newt was not the one infected.
In later scenes showing the EEV you can see Newt, Drowned, in what
appeared to be a not broken Cryo-tube.
In One scene you see Ripley, In a cryo-tube with a fairly large chuck
broken out of it.
Here's the kicker though.
Aliens:
Shortly after Ripley catches Newt in the ventilation tunnels she finds a
plaque for her SECOND GRADE good-citizenship award or some such crap...
How old are people in 2nd grade? I was 7, how bout y'all?
Alien3:
On the X-ray showing the facehugger the shadows of a human skull can be
seen. As the image is rotated to the left teeth are visible. It is
painfully obvious that there are TWELFTH year molars, It also looks like
there are also wisdom teeth but the image fades out before this can be
clearly determined. What would a 7 year old be doing with 12 year
molars, much less wisdom teeth?
(Caveat: The report says "Unidentified Female... Estimated age: 11"
Though this is still too young for 12 year molars, on average, it could
be possible that she got them early... however... It's obvious Newt was
intelligent so what was she still doing in Second Grade if she was 11?
maybe someone screwed up again...)
Aufwiederlesen ŚŹ)
Ser JuanCompos
Anonymous wrote:
>
> On Tue, 24 Feb 1998 14:07:07 +0000, Steve Powell <in5...@wlv.ac.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >I've had a look and it does look like the Face hugger's tail wrapped around the
> >neck twice, though only loosely wrapped. First time starts 258, 277 ends 409, 273
> >(approx), second time starts 240, 306 ends somewhere around 414, 316. I also think
> >you'll find that the Face hugger in Alien wrapped it's tail around Kane's neck
> >several times - take a look at when the tail tightens - it acts like a constrictor
> >and seems to be several loops tightening and moving against itself. Also, if the
> >tail was that short (and it is not - take a look at other shots of the Face huggers
> >in Aliens, their tails are long enough to wrap around a neck several times over),
> >removing the tail would have been easy. Having the end of the tail wrap around
> >under itself makes removing the tail so much harder.
>
> Take a look at the images at my site:
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~edp1/alien.html
>
> >I don't think that the picture IS an x-ray - there are no bones visible at all,
> >even in the exposed section of the neck. No collar bones, nothing. Might it be that
> >the unit is a multifunction system and was in 'Idle' mode pending use for
> >diagnostics - just a suggestion.
>
> The closeup scene immediately following the "neckline" scene shows the
> skull of the victim so it IS an x-ray.
>
> >Besides, I would have thought a T-shirt would
> >stand out a little more from the body - especially when at rest. The outline of the
> >figure seems to be consistent with bare flesh.
>
> Alternate theory: perhaps you're right about it being bare flesh and
> the tail coiling around the victim's neck more than once, meaning the
> neck in question would still have to be significantly thinner than
> Kane's (i.e. that of a little girl's--Newt). It definitely wasn't
> Ripley since her tube wasn't even broken by then...
>
> >Perhaps they didn't expect people to go over stills from the film with a
> >microscope? Could it be that they were giving hints, but keeping things open to
> >interpretation? Who knows (yes, I know, the director would know, but do we?)?<Lets
> >snip again, like we did last summer........> ;-)
>
> Dissection of genre films like this has been going on for years. This
> should have come as no surprise to the filmmakers.
>
> >In honesty, I think the argument over what was considered for the film and what
> >they put into the film is a little confusing. I have not read the script, only seen
> >the film, and so I base my deductions on what they put into the film. If a
> >'Directors Cut' or other release shows I'm wrong, then so be it, but to quote a
> >script is a little unfair - who knows which version of the script is being quoted
> >after all - or what changes were made at editing.
>
> See for yourself:
>
> http://www.godamongdirectors.com/scripts/alien3hill.txt
>
> >I know I make reference to the book for Alien, but I believe that I had questioned
> >the validity of what the book said against what is shown in the film and sequels.
>
Anonymous
>Newt was not the one infected.
Yes she was.
>In later scenes showing the EEV you can see Newt, Drowned, in what
>appeared to be a not broken Cryo-tube.
Her tube was shown later with massive acid burns and a gaping hole in
the side. Clemens even refers to it as "...the girl's cryotube."
>In One scene you see Ripley, In a cryo-tube with a fairly large chuck
>broken out of it.
Yes, a hole broken in the glass by an exploding bolt, which occurred
AFTER the x-ray scene.
>Alien3:
>On the X-ray showing the facehugger the shadows of a human skull can be
>seen. As the image is rotated to the left teeth are visible. It is
>painfully obvious that there are TWELFTH year molars, It also looks like
>there are also wisdom teeth but the image fades out before this can be
>clearly determined. What would a 7 year old be doing with 12 year
>molars, much less wisdom teeth?
A blooper, most likely. Do you really think x-rayed the girl
actresses skull? I figure it was either computer generated by the SFX
team or they took stock footage of a real x-ray from an older person.
>(Caveat: The report says "Unidentified Female... Estimated age: 11"
>Though this is still too young for 12 year molars, on average, it could
>be possible that she got them early... however... It's obvious Newt was
>intelligent so what was she still doing in Second Grade if she was 11?
>maybe someone screwed up again...)
Molars aside, all the evidence still points to Newt.
Richard Tibbetts
JuanCompos <Zaeb...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
[...]
>Here's the kicker though.
>Aliens:
>Shortly after Ripley catches Newt in the ventilation tunnels she finds a
>plaque for her SECOND GRADE good-citizenship award or some such crap...
>How old are people in 2nd grade? I was 7, how bout y'all?
Maybe it was the last award she got. My kids are still proud of
things they won at school years ago.
Newborn 0
>Here's the kicker though.
>Aliens:
>Shortly after Ripley catches Newt in the ventilation tunnels she finds a
>plaque for her SECOND GRADE good-citizenship award or some such crap...
>How old are people in 2nd grade? I was 7, how bout y'all?
>
>On the X-ray showing the facehugger the shadows of a human skull can be
>seen. As the image is rotated to the left teeth are visible. It is
>painfully obvious that there are TWELFTH year molars, It also looks like
>there are also wisdom teeth but the image fades out before this can be
>clearly determined. What would a 7 year old be doing with 12 year
>molars, much less wisdom teeth?
>
>Though this is still too young for 12 year molars, on average, it could
>be possible that she got them early... however... It's obvious Newt was
>intelligent so what was she still doing in Second Grade if she was 11?
>maybe someone screwed up again...)
Actually, it says "Approximately 12 years old". Some people have taken this to
mean that there is a 6 year period between the two movies. In actuallity,
Carrie Henn (Newt in Aliens) was about 10 years old during filming of Aliens,
which is a lot closer to 12 than 7. Perhaps that citizenship award was old, or
maybe she started school late, maybe she had a growth spurt and whoever filed
the report (most likely Clemens) couldn't tell.
Newt's age isn't really relevant. Although I would like to know Danielle
Edmunds' age when she played Newt in Alien 3.
[Insert witty slogan]
--NEWBORN
Newborn 0
This string is getting difficult to follow. I'm going to CC BJ here. (hope you
don't mind this massive post being dumped in your mailbox)
>In article <19980222114...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
> newb...@aol.com (Newborn 0) wrote:
>> No problem. I believe that the eggs are actually generated in organs
>contained
>> in the Queen's lower abdomen (or anywhere else in the Queen works too).
>They
>> start out small, round, and pale in color (just like the one at the start
>of
>> Alien 3). These immature eggs are pushed out into the egg sac, or as I
>refer
>> to it, the ovipositor. As the eggs push through the ovipositor, they
>recieve
>> nutrients and develop to the proper size (about one meter), shape (ovoid)
>and
>> color (greenish), then get squeezed out the end. It makes sense, that a
>Queen
>> wouldn't need to grow an ovipositor every time she wanted to lay an egg, it
>> just makes the egg more viable to go through the ovipositor.
>
>It could be the egg appears different (debatable; may be due to perspective,
>lighting, etc.) in size and color because it is a different variety -- the
>"royal facehugger". Also, there is no indication that queens lay their eggs
>in anything but batches (Alien, Aliens) so the egg sac is necessary to
>position the eggs. Your idea is interesting but pure speculation -- besides,
>the facehugger doesn't look any smaller.
Granted, but as long as you keep in mind that the difference does not prove it
to be a "Royal Facehugger", which some people claim.
[SNIP]
>> Case is NOT closed! This only proves that it was on the Sulaco. The
>Sulaco
>is
>> one big ship, and while the eggs couldn't be far from the docking bay,
>there's
>> no way to know exactly where.
>
>I just wanted to reaffirm we have a consensus that it was the Sulaco - not
>the
>APC-2.
Dropship, you mean dropship. The Marines refer to the APC wreckage, because
the dropship (at least parts of it) crashed into the Armored Personnel Carrier.
But other than that, absolutely!
>
>> Why couldn't have been the Queen while Ripley was suiting up? At least we
>know
>> for fact that she was on the Sulaco.
>
>She was too busy trying to catch Newt. Of course, if Bishop witnessed it
>happen, he wouldn't tell in my theory - but he should have told Ripley in
>yours!
Good point indeed... but there is still a chance that he missed it. The Queen
still had opportunities to lay at least one (I believe two) clandestine eggs.
[SNIPPY WIPPY]
>> >Ripley: "Just tell me one thing, Burke: you're going out there to
>destroy
>> >them, right? Not to study, not to bring back, but to wipe them out?"
>> >Burke: "That's the plan. You have my word on it."
>> >
>> >Both Burke and Bishop disobeyed the plan. If Burke is scum, shouldn't we
>> >also
>> >suspect Bishop for the reasons I've previously given?
>>
>> But Burke was lying! That wasn't the plan, he just said that to get Ripley
>to
>> come.
>
>Yes. My point is Bishop was taking orders from Burke; Burke's "plan" was
>what
>the marines were operating under. Since Bishop knew the plan, he was
>disobeying orders by working for Burke.
Bishop trusted the Company (maybe that was in his program) not to endanger
lives with the Alien specimens. He just didn't ask questions when he was
ordered by somebody who probably outranked him on basis of species (wouldn't it
be important for a synth to automatically obey humans-- so long as it didn't
violate his prime directives).
>> But we already know that the Queen wanted to impregnate the others, why do
>we
>> have to drag Bishop into this when the Queen explaination is just as (if
>not
>> more) plausible, and doesn't have to guess as to the location of an android
>who
>> hasn't shown any definete evidence that he's a traitor.
>
>I think I've presented more evidence within the context of the storyline that
>shows Bishop is a more likely suspect than inventing a new, non-canonical
>egg-laying method for the queen who had no time anyway.
Yes, but we know the Queen is a villain, we have no definite proof of Bishop's
loyalties. And it's not really a new method of egg-laying, it's just an
expansion on the already established method. Think about it, no scene shows
Bishop anywhere that he would need to be to plant eggs, and you still have to
assume that he was able to capture and lug an egg around. Meanwhile, the Queen
was in all the right places, and you only need one small assumption.
Bishop did it: No proven whereabouts, at least one assumption
Queen did it: Proven wherabouts, one assumption
Ockham's Razor, people!
[SNIPPETY SNIP SNIP SNIP]
>> >Yup, the glass cracks, but it's never shown to be BROKEN like Ripley's;
>>
>> Cracked, broken, that's simantics.
>
>No, it is relevant. A facehugger can only enter a broken - not cracked -
>tube. Broken implies the glass tube can't fulfil its function because it has
>a hole in it.
If the glass is cracked, it could also become broken, just as easily. Besides,
she wouldn't have drowned if the tube didn't have a hole in it for water to
enter.
>
>>BUT I NOW HAVE ABSOLUTE PROOF THAT
>RIPLEY'S
>> TUBE WAS NOT BROKEN BY THE HUGGER. Watch the close-up of Ripley just
>before
>> "Edited by Terry Rawlings", there is no break. Then right after the bolt
>> explodes, there is a jagged white line across the side of her face, the
>same
>> crack as seen in all the following scenes.
>
>Sorry to burst your bubble of absoluteness, but I've previously indicated
>that
>this is an INTERNAL shot (within the tube) of Ripley; we know this because
>there are no reflections on her face. All the other shots of Ripley are
>EXTERNAL (outside the tube); we know this because we either see the perimeter
>of the tube, or reflections of light on the glass covering her face. This
>means that there is no indication that Ripley's tube is NOT broken before the
>exploding bolt scene.
Just before the EEV exits the Sulaco, there is another shot of Ripley, with
broken glass. But there aren't any reflections there either, even though it
may look like that because there is a slow dissolve to the EEV disembarking
(which couldn't not have been reflected, because she is inside the EEV), so I
guess that Ripley simply had a white streak across her face.
Also, if the two shots that sandwich the exploding bolt are from inside and
outside of the glass (which is ludicrous), then why is her head the same size
in both shots? Sorry, but that IS proof that the bolt damaged her tube.
This is how the director manipulates your perception
>of
>events in the opening to force you to believe that Newt was impregnated so
>the
>plot can surprise you later. After the revelation that Ripley was actually
>infected, you can carefully retrace the opening scenes and see how it is
>logically consistent with Ripley - not Newt - being infected.
Originally, in the final script, it is very obvious that Ripley is infected
after Newt is hugged (Crawling Queen Theory). Of course, to provide suspense
and surprise, they changed it (probably after shooting it in a style that would
prove Newt was hugged) so that there is no way to know for sure, but working
from the footage they had, they instead created a hodgepodge of proofs for and
against Newt's infection. Fortunately for me, there is just enough proof to
point towards Newt (such as my recently reaffirmed proof that the explosion
broke the glass).
>
>> the
>> >facehugger decided to attack Ripley instead. Looking at the x-ray, the
>> >shadows on the person's chest area would be consistent with the build of
>> >Ripley (look at the opening scene of her in the cryotube).
>>
>> The build of her chest? This, in a split second of footage?
>
>It doesn't matter if it's a split second, it's still noticeable and
>canonical.
Are you a physiologist? Are you any sort of proffesional trained to determine
the identity of a fuzzy X-ray?
>
>> Sorry. But
>the
>> proof that it was Newt comes in the fact that Ripley's face is shown after
>the
>> X-ray scene-- hugger free.
>
>I've previously indicated that this is of the "royal facehugger" variety
>which
>may be capable of faster impregnations. The scene with the blood seeping and
>the alien shrieking occurs before we see Ripley again; my theory suggests the
>facehugger has finished with implanting the queen in Ripley and is now
>attacking Hicks as the drone host.
It obviously was a "Royal Facehugger", because it had a Queen embryo, but you
can not prove that it had a shorter impregnation period. Also, you can not
prove that the blood scene was the hugger attacking Hicks. Huggers don't make
that noise, if anything it sounded like twisting metal-- like perhaps the
safety support that killed Hicks? That makes a lot more sense.
[SNIPTASTIC]
>> What the...? We do NOT know that this facehugger was capable of multiple
>> impregnations, this is unsupported and is completly speculatory.
>
>No, this is completely consistent with the movie: one egg, one facehugger.
>These are the canonical facts.
YOU WANT TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE MOVIES!?!?!
Try: one facehugger, one embryo!! While no proof exists that a facehugger can
have two embryos or that there were multiple eggs, isn't it simpler to assume
that there was another offscreen egg, rather than try to invent aspects of
Alien reproduction?
>
>>If there
>was
>> one egg, why couldn't there just as easily be two (or more)?
>
>Obviously because there is nothing in the movie that supports such a claim!
>Remember, the explanation should use all the facts available before it
>resorts
>to introducing speculation.
If there was one egg, that means two embryos, which is just resorting to
speculation after the facts from the movies have shown that 1 facehugger=1
embryo.
>>No other
>> facehugger has shown this property so you're just making stuff up.
>
>This is the first time we've seen a facehugger that can implant a queen;
>obviously this makes it different to the ones seen previously so you have no
>basis to categorically claim that it's impossible. Besides, the "royal
>facehugger" theory is perfectly consistent with Alien 3.
No, we can't automatically say it's impossible, but it's completely
unsupported. The very fact that there was even one egg on the Sulaco proves
that there was Alien contamination, supporting the possibility that there were
multiple eggs.
>>In fact,
>I
>> have some proof that there were two huggers. This is somewhat uncanonical,
>but
>> proves that the creators original intentions were for two huggers; observe
>> Star Pics' Alien 3 trading cards numbers 40 and 41, it shows pictures from
>a
>> cut scene of a facehugger with webbed fingers, but the one in the opening
>> sequence has no webbing.
>
>If it's uncanonical, it's useless if a better theory ("royal facehugger")
>exists.
Unless that better theory is unsupported (like yours). Here's a better theory
than all of them: The Company managed to obtain eggs and plant them on the
Sulaco while they were in hypersleep-- Ooops! That's completely unsupported
too!
>> >(The "fabric" in the "seeping blood" scene eerily reminds me of bandages;
>> >could the facehugger have been attacking [thus the shriek] Hicks after its
>> >first victim?)
>>
>> Shriek? That doesn't sound like anything that would come out of a human
>mouth.
>
>That's because it's the facehugger shrieking as it attacks. (Ref: Alien)
Like I said, huggers don't sound like that. Since we know a safety support
collapsed on him, and it sounded like twisting metal, then isn't it logical to
assume that was his grisly demise?
>
>>
>> [SNIP SNAP]
>>
>> >Certainly a reasonable explanation can be offered that the facehugger
>broke
>> >thru Ripley's tube. And it's never shown that the facehugger entered
>Newt's
>> >tube.
>>
>> No, as I mentioned before, the crack is not there before the bolt explodes,
>and
>> is visible directly after.
>
>I've explained above why this is an incorrect interpretation of events.
I've explained above why this is a CORRECT interpretation of events.
[IPSNAY]
>> Once again, there are NO definite signs that Ripley was attacked! And I
>think
>> that my broken glass evidence clears that all up.
>
>The x-ray indicates Ripley; that's pretty definite. I've refuted your broken
>glass evidence.
The identity of the X-ray is entirely your opinion. And I've derefuted(?) my
broken glass evidence.
>
[YET ANOTHER SNIP]
>> >It's shown to be BROKEN at the end during an EXTERNAL shot. Previous
>shots
>> >of
>> >her are from WITHIN the tube (there are no external reflections) and
>Newt's
>> >tube is never shown broken -- only cracked.
>>
>> Once again, see above.
>
>Once again, see above. :)
Once again, see above. :p
>
>> >> My theories are taken from both the FINAL script, and inferences, the
>> >> difference is that it is easier to explain.
>> >
>> >It's only "easier" because it's a simple explanation, similar to invoking
>an
>> >act of god. This in no way makes it a better theory if it doesn't satisfy
>> >all
>> >the facts.
>>
>> What facts doesn't it satisfy?
>
>The chain of events that indicate Ripley - not Newt - was infected.
What events? Okay from the top: Egg is open. Facehugger is seen attacking
Newt's tube, cracking it. Acid causes fire. Voice announces: "Stasis
interrupted. Fire in cryogenic compartment". X-ray of unidentified person
with hugger displays. Blood seeps through fabric while something like twisted
metal is heard. Alarms go off, chemicals automatically inject, Ripley is seen
in heavy REM sleep, brainscan flashes red on someones brain. Bolt explodes.
Ripley is seen again in REM sleep, only the tube is obviously damaged. Flames
are seen flowing across a ceiling, Ripley's tube slides down a tube. Tube
lands and hatch seals. A gear rotates, as if locking the door or something.
Ripley's face is seen through broken tube. Dissolve to EEV exiting the Sulaco
and then falling to the planet's surface.
Duh! I don't see anything that shows that Ripley was attacked.
>
>>And now that I think of it, your theory
>doesn't
>> support all the facts, like how the facehugger reach Ripley when her tube
>> wasn't damaged until the bolt exploded.
>
>The scene where the facehugger breaches Ripley's tube occurs between the
>cracking of Newt's tube and the acid eating the floor scenes. It is not
>shown
>because the director is forcing you to incorrectly believe Newt was infected.
> But as stated above, the correct interpretation of the scene of Ripley shown
>with no broken glass (glass not shown, period) is the key to understanding
>the
>puzzle. (Of course, the x-ray is also proof it's Ripley.)
The X-ray is not proof, because I doubt it was even an X-ray of either actor.
Also, the glass remains unbroken until the explosion, after the X-ray. If you
still claim that the shots before and after the explosion are from different
perspective, then you are grasping at straws, there are no reflections in
proven "through the glass scenes"
[Guess what, SNIP]
>> Out of the blue? If there were two eggs, why not three?
>
>No evidence for two eggs; not necessary to explain the events; no need to
>create a more complicated explanation.
And a special facehugger with two embryos isn't complicated? We know that if
the Queen laid one egg, she could lay more, and if Bishop could carry one egg,
he could carry two.
[SNIP DOGGY DOG]
>She
>> wouldn't be able to separate from her ovipositor if she couldn't still lay
>> eggs, otherwise everytime she had to move for some reason, she'd have to
>wait
>> for who knows how long for a giant maggot to grow out her rear.
>
>Well, isn't it the idea that she lays her eggs all at once?
I don't quite get that. It seems that the queen is indefinitely fertile.
>
>> >> Sure, it's not the end-all, be-all explaination, but when there is no
>clear
>> >> explaination given by the movie, then I feel it is safe to start
>borrowing
>> >> theories from reasonable sources such as final scripts, as long as they
>> >don't
>> >> interfere with what is portrayed in the movie. It's alot better than
>> >making
>> >up
>> >> your own possible scenarios.
>> >
>> >I vehemently disagree. All the "reasonable sources" contradict the final
>> >cut.
>> > If you come up with a theory that is consistent with all the facts in the
>> >movie, it's superior to what's contained in old, rejected scripts.
>> It doesn't contradict with anything!!! And it's not an old script, it was
>the
>> FINAL shooting script.
>
>People keep referring to "final shooting script" like it's supposed to be
>sacred/biblical or something. There's a good reason why the "final script"
>doesn't agree with the movie script: the story CHANGED in the final edit!
>Get over it, people!
No, it's not some holy tome which is invariably right. But the suggested
theories that come from the script do not contradict the final cut, making them
just as valid, and at least somewhat supported. What happened in the final
edit was meant to make Ripley's impregnation unexpected, as opposed to the
Crawling Queen scene that would give away the ending.
>
>
>> Unlike
>> >you, I'm not one to tolerate contradictions. I enjoy the thrill of the
>> >challenge.
>> >
>> >It seems the opening is purposefully puzzling because the director wants
>the
>> >audience to believe Newt was attacked, only to surprise us later with the
>> >revelation that it was actually Ripley. Once we realize it was Ripley,
>not
>> >Newt, then we can go back and make sense of the opening within the context
>of
>> >the entire trilogy. My theory attempts this without resorting to rejected
>> >concepts like a crawling or egg-lugging queen. Such an internally
>consistent
>> >theory is more satsifying than its non-canonical competitors.
>>
>> I agree that they were trying to create the mystery, and that they actually
>> tried to change it so that Ripley was attacked. But they could only work
>with
>> the scenes that they shot, and thus there were several holes that made this
>> scenario impossible.
>
>Not impossible but totally explainable according to my theory. The director
>did a superb job of cleverly deceiving the audience; in fact most people on
>this newsgroup today are still fooled. :)
Not totally explainable, I've demonstrated that the glass had to be broken
during the explosion, which flies in the face of your cockamamy story.
>
>
>> "Bishop Did It" simply doesn't cut it, he didn't have the opportunity to do
>it.
>> If he did it before the dropship crash, he would have had to get past
>Ferro
>> and that other guy (I don't feel like fast forwarding through the movie to
>> check), and wouldn't have had the time to get all the way up to the Sulaco
>> (I've heard estimates of over an hour).
>
>Since we're only speculating here, Bishop could have radioed down the APC-2
>and did it all himself, or Ferro and Spunkmeyer could have been in on the
>plan
>and assisted Bishop. Two-way trip would have been less than an hour.
So now your theory depends on the duplicity of other characters? The more
assumptions required to believe the theory, the less valid.
Assumption= The Queen can lay eggs without the ovipositor
Assumptions= Bishop managed to steal eggs, Ferro helped, a 2-way trip would be
less than an hour
Assumption= Whoever put the one egg on the Sulaco, put another one there and
the facehuggers behave like all other past encounters
Assumption= A Royal Facehugger has two embryos, which is unprecedented
Assumption= The writers didn't change their minds about the Crawling Queen,
just edited it out for suspense
Assumptions= The writers did change their minds, the facehugger attacks
Ripley's tube offscreen after it attacks and passes up Newt's.
[ZNYP]
>> So, what evidence do you have that doesn't require Ripley's tube to be
>broken
>> by a facehugger (which it obviously wasn't)?
>
>None, because the evidence indicates it was indeed broken by a facehugger!
Even if you continue to deny that it was broken by the bolt, then where does it
show the tube definetly being damaged by a facehugger? Why would the
facehugger pass up Newt after going through all the trouble of cracking her
tube?
>
>BJ
>
>My 2 cents in adjusted dollars.
Man, I think inflation is affecting the value of your 2 cents! :)
[Insert witty slogan]
--NEWBORN
Anonymous
On 25 Feb 1998 10:47:29 GMT, newb...@aol.com (Newborn 0) wrote:
>If the glass is cracked, it could also become broken, just as easily. Besides,
>she wouldn't have drowned if the tube didn't have a hole in it for water to
>enter.
Look at the scene in which Ripley examines the EEV after the crash.
Newt's tube has a gaping hole in its side surrounded by acid burns.
It's possible that the glass cracked as a result of the cryotube's
frame buckling.or being otherwise damaged when the facehugger gained
entry (FYI, in the apocryphal novelization her tube is also PRIED open
by the facehugger).
>It obviously was a "Royal Facehugger", because it had a Queen embryo, but you
>can not prove that it had a shorter impregnation period.
It must have had a shorter impregnation period, or the time between
the acid burn scene and the scene showing Newt's tube dropping into
the EEV would have been roughly a day. Maybe the facehugger in the
original film stayed on Kane's face longer than it had to?
> Also, you can not
>prove that the blood scene was the hugger attacking Hicks. Huggers don't make
>that noise, if anything it sounded like twisting metal-- like perhaps the
>safety support that killed Hicks? That makes a lot more sense.
I would sooner think that the safety support that killed Hicks impaled
him when the EEV crashed.
>YOU WANT TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE MOVIES!?!?!
>Try: one facehugger, one embryo!! While no proof exists that a facehugger can
>have two embryos or that there were multiple eggs, isn't it simpler to assume
>that there was another offscreen egg, rather than try to invent aspects of
>Alien reproduction?
I support the two-embryo-equipped "Royal Facehugger" theory myself.
It's not that difficult to swallow when you consider the requirements
that a newborn queen would have combined with the fact that Alien 3
marks the first appearance of such a facehugger, which may possess
abilities beyond that of the ordinary variety.
>No, we can't automatically say it's impossible, but it's completely
>unsupported. The very fact that there was even one egg on the Sulaco proves
>that there was Alien contamination, supporting the possibility that there were
>multiple eggs.
A theory saying the queen is able to lay an egg without her ovipositor
is likewise unsupported (although I support it nonetheless).
>What events? Okay from the top: Egg is open. Facehugger is seen attacking
>Newt's tube, cracking it. Acid causes fire. Voice announces: "Stasis
>interrupted. Fire in cryogenic compartment". X-ray of unidentified person
>with hugger displays. Blood seeps through fabric while something like twisted
>metal is heard. Alarms go off, chemicals automatically inject, Ripley is seen
>in heavy REM sleep, brainscan flashes red on someones brain. Bolt explodes.
>Ripley is seen again in REM sleep, only the tube is obviously damaged. Flames
>are seen flowing across a ceiling, Ripley's tube slides down a tube.
That's Newt's tube...
Richard Tibbetts
unk...@unknown.net (Anonymous) wrote:
[...]
>
>I support the two-embryo-equipped "Royal Facehugger" theory myself.
>It's not that difficult to swallow when you consider ....
Ouch!
Wmvrrvrrmm
>unk...@unknown.net (Anonymous) wrote:
>[...]
>
>>
>>I support the two-embryo-equipped "Royal Facehugger" theory myself.
>>It's not that difficult to swallow when you consider ....
Did you know that the Chinese have a traditional medicinal recipe called Foetus
Soup. It's highly nutricious.
JuanCompos
Anonymous wrote:
>
> On Tue, 24 Feb 1998 18:49:15 -0600, JuanCompos
> <Zaeb...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >Newt was not the one infected.
>
> Yes she was.
>
> >In later scenes showing the EEV you can see Newt, Drowned, in what
> >appeared to be a not broken Cryo-tube.
>
> Her tube was shown later with massive acid burns and a gaping hole in
> the side. Clemens even refers to it as "...the girl's cryotube."
Acid Burns? Yes.
Massive? not really
Gaping Hole? No.
>
> >In One scene you see Ripley, In a cryo-tube with a fairly large chuck
> >broken out of it.
>
> Yes, a hole broken in the glass by an exploding bolt, which occurred
> AFTER the x-ray scene.
>
> >Alien3:
> >On the X-ray showing the facehugger the shadows of a human skull can be
> >seen. As the image is rotated to the left teeth are visible. It is
> >painfully obvious that there are TWELFTH year molars, It also looks like
> >there are also wisdom teeth but the image fades out before this can be
> >clearly determined. What would a 7 year old be doing with 12 year
> >molars, much less wisdom teeth?
>
> A blooper, most likely. Do you really think x-rayed the girl
> actresses skull? I figure it was either computer generated by the SFX
> team or they took stock footage of a real x-ray from an older person.
>
Interesting how you laud the source as "canon" until such time as it
contradicts you.
I s'pose if they had shown Ripley running around with the facehigger,
trying to rip it off that too would be a "blooper"...
> >(Caveat: The report says "Unidentified Female... Estimated age: 11"
> >Though this is still too young for 12 year molars, on average, it could
> >be possible that she got them early... however... It's obvious Newt was
> >intelligent so what was she still doing in Second Grade if she was 11?
> >maybe someone screwed up again...)
>
> Molars aside, all the evidence still points to Newt.
All the evidence may point to Newt, but it also points to Ripley just as
well.
But the fact remains that the X-ray clearly shows teeth that Newt would
not have.
Aufwiederlesen ━)
Ser JuanCompos
JuanCompos
Richard Tibbetts wrote:
>
> JuanCompos <Zaeb...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> [...]
>
> >Here's the kicker though.
> >Aliens:
> >Shortly after Ripley catches Newt in the ventilation tunnels she finds a
> >plaque for her SECOND GRADE good-citizenship award or some such crap...
> >How old are people in 2nd grade? I was 7, how bout y'all?
> things they won at school years ago.
The picture sealed in it was current.
Aufwiederlesen ŚŹ)
Ser JuanCompos
Anonymous
>>I support the two-embryo-equipped "Royal Facehugger" theory myself.
>>It's not that difficult to swallow when you consider ....
>
>Ouch!
A classic Freudian Slip.... : P
JuanCompos
Newborn 0 wrote:
>
> >Here's the kicker though.
> >Aliens:
> >Shortly after Ripley catches Newt in the ventilation tunnels she finds a
> >plaque for her SECOND GRADE good-citizenship award or some such crap...
> >How old are people in 2nd grade? I was 7, how bout y'all?
> >
> >On the X-ray showing the facehugger the shadows of a human skull can be
> >seen. As the image is rotated to the left teeth are visible. It is
> >painfully obvious that there are TWELFTH year molars, It also looks like
> >there are also wisdom teeth but the image fades out before this can be
> >clearly determined. What would a 7 year old be doing with 12 year
> >molars, much less wisdom teeth?
> >
> >Though this is still too young for 12 year molars, on average, it could
> >be possible that she got them early... however... It's obvious Newt was
> >intelligent so what was she still doing in Second Grade if she was 11?
> >maybe someone screwed up again...)
>
> mean that there is a 6 year period between the two movies. In actuallity,
> Carrie Henn (Newt in Aliens) was about 10 years old during filming of Aliens,
> which is a lot closer to 12 than 7. Perhaps that citizenship award was old,
The picture sealed in it was current
> or
> maybe she started school late,
Possibly... but I would think that running a terraforming installation
would take a fair ammount of knowledge and thus it would be un-likely
that the education of the children would be delayed 5 years or more.
> maybe she had a growth spurt and whoever filed
> the report (most likely Clemens) couldn't tell.
>
> Newt's age isn't really relevant.
It is when the X-ray evidence showing (clearly) 12 year molars and
(possibly) wisdom teeth (which most people get a 18)
> Although I would like to know Danielle
> Edmunds' age when she played Newt in Alien 3.
>
> [Insert witty slogan]
> --NEWBORN
Aufwiederlesen ŚŹ)
Ser JuanCompos
Anonymous
On Wed, 25 Feb 1998 23:57:16 -0600, JuanCompos
<Zaeb...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Acid Burns? Yes.
An absolute.
>Massive? not really
Subjective.
>Gaping Hole? No.
Large enough for a facehugger to gain entry to the tube, which is all
that really matters in this discussion.
>Interesting how you laud the source as "canon" until such time as it
>contradicts you.
Common sense prevails. I highly doubt they changed obscure details in
the x-ray to show the image of an older person's molars for the
benefit of dentally-inclined audience members. Keep in mind, the
opening sequence is IDENTICAL to the way it's written in the script,
in which Newt is most definitely the facehugger's host.
How would YOU explain the different cryotubes without allowing for
bloopers?
>I s'pose if they had shown Ripley running around with the facehigger,
>trying to rip it off that too would be a "blooper"...
Now that you mention it, I consider the entire length of film bearing
the title "Alien Resurrection" to be a huge blooper.
>All the evidence may point to Newt, but it also points to Ripley just as
>well.
Uh, paradox anyone? Actually, the fact that Ripley's tube wasn't even
broken at the time of the x-ray is probably the most important piece
of evidence that renders impotent the "Ripley was one in the x-ray"
theory.
>But the fact remains that the X-ray clearly shows teeth that Newt would
>not have.
You yourself said they may have grown in early. Is such a thing
unprecedented?
Anonymous
On Sat, 21 Feb 1998 22:19:37 -0600, umto...@cc.umanitoba.ca wrote:
>Assume nothing -- the "royal facehugger" theory describes exactly what
>happened in the movie. However, you've got some of the details wrong:
>
>3) Facehugger cracks Newt's cryotube but passes her up to infect Ripley
>instead
Let me address this point further, since your side of the argument
hinges on it. Why would the facehugger pass up Newt? Her cryotube is
shown later on in the film with a gaping hole surrounded by acid
burns, so it obvously gained entrance at some point. Do you propose
that Newt was unsuitable as a host? If so, why? She was taken
captive in the previous film to serve as a host. Why would the aliens
have done this if she was an unsuitable host? What would have made
Newt unsuitable as a host in Alien 3 that DIDN'T in Aliens?
I'm anxiously awaiting answers to these questions. Just remember to
keep the theory simple or Ockham's Razor will cut it to pieces. : )
harry lime
yeah, yeah that's it!
"the facehugger in the original film stayed on Kane's face longer than it had to"
if the aliens have battery acid for blood maybe it, (kane's hugger), was an old
battery with just a bit of life left.
the small egg containing this royal facehugger was new and was a fully charged
battery.
yeah, i like this theory.
harry lime - sydney
Anonymous wrote:
> >It obviously was a "Royal Facehugger", because it had a Queen embryo, but you
> >can not prove that it had a shorter impregnation period.
>
Steve Powell
harry lime wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
> >It obviously was a "Royal Facehugger", because it had a Queen embryo, but you
> >can not prove that it had a shorter impregnation period.
>
> It must have had a shorter impregnation period, or the time between
> the acid burn scene and the scene showing Newt's tube dropping into
> the EEV would have been roughly a day. Maybe the facehugger in the
> original film stayed on Kane's face longer than it had to?
> yeah, yeah that's it!
> "the facehugger in the original film stayed on Kane's face longer than it had to"
> because it was an old...OLD egg, the space jockey on the derelict was a fossil and
> if the aliens have battery acid for blood maybe it, (kane's hugger), was an old
> battery with just a bit of life left.
> the small egg containing this royal facehugger was new and was a fully charged
> battery.
> yeah, i like this theory.
> harry lime - sydney
I would have thought it was more likely it had something to do with it having to keep
Kane alive. Kane's helmet had been compromised and the Facehugger was feeding him
oxygen, remember? It may have delayed leaving Kane until it's instincts told it that
it was safe to do so - i.e. that Kane's condition was stable and that the atmosphere
was now safe. This may not have been an instantaneous reaction - or it could have been
waiting until the threat to the embryo had passed (Kane was rushed into Medlab, Ash
then cut Kane's helmet off and removed the resin that had been filling the hole and
proceeded to try and remove the Facehugger. This could have caused a delay in the
Facehugger leaving Kane).
Just a thought.
Steve :-)
JuanCompos
That poor lil' ol' facehugger cut i's'se'f on Newtie's 'tube and thus
decided to go elsewhere...
Cause they're such delicate lil' things...
We just haven't realized that the most effective weapon we have against
them is harsh words... they have very low self esteem, that's why
they're so violent and macho... to try and cover it up...
Aufwiederlesen ━)
Ser JuanCompos
JuanCompos
Anonymous wrote:
>
> On Wed, 25 Feb 1998 23:57:16 -0600, JuanCompos
> <Zaeb...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >Acid Burns? Yes.
>
> An absolute.
>
> >Massive? not really
>
> Subjective.
>
> >Gaping Hole? No.
>
> Large enough for a facehugger to gain entry to the tube, which is all
> that really matters in this discussion.
>
Did IQs drop sharply while I was away?
> >Interesting how you laud the source as "canon" until such time as it
> >contradicts you.
>
> Common sense prevails. I highly doubt they changed obscure details in
> the x-ray to show the image of an older person's molars for the
> benefit of dentally-inclined audience members. Keep in mind, the
> opening sequence is IDENTICAL to the way it's written in the script,
> in which Newt is most definitely the facehugger's host.
>
of course in the movie newt is not most definitely the host (or else we
wouldn't be having this conversation) and the script and plot can be
changed between wrap and release.
> How would YOU explain the different cryotubes without allowing for
> bloopers?
>
Not sure what you're talking about here.
> >I s'pose if they had shown Ripley running around with the facehigger,
> >trying to rip it off that too would be a "blooper"...
>
> Now that you mention it, I consider the entire length of film bearing
> the title "Alien Resurrection" to be a huge blooper.
>
At least we agree on somethings
> >All the evidence may point to Newt, but it also points to Ripley just as
> >well.
>
> Uh, paradox anyone? Actually, the fact that Ripley's tube wasn't even
> broken at the time of the x-ray is probably the most important piece
> of evidence that renders impotent the "Ripley was one in the x-ray"
> theory.
>
Except for the fact that the x-ray showed someone with too many teeth
> >But the fact remains that the X-ray clearly shows teeth that Newt would
> >not have.
>
> You yourself said they may have grown in early. Is such a thing
> unprecedented?
Given that Aliens placed her age at 7? yes.
Aufwiederlesen ŚŹ)
Ser JuanCompos
Anonymous
>That poor lil' ol' facehugger cut i's'se'f on Newtie's 'tube and thus
>decided to go elsewhere...
Unconvincing...at best. Besides, I'm no longer certain that
facehugger cut itself at all. I figure it secreted the acid in order
to burn a hole in the side of the tube (which was shown later in the
film), and that the "melting" scene was a result of this, not an
injury. This is allegedly the same way it breached Kane's faceplate
in the original film.
>Cause they're such delicate lil' things...
>We just haven't realized that the most effective weapon we have against
>them is harsh words... they have very low self esteem, that's why
>they're so violent and macho... to try and cover it up...
Then Private Frost was right about harsh language being an alternative
to pulse rifles...
Anonymous
>Did IQs drop sharply while I was away?
Not mine. I can't speak for anyone else though.
>of course in the movie newt is not most definitely the host (or else we
>wouldn't be having this conversation) and the script and plot can be
>changed between wrap and release.
Then who was it? It certainly wasn't Ripley. Her tube wasn't even
broken at that point.
The script, as far as this subject goes, wasn't changed. One scene
was simply omitted, yet there's still plenty of evidence in the final
release to support the fact that Newt was indeed the one shown in the
x-ray.
>> How would YOU explain the different cryotubes without allowing for
>> bloopers?
>
>Not sure what you're talking about here.
The cryotubes in which they're sleeping at the beginning of Alien 3
are totally different from the ones shown at the end of the previous
film. How do you explain that without making an allowance for
bloopers?
The lettering on the Sulaco's outer hull was black in Aliens, but
white in Alien 3. How do you explain that without making an allowance
for bloopers?
>Except for the fact that the x-ray showed someone with too many teeth
An FX blooper. Or do you seriously believe that they deliberately
changed minor, barely noticeable details in that one particular scene
to show that it was someone other than Newt being impregnated? Yes or
no?
>Given that Aliens placed her age at 7? yes.
And Alien 3 estimated her age to be 11.
Newborn 0
>Possibly... but I would think that running a terraforming installation
>would take a fair ammount of knowledge and thus it would be un-likely
>that the education of the children would be delayed 5 years or more.
The thing is that Newt isn't running the colony, so she wouldn't need to be
well educated. Heck, the adults could be uneducated boobs for as far as you
know. Burke said that the atmosphere processors were completly automated, so
running the colony wouldn't require much education.
[Insert witty slogan]
--NEWBORN
Newborn 0
>yeah, yeah that's it!
>"the facehugger in the original film stayed on Kane's face longer than it had
>to"
>because it was an old...OLD egg, the space jockey on the derelict was a
>fossil and
>if the aliens have battery acid for blood maybe it, (kane's hugger), was an
>old
>battery with just a bit of life left.
>the small egg containing this royal facehugger was new and was a fully
>charged
>battery.
>yeah, i like this theory.
>harry lime - sydney
You're assuming that the unsubstantiated theory on Aliens acting like a battery
that needs to be charged is true.
From what I've heard, this theory comes from an old Aliens game or something;
now you want to talk about uncanonical?!
Actually, I think that the original Facehugger was staying on Kane as long as
it could, until it reached a certain maximum time. In Alien 3, the facehugger
was under stress when the EEV crashed, so it probably had to let go.
>
>Anonymous wrote:
>
>> >It obviously was a "Royal Facehugger", because it had a Queen embryo, but
>you
>> >can not prove that it had a shorter impregnation period.
>>
>> It must have had a shorter impregnation period, or the time between
>> the acid burn scene and the scene showing Newt's tube dropping into
>> the EEV would have been roughly a day. Maybe the facehugger in the
>> original film stayed on Kane's face longer than it had to?
[Insert witty slogan]
--NEWBORN
JuanCompos
Anonymous wrote:
>
>JuanCompos wrote:
> >Given that Aliens placed her age at 7? yes.
>
> And Alien 3 estimated her age to be 11.
When did these four years take place?